Skip to main content

Full text of "English cyclopaedia, a new dictionary of universal knowledge"

See other formats 


a a = why 


Ta a a 


Mae os ee 
‘ A, TS age 
Pal get 


| igitizec by the Inte n 
in 2007 with fundi 
be ee | 


Te nei 


Cte. i 


ig oe — 


cz ee 


. a /www.archive.org/d etails/bioen 


LONDON: IA 
BRADBURY AND EVANS, PRINTERS, = 


i tk 4 
- 
' 
* 
; J 
, ‘ 
ay * ives 
Ara" fa 
‘ iz 
* 
i 
ww > = 7 i 
Cae 
-—F 


THE 


ENGLISH CYCLOPEDIA. 


eo 


BIOGRAPHY. 


The names of those living at the time of the continuous publication of the ‘ English Cyclopedia of Biography,’ are preceded by an asterisk. 


THIRTY TYRANTS (OF ATHENS). 


THIRTY TYRANTS (OF ROME). 


THIRTY TYRANTS (of Athens). In the year 3c. 404, when, 
after the Peloponnesian war, Athens had fallen into the hands of 
Sparta, through the treacherous designs of the oligarchical party, the 
Spartans themselves did not interfere in any direct way with the 
political constitution of Athens (Diodorus, xiv. 4), but their negocia- 
tions with Theramenes and others of the same party had convinced 
them that even without their interference the democracy would soon 
be abolished. In this expectation they were not disappointed, as this 
was really the object of the oligarchical party. But as this party did 
not sufficiently trust its own power, Lysander, who had already sailed 
to Samos, was invited to attend the Assembly at Athens, in which the 
question of reforming the constitution was to be considered. The 
presence of Lysander and other Spartan generals with their armies, 
and the threats that were uttered, silenced all opposition on the side 
of the popular party, and on the proposition of Theramenes a decree 
was passed that thirty men should be elected to draw up a new con- 
stitution. (Xenophon, ‘ Hellen., ii 3, 2.) Lysias (‘in Eratosth.,’ p. 
126, ed. Steph.) gives a more satisfactory account of the proceedings 
on that memorable day than Xenophon. These thirty individuals 
were invested with the sovereign power of the republic. Theramenes 
himself nominated ten, the Athenian ephors ten others, and the 
election of the remaining ten was left to the people. The names of 
the Thirty are preserved in Xenophon (‘ Hellen., ii. 3, 2). Their 
government, a real reign of terror, which fortunately did not last 
more than one year, was called in Athenian history the year of anarchy, 
or the reign of the Thirty Tyrants, From the moment that they had 
thus acquired an apparently legal power, they filled the vacancies in 
the senate and the magistracies with their own friends and creatures. 
The new code of laws which they were to draw up was never made, 
that they might not put any restraints upon themselves, and might 
always be at liberty to act as they pleased. A similar board, consist- 
ing of ten men, perhaps appointed by Lysander himself, was intrusted 
with the government of Pireeus, The object of the tyrants was to 
reduce Athens to the condition of an unimportant town, and to make 
the people forget the greatness to which it had been raised by Themis- 
tocles and Pericles. The splendid arsenal of Athens was sold and 
pulled down, and several of the fortresses of Attica were destroyed. 

To establish their tyranny the Thirty found it necessary to get rid 
of a number of persons obnoxious to them. The first that were put 
to death were the sycophants, who during the time of the democracy 
had contributed most towards its overthrow by their shameful prac- 
tices ; and the senate, as well as every well-meaning citizen, was glad 
to see the republic delivered of such a pestilence. The senate acted 
in these trials as the supreme court of justice, and the Thirty pre- 
sided in it. All the votes of the senators however were given openly, 
that the tyrants might be able to see which way each senator voted. 
This mode of proceeding, though it was at first only directed against 
individuals equally obnoxious to all parties, became alarming when all 
the distinguished men, who had been imprisoned before the day on 
which the new constitution was established, in order that they might 
not frustrate the plans of the oligarchs by their opposition, were in like 
manner sentenced to death. The apprehensions of the people were 
but too well founded, and Critias, the most cruel among the Thirty, 
gave sufficient indications that the Tyrants did not mean to go on 
with the same moderation. That they might always have at hand an 
armed force to support them, they sent an embassy to Sparta to ask 
for a garrison to occupy the Acropolis. This was granted, and came 

BIOG, DIV. VOL, VI. : 


under the command of Callibius as harmostes. ‘His arrival rendered 
the Thirty secure. They courted the Spartan harmostes in the most 
obsequious manner, and he in return placed his troops at their dis- 
posal for whatever purpose they might wish to employ them in estab- 
lishing their dominion more firmly. The assistance to the senate in 
the trials for political offences began to be dispensed with, and the 
number of the unhappy victims increased at a fearful rate. Not only 
persons who opposed or showed any dissatisfaction with the rule of 
the Tyrants, but all who by their merits had gained favour with the 
people, were regarded as dangerous persons, who, if they could choose, 
would prefer a popular government, and were condemned to death in 
a very summary manner, The reign of the Thirty now began to 
display all its horrors, and no one could feel safe. To be possessed 
of wealth, especially in the case of aliens, was sufficient to bring a man 
to ruin, for the tyrants, independent of all political considerations, 
began to murder for no other purpose than that of enriching them- 
selves by the confiscation of the property of their victims. The 
remonstrances of Theramenes against this reckless system of blood- 
shed were not followed by any other consequences than that the 
Thirty selected 3000 Athenians who were to enjoy a kind of franchise, 
and who could not be put to death without a trial before the senate. 
The rest of the citizens were compelled to give up their arms, and 
were treated as outlaws. By this expedient the Thirty hoped to 
strengthen themselves, and to become more independent of the Spartan 
garrison. The opposition of Theramenes to this arrangement involved 
his own destruction, [THeRAMENES.] The horrors which were now 
perpetrated became every day more numerous and fearful, and 
numbers of Athenians fled from their native country to seek refuge at 
Argos, Megara, Thebes, and other places, where they met with an 
hospitable and kind reception. The tyrants soon began to be uneasy 
at the crowds of exiles who thus gathered round the frontiers of 
Attica, and applied to Sparta to interfere. The Spartans issued a 
proclamation empowering the Thirty to arrest the exiles in any part 
of Greece, and forbidding any Greek state to interfere on their bebalf. 
This command was entirely disregarded by the Greeks, especially the 
Thebans, who even declared that the Athenian fugitives should be 
received and protected in all the towns of Beeotia. Thebes, whose 
mode of action was not dictated by a generous and humane feeling 
towards the unhappy Athenians, but rather arose from jealousy of 
Sparta, thus became the rallying point for a great number of exiles, 
among whom Thrasybulus was the most enterprising. In what 
manner the rule of the Thirty Tyrants was at last overthrown, and 
the democratical constitution was restored at Athens, is related in the 
article THRASYBULUS. 

(Xenophon, Hellen., ii. 3 ; Diodorus, xiv. 3, &c.; Thirlwall; Grote.) 

THIRTY TYRANTS (under the Roman Empire). This name has 
been given to a set of usurpers who sprung up in various parts of the 
Roman empire in the reigns of Vides Bac. 253-60) and Gallienus 
(261-68). This appellation of the Thirty Tyrants, in imitation of the 
Thirty Tyrants of Athens, is highly improper, and bears no analogy to 
the Thirty of Athens. They rose in different parts, assuming the title 
of emperor, in irregular succession, and were put down one after 
another. Their number moreover does not amount to thirty, unless 
women and children, who were honoured with the imperial title, are 
included. Trebellius Pollio, who, in his work on the ‘ Triginta 
Tyranni,’ describes the adventures of each of them, has taken great 


pains to make out that their number was thirty : there were however 
B 


8 THOLUCK, FRIEDRICH AUGUST. 


THOMAS. 4 


only nineteen real usurpers—Cyriades, Macrianus, Balista, Odenathus, 
and Zenobia, in the eastern provinces; Posthumus, Lollianus, Victori- 
nus and his mother Victoria, Marius, and Tetricus, in Gaul, Britain, 
and the western provinces in general; Ingenuus, Regillianus, and 
Bureolus, in Illyricum and the countries about the Danube ; Saturni- 
nus, in Pontus; Trebellianus, in Isauria; Piso, in Thessaly; Valens, 
in Achaia; A2milianus, in Egypt: and Celsus, in Africa. The majority 
of these usurpers were persons of low birth, without any talent or 
virtue, and scarcely any one of them died a natural death. The best 
among them were Piso and Odenathus, and the latter, who maintained 
himself at Palmyra, received the title of Augustus from the Roman 
senate, and was enabled to ueath his empire to his widow, the 
celebrated Zenobia. (Trebellius Pollio, Zriginta Tyranni; Gibbon, 
Hist, of the Decline and Fall, chap. x.; Manso, Leben Constantin’s des 
Grossen, p. 433, &c.) 

*THOLUCK, FRIEDRICH-AUGUST-GOTTTREU, one of the 
most distinguished of modern German theologians, was born at Bres- 
lau, on the 30th of March 1799. It was at first intended that he 
should follow his father’s business of a goldsmith, but an early 
developed inclination for science led to his being placed in the uni- 
versity of his native town, whence he removed in a short time to that 
of Berlin. At Berlin, under the orientalist Von Diez, he diligently 
studied the eastern languages, and, partly from association witha 
circle of religious friends, and partly from the influence of Neander, 
he devoted himself to theological studies, of which the first fruit was 
‘Wahre Weihe des Zweiflers,’ which has been translated into English 
by Ryland, and into French, Danish, Swedish, and Dutch, and of 
which the seventh German edition, in 1851, changes the title to ‘ Die 
Lehre vom Siinder und vom Verséhner’ (The Doctrine of the Sinner 
and of the Mediator). In 1824 he was made professor extraordinary 
of theology in Berlin University. In 1825 he travelled at the expense 
of the Prussian government to England and Holland, and on his return 
in 1826 was made professor of theology in the University of Halle. 
Within a twelvemonth, his health failing, he was forced to quit Halle, 
and received the appointment of chaplain to the embassy at Rome, 
where he entirely recovered, and in 1829 returned to his professional 
duties at Halle. He has ever since been indefatigably occupied by 
his lectures, by his personal intercourse with the students, and by his 
writings ; and as a preacher in promoting a warm and truly devotional 
Christianity united with a tempered and wise philosophy. His 
writings have been very numerous, and are considered of great value, 
not only by his own countrymen, but by English authors. Among 
them are— Praktischen Commentar zu den Psalmen,’ and ‘ Ueberset- 
zung und Auslegung der Psalmen’ (Translation and Exposition of the 
Psalms) ; ‘ Commentar zum Briefe an die Hebrier ;? ‘ Commentar zum 
Roémerbrief;’ ‘ Philosophisch-Theologische Auslegung der Bergpre- 
dicht’ (Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount); ‘ Glaubwiirdigkeit 
der evangelische Geschichte’ (Authenticity of the Evangelica) History), 
a work written in opposition to the ‘Leben Jesu’ of Strauss; ‘ Pre- 
digten iiber die Hauptstiicke des Christlichen Glaubens und Lebens’ 
(Sermons on the Chief Phases of the Christian Faith and Life), ‘Stun- 
den der Andacht’ (Hours of Devotion); and ‘ Literarischen Anzeiger 
fiir Christliche Theologie und Wissenschaft iiberhaupt’ (Literary 
Guide for Christian Theology and Science in General), in which he has 
most clearly stated his theological views. Several of the preceding 
works have been translated into English. His labours in the Oriental 
tongues have also enabled him to produce ‘ Ssufismus, sive theosophia 
Persarum pantheistica,’ in 1821; the ‘ Bliitensammlung aus der Mor- 
omeggeyt Mystiker’ (Collection of Flowers from the Eastern 

ysties), 1825; and ‘Speculative Trinitiitslehre des spiitern Orients’ 
(Speculative Doctrines of a Trinity of the later Orientals), in 1826, 
He has also contributed to theological history in his ‘ Vermischten 
Schriften, grésstentheils apologetischen Inhalts,’ 1839; ‘Der Geist der 
Lutheranischen Theologen Wittenbergs im 17 Jahrhundert,’ 1852; 
and ‘Das akademische Leben des 17 Jahrhundert,’ 1853-54, the last 
forming at the same time the first division of a ‘ Vorgeschichte der 
Rationalismus.’ 

THOM, JAMES, who acquired considerable temporary celebrity as 
a sculptor, was born in Ayrshire in 1799, He was brought up asa 
stone-mason, and taught himself the art of sculpture, Some small 
figures which he carved illustrative of the poetry of Burns secured 
him a local fame, and he was tempted to try his chisel on others of 
life-size, He accordingly produced in sandstone statues of Tam 
O'Shanter and Souter Johnnie, which had a surprising run of popu- 
larity. After being successfully exhibited in Scotland they were 
brought to London, where they proved equally attractive, and the 
self-taught sculptor found himself for a time ‘a lion.” He was com- 
missioned to carve more than one repetition of these figures, and 
small plaster models of them were produced in great numbers. There 
is undoubtedly a good deal of humour and spirit in the figures, but 
they are rude and inartistical in conception and execution, and their 
excessive popularity was of evil influence upon the sculptor himself, 
He afterwards executed a statue of ‘Old Mortality’ and several other 
works; but he appeared to be falling into comparative obscurity 
when, about 1836, the misconduct of an agent whom he had employed 
to manage an itinerant exhibition of his ‘Tam O'Shanter’ and ‘Old 
Mortality’ in the United States, led Thom to proceed to America. 
Eventually he determined to remain in New York, where he found 


considerable professional employment. He also devoted some time.to 
architecture ; took a farm, on which he erected a house from his own 
designs, and became a tolerably prosperous man; but he seems to 
have gradually abandoned the use of his chisel. He died at New 
York on the 24th of April 1850. The original figures of Tam 
O’Shanter and Souter Johnnie are placed in a building attached to 
the Burns monument on the bavks of the Doon; there are copies of 
them in England, and at Mr. Colt’s, Paterson, New Jersey. His group 
of ‘Old Mortality’ stands at the chief entrance of the Laurel Hill 
Cemetery, near Philadelphia. 

THOM, WILLIAM, the weaver-poet of Inverury, was born at 
Aberdeen in 1799. Atten years of age, with barely the elements of 
education, he was bound for four years apprentice to a weaver, and 
during this time, as he narrates himself, “ picked up a little i 
and writing,” trying at the same time to acquire Latin, but being 
‘defeated for want of time.” At the end of his apprenticeship he 
was engaged at another factory, where he worked for seventeen years, 
learned to play the German flute, and to know “every Scotch song 
that is worth singing.” He married about 1829, had a family, and after 
some other removals settled for a time at Newtyle, near Cupar-Angus 
in Forfarshire. He was there when the great commercial failures in 
America occurred, one consequence of which was the cessation of 
employment for the poor hand-loom weavers. With a wife and four 
children, without work, in a neighbourhood where nearly all were as 

oor as himself, and in a country where the poor-laws were not yet 
introduced, the sufferings of the family were extreme, and in a cold 
spring day of 1837 they resolved to set off to walk to Aberdeen, in 
hopes that there he might procure employment. Of this journey 
he has given a vivid and pathetic narrative. 
way. ‘To obtain the means of progressing he had recourse to his flute, 
which sometimes brought him a trifling gift, and he made his first 
attempt at song-making in an address to his flute. This he had 
printed, and by presenting a copy of it at the genteeler houses 
cured sufficient to enable the family to reach Aberdeen. He obtained 
work, first in that town, and then at Inverury. In’November 1840 his 
wife, whose health had been weakened by her late sufferings, died in 
childbed. His new affliction again drove him to poetry, realising 
Shelley’s assertion, that poets “learn in suffering what they teach in 
song.” He sent one of his compositions, ‘The Blind Boy’s Pranks,’ to 
the ‘ Aberdeen Herald,’ where it was inserted with much commenda- 
tion. It attracted the notice of Mr. Gordon, of Knockespoch, a gentleman 
in the neighbourhood, who relieved and patronised him. He had other 
poems by him, which were produced and admired, and he was brought 
to London, feasted at a public dinner, and received that sort of 
patronage which had so injurious an influence in the case of Burns, a 
patronage that only enhances the bitterness of the fate to which its 
objects are almost inevitably consigned. Thom returned to Inverury, 
resolving, he said, not to be too much elated by the applause he had 
received, but it is difficult to withstand the seductions to which it 
leads. He published in 1841 at Aberdeen, a small volume of poems, 
‘Rhymes and Recollections of a Hand-loom Weaver,’ which had but a 
moderate success. His poetical powers were not great : the chief merit 
of his verses consists in the exact reproduction of feelings he had 
himself experienced, with a melody of versification and a correctness 
of taste remarkable in one of so extremely limited an education. He 
married a second wife, was often subjected to the extremest need, and 
at last died in great poverty in March 1850. His widow died in the 
July following, and a subscription was raised of about 2502, for his 
destitute children. $ 

THOMAS, @oudas, SISK) (in Greek Alduuos: John, xi. 16; xx, 24), 
one of the twelve apostles of Christ. (Matt. x. 3.) The Hebrew and 
Greek names both signify a twin. St. Thomas is presumed to have 
been a Galilean ; but no particulars of his birth-place or call to the 
apostleship are given, and the first notice of him individually is in 
John xi. 40. Christ having expressed an intention of returning to 
Judea, in order to raise his friend Lazarus from the dead, Thomas 
encouraged the other apostles to attend him, although he regarded 
death as the certain consequence of this step. The impulsiveness of 
character thus indicated was not long after very differently displayed. 
Thomas happened to be absent when Christ, after his resurrection, 
first appeared to the apostles; and when made acquainted with the 
fact, he expressed an incredulity which could ee be satisfied by the 
manual evidence of inserting his finger in the holes which the spear 
and nails had made in the body of his crucified master. Eight days 
after, when Christ again appeared, Thomas was present; and the re- 
action in his mind was very strongly expressed by him, when he 
was pointedly called upon by Jesus to stretch forth his hand and take 
the desired proof. (John xxi. 24-29.) Thomas is not again mentioned 
in the New Testament. Doubtless he laboured, like the other apostl 
in the propagation of the Christian doctrines: and coclostastical 
traditions make him one of the apostles of the Gentiles. It is alleged 
that he travelled eastward, and laboured among the various nations 
which then composed the Parthian empire. (Euseb., iii: 1; Rufin., x, 
9; ‘Recognit.,’ ix. 29.) There isa singular concurrence of Oriental 
and Western testimony (which may be seen in Assemanni and Baro-« 
nius), to the effect that St. Thomas extended his labours farther east- 
ward, and then southward, until he reached the coast of India and 
Malabar, where, having exercised his apostolic labours with success, 


One child died on the - 


a 


' the name of St. Thomas, and claim him for their founder. 
_ derive their existence as a church uninterrupted from the apostolic 


a THOMAS A KEMPIS, 


THOMASIN. 6 


he passed on to the coast of Coromandel; and having made great 
conversions to the faith in those parts, he proceeded over to some 
coast on the east, called China (which may possibly have been the 
country now called Cochin-China), and afterwards returned to Coro- 
mandel, where, having suffered martyrdom, he was buried in the 
mount since called St, Thomas’s Mount. 

In the quarters indicated there are Christian churches which bear 
If they 


age, this fact may be taken as a corroboration of the above traditions. 
But if the effects which resulted among them from the labours of Mar 


‘Thoma and other Nestorian missionaries, at the commencement of the 


sixteenth century, were really an original conversion, or at least a re- 


- conversion, and not, as is often supposed, the revival of a fallen but 


not extinct church—then this claim is to be regarded only as an echo 
of the tradition which has always prevailed in the Syrian churches, 


_and which must be estimated by its intrinsic probability and value. 


(Besides Assemanni and Baronius, see Tillemont, i. 897, sq.; Cave's 
Antiq. Apostolice ; Winer’s Biblisches Realwirterbuch, art. Thomas ; 
Buchanan’s Christian Researches ; Yeate’s Indian Church History ; and 
Principal Mill’s Letter to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel 


_ Wuly 29, 1822). inserted in Christian Remembrancer for Noy., 1823.) 


THOMAS A KEMPIS, [Kemris.] 

THOMAS AQUI’NAS. - [Aquinas.] 

THOMAS, ANTOINE LE/ONARD, was born at Clermont in 
Auvergne, on the Ist of October 1732, His father, it has been gene- 
rally believed, died while Thomas was an infant, leaving a widow with 
three sons and a daughter. The eldest son, Joseph Thomas, who 
embraced the clerical profession, died in 1741: he composed a 
dramatie piece, entitled ‘ Le Plaisir,’ which was acted with success in 
1740, The second, Jean Thomas, died in 1755, professor in the 
college of Beauvais: he published some Latin verses, and introduced 
into his college. an improved method of teaching Latin. It appears 
ertine that the taste for literature was common to the whole 
‘amily. 

Antoine Léonard was educated at home till he had completed his 
ninth year, and was then sent to prosecute his studies at Paris, where 
his brothers preceded him, Ina letter which he addressed, in 1767, 
to Madlle. Moreau, he mentions that his second brother had taken 
great pains with his education, They were an attached family: 
Antoine retained all his early devotion for his mother till her death 
in 1782; and his sister, the only member of the family who survived 
him, lived with him till his death. : 

Antoine Léonard Thomas distinguished himself at the university. 
In 1747 he carried off two of the prizes distributed in his class in the 
college of Duplessis: in 1748 and 1749 he studied rhetoric in the 
College of Lisieux, and obtained four prizes: from October 1749 to 
August 1751, he studied philosophy with equal distinction, at first in 
the College of Lisieux, subsequently in that of Beauvais. When he 
finished his university career, his friends wished him to study for the 
bar, and he did so far comply with their desire as to attend law classes 
and the office of a solicitor. This continued till the death of his 
second brother, 1755, at which time he had retired, apparently on 
account of his health, which was always infirm, to his native district, 
A short time after he accepted the offer of a professorship in the 
College of Beauvais. He continued to discharge the duties of his 
appointment till 1761, when, finding them injurious to his health, 
he resigned, and was appointed private secretary to the Duc de 
Praslin. 

Thomas commenced his career as author in 1756 by publishing 
*Réfiexions Philosophiques et Littéraires sur le Poéme de la Religion 
Naturelle, This was throwing down the gauntlet to the whole school 
of Voltaire ; the patriarch himself took no notice of the publication, 
and Grimm spoke of it as the work of ‘a silly lad just escaped from 
the school of the Jesuits.’ In the same year Thomas addressed an 
ode, full of hyperbolical compliments, to Sechelles, controller-general 
of finance ; the flattery was successful; it obtained from the minister 
an addition to the revenues of the college, In 1757 Thomas composed, 
on the occasion of the great earthquake at Lisbon, a ‘ Mémoire sur les 
Causes des Tremblemens de Terre,’ which was crowned by the 
Academy of Rouen. In 1759 he published ‘Jumarville,’ a poem in 
four cantos, on the death of a French officer, killed, as the French 
alleged, under circumstances of peculiar atrocity, in the war between 
the French and English, in the backwoods of America. Fréron praised 
this poem in the ‘ Année Littéraire,’ a tribute of thanks to the young 
author who had ventured to attack Voltaire. These early works of 
Thomas are remarkable only for their turgid style, commonplace ideas, 
and for the eagerness of the author to avail himself of the popular 
topic of the day. 

About this time the French Academy, with a view to render the 
prize-essays of its members more popular, began to propose the éloges 
of great men as the subjects. Thomas entered the lists three suc- 
cessive years, and was successful every time. His ‘Eloge de Maurice, 
Comte de Saxe,’ was crowned in 1759; his ‘Eloge de Henri Frangois 
d' Aguesseau,’ in 1760; and his ‘Eloge de Réné du Guay-Trouin,’ in 
1761. ‘In 1760 he also competed for the prize of poetry: his ‘ Epitre 


au Peuple’ was declared next in merit to the poem of Marmontel, to 


which the medal was assigned, In these compositions a marked 


improvement can be traced. There is no greater originality of thought 
than in-his first productions—nothing of genius in them’; but more 
matter, more of artistical finish, and lees of boyish inflation of style. 
The connection with the Duc de Praslin was less advantageous to 
Thomas than it promised to be at the outset. The duke procured for 
him the sinecure appointment of secretary-interpreter to the Swiss 
cantons, But a vacancy occurring soon after in the Academy, this 
minister, who had a personal quarrel with Marmontel, sought to 
obtain it for his secretary. Thomas had the magnanimity to refuse 
the appointment, urging the superior claims of Marmontel. This act 
of honesty lost him the fayour of the Due de Praslin, and closed the 
career of office which was opening to him. The admission to the 
Academy was not however long deferred. He delivered his inaugural 
address to that body on the 22nd of January 1767. 

Between 1761 and 1767 he composed—‘ Eloge de Sully,’ crowned in 
1763; ‘Eloge de Descartes,’ crowned in 1765; in 1766, * Eloge de 
Louis, Dauphin de France,’ composed and published at the request of 
the Comte d’Angiviller; and his inaugural discourse. In October 
1767, his opera of ‘Amphion’ was brought out, but without success. 
These works are all characterised by a progressive improvement in 
execution, They differ also from his juvenile productions in an 
attempt to adopt the sparkling and antithetical style of the Encyclo- 
peedists, and in the complete approbation of their bold satirical tone 
in respect to politics, although much of the author’s juvenile respect 
for religion remained with him to the last. As a natural consequence 
of the change, Griram had by this time begun to praise Thomas, and 
Fréron had cooled in his admiration of him; Voltaire had written a 
complimentary letter on the ‘Eloge de Descartes,’ but had on the 
other hand remarked to his friends that they ought now to substitute 
the word galithomas for galimathias: Diderot continued implacable. 
It was rumoured that the court, enraged at the free strain of the 
‘Epitre au Peuple,’ and the sarcasms launched against itself and the 


feudal system in the ‘Eloge du Dauphin,’ threatened the liberty of 


Thomas, 

The principal publications of Thomas, from the time of his admic- 
sion into the Academy till his death, are—‘ Eloge de Mare Auréle,’ 
read to the Academy in 1770, and published in 1775. His reply, as 
director of the Academy, to the inaugural discourse of the archbishop 
of Toulouse, also in 1770. ‘Essai sur le Caractére, les Moours, et 
VEsprit des Femmes, dans tous les Siécles,’ 1772, ‘Essai sur les 
Eloges ; ou l’Histoire de la Littérature et de l'Eloquence appliquées 
ce genre d’Ouvrage,’ published in 1773, in an edition of his collected 
works. He commenced a poem on the Czar Peter I.; but only four 
books and part of a fifth were completed at the time of his death. 
The increased technical skill of the author continues to show itself 
in these works; but the increased boldness of his attempts serves 
also to show the natural meagreness and feebleness of his genius. He 
was utterly devoid of impassioned imagination. His ‘ Kloge de Mare 
Auréle’ is an attempt to personify a Stoic of the age of that emperor: 
it is alike deficient in interest and dramatic truth, His essay on the 
character and manners of women is a collection of passages which 
would have swelled his didactic essay on ‘éloges’ to too great a bulk. 
It was said at the time that this panegyrical essay on the sex pleased 
them less than the vituperations of Rousseau. No wonder the treatise 
of Thomas is cold and unimpassioned; it was forced work; but the 
ravings of Rousseau are the scoldings of a jealous man who has been 
anxious but uuable to please, The treatise on ‘éloges’ is a worthy 
consummation of the author's labours in that empty and artificial 
branch of literature which has all the falsehood of oratory, without 
the interest which attaches to the eloquence of the bar or senate from 
its power of producing great practical effects. The partially completed 
poem of ‘The Czar’ is sensible and the versification smooth, but the 
four books are four separate poems, in the manner (though not so 
good) of Goldsmith’s ‘Traveller.’ They never could bave been made 
parts of an epic. 

Thomas died on the 17th of September 1785. His health, always 
delicate, had been undermined by incessant study. Thomas was a 
mere echo of the society by which he was surrounded. He took his 
colouring in youth from his preceptors, most of whom were eccle- 
siastics; in after-life, from the sceptical literary conversation of the 
saloons of Paris, His éloges are his most characteristic works, a kind 
of composition too inaccurate to have value as history, too cold and 
remote from the real business of life to impress as oratory. He stands 
however high among his class of writers. The high finish and some 
of the brilliancy of the French school cannot be denied him ; though 
for this he was indebted quite as much to the company he kept as to 
natural talent, or even his unquestionable painstaking. 

(Luvres de M. Thomas, Paris, 1792; Gwvres Posthwmes de M. 
Thomas, Paris, An x. (1802); ‘Sketch of Thomas,’ by Saint Surin, in 
the Biographie Universelle.) 

THOMASIN, or TOMASIN, surnamed Tirkeliire, Clir, or Zerkler, 
a German poet of the 13th century. He was a native of the Italian 
provinee of Friuli, now the Anstrian province of Udine, and was born 
about 1186. Being thus an Italian by birth, he wrote in his earlier 
days an Italian work, probably a didactic poem, ‘On Courteous 
Manners,’ which is no longer extant. In the course of 1216, when he 
had just reached his thirtieth year, he wrote in the space of ten 
months a great didactic poem in German, which from his native 


7 THOMASIUS, CHRISTIAN, 


THOMASIUS, CHRISTIAN, 8 


country he called ‘The Italian Guest’ (Der Welsche Gast)’ and which 
consists of ten books, This poem, of which there exist many excellent 
manuscripts, is one of the most splendid productions of German 
literature during the 13th century, and, although the author is a 
foreigner, the work breathes throughout a pure German spirit, and 
displays all the depth and intensity of German thought and feeling. 
In the beginning of his poem Thomasin admits that he is not a perfect 
master of the language which he used; but still the peculiarities are 
so few and slight, that it requires a profound knowledge of the old 
German language to discover the foreigner. Eschenburg therefore 
supposes that the author’s statement respecting his native country is 
a mere fiction. But this supposition, as well as another, that the 
‘Italian Guest’ is merely a German translation of the Italian work 
* On Courteous Manners,’ is without foundation, and contradicted by 
numerous passages of the former work. The object of this poem is 
to show in what virtue, piety, and good conduct consist, and why man 
should strive after them. It shows that a remarkable progress had 
taken place in the mind of Thomasin during the interval between the 
composition of the Italian and that of the German work. In the 
former, as he himself states, he had proceeded from the idea that 
courteous conduct and nobility of birth were always combined with a 
noble mind, or, in other words, that the changeable rules respecting 
good manners were of greater value than the eternal law of morality 
which is implanted in every man’s heart. This prejudice is altogether 
given up in his German poem, where he declares that a man is foolish 
who thinks himself great because he is of noble birth and possesses 
courteous manners, and that it is only a man’s heart and real 
character that make him worth anything. Virtue with him is now a 
fundamental principle, and not a mere expedient. He describes virtues 
and vices, and their respective consequences, with a truly Socratic 
spirit and dignity. Thomasin was well acquainted with the history 
of antiquity, and it is among the ancients that he found his best 
models of really virtuous men, The whole poem is a sublime and 
altogether practical system of morality: it is a philosophy in the garb 
of poetry and occasionally embellished by figurative language. But 
he does not write in the spirit of any particular school; his object is 
in general to instruct man on matters concerning. his physical and 
spiritual welfare. 

This masterpiece of early German poetry and philosophy has never 
yet been published entire. Fragments of it are printed in Eschen- 
burg’s ‘ Denkmiiler Altdeutscher Dichtkunst,’ p. 121, &c.; compare 
Gervinus, ‘Geschichte der Poetischen National Literatur der Deut- 
schen,’ vol. i. p. 456, &e. 

THOMA’SIUS, CHRISTIAN. The real name of this author is 
Thomas, and in the works which he published in his mother tongue 
he always calls himself Christian Thomas, He was born at Leipzig, 
on the 12th of January 1655, and was the son of Jacob Thomasius 
(1622-1684), a distinguished professor of philosophy, and some time 
rector of the celebrated Thomasschule at Leipzig, under. whose 
auspices Leibnitz was educated. The education of Christian Thoma- 
sius was conducted by his father, whose knowledge of philosophy and 
its history gave his mind at an early age a decided turn. Christian 
had scarcely attained his fourteenth year when he was found suffi- 
ciently prepared to enter the university. In his sixteenth year he 
obtained the degree of Bachelor of Arts, and the year after that of 
Master of Arts. The chief subjects of his studies were philosophy 
and law, more especially the law of nature, which he regarded as the 
basis of all other laws. The instruction of his father and his own 
experienge at the university had convinced him that the methods 
-of teaching then followed were pedantic and deficient, and he deter- 
mined to remedy these defects as much as was in his power. In 1675 
he went to Frankfurt-on-the-Oder, where he began a course of lectures 
on law, but they do not appear to have been well received by his 
colleagues, and in 1679, after having obtained the degree of Doctor of 
Laws, he left Frankfurt, and made a literary journey to Holland, On 
returning to Leipzig he commenced the practice of the law. But 
this occupation did not offer sufficient scope for him, and he again 
became an academical teacher, in which capacity he brought about the 
most beneficial reforms. The law of nature, which had until then been 
almost entirely neglected in the universities, continued to be the prin- 
cipal subject of his studies. The older professors, who found them- 
selves disturbed in their routine of teaching by the energy and 
boldness of the young man, began to clamour against him. So long 
as his father lived, violent outbreaks were prevented, partly because 
he restrained his son’s eagerness for reforms, and partly because the 
other professors esteemed him too much to hurt his feelings by open 
attacks upon his son. When however his father died, in 1684, the 
bitterness and boldness with which young Thomasius attacked anti- 
quated prejudices of all kinds together with their champions, involved 
him in numerous disputes. The enmity was not only provoked by 
the matter and the manner of his teaching, but also by several publi- 
cations which tended to destroy established opinions. One of them, 
on polygamy, especially gave great offence ; and he asserted that poly- 
gamy was at least not contrary to any law of nature, 

Up to this time it had been the general custom in all German 
universities to deliver lectures in Latin, and to make all public 
announcements of them in the same language, In the year 1687 
Thomasius published his programme in German, and announced that 


he would deliver a course of lectures in German, and on a subject which 
appeared altogether foreign to a university—viz. on the manner in 
which the Germans should follow the example of the French (‘ Dis- 
cours, welcher Gestalt man denen Franzosen im gemeinen Leben und 
Wandel nachahmen soll,’ 4to, published at Leipzig, 1687.) This 
daring innovation was regarded by his colleagues as a perfect heresy, 
though, after the example was once set, it was gradually followed by 


other professors, until it became the universal practice in all German — 


universities to lecture in German. It was a necessary consequence of 
this that books of a scientific character now began to be written in 
German. Notwithstanding both the open and secret attacks to 
which Thomasius had thus exposed himself, he continued to combat 
prejudice, pedantry, and whatever he regarded as error. He was un- 
sparing in his censure, which was usually combined with wit and satire, 
and even his former teachers did not escape. In the year after, 1688, he 
established a German Monthly Review, under the title ‘ Freimiithige, 
jedoch vernunft- und gesetzmiissige Gedanken iiber allerhand, fiirnem- 
lich aber neue Biicher,’ which he conducted from 1688 till 1690, and 
which gave him immense influence in all parts of Germany, and the 
means of chastising his enemies. His enemies in their turn tried 
every means to avenge themselves; and although Thomasius at first 
sneceeded in averting the danger that was gathering around him, yet 
the disputes became daily more vehement and serious, especially with 
two divines, Pfeifer and Carpzovius, who charged him with atheism. 
The theological faculty of Leipzig was likewise gained over to their 
side. H. G. Masius, court preacher to the king of Denmark, who had 


been rather severely dealt with by Thomasius in his Journal, and who 


made a reply, to which Thomasius answered in a very energetic 
manner, persuaded the king of Denmark to have all the published 
parts of Thomasius’s Journal burnt in the market-place of Copen- 
hagen by the hangman, 1689. Such proceedings in a foreign country 
were treated by Thomasius with contempt; but the storm was gather- 
ing over his head. In the same year he became involved in disputes 
with the Pietists, and also came forward to justify marriages between 
two persons of different religions, which enraged the divines of Witten- 
berg to such a degree, that the chief consistory was induced by 
various charges which were made against him to issue an order for the 
apprehension of Thomasius, He escaped the danger and fied to 
Berlin, where he met with a kind reception and the protection of 
Frederick III, the great elector of Brandenburg (afterwards King 
Frederick I.) who not only permitted him to settle at Halle, but also 
to lecture in the Ritteracademie (academy for young noblemen) of that 
place. He began his lectures here in 1690, and met with the same 
approbation on the part of the students as at Leipzig ; and the increase 
in the number of students induced the elector in 1694 to found the 
University of Halle, in which he appointed Thomasius professor of juris- 
prudence, and conferred upon him the title of councillor, with a salary 
of 500 thalers. In this new position too Thomasius continued to be 
annoyed by numerous disputes, partly with his former adversaries 
and partly with others. In the year 1709 he had the satisfaction to 
receive an invitation to the chair of jurisprudence in the University of 
Leipzig, which however he refused. King Frederick I. of Prussia, 
pleased with the determination of Thomasius not to leave his service, 
rewarded him with the title of privy-councillor, In 1710 Thomasius 
was elected rector of the University of Halle, and dean of the faculty 
of jurisprudence. He died on the 23rd of September 1728, in the 
seventy-third year of his age. 

If ever a man exercised an influence upon his age and country 
which will extend to the latest posterity, it is Thomasius. He was 


one of the few men, like Luther and Lessing, who now and then rise — 


up in a nation, give it an impulse, and determine its course. At the 
time when Thomasius began to make himself known, philosophy and 
theology were studied and taught in such a manner that it was evident 
that the spirit which had been created by the Reformation would soon 
vanish altogether. All philosophical and scientific works were written 
in Latin, which formed an inadequate medium for communi 

new thoughts and ideas, which were frequently crippled and imperfect 
on that account, or the language itself was barbarous. In the uni- 
versities also Latin was the ordinary language for communicatin 
knowledge, which thus remained in the exclusive possession of a mie 
number, and without influence upon the nation at large. Thomasius 
prepared the way for better things, first by communicating knowledge 
in his native language, and by extending the sphere within which 
speculation had until then been carried on. At the same time he 
urged the necessity of writing in a clear and intelligible style, which 
many of his countrymen in recent times have greatly neglected. His 
own style, though not often pure, is precise and vigorous. As in 
places of learning Thomasius destroyed old prejudices and pedantry, 
he also boldly combated superstition and hypocrisy in the affairs of 
common life, such as the belief in ghosts, spectres, and witchcraft ; 
and it is almost entirely owing to his exertions that trials for witch- 
craft and torture were abolished in Germany. In reference to this 
Frederick the Great says of Thomasius, “He denounced trials for 
witchcraft so loudly, that persons began to be ashamed of them, and 
from that time the female sex has been permitted to grow old and die 
in peace.” All this would alone be sufficient to immortalise his name, 
even if he had no claim to it by what he did in philosophy. Here he 
indeed found things in such a state, that it required all his energy to 


SS 


-neue Wahrheiten zu erfinden.’ 8vo, Halle, 1691. 


9 THOMOND, ‘THOMAS. 


THOMPSON, WILLIAM. 10 


clear the field from the weeds with which it was overgrown, before it 
was fit to receive the seed, and accordingly his philosophy is more of a 
destructive than of a constructive character. But in this negative 
way he has done incalculable service to his nation, and Frederick the 
Great justly says, that among all the philosophers of Germany, none 
have contributed more to render its name illustrious than Leibnitz 


and Thomasius, 


The number of works of Thomasius is considerable, Besides those 
mentioned above, the following must be noticed :—‘ Einleitung zu der 
Vernunftlehre, worinnen durch eine leichte, und allen verniinftigen 
Menschen, waserlei Standes oder Geschlechts sie seyn, verstiindliche 


Manier, der Weg gezeiget wird, ohne die Syllogistica, das Wahre, 


Wahrscheinliche und Falsche von: einander zu entscheiden und 
The fifth and last 
edition of this work appeared at Halle, 8vo, 1719; it was the first 
readable book that had ever been produced in Germany on logic. ‘ Von 
der Kunst verniinftig und tugendhbaft zu lieben, als dem. einzigen Mittel 
zu einem gliickseligen, galanten, und vergniigten Leben zu galangen, 
oder Einleitung der Sittenlehre,’ &c., 8vo, Halle, 1692 ; an eighth edition 
of it appeared in 1726. This work contains a system of ethics better 
than any that had appeared before him. ‘ Historie der Weisheit und 
Thorheit, in three parts, 8vo, Halle, 1693. ‘Weitere Erliiuterung 
durch unterschiedene Exempel, anderer Menschen Gemiither kennen 
gu lernen,’ 8vo, Halle, 1693, reprinted in1711. ‘Der Kern wahrerund 
niitzlicher Weltweisheit,’ 8vo, Halle, 1693: this is a translation of 
Xenophon’s ‘Memorabilia of Socrates,’ which Thomasius strangely 
enough took from the French translation of Charpentier, although he 
himself was well acquainted with the Greek. ‘ Versuch vom Wesen 
des Geistes, oder Grundlehren die einem Studioso Juris zu wissen und 
auf Universitiiten zu lernen néthig sind, 8vo, Halle, 1699, reprinted in 
1709. ‘ Ernsthafte aber doch muntere und verniinftige Gedanken und 
Erinnerungen iiber allerhand auserlesene juristische Hiindel,’ 4 vols., 
Halle 1720-21. His miscellaneous and smaller essays appeared in a 
collection under the title ‘ Kleine Deutsche Schriften mit Fleiss zusam- 
mengetragen, 8vo, Halle, 1701. A complete list of his works is given 
in Luden’s ‘ Christian Thomasius nach seinen Schicksalen und Schriften 
dargestellt,’ with a preface by Johannes von Miiller, 8vo, Berlin, 1805 ; 
sate Jérden’s ‘ Lexikon Deutscher Dichter und Prosaisten, vol. v., 
. 37—59. 
, THOMOND, THOMAS, an architect who practised at St. Petersburg, 
and held the rank of a major in the Russian service, was a native of 
France, and born at Nancy, on the 21st of December 1759. Scarcely 
had he completed his professional education at Paris when the 
revolution rendered it unsafe for him (he and his family being 
royalists) to remain in the country, and he accordingly emigrated to 
Russia, where he at first supported himself by the productions of his 
pencil, which not only found purchasers, but made him favourably 
known to the St. Petersburg public. The taste he displayed in archi- 
tectural subjects led at length to his being employed by the govern- 
ment in that branch of art which he had originally intended to follow, 
and one of the first works of any importance intrusted to him was 
the Great Theatre (erected by the German architect Tischbein, 
1782-83), which he was commissioned to improve and partly remodel 
in 1804. Although not altogether free from the peculiarities of the 


_French school, the facade and octastyle Ionic portico which he added 


to that structure is one of the noblest pieces of architecture in the 
northern capital of Russia, and, of its kind and date, in Europe. Had 
he executed nothing else, that alone would have entitled him to rank 
higher in his profession as an artist than many who owe their celebrity 
as much to the number as to the merit of their works. But he had 
also the opportunity of displaying his taste and ability in another very 
striking public edifice at St. Petersburg, namely, the Imperial Birzha, 
or Exchange, erected by him between the years 1804 and 1810, which 
is an insulated structure (about 256 feet by 300 feet) of the Roman 
Doric order, peripteral and decastyle at each end, although without 
pediments, and having altogether 44 columns. Situated at the 
southern point of the Vassilievskii Island, immediately facing the 
Neva, it stands in the centre of a spacious plotchad, or ‘ place,’ upon a 
rich ‘architectural terrace, which sweeps out so as to form a semicir- 
cular esplanade in front, at each extremity of which is a flight of 
steps leading down to the river, and a massive rostral column 120 feet 
high. Taken altogether, the architectural combination thus produced 
is exceedingly picturesque, and may be’said to be unique. 
Thomond also erected some private mansions and other buildings at 
St. Petersburg, the mausoleum of the Emperor Paul at Pavlovska, the 
theatre at Odessa, and the Pultava monument. In 1808 he published 
some of his buildings and architectural designs in a quarto volume, 
very unsatisfactorily executed however; and he also wrote a treatise 
on painting, an art to which he was greatly attached, He died on the 
23rd of August 1813. (Kukolnik, in Khudozhestvennya Gazeta, 1837.) 
THOMPSON, SIR BENJAMIN. . [Rumrorp, Count.] 
*THOMPSON, MAJOR-GENERAL THOMAS PERRONET, was 
born in 1783, at Hull in Yorkshire. He received his early education 
at the Hull grammar-school, of which the Rey. Joseph Milner was 
then head-master. In October 1798 he was entered of Queen’s College, 
Cambridge, and in 1802 took his degree of B.A, He soon afterwards 
entered the navy as a midshipman, but left it for the army, in which 
he became a second lieutenant, January 23, 1806, and in 1807 served 


in the Rifle Brigade in the attack on Buenos Ayres. On the 21st of 
January 1808 he became lieutenant, and in the same year was sent out 
to the colony of Sierra Leone as governor. In 1812 he returned to 
active service in the army. In 1814 he served with the 14th Light 
Dragoons, and was engaged in the battles of Nivelle, Nive, Orthes, and 
Toulouse, for his services in which he received the war-medal with 
four clasps. He attained the rank of captain on the 7th of July 1814, 
and from 1815 to 1819 was engaged in the Pindaree and other cam- 
paigns in India as captain of the 17th Light Dragoons. In 1819 he 
served in the expedition to the Persian Gulf, under Sir William Grant 
Keir, as secretary and Arabic interpreter, and was for a time political 
agent there, 

In 1821 Captain Thompson returned to England, and attained the 
rank of major on the 9th of June 1825. In the meantime he had 
become acquainted with Jeremy Bentham and Dr. Bowring (now Sir 
John Bowring), and was a contributor to the ‘Westminster Review,’ 
of which he afterwards became one of the proprietors. He soon dis- 
tinguished himself as one of the most powerful of the opponents of 
the system of protection of native industry, and in his ‘Corn-Law 
Catechism,’ first published in 1827, stated with great clearness of 
reasoning and vivacity of illustration the leading arguments which 
were afterwards successfully employed by the Anti-Corn-Law League 
to overthrow the restrictive laws on the importation of wheat and other 
grain. [Coppen, RicuarD.] The Catechism was published under the 
title of ‘Catechism on the Corn-Laws, with a List of the Fallacies 
and the Answers; to which is added an article on Free Trade, from 
the ‘‘ Westminster Review,” No. 23, with a Collection of Objections 
and Answers; by a Member of the University of Cambridge,’ 8vo, 
15th edition, 1831. He also published a ‘Catechisin on the Currency, 
by .the Author of the Catechism on the Corn-Laws,’ 8vo, 3rd edit., 
1848. On the 24th of February 1829 Captain Thompson became 
lieutenant-colonel, unattached, and was placed on half-pay. He con- 
tinued the assiduous and unflinching advocate of liberal policy in the 
‘ Westminster Review,’ in pamphlets, and in newspapers, and was an 
active supporter of the parliamentary reform movement by speeches 
as well as by his writings. Colonel Thompson’s investigations how- 
ever were not confined to questions of political and social reform. In 
1829 he published an ‘ Enharmonic Theory of Music,’ which he repub- 


lished in 1850 under the title of ‘Theory and Practice of Just Intona- 


tion, with a View to the Abolition of Temperament, as illustrated in 
the Description and Use of the Enharmonic Organ, presenting the 
Power of executing with the simple Ratios in Twenty Keys, with a 
Correction for Changes of Temperature; built by Messrs, Robson for 
the Exhibition of 1851; with an Appendix tracing the Identity of 
Design with the Enharmonic of the Ancients,’ 12mo. In 1830 Colonel 
Thompson published a small work entitled ‘Geometry without 
Axioms.’ 

Colonel Thompson was returned to parliament as member for the 
borough of Hull on the 20th of June 1835. He was not returned in 
the next election, and was out of parliament till he was returned for 
Bradford in Yorkshire. He was not returned to the last parliament, 
but was returned to the present, in March 1857, when he was again 
elected for Bradford. He attained the rank of major-general on the 
20th of June 1854. 

Colonel Thompson has published an edition of his collected works, 
under the title of ‘ Exercises, Political and Others, by Lieut.-Colonel 
T. Perronet Thompson, consisting of Matter previously published 
with and without the Author’s name, and some not published before,’ 
6 vols. 12mo, 1843. 

THOMPSON, WILLIAM, a celebrated Irish naturalist. His father 
was an Irish linen merchant at Belfast, and William, his eldest son, 
was born on the 2nd of November 1805. As his father destined him 
for a commercial life, he received such an education as was supposed 
to fit him for that pursuit. In 1821 he was apprenticed to a firm in 
the linen business at Belfast. Although at this time he had acquired 
no taste for natural history, he soon took an interest in this subject 
from making excursions with a fellow apprentice who possessed a 
copy of Bewick’s ‘British Birds,’ and a passion for collecting and 
stuffing birds. For several years he was hardly more than an amateur ; 
but in 1832 circumstances occurred which induced him to give up 
business, and from that time he devoted himself in earnest to natural 
history. Although birds were his favourite study, he took an 
interest in all kinds of animals and plants, and eventually there 
were few Irish minerals, plants, and animals, with which he was not 
eognisant. He first became known as a naturalist by his contribu- 
tions to the ‘Proceedings’ of the Zoological Society of London, on 
the natural history of Ireland. The names of some of these early 
contributions indicate the direction of his mind: ‘ Catalogue of Birds 
new to the Irish Fauna;’ ‘On some Vertebrata new to the Trish 
Fauna ;’ ‘On some rare Irish Birds ;’ ‘On the Natural History of 
Ireland, with a description of a new Genus of Fishes ;’ ‘ On the Irish 
Hare.’ He also prepared to lay before the meeting of the British 
Association for the Advancement of Science, held at Glasgow in 1840, 
a ‘Report on the Fauna of Ireland, Division Vertebrata.’ This was 
not a mere enumeration of the vertebrate animals of Ireland, or an 
account of their comparative scarcity and abundance, but an exposi- . 
tion of the number of species in Ireland, the most western land of 
Europe, compared with other British and European species. In 1841 


11 THOMS, WILLIAM J, 


THOMSON, JAMES. 12 


Mr. Thompson accompanied the late Professor Edward Forbes on a 
voyage in the Atgean in H.M.S. Beacon, commanded by the late 
Captain Graves, R.N., during which he made a large number of obser- 
vations on the natural history of the countries which he visited. 
Some of these he subsequently made use of in his works on the 
natural history of Ireland, From 1841 to 1843 he was a frequent 
contributor to the ‘ Annals of Natural History,’ and also engaged in 
collecting materials for his further report to the British Association 
on the Invertebrate Fauna of Ireland. This report was read at the 
meeting of the association at Cork in 1843, and is remarkable for the 
large amount of minute information it contains on the natural history 
of Ireland. From this time his papers on Irish natural history 
became more numerous; a list of above seventy is given in the 
Ray Society's ‘ Bibliography,’ and these were preparations for a great 
work which he had projected on the natural history of his native 
country. The first volume of this work appeared in 1849, the second 
in 1850, the third in 1851, These three were devoted to the birds. 
He did not live to complete his work. He had been mainly instru- 
mental in inducing the British Association to meet in 1852 in Belfast. 
In promoting this object he came to London in the January of that 
year, when he was seized with paralysis, and died in the course of a 
few hours. The manuscript of another volume on the ‘ Natural History 
of Ireland’ was found after his death in a sufficiently advanced state 
to be given to the public, and this was published with a short memoir 
of the author in 1856. He took an active interest in all the local 
institutions of his native town. He was president of the Natural His- 
tory and Philosophical Society of Belfast, member of the Royal Irish 
Academy, and honorary fellow and member of several foreign scientific 
societies. William Thompson is a remarkable instance of a man who, 
by the devotion of average talents to one great object, succeeded in 
his work on the natural history of Ireland in achieving for himself a 
lasting reputation, and giving to science one ofits most valuable mono- 
graphs on the distribution of animals in Europe, 

*THOMS, WILLIAM J., was born in Westminster, on Nov, 10, 
1803, his father being Nathaniel Thoms, the secretary of the first 
Commission of Revenue Inquiry. After a careful education he 
became a clerk in the secretary's office at Chelsea Hospital, and has 
subsequently been made one of the clerks of the Printed Papers 
Department in the House of Lords. His leisure was employed in 
writing articles for the ‘ Foreign Quarterly Review,’ and other periodi- 
cal works. In 1828 he published in three volumes ‘A Collection of 
Early Prose Romances; in 1834, ‘Lays and Legends of Various 
Nations; and in 1838 the ‘Book of the Court.’ In this year he was 
elected a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, and he is also a member 
of those of Edinburgh and Copenhagen. In 1839 he edited ‘ Anecdotes 
and Traditions ;’ in 1842, ‘Stow’s Survey of London,’ adding many 
valuable notes and verifications, and a notice of the life and writings 
of Stow; and in 1844, Caxton’s ‘ Reynard the Fox;’ he has likewise 
published a translation of Worsaae’s ‘Primeval Antiquities of Den- 
mark,’ 8vo, 1849, of which he considerably increased the value by a 
preface and notes, pointing out the extent and the manner in which 
tue researches of the author on the primeval remains of Denmark 
throw light upon those of this country. For a considerable time he 
has held the office of secretary to the Camden Society. His most 
noticeable effort however has been the originating of the publication 
of § Notes and Queries,’ of which he has been the editor since the com- 
mencement in Noy, 1849; a work which has been most successfully 
earried on under his management, and which has collected an amount 
of curious and valuable information scarcely paralleled by any publica- 
tion with which we are acquainted; and to the contributions of Mr. 

‘Thome, as well as to his editorial supervision, has the value and 
success of ‘ Notes and Queries’ been essentially indebted, | 

THOMSON, ANTHONY TODD, was born in Edinburgh on the 
7th of January 1778. His father, by birth a Scotchman, had settled 
in America, where he held two lucrative appointments under the 
British government, being Postmaster-General for the province of 
Georgia, and Collector of Customs for the town of Savannah, Having 
refused to take the oath of allegiance to the American government, on 
the breaking out of the Revolution he was compelled to relinquish 
his appointments, and returned to Edinburgh. Anthony Todd was 
born previous to this whilst his mother was on a visit to Edinburgh. 
He received his education at the High School, Edinburgh. When a 
boy he formed an intimacy with Henry, afterwards Lord Cockburn, 
which lasted till his death. His father destined him for business, but 
having obtained a clerkship in the Post-office, he was enabled by the 
leisure it afforded him to gratify a wish he had always entertained to 
study medicine. He attended the lectures of Munro, Gregory, Black, 
and Dugald Stewart. In 1798 he became a member of the Speculative 
Society, and the companion of Jeffrey, Horner, Brougham, and Lord 
Lansdowne. In 1799 he became a member of the Royal Medical 
Society. Having graduated in 1799, he left Edinburgh, and established 
himself in London about the year 1800. He commenced the practice 
of his profession in Sloane-street, Chelsea, as a general practitioner, 
His progress was at first slow, but when once commenced it was never 
interrupted. In the midst of a large general practice, he found time 
to cultivate science and literature. He was mainly instrumental in 
procuring the enactment of the Apothecaries Act in 1814. His first 
literary work was published in 1810, and entitled ‘ Conspectus Pharma- 


copis.’ He sold the copyright of this book for twenty pounds, In 1833 
it was bought by the Messrs. Longman for two hundred pounds. It 
has gone through fourteen editions, In 1811 he published the ‘ London 
Dispensatory,’ which was a work of great labour, It contained a 
critical account of all the medicines and their compounds which were 
in use in Great Britain. It has been translated into several European 
languages, and ten editions have been published in England. During 
his researches into the materia medica he was impressed with the 
importance of the study of botany, and he was one of the first 
to give a course of lectures on this subject in London. In 1821 he 
published a first volume of his ‘ Lectures on Botany.’ This work con- 
tained many very valuable observations on the structure and funetions 
of plants which have since become a part of the science of botany. 
In his observations, he made extensive use of the microscope, and may 
fairly claim to be one of those who appreciated the value of this 
instrument, when its use was generally neglected. In 1826 he became 
a member of the Royal College of Physicians of London, and com- 
menced practice as a consulting physician. In 1828 he was elected 
professor of Materia Medica to the then London University, now 
University College. In this position he worked with great ardour at 
the subject of ‘Therapeutics, and was one of the first to introduce the 
new substances discovered by the chemist into the practice of medi- 
cine. He formed here a very fine collection of specimens of 

medica, but the college had not the means of purchasing it after his 
death, and it has been lost to the country. In 1832 he was appointed 
professor of Medical Jurisprudence. The lectures delivered from 
this chair were published in the ‘Lancet’ in 1836-7. In 1832 Dr, 
Thomson published his ‘ Elements of Materia Medica, a work of a 
more scientific character than his ‘ London Dispensatory,’ and entering 
more fully into the subject of Therapeutics, Three editions of this 
work had been published at the time of his death, In 1839 he 
edited ‘ Bateman on Cutaneous Diseases,’ and at the time of his death, 
he was engaged in preparing ‘ A practical Treatise on Diseases affecting 
the Skin,’ which has since been completed and edited by Dr, Parkes. 
In 1848 his health first began to fail. He continued to give his lee- 
tures, with considerable interruptions, till the following summer, when 
he was obliged to retire into the country, and died of bronchitis at 
Ealing on the 3rd of July 1849, 

Dr. Thomson was a man of unwearied industry, and throughout 
his long career, pursued his labours with few or no interruptions. 
He was a man of yaried attainments, cultivating literature as 
well as science, and was not an unfrequent contributor of literary 
articles to the Magazines and Reviews. He translated from the 
French, and edited, a work by Mons, Salvarte, entitled ‘ The Philosophy 
of Magic, Omens, and apparent Miracles,’ 
full of curious and interesting matter. He edited also an edition of 
Thomson's ‘ Seasons ;’ to which he appended a large number of notes, 
and a life of the author, He contributed many articles to the‘ Cyelo- 
peedia*of Practical Medicine.’ He was for many years editor of the 
‘Medical Repository; to which journal he also extensively con- 
tributed. One of his last works was entitled ‘ Domestic Management of 
the Sick-room,’ of which several editions have been printed. A sketch 
of his life, from which the materials of this notice have been prin- 
dipally etaaied, is published with his posthumous work on ‘ Diseases 
of the Skin.’ 


*Mrs. A. T, THomsoy, the wife of Dr. Thomson, has contributed 


rather largely to literature, chiefly in the department of historical 
biography. She has published ‘Memoirs of the Court of Henry VIIL., 
2 vols. 8vo, 1826; ‘Memoirs of Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough, and 
of the Court of Queen Anne,’ 2 vols, 8yo, 1839; ‘Memoirs of the 
Jacobites of 1715 and 1745,’ 3 vols. 8vo, 1845; and ‘Memoirs of 
Viscountess Sundon, Mistress of the Robes to Queen Caroline, Consort 
of George II., including Letters from the most celebrated Persons of 
her Time, now first published from their Originals,’ 2 vols. 8vo, 1847. 
She has also written several romances and novels. Her latest publica- 
tion is ‘Recollections of Literary Characters and Celebrated Places,’ 
2 vols. 8vo. This work consists chiefly of a series of articles whicl 

appeared originally in ‘ Bentley’s Miscellany’ and ‘Fraser's Magazine,’ 
with the signature of ‘A Middle-Aged Man,’ an appellation which she 
assumed, as she states, “in order that by better disguising myself, I 
might at that time express myself the more unreservedly.” 

‘'HOMSON, JAMES, was born at Ednam in Roxburghshire on the 
llth September 1700. His father was clergyman of the place, and 
distinguished for his piety and pastoral character. James was first 
sent to the grammar-school at Jedburgh, and completed his education 
at the University of Edinburgh, where in 1719 he was admitted as 
a student of divinity, ; 

Thomson turned from diyinity to poetry owing to the following 
incident :—The Rey. Mr, Hamilton, who then filled the chair of 
divinity, gave as a subject for an exercise a psalm in which the majesty 
and power of God are described. Of this psalm Thomson gave a para- 
phrase and illustration as the exercise required, but in so poetical and 
figurative a style as to astonish the audience. Mr. Hamilton ecompli- 
mented the performance, and pointed out to the audience its most 
striking points; but, turning to Thomson, he suggested that if he 
intended to become a minister he must keep a stricter rein over his 
imagination, and learn to be intelligible to an ordinary congregation. 
Some encouragement held out to him by Lady Grisel-Baillie following 


His notes to this work are - 


138 THOMSON, JAMES. 


THORBURN, ROBERT, A.R.A. 14 


this intimation of the Professor, he determined to give up divinity and 
try his fortune in London. Slender as this pretext of ‘encouragement’ 
was, there -have-been many poets who have thus sought their fortune 
from ho stronger reason, ‘he truth is, Thomson wanted to try his 
capacity in London, and seized on this as a pretext. 

Arrived in London, says Dr, Johnson, he was one day loitering 
about “with the gaping curiosity of a new-comer, his attention upon 

everything rather than upon his pocket,” when his handkerchief, con- 
taining his letters of recommendation to several persons of consequence, 
was stolen from him. And now the lonely poet in the vast: city first 
felt his inexperience and his poverty. A pair of shoes was his first 
want; his manuscript of ‘Winter’ his only property. A purchaser for 
this poem was found with great difficulty ; but Mr. Millar consented to 
give a trifle for it, and it was published in 1726. I+ was little read till 

. Whately and Mr. Spence spoke so favourably of it that attention 
was attracted, and it rose rapidly into popularity, and one edition very 
speedily followed another. This success procured him many friends, 
among whom was Dr. Rundle, who introduced him to the lord chan- 
cellor Talbot, and some years after, when the eldest son of that 
nobleman made a tour on the continent, Thomson was appointed his 
travelling companion. Meanwhile his poetical powers were fully 
employed, and in 1727 appeared his ‘Summer,’ in 1728 his‘ Spring,’ 
and in 1730 his ‘Autumn.’ Besides these, he published, in 1727, 
*A Poem sacred to the memory of Sir Isaac Newton,’ and ¢ Britannia,’ 
a poetical invective against the ministry for the indifference they 
showed to the depredations of the Spaniards in America. By this 
piece he declared himself a favourer of the opposition, and therefore 
could expect nothing from the court. 

The tragedy of ‘Sophonisba’ was acted in 1727, Wilks taking the 
part of Masinissa, and Mrs. Oldfield that of Sophonisba. So high 
were the expectations raised, that every rehearsal was dignified with a 
splendid audience collected to anticipate the pleasure that was pre- 
paring for the public. Its success however was very equivocal. 
“There is,” says Johnson, “a feeble line in the play :— 


*O, Sophonisba, Sophonisba, O!? 
This gave occasion to a waggish parody, 
*0O, Jemmy Thomson, Jemmy Thomson, O!? 


which for awhile was echoed through the town.” 

At this time long opposition to Sir Robert Walpole had filled the 
nation with clamours for liberty, and Thomson, instinctively seizin 
the poet’s office to utter in verse the wants of the nation, detsiuitned 
on writing a poem on ‘Liberty.’ He spent two years on.this under- 
taking, and viewed it as his noblest work, probably because it had 
cost him the most trouble. It was divided into five parts, which were 
published separately, thus: ‘Ancient and Modern Italy compared, 
being the first part of “ Liberty,” a poem,’ 1735; ‘Greece, being the 
second part, &c.,’ 1735; ‘Rome, being the third part, &.,’ 1735 ; 
* Britain, being the fourth part, &c.,’ 1736 ; ‘The Prospect, being the 
fifth part, &c.,’ 1736. The poem of ‘ Liberty’ does not now appear 
in its original state, having been shortened by Sir George (afterwards 
Lord) Lyttelton. Of all Thomson’s poems this is the least read, and 
deservedly so, for, independent of the feebleness of its execution, it is 
obvious, as Johnson remarked, that “the recurrence of the same images 
must tire in time; an enumeration of examples to prove a position 
which nobody denied must quickly grow disgusting.” 

His friend Talbot appointed him secretary of briefs, a place requiring 
little attendance, suiting his retired indolent way of life, and equal to 
all his wants. When his patron died Lord Hardwicke succeeded him, 
and kept the office vacant for some time, probably till Thomson should 
apply for it; but either his modesty, pride, or depression of spirits 
prevented his asking, and the new chancellor would not give him 
' what he would not request. This reverse of fortune increased his 
literary activity. In 1738, besides editing his own works in two 
volumes and writing a preface to Milton’s ‘ Areopagitica,’ he produced 
the tragedy of ‘Agamemnon,’ with Quin for his hero. For this he 
got “no inconsiderable sum,” though it had but poor success. John- 
son says that on the first night Thomson seated himself in the upper 
gallery, and was so interested in its performance, that “he accompanied 
the players by audible recitation, till a friendly hint frighted him to 
silence.” Thomson’s next tragedy was ‘Edward and Eleonora,’ which 
was not allowed to be represented on account of certain pretended 
allusions. He then wrote, conjointly with Mallet, the masque of 
* Alfred,’ which was represented before the Prince and Princess of 
Wales at Clifden in 1740. This masque contains the national song of 
‘Rule Britannia,’ which Mr. Bolton Corney ascribes, “on no slight 
evidence,” to Mallet. Thomson's next work was another tragedy, 
*Tancred and Sigismunda,’ which, being taken from the interesting 
story in ‘Gil Blas,’ instead of the Grecian mythology, as were his 
other pieces, had more success. Garrick and Mrs. Cibber played the 
principal parts. His friend Sir George Lyttelton now appointed him 
surveyor-general of the Leeward Islands, from which, after paying a 
deputy, he received about 3007. a year. 

The ‘Castle of Indolence,’ which was many years under his hands, 
was now finished and published (1748). It was at first little more 
than a few detached stanzas, in the way of raillery on himself, and on 
some of his friends who reproached him with indolence, while he 


thought them at least as indolent as himself, But the subject grew 
under his hands till it became his masterpiece, 

A violent cold, which from inattention became worse, at last carried 
him off, on the 27th of August 1748, He left behind him a traged 
of ‘Coriolanus,’ which was brought on the stage by Sir George Lyttel- 
ton for the benefit of his family. A considerable sum was gained, 
which paid his debts and relieved his sisters. The remains of the poet 
are deposited in Richmond Churchyard. 

Thomson was “more fat than bard beseems;” of a simple, unaffected, 
indolent, sensual character; silent in company, but cheerful among 
friends, of whom he had many and true. This character is discern- 
ible in his writings, His simplicity is seen in the purity and warmth 
of his sentiments, sometimes even childish; his indolence in the 
slovenliness of his versification, and the inappropriateness of so many 
of his epithets: he never seems to have thought anything worth the 
toil of polishing, and hence the perpetual use of pompous glittering 
diction substituted for thought or description ; his sensuality appears 
in the gusto with which he describes all luxuries of the senses, and 
the horrors of deprivation. Amidst much that is truly exquisite both 
in feeling and expression, he mingles the absurdities of a schoolboy’s 
trite commonplaces and mechanical contrivances to piece out his verse. 
A sweet line of almost perfect beauty is followed by a bombastic 
allusion, or some feeble personification as tiresome as the first was 
bewitching. A touch of nature is overloaded by superfluous epithets 
—a picturesque description is often marred by pedantry or by careless- 
ness. In spite of these drawbacks, Thomson is a charming poet, and 
one whose works have always been the delight of all classes. The 
popularity of his ‘Seasons’ equals that of any poem in the language, 
and it is said that some one, finding a shabby copy of it lying on the 
window-seat of a country ale-house, exclaimed “ That's true fame!” 
Thomson’s beauties are genuine: his descriptions of nature often 
come with the force of reality upon the mind; and no one ever 
painted more successfully the ‘ changing scene’ and the ‘rustic joys’ 
of England. 

His ‘Castle of Indolence’ may be regarded as his best-sustained 
effort ; for, although separate passages of the ‘Seasons’ may be supe- 
rior, yet on the whole it has fewer defects, while some of the stanzas, 
especially in the first canto, fill the mind with lazy luxury. Of his 
tragedies we need say little : their neglect has been so signal, that we 
IMay accept so unanimous a verdict without further examination ; 
indeed the genius of Thomson was eminently undramatie, 

THOMSON, THOMAS, M.D., a celebrated chemist, was born April 
12, 1778, at Crieff, Perthshire, and received his early education at the 
parish school of that place. He afterwards studied at St. Andrews 
and Edinburgh, and was a pupil of the celebrated Dr. Black. In 
1802 he delivered a course of lectures on chemistry, and continued to 
lecture on this science for nearly fifty years. He was one of the 
editors of the ‘Encyclopedia Britannica’ from 1796 to 1800, and 
wrote the articles ‘Chemistry,’ ‘ Mineralogy,’ &c. in that work. In 
1802 he published his ‘System of Chemistry.’ He first suggested 
the use of symbols in chemistry, which have since become so generally 
employed. He ‘was one of the first chemists who recognised the 
value of Dalton’s atomic theory, and devoted himself to its elucida- 
tion. He also at this time conducted for the Board of Excise a series 
of investigations on brewing, which formed the basis of Scottish legis- 
lation on that subject. In 1813 Dr. Thomson came to London, and 
started the ‘ Annals of Philosophy,’ a scientific journal, which he edited 
till the year 1822, when he resigned it to his friend Mr. Richard Phillips. 
In 1827 this journal became merged in the ‘ Philosophical Magazine.’ 
In 1817 he was elected lecturer on chemistry in the University of 
Glasgow, and the following year received the title of professor. This 
chair he held till his death, assisted in his later years by his nephew ~ 
and son-in-law Dr. R. D. Thomson. In 1835 he published a work, 
entitled ‘Outlines of Mineralogy, Geology, and Mineral Analysis,’ 
and in 1849 a work on ‘ Brewing and Distillation.’ He died on the 
2nd of July 1852. Husson, Dr. Thomas Thomson, is celebrated for 
his botanical knowledge; he has published an account of his travels 
in Thibet, and is now the superintendent of the East India Company’s 
botanic gardens at Calcutta. 

* THORBURN, ROBERT, A.R.A., was born at Dumfries, Scotland, 
in 1818, and entered in 1833 as a student in the Scottish Academy, 
Edinburgh, where he gained the highest honours, Having chosen 
miniature-painting as his special province, he in 1836 came to London, 
and quickly succeeded in securing a considerable measure of patronage 
among the leading members of the court and aristocracy. He has 
adopted a largeness of size as well as of style unusual with miniature- 
painters, and he has endeavoured to superadd something of the depth 
of tone and breadth of chiaroscuro usually found only in oil-paintings 
to the brilliancy and transparency belonging to painting on ivory. 
He has succeeded to a great extent in raising the style of painting on 
ivory; but under his hands, and still more in the hands of his imitators, 
the miniature has lost something of the gaiety which seems essential 
to that class of paintings. Mr. Thorburn’s likenesses are usually good 
and characteristic, but there may often be seen a too evident attempt 
to impart historical elevation to the countenances and figures of his 
sitters, and this is sometimes sought to be increased by the adaptation 
of the forms and arrangement of well-known compositions of the great 
Italian masters. For many years, from the rank or eminence of his 


THORDO, 


15 


THORILD, THOMAS. 16 


sitters, and the size and beauty of his paintings, his miniatures have 
been among the most attractive of those annually exhibited in the 
rooms of the Royal Academy. The Queen, the Prince Consort, and 
several of the royal children, many members of the royal families of 
France, Belgium, and Germany, with an almost endless array of the 
female aristocracy of England, have been painted by him, and seldom 
indeed have female loveliness and dignity been more happily por- 
trayed. Mr, Thorburn was elected an associate of the Royal Academy 
in 1848, immediately after he exhibited his large miniature of ‘ the 
Queen and the Princess Helena and Prince Alfred,’ 

THORDO is the Latinised name of a celebrated Danish lawyer, 
whose real name was THORD, or, more completely, Taorp DrcGun. 
He lived in the reign of Waldemar III., king of Denmark, and was 
descended from an ancient family of that country. Concerning his 
life, little is known beyond the fact that he was chief judge of the 
province of Jiitland. His name has come down to us through a 
collection of Danish laws which he formed into a kind of code. It 
contains the earliest Danish laws, to which no historical origin can be 
assigned, as well as the subsequent laws which were passed between 
the years 1200 and 1377 by the Danish parliament, and sanctioned by 
the kings. They are not arranged in chronological order, but sys- 
tematically, and comprise civil as well as constitutional laws. They 
are of very great value to the student of the social and political 
history of Denmark. Danish editions of this small code appeared at 
Ripen, 4to, 1504, and at Copenhagen, 4to, 1508. Ludewig, in his 
*Reliquis Manuscriptorum omnis «vi diplomatum ac momentorum 
ineditorum,’ vol. xii, pp.’ 166-216, has published a Latin transla- 
tion of this code of laws. In the title to them Thordo calls himself 
“Thordo legifer Dacie,” where Dacie must mean Dani, that is, 
Denmark. 

THORDSON, STURLA, belonged to the celebrated Icelandic family 
of the Sturla; his name Thordson indicates that he was a son of 
Thordo. He was a nephew of Snorri Sturluson, and born about A.D. 
1218. Beinga man of high rank and great knowledge, he was appointed 
to the most important offices by the Danish kings Hacon and Magnus, 
and it was at their command that he wrote the history of Iceland, 
Denmark, and Norway, from the time when the work of Snorri Stur- 
luson broke off. ‘his history bears the title of ‘Historia Sturlungo- 
rum,’ but the work which is now extant under that name is only an 
abridgment of the original history, and the latter part is altogether 
lost. The substance of the work is given in Torfaeus, ‘ Historia 
Rerum Norvegicarum,’ who, in his Prolegomena, also gives an account 
of the ‘ Historia Sturlungorum.’ Thordson died in 1288, at the age of 
seventy. 

THORER, ALBAN. [Tortnus, ALBANvS.] 

THORESBY, RALPH, a virtuoso and antiquary, and an early 
Fellow of the Royal Society, was the son of a merchant of Leeds, and 
born in that town in 1658. He had his early education in the Leeds 
grammar-school, but, being intended by his father for commercial life, 
he did not pass to any of the higher seats of learning. He had how- 
ever what may be called a liberal commercial education, being sent by 
his father to Holland for the purpose of becoming acquainted with the 
mode of conducting business in that country, and of acquiring the 
modern languages; and afterwards to London for a similar purpose. 
He settled in his native town, where his family was connected with 
some of the principal persons who then formed the society of Leeds, 
and where he had a business prepared for him, which had been 
successfully conducted by his father, who died when the son was just 
twenty-one. 

Thoresby possessed from a very early period of life an eager curiosity 
. respecting the things and persons around him which presented any 
features of historical interest, and a desire of collecting objects of 
curiosity, natural or artificial His father had something of the 
same taste, having purchased the coliection of coins and medals 
which had been formed by the family of Lord Fairfax, the parlia- 
mentary general, and this collection was the basis of the museum 
formed in a few years by the son. This museum was a means of 
bringing him acquainted with all the celebrated antiquaries and 
naturalists of the time, and was a perpetual attraction to persons of 
curiosity, who often visited Leeds for no other purpose than to see it. 
It is not too much to say of it that it was the best museum that had 
been formed in England by a gentleman of private and rather small 
fortune; containing, it is true, some things which would now be 
esteemed of not the smallest value, but also many objects of very 
high value, especially in the two grand departments of manuscripts 
and coins. As he advanced in life, the curiosity which had at first 
been directed upon the objects more immediately around him became 
expanded so as to comprehend objects of more general interest, and 
in fact the whole range of what is generally understood to be com- 
prehended in the term -antiquarian literature. In the department of 
natural history he was also not merely a collector, but an observer, and 
he made many communications, esteemed of value, to his private 
friends or to the Royal Society. 

With this turn of mind, it will hardly be supposed that he was 
very successful in his mercantile affairs, He had however the good 
sense to withdraw from business before his fortune was entirely lost 
to him, and about the forty-sixth year of his age he seems to have 
wholly retired from it, and to have formed the determination of living 


on the little income which the portion of his property that remained 
would afford him. cn 

Besides amassing such manuscript matter as he could by any means 
become possessed of, he was himself a laborious transcriber, and was 
also accustomed to commit to writing notes of things which he 
observed, or information collected from his friends or the old people 
of his time. When released from the cares of business, he had lei 
to make use of these notes, and he entered upon the preparation for 
the press of two works, which it was intended by him should contain 
all that he had gathered in what had been from the first his favourite 
subject, the illustration of the history, and whatever belonged to it, 
of his native town. One of them was to be in the form of a topo- 
graphical survey of the whole of the large parish of Leeds, and of a 
few of the smaller parishes which are supposed to have been com- 
prehended under the very ancient local term ‘Elmete:’ the other, a 
history of the various transactions of which that district had been the 
scene, of its more eminent inhabitants, of the public benefactors, and 
of the changes which had taken place in the state or fortunes of its 
inhabitants. The first of these designs only was accomplished. The 
work appeared in a folio volume in 1715, under the title of ‘ Ducatus 
Leodiensis, or the Topography of the Town and Parish of Leeds,’ 
This work leaves little for the inhabitants of the town to desire in 
this kind, except that he had prepared the ‘historical part’ also, to 
which the author is perpetually referring the reader. The work is more 
than its title promises, since it contains a large body of genealogical 
information, comprehending the descents of nearly all the families of 
consequence who inhabited the central parts of the West Riding. There 
is also a very large descriptive catalogue of the treasures deposited in 
his museum. 

The ‘Ducatus’ is the principal literary work for which we are 
indebted to him, As a kind of supplement to it, he published, in 
1724, a history of the Church of Leeds, under the title ‘ Vicaria Leo- 
diensis,’ which, like his former work, has many things not strictly 
belonging to his subject, but in themselves valuable. A new edition 
of the ‘ Ducatus,’ containing also all the matter of the ‘ Viearia ’ which 
properly belonged to Leeds, was published by Thomas Dunham 
Whitaker, LL.D., in 1816. The writings of Bishop Nicolson, Bishop 
Gibson, Obadiah Walker, Calamy, Strype, Hearne, and many other 
persons, show how willing Thoresby was to-give assistance to any of 
his literary friends in their various publications. He died in 1726, 

Thoresby kept during the greater part of his life an exact diary of 
each day’s occurrences. Large extracts from the portions which 
remain of it were published in two octavo volumes in 1830, and two 
more volumes were published at the same time of selections from the 
letters of his various friends; these were published under the care of 
Mr. Hunter. They exhibit the peculiar features of a somewhat remark- 
able character, and the particular incidents of his life. An ample 
account of Thoresby may be found in the ‘ Biographia Britannica,’ and 
another prefixed to Dr. Whitaker’s edition of his topographical work. 

THORILD, THOMAS, an eccentric Swedish poet and political 
speculator, the author of several works not only in Swedish but in 
English and German, to some of which his countrymen ascribe a high 
value, was born on the 18th of April 1759, in the parish of Svarteborg 
in Bohusliin. His father’s name was Thorén, which the son, after 
bearing for some time, changed to that of Thorild, for what reason is 
not apparent. After studying at Lund he took up his residence in 
Stockholm, and his first work ‘ Passionerna,’ an Ode on the Passions, 
was criticised with some severity by Kellgren (KELLGREN), and in con- 
sequence a lengthy paper war took place between the two which 
brought Thorild’s name into notice. In 1786 he addressed a pair 
of memorials, one to the king, the other to the people, in favour of 
liberty of the press, and was so disgusted at the little effect they 
produced, that for that and other reasons he determined to transfer 
himself to England. ‘“ England,” he declared, “ was the fatherland of 
his soul, he was born for it, if not init.” Before going however, he 
wished to obtain the degree of doctor at the University of Upsal, with 
the view of inspiring more respect. His public disputation for a 
degree on the 22nd of March 1788 was the most remarkable ever 
known at that university. The king, Gustavus IIL, and all his court 
were present, and among the opponents of Thorild on his theme, 
which was ‘A Criticism on Montesquieu,’ were fifteen of the courtiers, 
one of whom was the minister Schroderheim, another the poet 
Leopold, at that time the leading poet of Sweden. The king was, it is 
said, struck with admiration at the talents of Thorild, and testified a 
desire to take him under his patronage; but much of this rests on 
Thorild’s own testimony, and he was throughout life remarkable for 
inordinate self-conceit. If an offer was really made it did not prevent 
him from coming to England. His object in doing so, as appears 
from some private letters to his patron Tham, a dry antiquary, 
who supplied him with money, was to effect a ‘ World Revo- 
lution.” “To understand and to act were,” Thorild said, “the two 
great attributes of humanity. He who excels in one is called a 
Genius, in the other a Hero. The legislative power ought to be in the 
possession of Genius, and as mankind requires an armed executive 
also, that power ought to be in the possession of Heroes. Scoundrels 
—that is, kings, ministers, and priests—should receive a warning, and 
if any did not attend to it, the sentence should then be passed on 
them—‘Feriendus’ (To be Struck).” “This is a hero-worship,” says 


THORKELIN, GRIM JONSSON. 


17 


THORLAKSSON, JON. 1g 


Pamblad, in his Swedish biography of Thorild, “resembling that of 
Thomas Carlyle, who in mind is near akin to Thorild.” The ideas 
however of Thorild, which include, among other things, the destruc- 
tion by fire of all great cities, as “nests of folly and tyranny,” have a 
far more striking resemblance to those of the wildest of the French 
revolutionists, which they have the merit, such as it is, of anticipating. 


It was in September 1788 that Thorild came to England, where: he 
remained a year and a half, so that he must have been in London at 


the time of the outbreak of-the French revolution, yet he seems to 
have made no movement to transfer himself to Paris. At first he was 


delighted with England, and wrote from Scarborough, “ Almost every- 


thing here is of its kind the best I have seen, the beer, the theatre, the 
letters, the sermons.” As might be expected his opinions soon changed, 
and for the rest of his life he wrote of the country with great con- 
tempt. “The whole government of England,” he told Tham in 1790, 
‘*is a balance of violence and justice, of sense and nonsense, of truth 
and falsehood, which is indeed necessary in the idea of a balance.” 
While here he published two pamphlets in English, ‘The Sermon of 
Sermons on the Impiety of Priests and the Fall of Religion,’ London, 
1789; and ‘Pure Heavenly Religion restored,’ London, 1790; the 
one an attack on religion in general, the other, not very consistently, 


* a defence of the doctrines of Swedenbérg. _ Both of them fell still-born 


from the press. Some others, ‘On the Dignity of a free Death, with a 
view to state that grand right of man, by a Druid,’ and ‘The Royal 
Moon, or on Insanity in Politics,’ appear not to have been printed, 


and ‘ Cromwell, a sketch of an epic poem,’ was left unfinished, but was 


afterwards printed in Sweden by Geijer. It begins— 


* Great is the man I sing, and bold my theme, 


_A dread to feeble souls as lightning’s gleam 
In midnight, or loud thunderings’ solemn roar,”” 


and shows, amid occasional incorrectness, a power over English poetical 
language very rarely attained by a foreigner. Cromwell was Thorild’s 
favourite hero—another point of resemblance to Carlyle. The Swede, 
as might be anticipated, hailed with delight the outbreak of the 
French revolution, though, as we have seen, he kept at a safe distance 
from it. He continued to express his warm admiration of its progress, 
and his detestation of those who thought otherwise, for some years, till 
he was suddenly converted to an anti-revolutionist by the Reign of 
Terror. On his return to Sweden in 1790 he resumed his literary 
labours, and not long afier the death of Gustavus III., who was always 
his admirer, issued a new edition of a former publication, an ‘Essay 
on the Freedom of the Public Mind, with a dedication to the Duke 
of Sudermania, then regent, afterwards Charles XIII., in which these 
words occurred, “Give us then the freedom of the public mind, 
honestly and fairly, before it is taken with blood and violence.” For 
this passage and some others of similar tendency Thorild was brought 
to trial on a capital charge, but was finally only sentenced to four 
years’ banishment. This trial, which terminated in February 1739, 
was at once the most conspicuous and the most honourable incident in 
Thorild’s life, he showed great coolness during its progress, and wrote 
a series of poems in prison, He removed to Greifswald, then part of 
Swedish Pomerania, and before his years of banishment were over, 
was appointed by the Swedish government librarian of the university 
there, and afterwards a professor. The rest of his life was spent 
quietly at Greifswald, where he died on the Ist of October 1808, 

A collection of the works of Thorild, ‘Thomas Thorild’s Simlade 
Skrifter’ was published in 8 vols. at Upsal and Stockholm, between 
1819 and 1824, under the editorship of Geijer, who took the objection- 
able liberty of leaving out such passages as he thought ought not to have 
been written. One volume consists of poems, the two others of 
literary criticism and essays on general subjects. As a literary critic 
the most striking peculiarity of Thorild was his boundless admiration 
of Ossian. Those who feel a curiosity as to his philosophical opinions 
in general, may find ample information in the ‘Svenskt Pantheon,’ 
and in Atterbom’s ‘Svenska Siare och Skalder’ (Swedish Seers and 
Bards). While at Greifswald he became the friend of Herder, the 
German philosopher, whose works were left to him to edit. 

THORKELIN, GRIM JONSSON, a learned Icelander, was born in 
1749, according to a life in the ‘Monthly Magazine’ for 1803, in 
1750, according to Jens Worm, and on the 8th of October 1752, 
according to Erslew, who refers to the accounts in the ‘ Monthly 
Magazine,’ and Worm, as “autobiographies of Thorkelin.” Many 
similar discrepancies occur in the accounts of other circumstances of 
his early life, but they are hardiy worth the trouble of pointing out. 
According to a rescript of the King of Denmark, issued in 1759, one 
of the best scholars in Iceland was to be selected every year to be sent 
to Denmark, and educated at the public expense, and the choice of 
Bishop Finn Jonsson [Jonsson] fell in 1770 upon Thorkelin. As his 
chest was too weak to allow him to become a preacher, he took to the 
study of law, and combined with it that of antiquities. He soon dis- 
tinguished himself by the publication of several Icelandic works 
which he edited, among others of the ‘ Eyrbiggia-Saga,’ of which an 
abstract was afterwards published by Walter Scott. He obtained 
various posts in connection with the Arna-Magnezan Commission, the 
Secret Archives, and other learned establishments of Copenhagen ; 
received in 1783 the title of Professor Extraordinary, and in 1786 he 
was sent to England, mainly at the King of Denmark's expense, on a 

BIOG, DIV, VOL. VI. 


tour of antiquarian research, which was to last for four years, and 
ultimately extended to five. In England he made himself acquainted 
with many of the distinguished literary men of the time, Pinkerton 
Horace Walpole, and Macpherson, the translator of ‘ Ossian’ included. 
He was presented to King George III., and at his desire, made a 
selection of Danish literature for the library then at Buckingham 
House, now in the British Museum. The 389th volume in the manu- 
scripts of that library is a ‘Catalogue consisting of 2085 books relative 
to the Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, and Icelandic Literature and 
Philosophy, written by the natives, and published within the borders 
of Scandinavia, A collection made for purpose [on purpose (?) or for a 
purpose (?)] during a time of more than twenty years.’ Both the col- 
lection and catalogue were made by Thorkelin, and most of the books 
were acquired for the royal library. He made a tour in Ireland, and 
also a tour on the Scottish coast, of which he published an account in 
English in 1790, in some letters to the ‘ Public Advertiser.’ This was 
not his only contribution to English literature. In 1788 he published 
an ‘ Essay on the Slave Trade,’ and also ‘ Fragments of English and Irish 
history in the ninth and tenth century, translated from the original 
Icelandic, and illustrated with some notes,’ the latter work forming the 
48th number of Nichols’s ‘ Bibliotheca Topographica Britannica,’ The 
selections from the Icelandic sagas are interesting, but the translation 
is far from clear, and is vague and inflated in style. Another English 
work by Thorkelin which ran to a second edition, a ‘ Sketch of the 
character of his royal highness the Prince of Denmark, to which is 
added a short view of the present state of literature and the polite 
arts in that country,’ London, 1791, was translated into Danish, and 
led to a paper war with other Danish writers, who complained of 
some of its statements. The mostimportant result of Thorkelin’s visit 
to England however was the copy that he took of an ancient Anglo- 
Saxon poem in the Cottonian library, to which attention had been 
called nearly a hundred years before, in Wanley’s ‘Catalogue,’ 
published in Hickes’s ‘Thesaurus,’ but which had remained all the 
time unedited by the learned of Britain. When in 1791 he re- 
turned to Denmark on his nomination as Geheime-Archivarius, or 
Keeper of the Secret Archives, it seems to have been his intention to 
publish this work without delay, but his biographer in the ‘ Monthly 
Magazine’ for 1803, concludes his narrative by the statement that 
* in the course of a year after his return, he married a rich widow in 
the brewing line, which he conducts at this day,” and business seems 
to have interfered with literature. Thorkelin had however prepared 
it for publication at the time of the unexpected attack on Copenhagen, 
in 1807, when his translation of the poem perished with his house and 
library under the English bombardment. He was encouraged to take 
up the work again by Counsellor von Biilow, and finally the poem and 
translation were published together in one quarto volume at Copen- 
hagen in 1815, at von Biilow’s expense, under the singular title of 
‘ De Danorum Rebus Gestis Secul. IIT., LV., Poema Danicum Dialecto 
Anglo-Saxonica.’ This is the poem which has since become so cele- 
brated under the name of ‘ Beowulf.’ It will be seen that in the title 
Thorkelin calls it a Danish poem in the Anglo-Saxon dialect, and in 
his preface his language would lead a reader to conclude that the 
poem was in Icelandic. What he can have meant by this it is not 
easy to say, but the only merit of his edition is that of having called 
attention to this very interesting relic of ancient literature. “Iam 
most reluctantly compelled to state,” says Kemble in his edition of 
Beowulf (London, 1833), “that not five lines of Thorkelin’s edition can 
be found in succession in which some gross fault either in the tran- 
script or the translation does not betray the editor’s utter ignorance 
of the Anglo-Saxon language.” Thorkelin died on the 4th of March 
1829, at Copenhagen, after long suffering from ill-health. A full and 
accurate list of his works is given in Erslew’s ‘ Forfalter Lexikon.’ 
Among them we find a “Proof that the Irish at the time of the 
Eastmen’s arrival in Ireland in the 8th century, deserve a distin- 
guished place among the most enlightened nations of Europe at that 
period,” written in Danish, and published in the Transactions of the 
Royal Society for the Sciences in 1794. 

THORLAKSSON, JON, the Icelandic translator of ‘Paradise Lost,’ 
was born on the 13th of December 1744, at Selardal, near Arnarfjord, 
the son of a priest who was afterwards dismissed from the priesthood. 
Thorlaksson himself incurred a similar punishment in 1772; a second 
bastard child having been sworn to him he was dismissed from being 
priest of Grunnarik, and deprived of holy orders. Fortunately for 
him, Olaf Olafsson obtained in the following year from the king of 
Denmark the privilege of establishing a printing-office at Hrappsey in 
Iceland, and Thorlaksson, who would otherwise probably have been 
reduced to starvation, procured employment as corrector of the press. 
Though he had never left his native island, he had received a good 
classical education during three years spent at the school of Skalholt, 
then the Icelandic capital; and he assisted in translating into Latin 
the Annals of Biorn of Skardsé, perhaps the most distinguished pro- 
duction of the Hrappsey press. His learning won him favour: he 
married the daughter of a peasant, who was partner with Olafsson in 
the printing-office, and in 1780 he was restored to the priesthood, but 
with the reservation that he was never to officiate in the diocese of 
Skalholt. It was eight years later before he was presented to the 
living of Boegisa in the north of Iceland, the value of which was some- 
what under seven pounds sterling a year, and reduced by his having 

Cc 


19 THORNHILL, SIR JAMES. 


THORNHILL, SIR JAMES. 20 


to pay a curate, The north of Iceland is still more uncultivated than 
the other parts of the island. His wife refused to accompany him to 
his living, and died, separated from him, in 1808, In 1791 Halldor 


Hjallmarsson, one of his parishioners, wrote to the Icelandic Literary 


Society to say, that having acquired the year before a Danish trans- 
lation of ‘ Paradise Lost, he had put it into the hands of a “‘ gifted 
friend,” who had turned into Icelandic some specimens which he sub- 
mitted to their notice. The translation was so remarkably excellent, 
that the society, on learning from whom it came, elected Thorlaksson an 
honorary member, and undertook to supply him with a set of their 
works, on condition of his supplying them with a translation of one 
book of the poem every year. Before they had published three books 
however the society itself came to a stop for want of funds, and Thor- 
laksson completed his translation in manuscript. The fame of it was 
spread widely by the English travellers who came to Iceland, espe- 
cially Sir George Mackenzie and the Rev. Ebenezer Henderson; but 
Thorlaksson’s desire to see it in print was never gratified in his life- 
time. One of his poems, some verses addressed to the British and 
Foreign Bible Society on the occasion of their publishing an Icelandic 
Bible, having been inserted in their Reports, had a very wide circu- 
lation, and was even reprinted at Calcutta. Henderson, who visited 
him at Beegisa in 1814, and who was the first Englishman he had ever 
seen, found the old man of seventy out in the fields, assisting in hay- 
making, and accompanied him home to g house of which he gives an 
interesting description :—‘‘The door is not quite four feet in height, 
and the room may be about eight feet in length by six in breadth. At 
the inner end is the poet’s bed, and close to the door over against a 
small window not exceeding two feet square is.a table where he com- 
mits to paper the effusions of his muse.” In this cottage Thorlaksson 
died on the 21st of October 1819, at the age of seventy-four. He had 
received not long before a subscription of 302., collected by Henderson 
from friends and admirers in England, and the King of Denmark had 
conferred upon him a pension of about 62. a year. 

The collected poems of Thorlaksson fill about 1100 pages in the 
‘Islenzk Liddabok Jons Thorlakssonar prests ad Beogisa,’ 2 vols. 
Copenhagen, 1842-43. .These volumes comprise all his shorter poems, 
composed from the age of twelve to over seventy, gathered from 
seven Icelandic periodicals in which they had appeared, and several 
translations, among others one of Pope’s ‘ Essay on Man,’ rendered 
through the Danish, which had been printed at Leyra in Iceland in 
1798. The fame of Thorlaksson rests however on his version of 
* Paradise Lost.’ That this, in the shape in which he gives it, is a fine 
Icelandic poem, is established by the testimony of all Icelanders. Its 
value as a correct representation of the original is less clear. The 
versification adopted, the‘ fornyrda-lag,’ or ‘ antique verse’ of Iceland, 
with short lines and alliterative correspondences, is as different as 
possible from the blank verse of Milton, being in fact very nearly 
the metre of Piers Plowman. The translation is made from two 
versions, one in Danish, the other in German, and Thorlaksson, it 
is said, had never even seen the original. When, at the outset of 
his task, the Icelandic Literary Society offered to send him a copy, 
together with a German translation, he accepted the offer of the 
German with thanks, but remarked, “ with the English original I can 
have little to do, though once, in my early years, I had some acquaint- 
ance with easy English prose.” The translation is about twice the 
length of the original, from the necessity of explaining to the com- 
mon Icelandic reader not only the classical allusions with which 
Milton abounds, but even various allusions which to an Englishman 
need no explanation, Finn Magnusson, himself an Icelander, in a 
review of the poem, observes that the passage in the description of 
Paradise, “ fruit with golden rind,” bas been rendered by Thorlaksson, 
“med gyllnum nyttum” (with golden nuts), probably from his having 
no notion of rind; having never seen an apple or any fruit that had 
any. The ‘Paradise Lost’ was finally printed at Copenhagen in 1828, 
at the expense of an English gentleman named Heath, who presented 
most of the copies to the Icelandic Literary Society. The society sold 
them in Iceland at a very low price, and it is now a household book in 
“many of the poorest cottages. A translation of Klopstock’s ‘Messiah’ 
et SA pon wee Baoted by rip society itself in 1834-38; but it was 

he work of his old age, and seems to be i 
inferior to the Milton, brane Sa hot ah 

THORNHILL, SIR JAMES, an eminent painter during the reigns 
of Queen Anne and George I, and, says Walpole, “a man of much 
note in his time, who succeeded Verrio, and was the rival of Laguerre 
in the decorations of our palaces and public buildings,” was descended 
of a very ancient family in Dorsetshire, and was born at Weymouth 
in 1676. Through the extravagance of his father, who disposed of 
the family estate, Thornhill was compelled to support himself by his 
own exertions. He adopted the profession of a painter, and, by the 
liberality of an uncle, Dr. Sydenham, the eminent physician, he was 
enabled to pursue his studies in London, where he placed himself 
with a painter, whose name is not known, with whom however he did 
not remain long. Thornhill appears to have made rapid progress in 
the public favour, for in his fortieth year, when he made a tour 
through Flanders, Holland, and France, he was sufficiently wealthy to 
purchase many valuable pictures of the old masters and others, 
Upon his return he received the commission from Queen Anne to 
paint the interior of the cupola of St. Paul’s cathedral, in which he 


executed eight pictures illustrating the history of St. Paul, painted in 
chiaroscuro, with the lights hatched in gold: for this work he was 
appointed historical painter to the queen, yet was paid only forty 
shillings the square yard for his production. Thornhill’s reputation 
was now established, and, through the favour of the Earl of Halifax, 
he received the commission to paint the princess's apartment at 
Hampton Court, which the lord chamberlain, the Duke of Shrews- 
bury, had intended should be painted by Sebastiano Ricci, then in 
great favour with the court in England; but the Earl of Halifax, who 
was then first commissioner of the treasury, declared that if Ricci 
painted it he would not pay him. Sir James executed many other 
great works, as the staircase, the gallery, and several ceilings in the 
palace at Kensington, a hall at Blenheim, the chapel at Lord Oxford's 
at Wimpole in Cambridgeshire, a saloon for Mr, Styles at Moor Park 
in Hertfordshire, and the ceiling of the great hall at Greenwich Hospi- 
tal. Sir James commenced the last work in 1703, and was occupied 
upon it for several subsequent years, but it was not entirely painted 
by his own hands. The paintings are allegorical: on the ceiling of 
the lower hall, which is 112 feet by 56, are represented the founders 
of the institution, William III. and Queen Mary, in the centre, sur- 
rounded by the attributes of national prosperity ; in the other com- 
partments are figures which represent the zodiac, the four seasons 
and the four elements, with naval trophies and emblems of science, 
among which are introduced the portraits of famous mathemati- 
cians who have advanced the science of navigation, as Tycho Brahé, 
Copernicus, Newton, and others. On the ceiling of the upper hall 
are represented Queen Anne and her husband Prince George of Den- 
mark ; other figures represent the four quarters of the world; on the 
side walls of the same apartment are the landing of William IIL. at 
Torbay, and -the arrival of George I, at Greenwich ; on the end wall 
facing the entrance are portrait groups of George I. and two genera- 
tions of his family, with accessories, and Sir James Thornhill’s own 
portrait. These works, which are executed in oil, have little to recom- 
mend them besides their vastness; yet in invention and ent 
they are equal to the majority of such works in the great buildings on the 
continent : in design and colouring however they are perhaps inferior. 
Walpole has preserved some interesting details respecting the remu- 
neration Thornhill received for some of his works: he says, “ High 
as his reputation was, and laborious as his works, he was far from 
being generously rewarded for some of them, and for others he found 
it difficult to obtain the stipulated prices. His demands were con- 
tested at Greenwich; and though La Fosse received 2000/. for his 
work at Montague House, and was allowed 500J. for his diet besides, 
Sir James could obtain but forty shillings a square yard for the cupola 
of St. Paul’s, and I think no more for Greenwich. When the affairs 
of the South Sea Company were made up, Thornhill, who had painted 
their staircase and a little hall, by order of Mr. Knight, their cashier, 
demanded 1500/., but the directors learning that he had been paid but 
twenty-five shillings a yard for the hall at Blenheim, they would 
allow no more, He had a longer contest with Mr. Styles, who had 
agreed to give him 3500/,, but, not being satisfied with the execution, 
a lawsuit was commenced, and Dahl, Richardson, and others were 
appointed to inspect the work. They appeared in court bearing testi- 
mony to the mérit of the performance; Mr. Styles was condemned to 
pay the money, and, by their arbitration, 500/. more, for decorations 
about the house, and for Thornhill’s acting as surveyor of the build- 
ing.” Thornhill obtained permission. through the Earl of Halifax, to 
copy the Cartoons of Raffaelle at Hampton Court, upon which he 
bestowed three years’ labour; he made also a smaller set, one-fourth 
the size of the originals, and distinct studies of the heads, hands, and 
feet, intending to publish an exact account of the whole for the use of 
students, but the work never appeared. These two sets of the 
Cartoons were sold the year after his death, with his collection of 
pictures, among which were a few capital specimens of the great 
masters: the smaller set sold for seventy-five guineas, the “— for 
2001. only, a price, says Walpole, which can have been owing solely to 
the circumstance of few persons having spaces in their houses large 
enough to receive them, They were purchased by the Duke of 
Bedford, and were placed in his gallery at Bedford House in Blooms- 
bury Square, where they remained until that house was pulled down, 
when they were presented by the owner to the Royal Academy. 
Thornhill painted also several portraits and some altar-pieces: he 
painted the altar-piece of the chapel of All Souls at Oxford: and one 
which he presented to the church ‘of his native town, Weymouth. 
There is also at Oxford, according to Dallaway, a good portrait of Sir 
Christopher Wren by Thornhill; and in the hall of Greenwich 
Hospital there is by him the portrait of John Worley, in his ninety- 
eighth year, one of the first pensioners admitted into the hospital; it 
is painted in a bold eareless style, and was presented to the hospital 
by Thornhill himself. In 1724 he opened an academy for drawing at 
his house in Covent Garden. He had previously proposed to the Karl 
of Halifax the foundation of a Royal Academy of the Arts, with 
apartments for professors, but without result: Sir James estimated 
the cost at 3189/.; for, amongst his other occupations, he occasionall 
‘dabbled’ in architecture. At the end of his life he was afflicted wi 
the gout, and in the spring of 1734 he retired to his paternal seat at 
Thornhill, near Weymouth, which he had the satisfaction of Shed 
ing; but his period of repose was extremely short, for, says Walpole, 


21 ’ THORNTON, BONNELL. 


THORWALDSEN, BERTEL, 


22 


(‘ Anecdotes of agg, Ye England’) “ four days after his arrival, he 
expired in his chair, May 4, 1734, aged fifty-seven, leaving one son 
named James, whom he had procured to be appointed serjeant-painter 
and painter to the navy; and one daughter, married to that original 
and unequalled genius, Hogarth.” 

Sir James Thornhill amassed considerable property, was a man of 

ble manners, was a Fellow of the Royal Society, and represented 
ts native town, Weymouth, in parliament for several years until his 
death. He was knighted by, George I.: his widow, Lady Thornhill, 
died at Chiswick in 1757. 

THORNTON, BONNELL, was born in London, in the year 1724. 
He was educated at Westminster School, and at Christchurch, Oxford. 
In compliance with the wish of his father, who was an apothecary in 

‘Maiden-lane, he studied medicine, but he seems not to have liked the 
rofession, and left it for literature. George Colman the Elder was 
is fellow-student both at Westminster School and at Christchurch, 

though about nine years younger than Thornton. Similarity of taste 
led to friendship, and they commenced in conjunctiori the series of 
odical essays called ‘The Connoisseur,’ which was continued froin 
anuary 31, 1754, till September 30,1756. The papers are chiefly of a 

humorous character, and the wit and shrewd observation of life which 
they display well entitle them \to the place which they still retain 
among the works of British Essayists. Thornton contributed largely to 
‘The St. James’s Chronicle,’ of which he was one of the original pro- 
prietors a with Colman ; ‘The Public Advertiser,’ and started a 
periodical called ‘Have at ye all, or the Drury Lane Journal,’ in rivalry 
of Fielding’s ‘Covent Garden Journal.’ He published separately ‘An 
Ode on St. Cecilia’s Day, adapted to the antient British music, viz. 
the salt-box, the Jews’-harp, the marrow-bones and cleavers, the hum- 
strum or hurdy-gurdy, &c., with an Introduction giving an account of 
those truly British instruments, 4to, London, 1762; and he carried 
out the jest. Dr. Burney having set the ode to music it was per- 
formed on the instruments named, at Ranelagh, to a crowded audi- 
tory. He was indeed singularly fond of these somewhat elaborate 
drolleries. He was one of the members of the famous Nonsense Club, 
and was the chief agent in getting up an exhibition of the London 
street signs in burlesque of the annual exhibition of the Royal 
Academy. Thornton opened his exhibition on the same day as that 
of the Royal Academy, describing it in the preliminary advertisement 
and in the catalogues (which exhibited genuine though somewhat 
broad humour) as ‘ The Exhibition of the Society of Sign Painters of 
all the curious signs to be met with in town or country, together with 
such original designs as might be transmitted to them as specimens of 
the native genius of the nation.’ Hogarth, who entered into the spirit 
of the fun, added to some of the signs a few touches to heighten the 
absurdity, and the exhibition proved remarkably attractive. 

In 1767, in conjunction with Colman and Richard Warner, he pub- 
lished two volumes of an English translation of Plautus, ‘The Comedies 
of Plautus, translated into familiar Blank Verse.’ Of the plays con- 
tained in these two volumes, Thornton translated ‘ Amphitryon,’ 
‘The Braggart Captain,’ ‘The Treasure,’ ‘The Miser,’ and ‘The 
Shipwreck ;’ ‘The Merchant’ was translated by Colman, and ‘The 
Captives’ by Warner. The rest of the plays were translated by 
Warner, and were published after Thornton’s death, in two additional 
volumes. Thornton’s translations are incomparably the best. In 
1768 Thornton published ‘The Battle of the Wigs, an additional 
Canto to Dr. Garth’s Poem of The Dispensary,’ 4to, London. 

Thornton, who appears to have injured his constitution by habitual 
indulgence in drinking, but who was of a thoroughly kind and gene- 
rous disposition, died May 9, 1768, at the age of forty-four. There is 
an inscription to his memory, by Thomas Warton, in the cloisters of 
Westminster Abbey. 

THORWALDSEN, BERTEL (ALBERT), was born November 19, 
1770, at Copenhagen. He was the son of Gottschalk Thorwaldsen, a 
carver in wood, and his wife Karen Grénlund, the daughter of a priest 
of Jiitland. Gottschalk was a native of Iceland, and was in very poor 
circumstances when his son Bertel was born. Bertel assisted his father 
in his work at a very early age, and when only eleven years old he 
attended the free school of the Academy of Arts at Copenhagen, and 
made such progress in two years that he was enabled to improve his 
father’s carvings; and himself undertook to execute the head-pieces 
of ships. At the age of seventeen he obtained the silver medal of the 
academy, for a bas-relief of Cupid reposing; and in 1791, when he 
was only twenty years of age, the small gold medal for a sketch of 
Heliodorus driven from the temple. ‘T'wo years later he obtained the 
principal gold medal of the academy, and with it the privilege of 
studying for three years abroad at the government expense. Before 
setting out however he devoted a year or two to preliminary general 
study, for scholarship was not one of his acquirements, and he had 
much to read and much to learn, On the 20th of May 1796, he set 
out for Italy in the Danish frigate Thetis, and he arrived at Naples in 
the end of January of the following year, in the packet-boat from 
Palermo. The Thetis cruised in the North Sea until September; in 
October it touched at Algiers; it then performed quarantine at Malta, 
made a voyage to Tripoli to protect Danish commerce, and performed 
quarantine a second time at Malta, when Thorwaldsen left it in a small 
sailing boat for Palermo, where he took the packet-boat to Naples. 

At Aragies, wholly unacquainted with the Italian language, and for 


the first time entirely separated from his own countrymen, Thor- 
waldsen’s heart failed him, and he longed to return to Denmark, which 
according to his own account he would have done if he had found a 
Danish vessel about to leave the port at the time. However, in a 
little time he found courage to engage a place in the coach of a 
vetturino for Rome, where he arrived March 8, 1797, 

Thorwaldsen brought letters of introduction to his distinguished 
countryman Zoéga, who however did not give the young sculptor 
much encouragement, nor did he estimate his ability very high. 
When Zoéga was once asked what he thought of him, three years after 
his arrival, he answered, with a shake of the head, “There is much 
to find fault with, little to be contented with, and he wants industry.” 
Up to this time Zoéga was right, except in the last particular. Thor- 
waldsen was industrious, but fastidious, and often destroyed what had 
cost him much labour. This was the fate of a statue of Jason with 
the Golden Fleece which he had modelled to take back with him to 
Copenhagen at the expiration of his term of three years allowed by 
the academy. He however made a second attempt at the same figure, 
and this statue satisfied even the difficult Zoéga, with whom Thor- 
waldsen was abotit to return to Denmark; and Canova exclaimed, 
* This work of the young Dane is in a new and grand style.” By the 
assistance of a Danish lady, Frederika Brun, who gave him the 
necessary funds, which he had not, and praised the statue in song, 
it was cast in plaster, and Thorwaldsen prepared for his return home : 
but when on the point of starting and about to step into the vehicle 
of the vetturino, one of his companions, the Prussian sculptor Hage- 
mann, found that his passport was not in order, and he was obliged 
to put off his journey until the next day. Thorwaldsen determined 
to wait with him, the vetturino started without them, this delay was 
followed by another, and it eventually happened that Thorwaldsen 
did not return to his native country until 1819, after an absence of 
twenty-three years. The liberality of Thomas Hope was the imme- 
diate cause of Thorwaldsen’s finally settling in Rome. The words of 
Canova upon the statue of Jason were repeated in the artistic circles 
of Rome, and echoed by the professional ciceroni of the place, One of 
these ciceroni took Mr. Thomas Hope in the year 1803 to the studio of 
the young Dane to see the statue which the great sculptor had praised. 
The English connoisseur stood long before the plaster figure, then 
inquired what Thorwaldsen required for a marble copy of it: “600 
ducats,” was the answer; “You shall have 800,” was the generous 
reply of the Englishman. 

From this time the star of Thorwaldsen was in the ascendant; the 
statue was however not finished until many years afterwards, but 
many celebrated works were done in the meanwhile; as the bas-reliefs 
of Summer and Autumn, and the dance of the Muses on Helicon; 
Cupid and Psyche; and Venus with the apple. His fame spread far 
and wide, and Christian VIII. (then crown-prince), of Denmark, wrote 
him a pressing invitation to return to Copenhagen, communicating at 
the same time the discovery of a white marble quarry in Norway. 
Thorwaldsen was eager to return, but commission upon commission 
rendered it difficult if not impossible, and he remained in the papal 
city. During this busy time Thorwaldsen recreated himself in the 
summer seasons at Leghorn, in the beautiful villa of Baron Schubart, 
the Danish minister at Florence: he executed also some of his works 
here. In 1812, when arrangements were making for Napoleon’s visit 
to Rome, the architect Stern, who superintended the preparations, 
happened to sit next to Thorwaldsen at one of the assemblies of the 
Academy of St. Luke, and asked him if he could get ready a plaster 
frieze for one of the large apartments of the Quirinal Palace, in three 
months. Thorwaldsen undertook the commission, and in three 
months the plaster sketch of his celebrated bas-relief of the Triumph 
of Alexander was completed. The immediate subject was Alexander's 
triumphal entry into Babylon: the length of the frieze is 160 Roman 
palms, its height five palms: it has been twice executed in marble, 
with slight variations, and is engraved in a series of plates by S. 
Amsler, of Munich, after drawings by Overbeck and others. In 1815 
Thorwaldsen modelled, in a single day, two of his most popular works, 
the bas-reliefs of Night and Day; but he had done nothing whatever 
for weeks and months before. 

In July 1819, he started in the company of two friends on his first 
visit to his native land, and he arrived at Copenhagen on the 3rd of 
October in the same year: his parents had died some years before. 
His fame was now so well established, that even through Italy and 
Germany his journey was a species of triumphal passage, and at its 
termination he was lodged in the palace of Charlottenburg and enter- 
tained with public feasts. In about a year he left Copenhagen and 
returned to Rome through Berlin, Dresden, and Warsaw, where he 
received several commissions, and made a bust of the Emperor 
Alexander, 

He executed his principal works after his return to Romo—as 
Christ and the Twelve Apostles; the group of St. John in the Wilder- 
ness; and the monuments to Copernicus, Pius VIL, Maximilian of 
Bavaria, the Poniatowski monument, and others. In 1823 he hada 
narrow escape of his life: a boy, the son of his landlady, contrived to 
get hold of one of his pistols, which he had carelessly hung up loaded ; 
the boy, ignorant of the danger, pointed it and discharged it at Thor- 
waldsen, but the ball, after grazing two of his fingers, lodged in his 
dress without doing him any further injury. 


23 THORWALDSEN, BERTEL, 


THOU, JACQUES-AUGUSTE DE, 


In 1838 the Christ, the St. John preaching, and the Apostles,—the 
principal works for the cathedral or church of Our Lady at Copen- 
hagen—and other works for the palace of Christiansburg, on which 
Thorwaldsen had been many years engaged, were completed, and the 
Danish government sent the frigate Rota to carry them and the 
sculptor to Copenhagen. Thorwaldsen was received with enthusiasm 
by his countrymen, He remained among them on this occasion 
about three years, and chiefly at Nysé, the seat of his friend the 
Baron Stampe, where a studio was built for him; and he finished 
here some of his last works—the frieze of the Procession to Golgotha, 
for the cathedral; the Entrance into Jerusalem; Rebecca at the 
Well; his own statue; and the busts of the poets Ochlenschliger and 
Holberg. 

In sil, finding the climate disagree with him, he felt compelled 
to return to Italy, and he executed at this time his group of the 
Graces for the King of Wiirtemburg. He returned however to Den- 
mark and Nysé in the following year, and executed two other works, 
bas-reliefs, which are among his last productions—Christmas Joy in 
Heaven ; and the Genius of Poetry, which he presented to his friend 
Oehlenschliiger. He intended to return to Rome in the summer of 
1844, but he died suddenly in the theatre of Copenhagen, on March 
24th, in that year, aged seventy-three: he died of disease of the heart. 
He lay in state in the Academy, and was buried with extraordinary 
ceremony beneath his own greatest productions in the cathedral 
church of Copenhagen. 

Thorwaldsen’s will bears much resemblance to Sir F, Chantrey’s : 
he bequeathed all works of art in his possession, including casts of his 
own works, to the city of Copenhagen, to form a distinct museum, 
which was to bear bis name, on the condition that the city furnished 
an appropriate building for their reception. This building was nearly 
completed before the death of Thorwaldsen; it now forms one of the 
prime attractions of the city. Besides casts of the numerous works 
of Thorwaldsen, which would alone constitute an imposing collection 
of its class, it contains many works of ancient and modern sculpture, 
numerous paintings by old and recent masters, casts, vases, engraved 
gems, cameos, terracottas, bronzes, medals, curiosities, engravings, 
prints of all descriptions, books on the fine arts, and drawings. With 
the exception of 12,000 dollars to each of bis grandchildren, and the 
life-interest of 40,000 dollars to their mother, Madame Poulsen, his 
natural daughter, to descend to her children, the whole of his personal 
estate was directed to be converted into capital, and to be added to 
the 25,000 dollars already presented for the purpose by Thorwaldsen, 
to form a museum perpetual fund, for the preservation of the museum 
and for the purchase of the works of Danish artists, for the encourage- 
ment of Danish art, and to add to the collections of the museum. 

Thorwaldsen is considered by his admirers the greatest of modern 
sculptors, and many have not hesitated to compare him with the 
antique. This is however hardly the rank he will hold with posterity; 
his style is uniform to monotony, though many individual figures are 
bold, solid, and of beautiful proportions. His beau-idéal appears to 
have been something between the Antinous and the Discobolus of 
Nancydes, as it is sometimes called; but as his subjects are seldom 
heroic, he seldom required more than a moderate expression of heroic 
vigour or robust strength and activity : in this respect, and in execu- 
tion generally, he was much surpassed by Canova; but still more 
so in the grace of the female form, in which Thorwaldsen certainly did 
not excel. His females are much too square in the frame, the head 
and shoulders being generally heavy; and in no instance do we find in 
his female figures, in full relief, that beautiful undulation of line and 
development of form characteristic of the female, which is displayed in 
the antique, in the works of Canova, and in those of some other 
modern sculptors; as, for instance, the Ariadne of Dannecker. Basso- 
rilievo was a favourite style with Thorwaldsen, and a great proportion 
of his works are executed in this style. Of this class some of his 
minor works are the most expressive; but the principal are—the 
Triumph of Alexander, and the Procession to Golgotha, which is 
the frieze of the cathedral church of Copenhagen, immediately below 
the numerous group of John preaching in the Wilderness, in fall 
relief, in the pediment : in the vestibule are the four great Prophets; 
Christ and the Twelve Apostles are above and around the altar. 
The Triumph of Alexander, of which there is a copy in marble in 
the palace of Christiansburg (the first marble copy was made for 
Count Somariva’s villa on the Lake of Como), is a long triumphal 
procession in two divisions, one meeting the other. In the centre, 
Alexander, in the chariot of Victory, and followed by his army, is met 
by the goddess of Peace, followed by Mazzeus and Bagophanes with 
presents for the conqueror. The subject is taken from the work of 
Quintus Curtius. Much of the frieze is symbolical; perspective is 
nowhere introduced. The whole arrangement is beautiful, especially 
that portion which comes from Babylon, comprising the General 
Mazzeus with his family; female figures strewing flowers; Bagophanes 
placing silver altars with burning incense, musicians, and attendants 
leading horses, sheep, wild animals, and other presents for the con- 
queror ; next to these are symbolic representations of the river Eu- 
phrates, and the peaceful occupations of the Babylonians. The human 
figures of this work are admirable, as is also the management of the 
costumes, but the horses are below mediocrity both in design and 
modelling, especially that of Alexander himself, Bucephalus, which is 


led following the chariot of Alexander; it is a complete distortion. 
None of the horses of Thorwaldsen are successful. The colossal 
animal of the Poniatowski monument at Warsaw, and that (of smaller 
proportions) of the monument to Maximilian of Bavaria at Munich, are 
heavy and graceless, and wanting in the finer characteristics of form 
which belong to the horse. 

Many years ago some admirers of Lord Byron raised a subscription 
for a monument to the poet, to be placed in Westminster Abbey. 
Chantrey was requested te execute it, but on account of the smallness" 
of the sum subscribed, he declined, and Thorwaldsen was then applied 
to, and cheerfully undertook the work. In about 1833 the finished 
statue arrived at the custom-house in London, but, to the astonishment 
of the subscribers, the Dean of Westminster, Dr. Ireland, declined to 
give permission to have it set up in the Abbey, and owing to this 
difficulty, which proved insurmountable, for Dr. Ireland’s successor 
was of the same opinion, it remained for upwards of twelve $ 
in the custom-house; when (1846) it was removed to the lib of 
Trinity College, Cambridge. The poet is represented of the size of 
life, seated ona ruin, with his left foot resting on the fragment of a 
column; in his right hand he holds a style up to his mouth; in his 
left is a book, inscribed ‘Childe Harold:’ he is dressed in a frock-coat 
and cloak. Beside him on the left is a skull, above which is the 
Athenian owl The execution is not of the highest order; both 
face and hands are squarely modelled; thus fineness of expression is 
precluded through want of elaboration. The likeness is of course 
posthumous. Some of the finest of Thorwaldsen’s imaginative works 
are in private collections in this country. At the Crystal palace, 
Sydenham, are casts of several of his most celebrated statues and bassi- 
rilievi, including his famous ‘ Triumph of Alexander,’ 

THOU, JACQUES-AUGUSTE DE (or, as he called himself in Latin, 
Jacobus Augustus Thuanus), was born at Paris, on the 8th of October 
1553: he was the third son of Christophe de Thou, first president of 
the parlement de Paris, and of his wife Jacqueline Tuellen de Celi. 
Besides their three sons and four daughters, who grew to be men and 
women, De Thou’s parents lost six children in infancy; and he him- 
self was so weak and sickly a child till he reached his fifth year, that 
he was not expected to live. In the exemption which this state 
of health procured him in his childhood and early boyhood from 
severer taskwork, he amused himself in cultivating a turn for drawing, 
which was hereditary in his family; and in this way, he tells us 
himself, he learned to write before he had learned to read. Although 
originally intended for the church, he went in his early studies the 
whole round of literature and science as then taught; and while yet 
only in his eighteenth year he had conceived from the perusal of 
some of his writings so great an admiration of the celebrated jurist 
Cujacius, that he proceeded to Valence in Dauphiné, and attended his 
lectures on Papinian. Here he met with Joseph Scaliger, with whom 
he contracted an intimate friendship, which was kept up for the 
thirty-eight remaining years that Scaliger lived. ; 

In 1572, after he had been a year at Valence, he was recalled home 
by his father; and he arrived in Paris in time to be present at the 
marriage of Henry, the young king of Navarre, and to witness the 
horrors of the massacre of St. Bartholomew which followed. He 
relates that he saw the dead body of Coligny hanging from the gibbet 
of Montmartre, The next year he embraced an opportunity of visiting 
Italy, in the suite of Paul de Foix, who was sent by Charles IX. on a 
mission to certain of the Italian courts; and he remained in that 
country till the death of Charles, in May, 1574, and the accession of 
Henry III., the news of which reached them at Rome, recalled De 
Foix home. In 1576 he made a journey to Flanders and Holland. 
In 1578 he succeeded Jean de la Garde, Sieur de Saigne, as one of the 
ecclesiastical counsellors of the parlement de Paris—an entrance into 
public life which, he says, he made with reluctance, as withdrawing 
him in part from the society of his books and the cultivation of 
literature, in which he would have been much better pleased to spend 
his days, The next year he lost his eldest brother; and from this 
time it began to be proposed that, for the better chance of continuing 
the family, his original destination should be changed, and that he 
should quit his ecclesiastical for a civil career. Some years elapsed 
however before this scheme was finally determined upon. Meanwhile — 
he continued to pursue his usual studies; and he states that he had 
already conceived the project of his great historical work, and began 
industriously to collect materials for it wherever he went. 

It was in the year 1582, while on a visit to Bordeaux, that he made 
the acquaintance of Montaigne, whose character as well as genius he 
has warmly eulogised. The same year his father died: and having 
also by this time lost his second brother, he, in 1584, resigned his 
rank as an ecclesiastical counsellor, and on the 10th of April was — 
appointed by the king to the office of master of requests, which then 
was wont to be held indifferently by ecclesiastics or laymen. Two 
years after he obtained the reversion of the place held by his uncle, of 
one of the présidents au mortier in the parlement de Paris; and in 
1587 he married Marie, daughter of Frangois Barbanson, Sieur de 
Cani. When, in the next year, in the increasing distractions of the 
state, Henry III. found himself obliged to leave Paris, De Thou, who, 
as well as his father and his brothers, adhered steadily throughout 
the troubles of the time to the royal party, accompanied his majesty 
o Normandy, and afterwards to Picardy, At Chartres, in August 1588, 


25 THOU, JACQUES-AUGUSTE DE. 


THOUARS, LOUIS-MARIE. 26 


he was admitted a councillor of state; and from this date he took a 
leading part in all the principal public transactions which followed. 
When the estates df the kingdom were.assembled at Blois, in October 
of this year, De Thou, as he tells, was there courted with much bland- 
ishment by the Duke of Quise, but steadily resisted the attempt to 
seduce him from his loyalty. He had left Blois and was in Paris 
when the news of the murders of the Duke of Guise and his brother 
the cardinal (on the 23rd and 24th of December) reached the capital ; 
and he had great difficulty in effecting his escape from the popular 
fury. He succeeded however in rejoining the king at Blois; and 
having soon after been despatched on a mission into Germany and 
Italy to raise succours of men and money for the royal cause, he was 
at Venice when he heard of the death of Henry, in August 1589. He 
immediately set out by the way of Switzerland for France, and met 
the King of Navarre, now calling himself Henry IV., at Chateaudun, 
He was received very graciously; and for some years from this time 
he was constantly with Henry, or employed on missions to different 
quarters in his service. : 

- In 1591, while Henry was at Nantes, he received accounts of the 
death of Amyot, bishop of Auxerre (renowned for his translations of 
‘Plutarch and other Greek authors); upon which his majesty imme- 
diately bestowed his office of keepey of the royal library on De 
Thou. It was in the year 1593, as he has noted, that he at last 
actually commenced the composition of his ‘ History,’ which he now 
states he had conceived in his mind so long as fifteen years before. In 
1594 the death of his uncle opened to him his reversionary office of 
one of the presidents of the parlement de Paris. 

Among other important transactions in which he had a part after 
this, was that of the Edict of Nantes, published in 1598, which he 
was greatly instrumental in arranging. He has left an account of his 
own life, in ample detail, down to the year 1601, in which the last 
event he notices is the death of his wife, in August of that year. In 
1604 he published the first eighteen books of his ‘History.’ The 
work was received with general applause by the literary public through- 
out Europe, and, although some things in it gave umbrage to the 
more zealous friends of the Roman Catholic faith, it was not till 
several years afterwards, when a second portion of it had been pub- 
lished, that it was formally stigmatised by being inserted in the 
€Index Expurgatorius.’ De Thou however severely felt this authori- 
tative condemnation of his performance, when it did take place, in 
November 1609. The death of Henry IV., in 1610, did not deprive 
De Thou of his place in the ministry; but he had no longer the 
same influence as before; and a new appointment, which he received 
the following year, of one of the three directors charged with the 
management of the finances, on the retirement of the great Sully, was 
felt by himself to be not so much an accession of power or honour, as 
a burdensome and obnoxious office forced upon him, for which he was 
fitted neither by tastes, habits, nor qualifications. In this same year 
his brother-in-law, Archille de Harlay, resigned his office of first presi- 
dent of the parlement de Paris, in the hope that De Thou would be 
nominated his successor; but the place was given to another. These 

- disappointments and disgusts, together with the loss of a second wife, 
are supposed to have shortened the life of De Thou, who died at Paris 
on the 7th of May 1617, in his sixty-fourth year. By his second wife, 
whose family name was de Bourdeilles, he left three sons and three 
daughters, one of the former of whom, Frangois Auguste de Thou, 
the inheritor of his father’s virtues and of a considerable share of his 
talents, fell a sacrifice to the inexorable revenge of Cardinal Richelieu, 
one of whose last acts was his putting this unfortunate young man to 


death for his alleged participation in what was called the conspiracy 


of Cinqmars :—he was executed at Lyon, in his thirty-fifth year, on 
the 12th of September 1642, not three months before Richelieu’s own 
death. 

- The president De Thou is the author of a number of Latin poems, 
one of the principal of which, entitled ‘De Re Accipitraria’ (on 
Hawking), was published in 1584; but his fame rests upon his ‘ Histo- 
ria sui Temporis, or ‘ History of his own Time,’ written also in Latin, 
in 138 books, of which the first 80 appeared in his lifetime, the 
remainder not till 1620. The space over which it extends is from the 
year 1544 to 1607, comprehending the closing years of the reign of 
Francis I., the entire reigns of Henry II., Francis II., Charles IX., 
and Henry III., and nearly the whole of thatof Henry IV. For about 
one-half of this period of sixty-three years it has the value belonging 
to the narrative of one who was himself a principal actor in many of 
the affairs which he relates, and who with regard to many others was 
so placed as to have an opportunity of seeing much that was concealed 
* from the common eye; but in truth, from the author’s family connec- 

tions,-and his extended acquaintance among the eminent and remark- 

able persons of his time, this is an advantage which belongs in some 
degree to the earlier as well as to the later part of the work. It is 
“also admitted to have throughout the merit of a rare impartiality: 
with no deficiency of patriotic feeling, and perfect steadiness to his 
own political principles, De Thou is always ready frankly to recognise 
the high qualities, of whatever kind, that may have belonged either 
to the citizen of a rival state or a party opponent. As for religious 
prejudice, he shows so little of that, as to have exposed himself to the 
imputation of having no religion, or at least of not being really a 
believer in the form of Christianity, the Roman Catholic, which he 


Australes d'Afrique,’ 4to, Paris. 


professed, But for either of these charges there seems to be no 
ground, The reputation of his ‘ History’ however stands not so much 
upon the facts contained in it that are not elsewhere to be found, 
as upon the skill displayed in its composition—not so much upon the 
material as upon the workmanship; and it is very evident that with 
all the pains he took in the collecting of information, this was the 
praise of which he was the most ambitious, as indeed may perhaps be 
said to have been the case with the most famous historians of every 
age and country, from Herodotus and Thucydides among the Greeks, 
and Livy and Tacitus among the Latins, to Hume and Gibbon—not 
to speak of contemporaries—among ourselves. But De Thou’s manner 
of writing, though flowing and eloquent, is not very picturesque; and 
of course he also loses something in raciness and natural grace, ease, 
and expressiveness, by writing in a dead language. De Thou’s Latin 
style, with all its merit, is not admitted to be faultless, though he has 
taken great pains to give it as uniformly classical an air as possible, 
not only by metamorphosing all his modern names, both of places 
and persons, 80 as to give them antique forms, often to the no small 
perplexity and hindrance of the reader, but, what sometimes produces 
still more obscurity or ambiguity, by generally endeavouring to 
describe modern proceedings and transactions in the established legal, 
political, and military phraseology of the old Romans. The best 
edition of De Thou’s ‘ History’ is that published at London in 1733, 
in seven volumes, folio, under the superintendence of Samuel Buckley, 
Esq., and at the expense of Dr. Mead. The last volume of this 
edition contains De Thou’s autobiographical memoir (first published 
in 1620, and also written in Latin), in six books, together with a 
mere of additional materials illustrative of the history of his life and 
works. 

THOUARS, LOUIS-MARIE-AUBERT-DU-PETIT, an eminent 
French botanist, was born at the chateau de Boumois, in Anjou, 1756. 
His family was wealthy and noble, and being destined for the army, 
he was early sent to the school of La Fléche. He was made a lieu- 
tenant of infantry at the age of sixteen. ‘This was in a time of peace, 
and he occupied his leisure in studying the science of botany and its 
literature. At the time of the loss of La Perouse and his companions, 
Aristide du Petit Thouars proposed to his brother Aubert that they 
should go in search of him. To this he willingly consented, hoping to 
add to his stock of plants and his fame by the voyage. The two 
brothers sold their patrimony, raised a subscription, and having 
secured the patronage of Louis XVI., were ready to start on their 
voyage, when a curious accident separated them. The ship that was 
to have taken them lay at Brest, and Aubert, with his vasculum (the 
tin box which botanists carry to put their plants in) at his back, 
intended to botanise on his way from the capital-to the port. He 
was however found by some gens d’armes in the woods, and being sus- 
pected as an enemy of his country in those days of disorder, he was 
arrested and thrown into prison at Quimper. He was however soon 
released, but too late, as his brother had sailed. He followed him to 
the Isle of France, but his brother had again departed; and being 
here without money and without friends, his only resource was his 
botanical knowledge, and he accordingly applied for employment to 
some of the rich planters of that island. He quickly obtained an 
engagement, and remained in the island for nearly ten years. On this 
spot he was very favourably placed for making those observations for 
which his previous studies had so well prepared him ; and during his stay 
here he collected most of the materials for the numerous works which 
he published on his return. Whilst a resident in the Isle of France 
he made a voyage to Madagascar, and collected plants from that 
island. He returned to Paris in 1802. Many of the results of his 
researches in the Isle of France and Madagascar were communicated 
to the Institute and other scientific bodies in Paris. His first work on 
the botany of the islands which he had visited, was published at Paris 
in 1804, with the title ‘ Plantes des Iles de Afrique Australe formant 
des Genres nouveaux, &c., 4to. He also published on the same 
subject the ‘ Histoire des Végétaux des fles de France, de Bourbon, et 
de Madagascar,’ 4to, 1804. In the same year Bory St. Vincent gave 
an account of the vegetation of the African islands, in his ‘ Voyage dans 
les quatre principales {les des Mers Afrique,’ 4to, Paris, although he 
did not go out till Du Petit Thouars had returned. In 1806 Du Petit 
Thouars was appointed director of the royal nursery-ground at Paris, 
which office he held till the closing of the institution a short time 
before his death. In 1806 he published another work on the plants of 
Africa, with the title ‘Histoire des Végétaux recueillies dans les Iles 
In 1810 his ‘Genera nova Madagas- 
cariensia’ appeared, in which the Madagascar plants were arranged 
according to the system of Jussieu. His latest work on systematic 
botany was one on the Orchidacee of the African islands, ‘ Historie 
des Plantes Orchidées recueilles dans les trois [les Australes d’ Afrique,’ 
8vo, Paris 1822. His publications on vegetable physiology are equally 
numerous. Most of these had their foundation in observations and 
experiments which he made while in the Isle of France. In 1805 he 
published his ‘Essai sur lOrganisation des Plantes,’ 8vo, Paris ; in 
1809, another essay on the vegetation of plants; in 1811, ‘ Mélanges de 
Botanique et de Voyages,’ 8vo, Paris; in 1819, a kind of botanical 
miscellany, passing in review his own labours, under the title ‘Revue 
générale des Matériaux de Botanique}et autres, fruit de trente-cing 
années @’observations,’ 8vo, Paris, He died in May 1831. 


THRASYBULUS. £8 


27 THOURET, MICHEL-AUGUSTIN. 


As a systematic botanist the views of Du Petit Thours were uncer- 
tain and speculative, and the delay in the publication of his works on 
African botany deprived him of the merit of introducing to the world 
mauy new species. In his physiological works his views are ingenious, 
but in most cases wanting in sufficient data to establish them. His 
views on the formation of buds, the motion of the sap, and the origin 
of wood, are those which have excited most attention. But each of 
these is perhaps more indebted to the speciousness of its reasoning 
than to the correctness of the facts, for the importance that botanists 
have attached to it. But at the same time his great activity of mind, 
his extensive erudition and original observation, have had a great 
influence on the progress of botany in the present century. He was a 
contributor to the ‘Biographie Universelle,’ and wrote the lives of 
many of the botanists in that work. The genus of plants Thouarea 
was named after him, and Bory St. Vincent named Awbertia in 
honour of him. 

THOURET, MICHEL-AUGUSTIN, an eminent French physician, 
was born in 1748, at Pont-l’Evéque, in the ancient province of Nor- 
mandy and the modern department of Calvados, where his father was 
royal notary (notaire royal), His education was commenced in his 
native town, and finished at the University of Caen. He afterwards 
went to Paris, and in 1774 was admitted gratuitously by the Faculty 
of Medicine in that city to the degree of M.D., an honour which was 
gained by public competition (concours), A few years later, upon 
the foundation of the Royal Society of Medicine, Thouret became one 
of its earliest members, and enriched the Memoirs of the Society by 
several valuable essays. The most important public work in which he 
took part was the exhumation of the bodies in the cemetery of the 
Holy Innocents, of which he drew up a most interesting report. This 
cemetery, together with a church of the same name, stood on the spot 
now occupied by the Marché des Innocens, and had become in process 
of time so unhealthy from being the principal burial-ground in Paris, 
that it was absolutely necessary to destroy it. This great work had 
been several times attempted, but as often abandoned on account of 
the dangers and difficulties of the undertaking; at last however, in 
1785, a committee was named for directing the works, which were 
carried on without intermission by night and by day for more than six 
months, and which were at length completely successful. Thouret 
afterwards filled several public situations with equal zeal and integrity ; 
and in the midst of the labours of his numerous employments was 
carried off, after a few days’ illness, by a cerebral affection, at Meudon, 
near Paris, June 19,1810. Great honours were paid him after his 
death by the Faculty of Medicine at Paris, of which body he was dean. 
His works consist almost entirely of essays published in the ‘ Histoire 
et Mémoires de la Société Royale,’ of which perhaps the most interest- 
ing are the ‘Rapports sur les Exhumations du Cimetiére des SS. 
Innocens,’ mentioned above. These were afterwards published in a 
separate form at Paris, 12mo, 1789. (Biographie Médicale.) 

THRA’SEA PAETUS. His prenomen is uncertain; some writers 
call him Lueius, and others Publius, but he is generally called simply 
Thrasea Peetus or Thrasea. He was a native of Patavium, Padua (Tacitus 
‘Annal.,’ xvi, 21: Dion. Cass., lxii. 26), and, like most men of talent at 
the time, he went to Rome, where he afterwards became a senator and 
a member of the priestly college of the quindecimviri. The first time 
that Thrasea came prominently forward in the senate was in A.D. 59, 
when a senatus-consultum was passed by which the city of Syracuse 
obtained permission to employ a greater number of gladiators in the 
public games than had been fixed by a law passed in the time of 
J. Cesar. (Tacitus, ‘ Annal.,’ xiii. 49; Dion. Cass., liv. 2; Sueton., 
*Caes.,’ 10.) Although the matter was of no importance, Thrasea 
took an active part in the deliberation, merely to impress upon his 
colleagues the necessity of paying attention even to the smallest 
matters belonging to the administration of the senate. In the same 
year Nero determined to carry into effect his design of getting rid of 
his mother Agrippina. [NeRo; Acrippina.] When the crime was 
committed, and when the emperor sent a letter to the senate in which 
he endeavoured to exculpate himself, the degraded senators con- 
gratulated him upon having got rid of so dangerous a woman. 
The only man who on that occasion had the courage to show his detes- 
tation 4 the crime was Thrasea. (Dion, Cass., lxi, 15: Tacit., ‘ Annal., 
xiv. 12. 

In the year A.D. 62, when the praetor Antistius was charged by 
Cossutianus Capito with high treason for having composed and read at 
& numerous party of friends some libellous verses upon the emperor, 
and when the emperor showed an inclination to interfere in the trial, 
Thrasea boldly claimed for the senate the right to try the case accord- 
ing to the existing laws. The firmness of Thrasea induced most of the 
senators to follow his example and to vote with him. Cossutianus 
was thwarted in his hope of getting Antistius sentenced to death, and 
the emperor, though highly annoyed, endeavoured to disguise his 
anger. (Tacitus, ‘Annal.,’ xiv. 48, 49.) A short time afterwards 
Thrasea again attracted general attention in the senate by a speech 
against the assumption and insolence of wealthy provincials.’ It had 
at that time become customary with the provincials to request the 
Roman senate, by embassies, to offer public thanks to the proconsuls 
who returned from their province, and who had conducted the admi- 

“nistration to their satisfaction. The ambition to gain this distinction 
eften deprived the proconsuls of their independence, and degraded 


them into flatterers of influential provincials, who thus obtained an 
improper power. Thrasea proposed to the senate a measure to remedy 
the evil, but although it met with general approbation, he did not 
succeed in making the senate pass a decree, which was however done 
shortly after on the proposal of Nero himself. (Tacitus, ‘ Annal.,’ xv. 
20-22.) Nero already hated Thrasea, and envy now began to increase 
the hatred. When therefore in 63, Poppa, the wife of Nero, was 


expecting her confinement at Antium, and all the senators flocked — 


thither to wait for the event, Thrasea was forbidden to go there. The 
Stoie philosopher bore this insult with his usual calmness. Nero 
afterwards indeed declared to Seneca that he was reconciled to 
Thrasea, but this was probably no more than an expression of his fear. 
The inflexible character of Thrasea, his refusal to take any part in the 
degrading proceedings of the senate, and the esteem which he enjoyed 
among his contemporaries, increased the hatred of Nero, who 
waited for a favourable opportunity to get rid of him, It appears 


from the year 63 Thrasea never attended the meetings of the senate. — 


Three years thus passed away, when at length, in 66, his old 
enemy Cossutianus brought forward a number of charges t 
Thrasea, the substance of which was, that he took little or no part in 
public affairs, and that when he did so, it was only to oppose the 
measures of the government; that he was a secret enemy of the 
emperor, and fulfilled neither his political duties as a senator nor 
his religious duties as a priest. Thrasea first requested a 
interview with the emperor, which was refused. He then wrote to 
him, asking for a statement of the charges against him, and declaring 
that he would refute them. When Nero had read this letter, instead 
of which he had expected a confession of guilt and an humble petition 
for pardon, he convoked the senate, to decide upon the charges against 
Thrasea and others, Some of Thrasea’s friends advised him to attend 
the meeting, but most dissuaded him from it. One young and spirited 
friend, Rusticus Arulenus, who was tribune of the people, offered to 
put his veto upon the senatus-consultum, which however Thrasea pre- 
vented. The philosopher now withdrew to his country-house. In the 
senate, which was surrounded by armed bands, the questor of the 
emperor read his oration, whereupon Cossutianus and others 

their attacks upon Thrasea, The wishes of Nero, and the presence of 
armed soldiers ready to enforce them, left the senators no choice, and 
it was decreed that Thrasea, Soranus, and Servilia should choose their 
mode of death, and that Helvidius, dhe son-in-law of Thrasea, and 
Paconius, should be banished from Italy. The accusers were muni- 
ficently rewarded. Towards the evening of this day the questor of 
the consul was sent to Thrasea, who had assembled around him a 
numerous party of friends and philosophers; but before he arrived, a 
friend, Domitius Cecilianus, came to inform him of the decree of the 
senate, which spread consternation among all who were present. 
Thrasea’s wife Arria, who was a relative of Persius the poet (* Vita A. 
Persii Flacci’) was on the point of making away with herself, but her 
husband entreated her not to deprive her daughter of the last pe oo 
which now remained to her. When at length the questor arrived 
and officially announced the decree, Thrasea took Helvidius and his 
friend Demetrius to his bed-room, and had the veins of both his arms 
opened ; and when the blood gushed forth, he called out, “Jove, my 
deliverer, accept this libation.” (Tacitus, ‘Annal., xvi. 21-35; Dion. 
‘Cass., lxii. 26.) 

Thus died Thrasea, according to the unanimous consent of the 
ancients a man who professed the genuine and stern virtues of the 
olden time in the midst of a degenerate age. Tacitus calls him virtue 
itself, and even Nero is reported to have said, “I would that Thrasea 
liked me as much as he is a just judge.” (Plutarch, ‘ Rei Publica 
gerendx Precepta, p, 810, A. ed. Frankf. comp. Martial, i. 9 
Juvenal, v. 36; Pliny, ‘ Epist.,’ viii. 22.) The principles which reuided 
him through life he had imbibed from the Stoic philosophy. Cato the 
Younger was his favourite character in the history of the Roman 
republic; he wrote a Life of Cato, which Plutarch made use of in his 
biography, and thus we probably still possess the substance of it. 
(Plutarch, ‘Cato Min.,’ 25 and 37; compare Heeren, ‘De Fontibus 


Plutarchi,’ p. 168.) Rusticus Arulenus wrote a work on Thfasea and — 


Helvidius, in which he characterised them as men of the purest inte- 
grity—an expression which became fatal to the author. (Sueton., 
‘ Domit.,’ 10; Tacitus, ‘ Agric.,’ 2 and 45.) 

THRASYBU’LUS (@pacdBovros), the son of Lycus, was born at 
Steiria in Attica. In the year B.c, 411 the oligarchical party at Athens 
gained the ascendancy, and formed a new senate of 400 members, 
The oligarchs in the fleet stationed at Samos, endeavoured to bring 
about a similar revolution there, but their efforts failed; and among 
the men who exerted themselves to maintain the democratical consti- 
tution, Thrasybulus, who then had the command of a trireme, was 
foremost. He and his friend Thrasyllus compelled the oligarchs to 
swear to keep quiet, and not to attempt any alteration in the constitu- 
tion. The generals who were known to belong to the oligarchs were 
removed, and Thrasybulus and Thrasyllus were appointed in their 
stead. The army under their command assumed the rights and power 
of the people of Athens, aud in an assembly of the camp Thrasybulus 
got a decree passed, by which Alcibiades, who had lately been the 
chief support of the democratical party, and who was living in exile 
with Tissaphernes, should be recalled. ‘hrasybulus set out to fetch 


him to the camp. (Thucydides, viii, 81.) In Bc, 410 he greatly con- 


—— 


29 ‘THRASYBULUS. 


THRASYBULUS. 30 


tributed to the victory which the Athenians gained in the battle of 
Cyzicus. In B.c, 408, when Alcibiades returned to Athens from 
Byzantium, Thrasybulus was sent with a fleet of eighty galleys to the 
coast of Thrace, where he restored the Athenian sovereignty in most 
of the revolted towns; and while he was engaged here he was elected 
at Athens one of the generals, together with Alcibiades and Conon. In 
B.0. 406 Thrasybulus was engaged as one of the inferior officers in the 
Athenian fleet during the battle of Arginus#; and after the battle he 
and Theramenes were commissioned by the generals to save the men 
on the wrecks; but a storm prevented their executing this order. 


Respecting the fate of the generals and the conduct of Theramenes on 


this occasion, see THERAMENES. Thrasybulus is not charged with any 


improper act during the proceedings against the generals, and for two 


years after his name does not occur in the history of Attica. 
During the government of the Thirty Tyrants at Athens, he was 
sent into exile, and took refuge at Thebes. The calamities under 


which his country was suffering roused him to exertion.. The spirit 


which prevailed at Thebes against Sparta, and against its partisans at 
Athens, emboldened him to undertake the deliverance of his country. 
With a band of about seventy, or, according to others, of only thirty 


_ fellow-exiles, he took possession of the fortress of Phyle, in the north 
_ of Attica. The Thirty, sure of victory over so insignificant a garrison, 


sent out the 3000 Athenians whom they had left in the enjoyment of 
a kind of franchise, and the knights, the only part of the population 
of Athens who were allowed to bear arms. On their approach to 
Phyle some of the younger men, eager to distinguish themselves, made 


an assault upon the place, but were repelled with considerable loss. 
‘The oligarchs then determined to reduce the fortress by blockade ; but 


a heavy fall of snow compelled them to return to Athens. During 
their retreat the exiles sallied forth, attacked the rear, and cut down 
a great number of them, The Thirty now sent the greater part of 
the Lacedzemonian garrison of Athens and two detachments of cavalry 
to encamp at the distance of about fifteen stadia (nearly two miles) 
from Phyle, for the purpose of keeping the exiles in check. The small 
band of Thrasybulus had in the meantime increased to 700, as the 
Athenian exiles flocked to him from all parts. With this increased 
force he one morning descended from Phyle, surprised the enemy, and 
slew upwards of 120) hoplites and a few horsemen, and put the rest to 
flight. Thrasybulus erected a trophy, took all the arms and military 
“emai which he found in the enemy’s camp, and returned to 
yle. 

The Thirty now began to be alarmed at the success of the exiles, 
and thought it necessary to secure a place of refuge in case the exiles 
should succeed in getting possession of Athens. For this purpose 
they, or rather Critias, devised a most atrocious plan. By force and 
fraud he contrived to secure 300 citizens of Eleusis and Salamis capable 
of bearing arms ; and after they were conveyed to Athens he compelled 
the 3000 and the knights to condemn them to death. All were accord- 
ingly executed, and Kleusis was déprived of that part of its population 
to which it might have looked for protection. In the meantime the 
number of exiles at Phyle had continued to increase, and now 
amounted to one thousand. With these Thrasybulus marched by 
night to Pirzous, where he was joyfully received, and great numbers of 
other exiles immediately increased his army. The Thirty no sooner 
heard of this movement than they marched againat Peirsus with all 
their forces. Thrasybulus by a skilful manceuvre obliged the enemy, 
who was superior in numbers, to occupy an unfavourable position at 
the foot of the hill of Munychia. In the ensuing battle the army of 
the tyrants was put to flight and driven back to the city. Critias fell 
in the contest. 

The consequences of this success showed that there had been little 
unity among the oligarchs, and that an open breach had only been 
prevented by fear of Critias. Some of the Thirty and a great many of 
the 3000 were in their hearts opposed to the atrocities which had been 
committed, and had avoided, as much as they could, taking part in 
the rapine and bloodshed. They also were aware that the hatred and 
contempt under which they were labouring were owing mainly to the 
violence of their colleagues ; and for the purpose of maintaining their 
own power they now resolved to sacrifice their colleagues. An assem- 
bly was held, in which the Thirty were deposed, and a college of ten 
men, one from each tribe, was appointed to conduct the government. 
Two of these ten had formerly belonged to the Thirty, and the rest of 
the Thirty withdrew to Eleusis. As regards the army of exiles under 
Thrasybulus, the new government of Athens was no less determined 
to put them down than the Thirty had been. Thrasybulus therefore 
continued to strengthen himself, and to prepare for further operations. 
His army had gradually become more numerous than that of Athens, 
for he engaged aliens in his service, and promised them, in case of their 
success, the same immunities at Athens as those enjoyed by the citizens 
(igoré\eia). Arms, of which he was still in want, were generally sup- 
plied by the wealthy citizens of Peirsus and other places, and by the 
ingenuity of his own men. As the danger from the exiles became at 
last very imminent, the Ten of Athens applied to Sparta for assistance. 
At the same time the faction at Eleusis also sent envoys to Sparta ; 


- but the government of Sparta refused to send an army for an under- 
taking from which it could reap no advantages. 
as harmostes, obtained leave to levy an army, and his brother Libys 

_was appointed admiral to blockade Peirsous, Lysander went to Eleusis, 


However Lysander, 


and got together a numerous army. Being thus enclosed by land and 
by sea, Thrasybulus and his army had no prospect except to surrender. 

But their deliverance came from a quarter whence it could have 
least been expected. The power and influence which Lysander had 
gradually acquired, had excited the envy of the leading men at Sparta, 
even of the ephors and kings, and they were now bent upon thwarting 
his plans. King Pausanias was accordingly sent out with an army to 
Attica, avowedly to assist Lysander in his operations, but in reality 
for the purpose of preventing the accomplishment of his designs. He 
encamped near Pirsus, as if he designed to besiege the place in con- 
junction with Lysander. After several sham mancouvres against the 
exiles, Pausanias gained a victory over them without following it up. 
He now sent secretly an embassy to them, requesting them to send a 
deputation to him and the ephors; and he also suggested the language 
which the deputies should use. At the same time he invited the 
pacific party at Athens to meet and make a public declaration of their 
sentiments. Hereupon a truce was concluded with the exiles, and a 
deputation of them, as well as of the pacific party at Athens, was 
sent to Sparta to negociate a general settlement of affairs, As soon as 
the Ten of Athens heard of this, they also sent envoys to Sparta to 
oppose the other embassy. But this attempt failed, and the ephors 
appointed fifteen commissioners with full powers, in conjunction with 
King Pausanias, to settle all the differences between the parties in 
Attica. In-accordance with the wishes of the exiles and the peaceful 
party of the city, the commissioners proclaimed a general amnesty, 
from which none were to be excluded except the Thirty, the Eleven, 
and the Ten who had formed the government of Peirewus. Any one 
who might not think it safe to return to Athens was permitted to take 
up his residence at Eleusis. This clause is unintelligible, unless we 
suppose that the Spartans still wished to see Eleusis in the hands of 
a party which might check the reviving spirit of independence among 
the Athenians. Sparta guaranteed the execution of the proclamation, 
Pausanias withdrew his forces, and Thrasybulus at the head of the 
exiles entered Athens in triumph, and marched up the Acropolis to 
offer thanks to Athena: an assembly was then held, in which Thrasy- 
bulus impressed upon all parties the necessity of strictly observing 
the conditions of the peace. 

Eleusis was now the seat of the most violent of the oligarchical 
party, and they still indulged some hope of recovering what was lost. 
They assembled a body of mercenaries to renew the civil war; but 
Athens sent out a strong force against them, Xenophon says that the 
leaders of the Eleusinian party were drawn to a conference and then 
put to death, This isolated statement is rather surprising, as in all 
other respects the popular party showed the greatest moderation, and 
immediately after the quelling of the Eleusinian rebellion Thrasybulus 
induced the Athenians to proclaim a second amnesty, from which no 
one was to be excluded. - This amnesty was faithfully observed. The 
first step after the abolition of the oligarchy was the passing of a 
decree which restored the democratic form of government. 

Thrasybulus acquired the esteem of his fellow-citizens by the 
courage and perseverance which he had shown in the deliverance of 
his country, and although for many years he does not come forth very 
prominently in the history of Attica, he was no less active in restoring 
Athens to her former greatness than he had been in wresting her from 
the hands of her enemies. His last military undertaking belongs to 
the year B.c. 389, when the government of Athens placed a fleet of 
40 galleys at his command, with which he was to support the demo- 
cratical party in the island of Rhodes, On his arrival there he found 
that no protection was needed, and he sailed to the north part of the 
Aigean. In Thrace he settled a dispute between two princes, and 
gained them as allies for Athens. At Byzantium and Chalcedon also 
the influence of Athens was restored, and with it new sources of 
revenue to the republic were opened. After this he sailed to Mitylene, 
the only town in the island of Lesbos in which the Spartan party had 
not gained the ascendancy. Thrasybulus here fought a battle with 
Therimachus, the Spartan harmostes, who was defeated and slain. 
Several towns were now reduced, and after he had plundered the 
lands of those who refused to submit to Athens, he prepared to sail 
to Rhodes; but before he landed there he sailed along the southern 
coast of Asia Minor to levy some contributions there. His fleet cast 
anchor in the mouth of the river Eurymedon in Pamphylia, near 
Aspendus. In consequence of some outrage committed by his soldiers 
on land, the Aspendians were exasperated, and during the night they 
surprised and killed Thrasybulus in his tent, B.o, 359. se 

(Thucydides, viii; Xenophon, Hellen., i. 1,12; i. 6, 36; ii. 3, 42; 
ii. 4, 2, &e.; iv. 8, 25, &e.; Diodorus Sic., xiv. 82, &e.; 94 and 99; 
C. Nepos, Thrasybulus; compare E. Ph. Hinrichs, De Theramenis, 
Critic, et Thrasybuli Rebus et Ingenio, 4to, Hamburg, 1820; Thirlwall ; 
Grote. 

THRASYBU'LUS, of Collytus in Attica, was a contemporary of 
Thrasybulus the deliverer of Athens, from whom he is usually distin- 
guished by the epithet of the Collytian, He was one of the Athenian 
exiles who joined his namesake at Phyle, and afterwards at Peireus. 
(Demosthenes, in ‘ Timocrat.,’ p. 742.) In the war against Antalcidas 
he commanded eight Athenian galleys, with which he was taken 
prisoner by the Spartan admiral. (Xenophon, Hellen., v. 1, 26, &e. ; 
compare Aischines, in Ctesiphont., p. 73, ed. Steph.) 

THRASYBU'LUS, a tyrant of Syracuse. He was a son of Gelo, 


THROCMORTON, SIR NICHOLAS. 


81 


THUCYDIDES. 


and brother of Hiero the Elder, who ruled over Syracuse till the year 


p.c. 466. Hiero was succeeded by his brother Thrasybulus, who was 
a bloodthirsty tyrant, and oppressed the people still more than Hiero : 
great numbers of citizens were put to death and others sent into 
exile, and their property filled the private coffers of the tyrant. In 
order to protect himself against the exasperated citizens, he got 
together a large force of mercenaries, and relying on this new support, 
he carried his reckless cruelties so far that at last the Syracusans 
determined to rid themselves of their tyrant. They chose leaders to 
give them a military organisation, that they might be enabled to resist 
the mercenaries of Thrasybulus. The tyrant at first endeavoured to 
stop the insurrection by persuasion, but this attempt failing, he drew 
reinforcements from Catana and other places, and also engaged new 
mercenaries. With this army, consisting of about 15,000 men, he 
occupied that part of the city which was called Achradina, arid the 
fortified island, and harassed by frequent sallies the citizens, who 
fortified themselves in a quarter of their city called Ityce. The Syra- 
cusans sent envoys to several Greek towns in the interior of Sicily, 
soliciting their aid. The request was readily complied with, and they 
soon had an army and a fleet at their disposal. Thrasybulus attacked 
them both by sea and land, but his fleet was compelled to sail back to 
the island after the loss of several triremes, and his army was obliged 
to retreat to Achradina. Seeing no possibility of maintaining himself, 
he sent ambassadors to the Syracusaus with offers of terms of peace, 
which was granted on condition of his quitting Syracuse. Thrasy- 
bulus submitted to these terms, after having scarcely reigned one year, 
and went to Locri in Southern Italy, in B.c. 466, in exile. After the 
Syracusans had thus delivered themselves of the tyrant, they granted 
to his mercenaries free departure, and also assisted other Greek towns 
in Sicily in recovering their freedom. (Diodorus Sic., xi. 67 and 68.) 

THROCMORTON, SIR NICHOLAS, was descended. from an 
ancient family in Warwickshire, and his ancestors had been employed 
in the higher offices of state for some centuries. His father, Sir 
George Throcmorton, had been in favour with Henry VIII., but being 
a zealous papist, he incurred the king’s displeasure by refusing to take 
the oath of supremacy, and about 1538 was imprisoned in the Tower 
of London, where he remained several years. 

Nicholas, who was Sir George’s fourth son, was born about the year 
1513. Having been appointed page to the Duke of Richmond, the 
king’s natural son, he accompanied his master to France, and remained 
in his service till the duke’s death in 1536. Sir George Throemorton 
was released from the Tower in 1543. His son Nicholas was then 
appointed sewer to the king. In 1544 he headed a troop in the arma- 
ment against France which Henry VIII. commanded in person ; he 
assisted at the siege of Boulogne, and after his return received a 
pension from the king as a reward for his services. After the king’s 
death he attached himself to the queen-dowager Catherine Parr, and 
to the Princess Elizabeth. In 1547 he distinguished himself in the 
campaign in Scotland under the Protector Somerset ; he was present 
at the battle of Pinkey (or Musselburgh), and Somerset sent him to 
London with the news of the victory. He was soon afterwards created 
a knight, appointed to a place in the privy-chamber, and admitted to 
great intimacy with Edward VI. The king bestowed upon him some 
valuable manors, and made him under-treasurer of the Mint. He sat 
in parliament during Edward’s reign as member for Northampton. 

A short time before the king’s death, Sir Nicholas married the 
daughter of Sir Nicholas Carew, and on taking his wife to visit his 
father at Coughton in Warwickshire, he was received with coldness by 
the old knight ; partly perhaps on account of his Protestant principles, 
but chiefly because he had been knighted before his eldest brother. 
To remove this cause of offence, he took his brother back: with him to 
court, and, at the request of Sir Nicholas, the king raised him to the 
~ dignity of a knight, 

Sir Nicholas Throcmorton was present when Edward VI. died at 
Greenwich in 1553. He was aware of the designs of the partisans of 
Lady Jane Grey, but, though a Protestant, he was too much attached 
to law and legitimacy to give any sanction to them. He therefore came 
immediately to London, and despatched Mary’s goldsmith to announce 
to her the king’s demise. On the 2nd of February 1554, Sir Nicholas 
Throcmorton was arrested and committed to the Tower on a charge 
of being concerned in the rebellion of Sir Thomas Wyatt. On the 
17th of April he was brought to trial at Guildhall, London, This 
trial is the most important and interesting event in his life. It is 
certain that he was acquainted with Wyatt's intentions, and there is 
little doubt that he was to some extent implicated in the rebellion. 
He was tried before commissioners, some of whom were bitterly inimi- 
cal to him, and who seemed to regard his trial as merely a form neces- 
sary to be gone through previous to his execution. Sir Nicholas how- 
ever conducted his own defence; and this he did with such admirable 
adroitness, such promptness of reply and coolness of argument, inter- 
mixed with retorts spirited, fearless, and reiterated, in answer to the 
partial remarks of the lord chief justice and other commissioners, and 
followed up by an impassioned earnestness of appeal to the jury, that, 
in defiance of the threats of the chief justice and the attorney-general, 
he obtained a verdict of acquittal. Sir Nicholas was directed to be 
discharged, but was remanded, and kept in prison till the 18th of 
January 1555. The jury were made to suffer severely for their inde- 
pendent verdict. Two were fined 20002 each, six were fined 1000 


marks each, and four, who expressed contrition, were not fined. All 
were remanded to prison, where they remained till the 12th of Decem- 
ber, when five were discharged on payment of the reduced fine of 2202. 
each, three on payment of 60/. each, and four without fine, _ 

Sir Nicholas Throcmorton, after his release, avoided the approachin 
storm of persecution by going to France, where he remained till 1556. 
Though he afterwards served in Queen Mary’s army under the Earl of 
Pembroke, he devoted himself chiefly to the Princess Elizabeth, whom 
he visited privately at Hatfield. When Queen Mary died, he was 
admitted to see her corpse, and, as Elizabeth had requested, took from 
her finger the wedding-ring which had been given to her by Philip, 
and delivered it to Elizabeth. Elizabeth gave him the office of chief 
butler of England, a situation of some dignity, but inconsiderable 
emolument, and afterwards made him chamberlain of the exchequer. 
In 1559 he was sent on an embassy to France, and remained at the 
French court as resident ambassador till the beginning of 1563. Dr. 
Forbes has published the greater part of Throcmorton’s correspondence 
with his own government while he was in this confidential situation. 
It displays great diplomatic skill and management, but perhaps rather 
too much tendency to intrigue; and he supported the cautious and 
somewhat doubtful policy of Cecil with zeal and discretion. Indeed 
he was on the most confidential terms with Cecil during the whole of 
this period, but after his return a coolness arose between the two 
statesmen, which increased till it became a strong personal animosity. 

In 1565 Throcmorton was sent on a special embassy to Scotland, to 
remonstrate with Mary Queen of Scots against her intended i 
with Darnley ; and when Mary was imprisoned at Lochleven in 1567, 
Throcmorton was commissioned by Elizabeth to negociate with the 
rebel lords for her release. . 

In 1569 Throcmorton was sent to the Tower on a charge, which 
indeed appears to have been well founded, of having been engaged in 
the intrigue for a marriage between Mary Queen of Scots and the 
Duke of Norfolk. Though he was not kept long in confinement, he 
never afterwards regained the confidence of Elizabeth, and the distress 
of mind occasioned by the loss of her favour has been thought to have 
hastened his death, which took place at the house of the Earl of 
Leicester, February 12, 1571, in his fifty-eighth year. 

Sir Francis Walsingham, in a letter to the Earl of Leicester on the 
occasion of Throcmorton’s death, says of him that “for counsel in 
peace and for conduct in war he hath not left of like sufficiency that 
I know.” Camden says he was “a man of large experience, piercing 


judgment, and singular prudence ; but he died very luckily for himself © 


and his family, his life and estate being in great danger by reason of 
his turbulent spirit.” 

THUA/'NUS, J. A. [THov, Dz.] 

THUCY’DIDES (@ovxvdisys), the son of Olorus, or Orolus, and 
Hegesipyle, was a native of the demus of Alimus in Attica. He was 
connected by his mother’s side with the family of the great Miltiades, 
and the name of his father was a common one among the Thracian 
princes. If he was forty years old at the commencement of the Pelo- 
ponnesian war, according to the statement of Pamphila (Gellius, xv. 
23), he was born in B.c. 471. In his own work he nowhere mentions 
his age or the time of his birth, but he says that he lived through the 
whole of the Peloponnesian war, and that he was of the proper age 
for observing its progress (v. 26). 

Our principal information respecting the life of Thucydides is a 
biography of him written by Marcellinus, which is however full of 
contradictions and doubtful stories. There is also an anonymous 
biography of him prefixed to many editions of his works, which is 
still worse than that of Marcellinus. Thucydides mentions inci- 
dentally a few facts concerning himself, which is almost all that we 
know with certainty about his life. 

There is a well-known story that when a boy he heard Herodotus 
read his History at Olympia, and was so much moved that he burst 
into tears. But there is good reason for believing that this recitation 
of the History of Herodotus never took place at the Olympic games 
(Hrroportus]; and if there is any foundation for the story of Thucy- 
dides having heard him read it, we would rather refer it to a later 
recitation at Athens, which is mentioned by Plutarch and Eusebius. 
Suidas is the only writer who says that Thucydides heard Herodotus 
at Olympia; Marcellinus and Photius relate the same tale without 
mentioning where the recitation took place. 

There seems nothing improbable in the accounts of the ancient 
biographers that Thucydides was taught philosophy by Anaxagoras 


7 


and rhetoric by Antiphon; but their statement that he accompanied — 


the Athenian colony to Thurii is probably a mistake arising from their 
confounding him with Herodotus, who, we know, was of the colonists. 
But whether he went to Thurii or not, it is certain that he was in 
Athens in the second year of the Peloponnesian war, B.0. 430, when 
he was one of those who had the plague, (Thucyd., ii. 48.) In the 
eighth year of the war, B.c, 424, he was in command of an Athenian 
fleet of seven ships, which lay off Thasos, Brasidas, the Lacedemo- 
nian commander, made an attempt to obtain possession of Amphipolis 


on the Strymon, which then belonged to Athens; and Thucydides, as 


soon as he heard of it, sailed to protect Amphipolis, but was only in 
sufficient time to save Eion, a seaport at the mouth of the Strymon, 
Amphipolis had fallen before he could arrive there, (Thueyd., iv. 
102, &c.) For this he was either condemned to death or banished by 


33 THUCYDIDES, 


THULDEN, THEODOR VAN, 34 


the Athenians in the year following, B.c. 423; and in consequence of 
the sentence passed upon him he spent twenty years in exile, namely, 
till B.c, 403. (Thucyd., v. 26.) This year coincides exactly with the 
restoration of the democracy by Thrasybulus, when a general amnesty 
was granted, of which Thucydides seems to have availed himself, 
Where he passed the time of his exile is not mentioned by himself, 
Marcellinus says that he first went to Adgina, and afterwards to Scapte- 
Hyle in Thrace, opposite the island of Thasos, where he had some 
uable gold-mines. (Compare Plutarch, ‘De Exilio,’ p. 605.) It 
appears however not improbable that he visited several places during 
his exile; the intimate knowledge which he shows respecting the 
history of the Italiotes and Siceliotes almost inclines one to suppose 
that he may have visited Italy and Sicily after the failure of the 
Athenian expedition in the latter island. His property in Thrace 
would however naturally lead him to pass the greater part of his time 
in that country. This property, which was very considerable (Thucyd., 
iv. 105), was probably derived from his family, which came from 
, though Marcellinus says that he obtained it by marrying a 
Thracian heiress. 

How long he lived after his return from exile, and whether he 
continued at Athens till the time of his death, is quite uncertain. 
According to some accounts he was assassinated at Athens, according 
to others he died at Thasos, and his bones were carried to Athens, 
He is said to have been buried in the sepulchre of the family of 
Miltiades. 

The Peloponnesian war forms the subject of the History of Thucy- 
dides. He tells us that he foresaw it would be the most important 
war that Greece had ever known, and that he therefore began collect- 
ing materials for its history from its very commencement; that, 
where he had to rely upon the testimony of others, he carefully 
weighed and examined the statements that were made to him; and that 
he spared neither time nor trouble to arrive at the truth, and that in 
consequence of his exile he was enabled to obtain information from 
the Peloponnesians as well as his own countrymen (i. 22; v. 26). 
Though he was engaged in collecting materials during the whole of 
the war, he does not appear to have reduced them into the form of a 
regular history till after his return from exile, since he alludes in 
many parts of it to the conclusion of the war (i. 13; v. 26, &c.). He 
did not however live to complete it: the eighth book ends abruptly 
in the middle of the year B.c. 411, seven years before the termination 
of the war. Even the eighth book itself does not seem to have 
_ received the last revision of the author, although there is no reason at 

all for doubting its genuineness, as it bears on every page indubitable 
traces of his style and mode of thought. Some ancient writers how- 
ever attributed it to his daughter, others to Theopompus or Xenophon. 
As the work of Thucydides is evidently incomplete, it would appear 
that it was not published in his lifetime; and there is therefore great 
probability that the statement is correct which attributes the publica- 
tion of it to Xenophon. Niebuhr -has brought forward reasons which 
- seem to render it almost certain that Xenophon’s ‘ Hellenics’ consist 

of two distinct works, and that the last five books were not published 
till long after the first two. The first two, which seem to have borne 
the title of the ‘ Paralipomena’ of Thucydides, complete the history 
of the Peloponnesian war, and were not improbably published by 
Xenophon, together with the eight books of Thucydides. (Niebuhr, 
in ‘ Philological Museum,’ i. 485, &c.) 

The first book of Thucydides is a kind of introduction to the 
history. He commences by observing that the Peloponnesian war 
Was more important than any that had been known before ; and to 
prove this, he reviews the state of Greece from the earliest times 

down to the commencement of the war (c. 1-21), He then proceeds 
to investigate the causes which led to it, of which the real one was 
the jealousy which the Peloponnesians entertained of the power of 
Athens; and interrupts his narrative to give an account of the rise 
and progress of the Athenian empire down to the commencement of 
the war (c. 89-118). He had an additional reason for making this 
digression, since this history had either been passed over by previous 
writers altogether, or had been treated briefly, without attention to 
chronology (c. 97). He resumes the thread of his narrative atc. 119, 
with the negociations of the Peloponnesian confederacy previous to 
the declaration of the war; but the demand of the Lacedzmonians, 
that the Athenians should drive out the accused, which was answered 
by the Athenians requiring the Lacedemonians to do the same, leads 
to another digression respecting the treason and death of Pausanias 
(c. 128-184); and as proofs were found implicating Themistocles 
in the designs of the Spartan king, he continues the digression 
_ in order to give an account of the exile and death of Themistocles (c, 
135-138). He then resumes the narrative, and concludes the book 
with the speech of Pericles Which induced the Athenians to refuse 
compliance with the demands of the Peloponnesians. The history of 
the war does not therefore begin till the second book; but it would 
be out of place to give here an abstract of the remainder of the 
work, — 

Thucydides had formed a high opinion of the value and importance 
of the work he had undertaken. It was not his object to afford 
amusement, like former writers, but to give such a faithful representa- 
tion of the past as would serve as a guide for the future (i. 22), His 
observation of human character was profound; he penetrates with 
“* BIOG. DIV. VOL. VI. 


extraordinary clearsightedness into the motives and policy of the 
leading actors of the war; and he draws from the events he relates 
those lessons of political wisdom which have always made his work a 
favourite study with thoughtful men of all countries, 

He claims for himself the merit of the strictest accuracy, and it is 
impossible to read his History without being convinced of the trust- 
worthiness of his statements. His impartiality also is conspicuous : 
although he had been banished from his native city, he does not, like 
Xenophon, turn renegade, and try to misrepresent the conduct and 
motives of his own countrymen. Although a contemporary, and one 
who had taken an active part in public affairs, he writes as free from 
prejudice and party-feeling as if he had lived at a time long sub- 
sequent to the events he narrates. 

His History is constructed on entirely different principles from 
those of his predecessors. He confines himself strictly to his subject, 
and seldom makes any digressions. He feels deeply the importance of 
his work, and constantly strives to impress the same feeling upon his 
readers. Hehad proposed to himself a noble subject, and writes with 
the consciousness of the value of his labours, and the presentiment 
that his work will be read in all future ages. There is consequently a 
moral elevation in his style and mode of treating a subject, which is 
scarcely to be found in any other writer except Tacitus. 

In narrating the events of the war, Thucydides pays particular 
attention to chronology. He divides each year into two portions, the 
summer and the winter, and is careful to relate under each the events 
that took place respectively during that time. The speeches which he 
introduces are not mere inventions of his own, but contain the general 
sense of what the speakers actually delivered, although the style and 
the arrangement are his (i. 22), 

The style of Thucydides is marked by great strength and energy. 
Not only his expressions, but even single words seem to have been 
well weighed before they were used ; each has its proper force and 
significance, and none are used merely for the sake of ornament and 
effect. The style is not easy, and it is probable thats Thucydides never 
intended it should be so, even to his own countrymen: his work was 
not to be read without thought. Still his style is open to serious 
objections. He does not sufficiently consult perspicuity, which is the 
first virtue in all writing. His sentences too are frequently unneces- 
sarily long, and the constructions harsh and involved. These remarks 
are more especially applicable to the speeches inserted in the History, 
which Cicero found as difficult as we do. (‘ Orator.,’ 9.) 

The Greek text was first published by Aldus, Venice, 1502, and the 
scholia in the following year. The first Latin translation, which was 
made by Laurentius Valla, appeared at Paris in fol., 1513. The first 
Greek and Latin edition was that of Henry Stephens, the Latin being 
the translation of Valla, with corrections by Stephens, fol. 1564. 
Among the modern editions, those most worthy of notice are Bekker's, 
3 vols., 8vo, Berlin, 1821; Poppo’s, which contains two volumes of pro- 
legomena, with the scholia and numerous notes, 11 vols. Svo., Leipzig, 
1821-1840; Haack’s, with selections from the Greek “scholia and 
short notes, which the student will find very useful, 2 vols. 8v0, 
Leipzig, 1820, reprinted in London, in 3 vols. 8vo, 1823; Goller's, 
2 vols. 8vo, Leipzig, 1836, 2nd edition, reprinted in London ; Arnold 8, 
3 vols. 8vo, Oxford, 1st edition, 1830-1835; and Haase’s, Paris, 1845. 

There are translations of Thucydides into most of the modern 
European languages. In English the first translation was made by 
Thomas Nicolls, from the French version of Seysel, and was 
published in London, fol., 1550, This was succeeded by the transla- 
tions of Hobbes and William Smith, which have been frequently 
reprinted. The most recent are by S. T. Bloomfield, 3 vols. 8vo, 
London, 1829, and by Dale, published in Bohn’s ‘ Classical Library. 
A recent translation in German is by Klein, 8vo, Miinchen, 1826: 
and in French one of the best is said to be by Gail. 

Respecting the life of Thucydides, the reader may consult Dod- 
well, ‘ Annales Thucydidei et Xenophonteii,’ &c., 4to, Oxford, 1702; 
and Kriiger, ‘Untersuchungen iiber das Leben des Thucydides, 
Berlin, 1832. ; 2 

THULDEN, THEODOR YVAN, born at Bois-le-Duc in 1607, was 
one of the most distinguished scholars and assistants of Rubens, with 
whom he was also a favourite. He was with Rubens in Paris, and is 
eaid to have executed the greater part of the celebrated series of the 
so-called Gallery of the Luxembourg, painted in honour of Mary de 
Medici. Van Thulden is distinguished both as a painter and as an 
etcher. As a painter he excelled in various styles. There are several 
large pictures, both historical and allegorical, by him, dispersed over 
Germany and the Netherlands; he painted also small pictures from 
common life in the manner of Teniers, such as markets, fairs, and the 
like; and he was frequently employed by architectural and landscape 
painters to embellish their pictures with small appropriate figures, in 
which he was excellent; he painted many such in the pictures of 
Neefs and Steenwyck. - 

Van Thulden’s style in his greater works is altogether that _ of 
Rubens, and, although inferior in boldness of design and colouring, his 
works may easily be mistaken for those of Rubens; the ‘ Martyrdom 
of St. Andrew,’ in St.{Michael’s church at Ghent, was long thought to 
be a work of Rubens. In chiaroscuro, Van Thulden was nearly if not 
quite equal to his master. A ‘St. Sebastian,’ in the church of ~ 
Bernardines at Mechlin, and an ‘ Assumption of the ena in the 


85 THUMMEL, MORITZ AUGUST VON. 


= 


THUNBERG, CARL PETTER. 36 


church of the Jesuits at Bruges, were considered two of his best altar- 
pieces. While at Paris he painted twenty-four pictures of the Life of 
St. John of Matha in the church of the Mathurins, which he himself 
etched on copper in 1633; the pictures have since been painted over. 
Van Thulden’s etchings are numerous, and in a masterly style: he 
published a set of fifty-eight plates from the paintings of Nicold 
Abati at Fontainebleau, after the designs of Primaticcio, which are 
creatly valued, for as the paintings were destroyed in 1738, they are 
all that remains of the original designs. They have been copied 
several times: the original set appeared under the following title : 
‘Les Travaux d'Ulysse, desseignez par le Sieur de Sainct-Martin, de la 
fagon qu'ils se voyent dans la Maison Royale de Fontainebleau, peint 
par le Sieur Nicolas, et gravés au cuivre par Theodore van Thulden, 
avee le suject et l’explication morale de chaque figure.’ He etched 
also forty-two plates after Rubens, of the entrance of Ferdinand the 
Cardinal-Infant into Antwerp: ‘Pompa introitus Ferdinandi,’ &c. The 
eight plates of the History of the Prodigal Son, to which he put 
Rubens’ name, are considered to be from his own designs; they are 
entitled, ‘De verlooren Soon, door P. P. Rubens. Th. Van Thulden 
fec.’ Van Thulden died in his native place, Bois-le-Duc, in 1676, 

THUMMEL, MORITZ AUGUST VON, a German writer who was 
greatly admired by his contemporaries, and who still continues to hold 
a high literary rank with his own countrymen. He was born at 
Schonfeld, near Leipzig, May 27th 1738, where his father possessed 
considerable property, but lost much of it by the plundering of the 
Prussian troops in Saxony,,1745. Moritz, who was the second son of 
afamily of nineteen, was sent to the university of Leipzig in 1756. 
There he found in Gellert not only an instructor, but a friend; and 
he also formed an acquaintance with Weisse, Rabener, von Kleist, &c., 
and, among others, with an old advocate named Balz, who at his 
death, in 1776, left him the whole of his fortune, 24,000 dollars. This 
accession of wealth enabled Moritz to give up the places he held under 
Duke Ernest of Saxe-Coburg, first as Kammer-junker, and, from 1768, 
as privy councillor and minister, and to retire in 1783 to Sonneborn, 
an estate of his wife, at which place and at Gotha he continued chiefly 
to reside until his death, which happened while he was on a visit at 
Coburg, October 26th 1817. Thiimmel’s literary reputation was 
established by his ‘ Wilhelmine,’ a ‘comic poem in prose,’ first pub- 
lished in 1764. This short production, for it is in only five cantos or 
chapters, was received as something altogether new in German litera- 
ture, and as a masterpiece of polished humour and playful satire. It 
was translated not only into French, but Dutch, Italian, and Russian ; 
and it has been reprinted entire in Wolff’s ‘ Encyclopiidie’ (1842). 
His poetical tale, ‘ Die Inoculation der Liebe,’ 1771, and other pieces 
in verse, did not add much to his fame; but his last and longest work 
‘ Reise in den Mittaglichen Provinzen von Frankreich’ (Travels in the 
Southern Provinces of France), in 9 vols., 1799-1805, is also his literary 
chef-d’couvre. Instead of being, as its title would import, the mere 
record of his tours in that country, it is, like Sterne’s ‘Sentimental 
Journey,’ to a great extent, a work of fiction, interspersed with frag- 
ments in verse, which breathe more of poetry than his other produc- 
tions of that kind. It abounds with satiric humour and pleasantry, 
with witty and shrewd observations, and shows the author to have been 
an accomplished man of the world, intimately acquainted with human 
nature. That it isa work of no ordinary merit and pretension may 
be supposed from the notice it has obtained from Schiller, in his essay 
‘Ueber Naive und Sentimentalische Dichtung;’ who, if he praises it 
with greater reserve than other critics, admits that, as a work of 
amusement, it is one of a superior kind, and will as such continue to 
enjoy the character it has obtained, A portrait of Thiimmel, after 
Oeser, is prefixed to the 6th volume of the ‘ Neue Bibliothek-der 
Schénen Wissenschaften,’ a complete edition of his works, in six 
volumes. 

THUNBERG, CARL PETTER, an eminent Swedish traveller and 
botanist, and professor of natural history in the University of Upsal, 
was born on the 1ith of November 1743, at Jénkoping in Sweden, 
where his father was a clergyman. He was early sent to the Univer- 
sity of Upsal for the purpose of studying medicine, and became a 
pupil of the great Linnzus. Under his instruction he acquired that 
taste for natural history which so remarkably distinguished the school 
of Linnzeus, and which has given to the world so many famous natu- 
ralists. Having completed his course of study, he graduated in 1770, 
and was honoured by having bestowed upon him the Kohrean 
pension for the space of three years. Although the sum was small, 
about fifteen pounds per annum, he determined to use it for the pur- 
poses of improvement, and accordingly left Upsal for the purpose of 
visiting Paris and the universities of Holland. Whilst in Amsterdam 
he became acquainted with the botanists and florists of that city, and 
they suggested to him the desirableness of some person visiting Japan 
for the purpose of exploring its vegetable treasures. Thunberg imme- 
diately offered his services, and a situation as surgeon to one of the 
Dutch East India Company’s vessels having been obtained for him, he 
left Amsterdam for Japan in the year 1771. He landed at the Cape 
of Good Hope for the purpose of learning amongst the Dutch settlers 
there the Dutch language, which is the only European language 
spoken extensively in Japan, and also in the hope of adding to his 
knowledge of natural objects by researches-in Africa. Here he made 
several excursions into the interior, visiting various of the native tribes, 


and after having remained three winters at the Cape, where he col- — 
lected much valuable information, he set sail in 1773 for Java and the 
Japan Isles. He remained in these islands five years, making large 
collections of the plants of these countries, as well as observations on 
the habits, manners, and language of their inhabitants. His ability to 
labour however during his residence both in Africa and Asia, was 
very much diminished by a frightful accident which he met with on 


first leaving Holland. The keeper of the stores in the ship, having — 


inadvertently given out white lead instead of flour, it was mixed with 
flour and used for making pancakes, of which the whole crew partook. 
All were ill, and many suffered severely at the time, but none was so 
bad as Thunberg; he only gradually recovered his health, and through 
his long life always laboured under the debility and derangement his 
system had thus received. He returned to his native country in 
1779, making first a short stay in England. Here he formed the 
acquaintance of Sir Joseph Banks, Dryander, and Solander, and 
availed himself of the extensive collection of plants from all parts of 
the world, and valuable library of Sir Joseph, for the purpose of 
adding to his botanical knowledge. During his absence he had been 
made demonstrator of botany at Upsal in 1777, and in 1784 was 
installed in the chair of the great Linnzus as professor of botany. 
In 1785 he was made a knight of the order of Wasa, and in 1815 
commander of the same order. . 

On gaining his home, Thunberg immediately commenced i 
the vast mass of materials he had collected in bis travels for the pur- 
pose of publication. His first important work was a description of 
the Japanese plants, which was published at Leipzig in 1784, with 
the title ‘Flora Japonica, sistens Plantas Insularum Japonicarum, 
secundum Systema Sexuale emendatum,’ 8vo, and illustrated with 
thirty-nine engravings. In this work a great number of new plants 
were described and arranged according to the Linnwan system, in 
which he ventured to dispense with the three classes called Monecia, 
Dicecia, and Polygamia. He subsequently published some botanical 
observations on this ‘Flora,’ in the second volume of the ‘ Transac- 
tions’ of the Linnean Society. 

In 1788 he commenced the publication of an account of his travels, 
under the title, ‘Resa uti Europa, Africa, Asia, forattad ren 1770-79,’ 
8vo, Upsal. This work was completed in four volumes, and contains 
a full account of his eventful life, from the time he started from Upsal 
with his Kobrean pension, till he returned to the same place laden 
with treasures from a hitherto unexplored region. In these volumes 
he has taken great pains to collect all possible information on the 
medicinal and dietetic properties of plants in the countries he visited, 
as well as their uses in rural and domestic economy. He recommends 
several new plants for cultivation in Europe as substitutes for those 
in present use. This work also gives a simple and pleasing account of 
the original natives of the places in which he sojourned, as well as of 
the European settlers, It has been translated into German by Gros- 
kund, and published at Berlin in 1792. It appeared in English at 
London in 1793, and in French at Paris in 1796. 

His next work was a ‘Prodromus Plantarum Capensium, Annis 
1772-75 collectarum,’ Upsalie, 1794-1800: being an account of the 
plants he had collected at-the Cape. From 1794 to 1805 he pub- 
lished in folio, under the title ‘Icones Plantarum Japonicarum, 
Upsaliz, a series of plates illustrative of the botany of the Japan 
Isles. These were followed by the ‘Flora Capensis,’ 8vo, Upsaliz, 
1807-13. In this work the most complete view of the botany of the 
Cape of Good Hope is given that has hitherto been published. In 
1807, in conjunction with Billberg, he published the ‘ Plantarum 
Brasiliensium Decas Prima, 4to, Upsaliz. In this work the plants 
collected by Freireiss and Sauerliinder, in the province of Minas 
Geraés in Brazil, are described; but the subsequent parts were 
published by other hands. ' 

Besides the above works, on which the reputation of Thunberg as a 
traveller and a botanist mainly rests, he was the author of almost 
countless memoirs and academical dissertations. The subjects of 
these were chiefly those which his long residence in Africa and Asia 
afforded. The majority of them are upon botanical topies; not a few 
however are devoted to a consideration of zoological subjects, 


Although botany was his primary object in his travels, he gs . 
he met 


~« 


no opportunity of obtaining a knowledge of the new animals 


with, and several of his papers are descriptions of these. He pub- — 
7 > 


lished several memoirs in the London ‘Philosophical T: 
and the ‘Transactions’ of the Linnzan Society, also in the Trans- 
actions of Russian, German, French, and Dutch scientific societies and 


—— 


* 


journals, and a much greater number in those of Sweden. The aca- 


demical dissertations bearing his name, and presented at the University 
of Upsal, are nearly 100 in number, and were published between the 
years 1789 and 1813. 

Thunberg was elected an honorary member of sixty-six learned 
societies. He died at the advanced age of eighty-five, on the 8th of 
August 1828, 

Retzius named a genus of plants in the natural order Acanthacee, 
in honour of him, Thunbergia. The following genera of plants have 
species named after him :—Jzxia, Isolepis, Cyperus, Imperata, Spatalla, 
Convolvulus, Campanula, Gardenia, Atriplex, Hydrocotyle, Rhus, Cras- 
sula, Berberis, Erica, Passerina, Thalictrwm, Cocculus, Bquisetwm, 
Hypnum, Fissidens, Cystoseira, Gyalecta, and Endocarpon. of insects, 


oy THURLOE, JOHN. 


THURLOE, JOHN. 33 


_ the genera Harpalus, Lygeus, Pyralis, and Tinca have specific names 
after Thunberg. 

Thunberg was an amiable kind man, and highly esteemed by his 
friends and pupils. The great additions that he has made to our 
knowledge of the plants of the world, as well as their uses to man, 

him amongst the most distinguished botanists of the last and 

sent century. He was not great as a vegetable physiologist, nor 

id he attempt anything more in systematic botany than a slight emen- 

dation of the system of Linneus. As a traveller, Thunberg is remark- 

able for the accuracy of his observations on the manners, habits, and 
domestic economy of the people that he visited. 

THURLOE, JOHN, who held the office of secretary of state during 
the Commonwealth, was born in 1616, at Abbots Roding, in Essex, of 
which place his father, the Rev. Thomas Thurloe, was rector, He was 

for the profession of the law. Through the interest of Oliver 
St. John, who was his patron through life, he was appointed, in 1645, 
one of the secretaries to the parliament commissioners for conducting 
the treaty of Uxbridge. He was called to the bar after this, in 1647, 
by the society of Lincoln’s Inn; and in March 1648 he received the 
- appointment of receiver or clerk of the cursitor’s fines, “worth at 
least 350/. per annum,” says Whitelocke; “and in this place was Mr, 
Thurloe servant to Mr. Solicitor St. John.” (‘ Memorials,’ p. 296.) 

Thurloe has left behind him a distinct denial of knowledge of or 
participation in King Charles’s death, which took place, as is well 
known, in January 1649. Writing to Sir Harbottle Grimston for the 
purpose of contradicting reports that St. John had been Cromwell’s 
counsellor on that and on other occasions, and “that I was the medium 
or hand between them by which their counsels were communicated to 
each other,” he says, “I was altogether a stranger to that fact and to 
all the counsels about it, having not had the least communication with 
any person whatsoever therein.” (Thurloe’s ‘State Papers,’ vol. vii., 
p. 914.) It was very unlikely that a person in Thurloe’s subordinate 

position at that time should have been consulted; and if it were a 
question of any importance whether he approved of the king’s death 
or not, his subsequent continual identification with the authors of that 
event is more than sufficient to fix him with responsibility. 

On the 11th of February 1650 Thurloe was appointed one of the 
officers of the treasury of the company of undertakers for draining 
Bedford Level, a new effort to drain this tract of country having been 
set on foot the year before. Ina letter from St. John to Thurloe, 
dated April 13, 1652 (‘State Papers,’ vol. i, p. 205), which is interest- 
ing as showing the terms on which Thurloe and St. John were, we find 
that Thurloe was then on an official tour of inspection: “ Now you 
are upon the place, it would be well to see all the works on the north 
of Bedford river to be begun. Pray by the next let me know whether 
Bedford river be finished as to the bottoming.” In the same letter 
are directions from St. John, now lord-chief-justice, for the purchase 
of a place for him in the neighbourhood of London, from which it 
would appear that Thurloe was in the habit of managing St. John’s 
private affairs for him. The same letter contains St, John’s congratu- 
lations to Thurloe on his appointment as secretary to the council of 
state, which appointment had just taken place: “I hear from Sir 
Hen. Vayne, and otherwise, of your election into Mr. Frost’s place, 
with the circumstances. God forbid I should in the least repine at 
any of his works of Providence, much more at those relating to your 
own good, and the good of many. No, I bless him. As soon as I 
heard the news, in what concerned you, I rejoiced in it upon those 
grounds. No, go on and prosper: let not your hands faint: wait 
upon Him: in his ways, and He that hath called you will cause his 
presence and blessing to go along with you.” In the course of the 
previous year, 1651, Thurloe had been to the Hague, as secretary 
to St. John and Strickland, ambassadors to the states of the United 
Provinces. 

When Cromwell assumed the Protectorship, in December 1653, 

- Thurloe was appointed his secretary of state. In consequence of his 
attaining to this distinction, he was, in the February succeeding, 
elected a bencher of the society of Lincoln’s Inn. Thurloe was 
elected member for the Isle of Ely in Cromwell’s second parliament, 
called in June 1654, and framed on the model prescribed by the 
Instrument of Government. He was re-elected for the Isle of Ely in 
the next parliament, cailed in September 1656. Cromwell obtained 
from this parliament an act settling the office of post of letters, both 
inland and foreign, in the state for ever, and granting power to the 
Protector to let it for eleven years at such rent as he should judge 
reasonable ; and it was let by him to Thurloe, at a rent of 40001. 
a year, as we learn from a memorandum drawn up by him when the 
‘Rump Parliament had cancelled the grant. (‘State Papers,’ vol. vii, 
p- 788.) It is to be inferred that he made much profit by this farming 
of the postage. The salary of his secretaryship of state was 800d, 
a year. He is described in a ‘Narrative of the Late Parliament,’ 
reprinted in the ‘Harleian Miscellany ’ (vol. iii, p. 453), as “ secretary 
of state and chief postmaster of England, places of a vast income.” 

There is the following entry in Whitelocke’s ‘Memorials, under 
the date of April 9, 1657:—‘ A plot discovered by the vigilancy of 
Thurloe, of an intended insurrection by Major-General Harrison and 
many of the Fifth-Monarchy Men” (p. 655). Thurloe afterwards, by 
Cromwell's desire, reported on the subject of this plot to the parlia- 
ment, and received in his place the thanks of the house, through the 


speaker, for his detection of the plot, and “ for the great services done 
by him to the commonwealth and to the parliament, both in this and 
many other particulars.” On the 13th of valy 1657 he was sworn one 
of the privy council to the Protector, appointed in accordance with 
the ‘Humble Petition and Advice.’ Honours now came thick upon 
him. In the year 1658 he was elected one of the governors of the 
Charter-House and chancellor of the University of Glasgow. 

In September 1658 Cromwell died, and his son Richard was pro- 
claimed in his stead. In the parliament that was called in December, 
Thurloe was solicited to sit for Tewksbury, in a letter which is worth 
extracting, as showing his estimation and position at this time, and the 
spirit of constituencies :—“ Noble Sir, We understand that you are 
pleased so much to honour this poor corporation as to accept of our 
free and unanimous electing you one of our burgesses in the next 
parliament, and to sit a member for this place. Sir, we are so sensible 
of the greatness of the obligation, that we know not by what expres- 
sions sufficiently to demonstrate our acknowledgements; only at 
present we beseech you to accept of this for an earnest, that whom- 
soever: you shall think worthy to be your partner shall have the 
second election; and our zeal and hearty affections to serve and 
honour you whilst we are, as we shall ever strive to be, Sir, your 
most humble and obliged servants,” &c.: signed by the bailiffs and 
justices of Tewksbury. (‘State Papers,’ vol. vii, p. 572.) He was 
not after all chosen for Tewksbury. He was elected for Wisbech, 
Huntingdon, and the University of Cambridge. His election for the 
last was communicated to him ina letter from the celebrated Dr. 
Cudworth, who wrote to him in this strain :—‘* We being all very glad 
that there was a person of so mnch worth and so good a friend to the 
university and learning as yourself, whom we might betrust with the 
care of our privileges and concernments.” (‘State Papers,’ vol. vii., 
p- 587.) Thurloe made his election to sit for the University of 
Cambridge. 

The meeting of this parliament was the beginning of discontents 
and of Richard Cromwell's fall. We find Thurloe, in a letter to 
Henry Cromwell, viewing the complaints of the army and of the 
opposition in parliament as pointed principally against himself, and 
stating that he had asked the Protector's permission to retire from his 
office. “TI trust,” he adds, “ other honest men will have their oppor- 
tunity, and may do the same thing with myself with better acceptance, 
having not been engaged in many particulars, as I have, in your father’s 
lifetime, which must be the true reason of these stirrings; for they 
were all set on foot before his now highness had done or refused one 
single thing, or had received any advice from any one person whatso- 
ever.” Thurloe remained however secretary of state. It was one of 
the objects set before themselves by the royalists in this parliament, 
who, by uniting with the republican party, formed a most troublesome 
opposition to Richard Cromwell’s government, to impeach Thurloe ; 
but this object was yet undeveloped when the parliament was dissolved. 
Thurloe appears to have given strong counsel against the dissolution, 
though it is generally stated otherwise, on the authority of the follow- 
ing passage in Whitelocke:—“ Richard advised with the Lord Broghill, 
Fiennes, Thurloe, Wolsey, myself, and some others, whether it were 
not fit to dissolve the present parliament: most of them were for it; 
I doubted the success of it” (p. 677). Those mentioned are very few 
of the council, and, even if there had been no others, it would be 


quite consistent with the words of this passage that Thurloe should 


have sided with Whitelocke. That Thurloe strenuously opposed the 
dissolution is distinctly stated, and with circumstantial mention of the 
authority, in Calamy’s Life of Howe, prefixed to Howe’s Works, p. 9, 
ed. 1724, fol. We know further that the dissolution was urged on 
Richard Cromwell by the republican and royalist parties, which were 
united against Thurloe. Whitelocke says, a little afterwards, of the 
dissolution, that it “‘caused much trouble in the minds of many honest 
men; the cavaliers and republicans rejoiced at it.” One of the “many 
honest men” was doubtless Thurloe. (See also Clarendon’s ‘State 
Papers,’ vol. iii, pp. 420-60.) The immediate consequence of the 
dissolution was the summoning, by Fleetwood and the council of 
officers, of the Rump of the Long Parliament, and Richard Cromwell's 
deposition. 

The letters written during Richard Cromwell’s short Protectorate, 
in the third volume of Clarendon’s ‘State Papers,’ are full of acknow- 
ledgments of Thurloe’s influence with Richard Cromwell, and of the 
importance attached to him by the intriguing Royalists. Thus, 
Cooper, one of Hyde's spies, writes to him, February 13, 1659, “ Crom- 
wellis governed by Thurloe, whether for fear or love I know not; but 
sure it is, he hath power to dispose him against the sense of right, 
or indeed his own interests. Thurioe’s malice, I doubt, will never 
suffer him to do us good” (p. 425). Again Hyde writes to another of 
his agents, Brodrick, ‘There is nothing we have thought of more 
importance, or have given more in charge to our friends since the 
beginning of the parliament, than that they should advance all charges 
and accusations against Thurloe and St. John, who will never think of 
serving the king; and if they two were thoroughly prosecuted, and 
some of the members of the High Court of Justice, Cromwell’s spirits 
would fall apace” (p. 428). “It is strange,” Hyde writes a month 
after, March 10, 1659, “they have not in all this time fell upon Thurloe 
and those other persons who advanced Cromwell's tyranny” (p. 436). 
Then overtures to Thurloe to aid the king are thought of. “Ido 


39 THURLOE, JOHN. 


THURLOW, LORD. 40 


confess to you,” Hyde writes, “I cannot comprehend why Thurloe, 
and even his master St. John, should not be very ready to dispose 
Cromwell to join with the king, and why they should not reasonably 
promise themselves more particular advantages from thence than from 
anything else that is like to fall out” (p.449). After the dissolution 
of the parliament, serious thoughts seem to have been entertained of 
soliciting Thurloe’s and St. John’s aid (p. 477). But Thurloe after- 
wards becomes again an object of fear to Hyde. During the govern- 
ment by the army, he writes, “I do less understand how Thurloe 
shapes, and is in danger to be exempted out of the Act of Oblivion, 
and at the same time employed in the greatest secrets of the govern- 
ment, for I have some reason to believe that he meddles as much as 
eyer in the foreign intelligence” (p. 532). 

On the 14th of January 1660, Thurloe was succeeded in his office of 
secretary of state by Scot, one of the republican party; but he was 
reappointed on the 27th of February. His patent as chief postmaster 
had been cancelled in the interval, on the 2nd of February. (‘Com- 
mons’ Journals,’ vol. vii. p, 533.) In the movements that followed for 
the restoration of Charles II., Thurloe made an offer of his services to 
those who were bringing about that event. Sir E. Hyde writes to 
Sir J ohn Grenville, April 23rd, 1660, “ We have since I saw you, 
received very frank overtures from Secretary Thurloe, with many great 
professions of resolving to serve the king, and not only in his own 
endeavours, but by the services of his friends, who are easily enough 
guessed at. This comes through the hands of a person who will not 
deceive us, nor is easily to be deceived himself, except by such bold 
dissimulation of the other, which cannot be at first discerned. . . . The 
king returned such answers as are fit, and desires to see some effects of 
his good affection, and then he will find his service more acceptable.” 
(Thurloe’s ‘State Papers,’ vol. vii, p. 897.) And Hyde goes on to in- 
struct his correspondent to consult Monk as to Thurloe’s character, 
and as to his power to be of use, supposing he were sincerely willing. 
On the 15th of May Thurloe was accused by the parliament of high 
treason, and ordered to be secured ; but on the 29th of June a vote 
was passed “allowing him liberty to attend the secretary of state, at 
such times as they [the House] shall appoint, and for so long a time as 
they shall own his attendance for the service of the state, without any 
trouble or molestation during such attendance, and in his going and 
returning to and from the secretary of state, any former order of this 
House notwithstanding.” 

After his release from imprisonment, he retired to Great Milton in 
Oxfordshire, where he generally resided except in term-time, when he 
oceupied his chambers in Lincoln's Inn. It is said that he was often 
solicited by Charles II. to resume public business, and always refused, 
telling the king that he despaired of serving him as he had served 
Cromwell, whose rule was to seek out men for places, and not places 
for men. (Birch’s ‘Life of Thurloe, prefixed to ‘State Papers,’ 
p. xix.) Thurloe died at Lincoln’s-Inn on the 21st of February, 1668. 

He had been twice married, and left four sons and two daughters, 
all by his second wife, a sister of Sir Thomas Overbury. He was 
possessed, during the days of power, of the manors of Whittlesey 
St. Mary’s and Whittlesey St. Andrew’s, and the rectory of Whittle- 
sey St. Mary’s, in the Isle of Ely, and of Wisbech Castle which 
he rebuilt. But after the Restoration they reverted to the Bishop 
of Ely. There is an entry in the Commons’ Journals of the 18th 
of May 1660: “Mr. Secretary Thurloe put ‘out of the ordinance for 
assessment of the Isle of Ely” (vol. viii. p. 36). Dr. Birch says he had 
an estate of about 400/. a-year at Astwood in Buckinghamshire. In a 
monumental inscription to the memory of his son-in-law in St, Paul's 
Church, Bedford (‘Cole’s MSS.,’ vol. iii, p. 43), Thurloe is. described as 
of Astwood, Bucks, 

_ Thurloe does not appear to have possessed any striking qualities, 
either moral or intellectual, to impress the minds of his contempo- 
raries ; and we know little else of him than that he had great powers of 
business. Burnet describes him as “a very dexterous man at getting 
intelligence.” (‘ Hist. of his own Times,’ i. 66.) From a story in 
Burnet relative to Syndercomb’s conspiracy against Cromwell, and 
from what is said by Pepys of Morland, when assistant to Thurloe, 
who played his master false, and gained a baronetcy from Charles II. 
for his treachery, it might appear that he was not of a very generous 
disposition, or much liked by those who were under him. Morland 
attributed his misconduct to “Thurloe’s bad usage of him.” (Pepys, 
‘Diary’ under May 13, and August 14,1660, [Mortanp, Sir SaMuEt.]} 
Burnet’s story is, that Thurloe treated lightly information which had 
been given him of the design on Cromwell’s life,and that when, on the 
subsequent discovery of the design, Cromwell became aware that 
information had been given to Thurloe, on which he had not acted, 
and blamed Thurloe for his conduct, Thurloe availed himself of his 
influence with the Protector to malign his informant; “So he (the 
informant) found,” says Burnet, “ how dangerous it was even to pre- 
serve a prince (so he called him), when a minister was wounded in the 
doing of it, and that the minister would be too hard for the prince, 
even though his own safety was concerned in it” (vol. i, p. 79). ‘ 

Thurloe’s ‘State Papers,’ 7 vols, folio, 1742, contain a large mass of 
records of his official transactions, together with a number of private 
letters and papers. They were edited by Dr. Birch, who gives the 

following history of Thurloe’s papers: “The principal part of this 
collection consists of a series of papers discovered in the reign of King 


‘his practice. 


William, in a false ceiling in the garrets belonging to Secretary 
Thurloe’s chambers, No. xiii, near the chapel in Lincoln’s-Inn, by a 
clergyman who had borrowed those chambers, during the long vacation, 
of his friend Mr. Tomlinson, the owner of them. This clergyman 
soon after disposed of the papers to the Right Honourable John Lord 
Somers, then lord high chancellor of England, who caused them to be 
bound up in 67 volumes in folio. These afterwards descended to Sir 
Joseph Jekyll, master of the rolls; upon whose decease they were pur- 
chased by the late Mr. Fletcher Gyles, bookseller.” They were published 
by Mr. Gyles’s executors. Dr. Birch, the editor, received many other 
papers from different individuals, especially from Lord Shelburne and 
the then Archbishop of Canterbury, which he has incorporated in the 
collection. For historical purposes this is an invaluable collection. 

THURLOW, EDWARD, LORD, was born in 1732, at Little Ash- 
field near Stowmarket, in Suffolk. His father, Thomas Thurlow, was 
a clergyman, and held successively the livings of Little Ashfield, and 
of Stratton St. Mary’s in Norfolk. After receiving the rudiments of 
his education from his father, young Thurlow was sent to the gram- 
mar-school at Canterbury at the suggestion of Dr. Donne, who sought 
(as Southey states in his ‘ Life of Cowper’ upon the authority of Sir 
Egerton Brydges) to gratify a malignant feeling towards the head- 
master, by placing under his care “a daring, refractory, clever boy, 
who would be sure to torment him.” The motive ascribed to Donne 
is far-fetched, and seems improbable; but there is no doubt that 
Thurlow was educated at the Canterbury school, and that he continued 
there several years, and until he was removed to Caius College, Cam- 
bridge. His character and conduct at the university did not promise 
any meritorious eminence in future life. He gained no academical 
honours, and was compelled to leave Cambridge abruptly in con- 
sequence of turbulent and indecorous behaviour towards the dean of 
his college. Soon after he quitted Cambridge he was entered as a 
member of the Society of the Inner Temple. In Michaelmas Term, 
1754, he was called to the bar, and joined the Western Circuit in the 
ensuing spring. 

Thurlow immediately applied himself to the practice of his profession 
with great assiduity; and although he brought with him an indifferent 
character from the university, he attained unusually early to reputa- 
tion and employment both in Westminster Hall and on the circuit. 
His name appears frequently in the Law Reports soon after he was 
called to the bar; and his success in the profession he had chosen was — 
clearly ascertained in less than seven years from the commencement of 
In 1761 he obtained the rank of king’s counsel; and it 
may perhaps be inferred from an anecdote which is related by his 
early friend and associate Cowper, in one of his letters (Cowper's 
‘Works,’ vol. v., p. 254, Southey’s edit.), and which refers to this 
period, that Thurlow had then acquired a degree of reputation which 
suggested the prediction that he would eventually rise to the highest 
office in his profession. A more convincing proof of his position in the 
law is however recorded in the Reports, from which it appears that 
immediately after his appointment as king’s counsel his practice in 
the courts rapidly increased, and during ten years preceding his 
appointment as solicitor-general, was exceeded only by that of Sir 
Fletcher Norton, and one or two others of the most eminent advo- 
cates of his time. To have succeeded so early and to so great an 
extent, without adventitious aid from influence or connection, and in 
competition with advocates of unquestioned ability and learning, is 
a substantial argument of professional merit. His employment in 
preparing and arranging the documentary evidence for the trial of the 
appeal in the House of Lords against the decision of the Court of 
Session in the Great Douglas Cause (which, according to professional 
tradition, resulted from mere accident) may have had the effect of 
bringing his talents, industry, and legal acquirements under the imme- 
diate notice of persons of power and influence, and of thus opening the 
way to his subsequent elevation. 

In the new parliament called in 1768 he was returned as member for 
the borough of Tamworth, and became a constant and useful supporter 
of Lord North’s administration. Upon Dunning’s resignation of the 
office of solicitor-general in March 1770, and Blackstone’s refusal to 
accept it (‘Life of Sir William Blackstone,’ prefixed to Blackstone’s 
‘ Reports’), Thurlow received the appointment, and in January 1771, 
he succeeded Sir William De Grey as attorney-general. Soon after his 
introduction to office, he attracted the particular notice of George III. 
by the zeal and energy displayed by him in supporting the policy of 
Lord North’s government respecting America, and in which the king 
is known to have taken the warmest interest. Thurlow’s strenuous 
and steady support of the minister'in the great parliamentary contest 
which ensued respecting that policy, procured for him a degree of con- 
fidence and even of personal regard on the part of the king, which 
continued unabated for upwards of twenty years, and had unquestion- 
ably great influence in the remarkable vicissitudes of party which 
occurred in that period. 

In the summer of 1778 lord chancellor Bathurst resigned his office ; 
and on the 2nd of June in that year Thurlow was appointed his suc- 
cessor, and raised to the peerage with the title of Baron Thurlow of 
Ashfield in the county of Suffolk. Four years afterwards, in March 
1782, when Lord North was removed from power, and the ephemeral 
Rockingham administration was formed, Thurlow remained in posses- 
sion of the great seal by the express command of the king, and in 

t 


4 THURLOW, LORD. 


THURNEYSSER, LEONARD, 42 


_ spite of Mr. Fox’s opposition to his continuance in office; thus 
furnishing an instance without a parallel in the history of English 
party, of a lord chancellor retaining office under an administration to 
all the leading features of whose policy he was resolutely opposed. 
Nor was he content in this inconsistent association to differ from his 
colleagues in opinion only; on the contrary, he took no pains to 
- ¢onceal his, hostility to their principles, and even opposed in the House 
_ of Lords with all his characteristic energy the measures which they 
_ unanimously supported. Thus, after the bill for preventing govern- 
“ment contractors from sitting in the House of Commons had been 
introduced into the House of Lords, where it was supported by Lord 
‘Shelburne and all the ministers in that house, the lord chancellor left 
he woolsack, and himself moved that “the bill be not committed,” 
‘denouncing the measure as “an attempt to deceive and betray the 
“people,” and designating it ‘‘a jumble of contradictions.” (Hansard’s 
ack Hist.’ vol. xxii. pp. 1356-1379.) The inconvenience produced 
by this embarrassing disunion of councils was deeply felt, and was one 
of the principal reasons for Mr. Fox’s retirement from administration, 
on the death of the Marquis of Rockingham; and when the admi- 
‘nistration was dissolved in February 1783, upon the coalition formed 
_ between Lord North and Mr. Fox, Lord Thurlow was compelled to 
retire from office, notwithstanding the exertions of the king to retain 
him. But though no longer chancellor, he still continued to be one of 
_ those who were described by Junius as “ the king’s friends,” and was 
__ supposed to have been his secret and confidential adviser during the 
short reign of the Coalition ministry. Upon the dissolution of that 
' ministry at the end of the same year in which it was formed, the 
great seal was restored to Lord Thurlow by Mr. Pitt, who then became 
_ prime minister. He continued to hold the office of lord chancellor 
_ for nine years after his reappointment: and until the occurrence of 
the king’s madness in 1788, appeared to act cordially with the rest of 
the cabinet ; but when that event rendered a change of councils by 
means of a regency probable, he was suspected, with good reason, of 
some intriguing communications with the Prince of Wales and the 
Whigs (Moore’s ‘ Life of Sheridan,’ vol. ii. chap, xiii.), and was always 
subsequently regarded with distrust by Pitt and his colleagues. On 
the other hand, Lord Thurlow took no pains to conceal his dislike of 
Pitt; and that minister felt himself so embarrassed by the chancellor's 
personal hostility to him, that in 1789 he complained to the king, who 
immediately wrote to Thurlow upon the subject, and obtained from 
him a satisfactory answer. His angry feeling however still continued, 
until at length, in 1792, probably relying upon his personal influence 
with the king, he ventured to adopt a similar course to that which he 
had followed in very different circumstances under the Rockingham 
administration, and actually opposed several measures brought into 
parliament by the government. In particular he violently opposed 
Mr. Pitt’s favourite scheme for continuing the Sinking Fund, and 
voted against it in the House of Lords, though he had never expressed 
his dissent from the measure in the cabinet. This kind of opposition, 
__ - though submitted to from necessity by a weak government like that 
of the Marquis of Rockingham, could not be endured by so powerful 
a minister as Pitt; and on the next day he informed the king that 
either the lord chancellor or himself must retire from the administra- 
tion. The king, without any struggle or even apparent reluctance, at 
‘once consented to the removal of Lord Thurlow, who was acquainted 
by command of his majesty that he must resign the great seal upon 
the prorogation of parliament. Lord Thurlow is said to have been 
deeply mortified by this conduct on the part of the king; and he is 
related to have declared in conversation that ‘‘no man had a right to 
treat another as the king had treated him.” Subsequently to his 
notice of dismisgal, and before he quitted office, his ill humour was 
displayed by his opposition to another measure prepared and supported 
by Mr. Pitt, the object of which was the encouragement of the growth 
of timber in the New Forest. On this occasion he reflected severely 
upon those who advised the king upon this measure, and went so far 
as to say that his majesty had been imposed upon. (Tomline’s ‘ Life 
of Pitt,’ vol. iii. p. 398-99.) One of his latest acts as lord chancellor 
was to sign a protest in the House of Lords against Mr. Fox's Libel 
Act. The opportunity of his retirement from office was taken to 
nt him a new patent, by which he was created Baron Thurlow, of 
Thurlow, in the county of Suffolk, with remainder, failing his male 
issue, to his three nephews, one of whom afterwards succeeded to the 
title under this limitation. 
After his retirement from office in 1792, Lord Thurlow ceased to 
take any leading part in politics, and having little personal influence 
_- with any party, became insignificant as a public character. He occa- 
‘sionally spoke in the House of Lords on the subjects of interest which 
were discussed at the period of the French revolution; and it is 
worthy of remark that he frequently opposed the measures adopted 
by the Tory government at that time for the suppression of popular 
disturbances. Instances of this occur with respect to the Treasonable 
Practices Bill and the Seditious Meetings Bill, in 1795; and a com- 
parison of the sentiments expressed by him on these occasions, with 
his speeches respecting America during Lord North’s administration, 
affords a striking example of political inconsistency. A circumstance 
is recorded in the ‘Memoirs of Sir Samuel Romilly’ (vol. ii. p. 124), 
which proves that within a few months of his death Lord Thurlow 
“was still confidentially consulted by members of the royal family. 


id 4 


at eS all 


~ 


cA 
~ 


oe e- 4 see — ee oi i ' 


On occasion of the first communication of the charges made by Lady 
Douglas against the princess of Wales in 1505, the prince (afterwards 
George IV.) directed that Thurlow should be consulted, and the par- 
ticulars of the interview between him and Sir Samuel Romilly are 
characteristic and interesting. Lord Thurlow died at Brighton on the 
12th of September 1826, after an illness of two years. 

THURMER, JOSEPH, a German architect of some note, was born 
at Miinich, November 3, 1789, but did not begin to apply himself to 
architecture professionally until 1817, when he became a pupil of 
Professor Fischer's, and had for his fellow-students Gaertner, Ziebland, 
Ohlmuller [Garrryern; OntMuLier], and many others who have 
since rendered themselves more or less distinguished. At the end of 
the following year (after a previous visit to Rome at the commence- 
ment of it) he joined Hiibsch, Heger (died 1837), and Koch, in a pro- 
fessional excursion to Greece, where he spent five months in studying 
and drawing the remains of buildings at Athens, some few of which 
he published on his return, with the title of ‘ Ansichten von Athen 
und seine Denkmaler,’ 1823-26. He did not however confine himself 
to the study of the Grecian style, nor was he such a prejudiced 
admirer of it as to have no relish for any other; on the contrary, he 
considered the Italian style of the time of Leo X. to be equally 
worthy of the architect’s attention, and to deserve to be far better, 
more faithfully and tastefully, represented by means of engravings 
than it had previously been. He accordingly joined with Gutensohn 
in bringing out a ‘Sammlung von Denkmaler, &c., ‘Collection of 
Architectural Studies, and Decorations from Buildings at Rome, of 
the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries,’ the first number of which ap- 
peared in 1826; but, unfortunately, it did not meet with the encourage- 
ment it deserved, and was therefore given up, when very little progress 
had been made with it. The publication however was advantageous 
to Thurmer, since it recommended him to notice, and led to his 
receiving (1827) at the same time two different invitations, one from 
Frankfurt, the other from Dresden, to which last he gave the pre- 
ference. He was there made professor-extraordinary at the school of 
architecture, and in 1832 was promoted to be first professor of 
architecture, in which capacity he did much for the advancement of 
the art and the improvement of taste. Though he has left very little 
executed by himself in that city, the only public building in it entirely 
by him being the post-office (for though the ‘ Hauptwache,’ or guard- 
house, was erected by him, it was after Schinkel’s designs), his 
opinions had a very beneficial influence. That he should have had so 
few opportunities for displaying his ability, is not very surprising, nor 
does it detract from his reputation, since he did not long survive the 
completion of his first edifice: he died November 13th, 1833, while 
staying at Miinich. What he might have done, had a longer life been 
granted him, is shown by the number of designs he left, all more or 
less stamped by originality and artistical feeling. That the grateful 
regard expressed for his memory and his talents by his friends and 
pupils was not a mere temporary effusion, is proved by their having 
erected a bronze bust and monument to him, in 1838, at the Academy 
of Arts. 

THURNEYSSER ZUM THURN, LEONARD, a celebrated alche- 
mist and astrologer, was born in 1530 at Basle, where his father 
carried on the trade of a goldsmith. He was himself brought up to 
this employment, but he was obliged to leave his native place when 
eighteen years of age, on account of having sold to a Jewa piece of 
gilt lead for pure gold. He first went to England, thence to France, 
and afterwards to Germany, where he enlisted among the troops of 
the margrave of Brandenburg. The following year he was taken 
prisoner; from that time he gave up a military life, and having visited 
the mines and foundries of Germany and the north of Europe, he 
came back in 1551 to Niirnberg, Strasburg, and Kostnitz. Here he 
again carried on the trade of a goldsmith, and made much money by 
it, till on account of his reputation for skill in the art of mining, he 
was sent for to the Tyrol to superintend different mineral works, 
Accordingly in 1558 he went to Tarenz in Upper Innthal, and estab- 
lished on his own account in that place, as well as at St. Leonard, 
foundries for the purifying of sulphur, the success of which contributed 
still more to his celebrity. The Archduke Ferdinand had se much 
confidence in him that he sent him to travel in Scotland, the Orkney 
Islands, Spain, and Portugal. Thurneysser also visited the coasts of 
Barbary, Ethiopia, Egypt, Arabia, Syria, and Palestine, and returned 
to the Tyrol in 1567. Two years afterwards, at the request of the 
same prince, he again visited the mines of Hungary and Bohemia. 
The publication of his works made him determine to go to Miinster 
and Frankfurt on the Oder, at which latter place he became acquainted 
with the elector of Brandenburg, whose wife he cured of a dangerous 
illness, and who resolved to attach him to his service in the hope that 
he might discover in his estates some unknown mineral treasures. 
Thurneysser accepted the office of physician to the prince, and accom- 
panied him to Berlin, where, from his skill in profiting by the pre- 
judices and weaknesses of his contemporaries, and from being acquainte 
with all the resources of charlatanism, he soon succeeded not only in 
acquiring considerable wealth, but also in passing himself off for one 
of the most learned and scientific men of his age. At length however, 
by the envy of others, and still more by his own imprudence, his decep- 
tions were discovered, and he was, in 1584, obliged to leave Berlin. 
He went to Prague, Cologne, and Rome; and after having thus led a 


43 TIARINI, ALESSANDRO. 


TIBERIUS CLAUDIUS NERO. 44 


wandering life fur some years, he died at last ina convent at Cologne, 
at the age of sixty-six, in 1596. He was an advocate for the pretended 
sciences of alchemy and uromancy, and his whole history (like that of 
most similar characters) is a proof of the influence that may be 
acquired in an ignorant age by a bold and enterprising man, when he 
possesses some little information above the generality of his contem- 
poraries. His writings were numerous, but of little worth, and they 
are now very seldom looked into. The titles of twelve of them are 
given in the ‘ Biographie Médicale,’ from which work the preceding 
account is taken. 

TIARI’NI, ALESSANDRO, one of the most celebrated painters of 
the Bolognese school, was born at Bologna in 1577. He first studied 
under Prospero Fontana, and, after Fontana’s death in 1597, under 
Bartolomeo Cesi; but haying in a quarrel discharged a pistol or similar 
weapon at a fellow-scholar, without however doing him any injury, he 
was obliged to fly from Bologna. He went to Florence, and there 
engaged himeelf with a portrait-painter, for whom he painted hands 
and draperies, and some of his performances having attracted the 
notice of Domenico da Passignano, he was admitted by that painter 
into his studio as a scholar. Tiarini remained with Passignano seven 
years, and by that time acquired so great a reputation, that he received 
invitations from Bologna to return to that city. In Bologna his works 
excited universal admiration for their invention and earnestness of 
character, and for their boldness of foreshortening, correctness of design, 
and propriety of colouring: the tone of Tiarini’s pictures is sombre; he 


used little red, and avoided gay colours generally. His works, which. 


are very numerous, consist, chiefly in oil-paintings; he executed com- 
paratively little in fresco ; those in public places alone, in Bologna and 
its vicinity, and in Mantua, Modena, Reggio, Parma, Cremona, and 
Pavia, amount to upwards of two hundred: their subjects are gene- 
rally of a melancholy or serious nature. The following are the most 
celebrated :—A Miracle of St. Dominic, in the Capella del Rosario, 
in the church of San Domenico at Bologna, painted in competition 
with Lionello Spada, in which the saint restores a dead child to life; 
the exhumation of a dead monk, in the convent of San Michele in 
Bosco; and St. Peter repenting his Denial of Christ, standing out- 
side the door of the house of the high priest, with the Mocking of 
Christ in the background, illuminated by torchlight. 

Ludovico Caracci, whose style Tiarini ultimately adopted, was a 
great admirer of his works: when he first saw Tiarini’s picture of the 
Miracle of San Domenico, he is reported to have exclaimed that he 
knew no living master that could be compared with Tiarini. Many of 
Tiarini’s pictures, out of Bologna, have been attributed to one or 
other of the Caracci: such was the case with the celebrated Deposi- 
tion from the Cross, now in the Gallery of the Academy of Bologna, 
formerly in the church of the college of Montalto: it is engraved in 
the work of Rosaspini, ‘La Pinacoteca della Ponteficia Accademia 
delle Belle Arti in Bologna.’ . 

Several of Tiarini’s pictures have lost their colour, owing to his 
practice of glazing; in some the colouring consists entirely of glazed 
tints, the design being executed in grey. He opened a life academy 
in Bologna, and had many scholars. Malvasia has preserved the name 
of a famous model that he used frequently to engage, Valstrago. 
Tiarini died in 1668, aged ninety-one, 

TIBALDEO. [TEBatvEo.] 

TIBALDI, PELLEGRI/NO, otherwise called Pelligrino Pellegrini, 
or sometimes Pellegrino da Bologna, distinguished himself both in 
painting and in architecture. He was born in 1527, at Bologna, 
where his father, who originally came from Valsolda in the Milanese 
territory, was only a common mason. How, so circumstanced, the 
father was able to bring up his son to a profession requiring means 

- beyond those of his own condition in life, does not appear; neither is 
it known from whom Tibaldi received his first instruction in painting. 
In 1547 he visited Rome, with the intention, it is said, of studying 
under Pierino del Vaga, but as the latter died in that same year, he 
could hardly have received any lessons from him. Whether he became 
a pupil of Michael Agnolo is unknown: he certainly studied his 
works very successfully, for while he caught from them grandeur of 
style and energy of forms, he so attempered their severity by the 
freedom and grace of his pencil, that he afterwards acquired from the 
Caracci the name of ‘ Michelagnolo Riformato, and may be considered 
as the originator of that style which they perfected. We must how- 
ever conclude that although he was employed there in the church of 
§. Lodovico di Franeesi, he did not display any great ability with his 
pencil during his residence at Rome, it being related of him that he 
felt so discouraged as to have determined to starve himself to death, 
from which desperate resolution he was withheld only by Ottaviano 
Mascherino, who advised him to give up painting and devote himself 
entirely to architecture, for which he had shown considerablé taste. 
In all probability this anecdote has been strangely exaggerated, nor 
are we informed how he set about putting Mascherino’s advice into 
practice. That he partly adopted it, is certain, and equally certain 
that if he renounced painting for a while, he returned to it: in faet, 
not very long after the circumstance just spoken of, he was sent to 
Bologna by Cardinal Poggio to adorn his palace (afterwards occupied by 
the Academia Clementina), where he painted the history of Ulysses. 
For the same prelate he also painted the Poggi Chapel, which had 
been erected after Tibaldi’s own designs, and it was those productions 


which excited the admiration of the Caracci. He was next employed 
at Loretto and Ancona, where he executed several works in fresco, 
and among them those with which he adorned the Sala de’ Mercanti, 
or Exchange, in the last-mentioned city. 

His reputation as an architect in the meanwhile increased, and after 
being employed to design, if not to execute, several buildings at 
Bologna, and the Palazzo della Sapiensa, or Collegio Borromeo, at 


Pavia (which last was begun by Cardinal Carlo Borromeo in ees . 


restored the Archiepiscopal Palace at Milan, and was a) 

chief architect of the Duomo, or cathedral, in that city (1570). He 
suggested the idea or first design of the modern facade attached to 
that celebrated Gothic stracture,—a design which has obtained him 
both praise and censure in almost equal degree. Among other 
buildings by him at Milan are the church of San Lorenzo, that of 
S. Fedele, and that of the Jesuits. But the work which, if less cele- 
brated than some of his others, is considered by one of his erities his 
chef-d’ceuvre, and a masterpiece for the contrivance and ability rest 
in it, is the ‘Casa Professa,’ or that of the Jesuits at Genoa, with its 
church, &c., where he completely mastered all the difficulties arising 


from the inconvenience of the site. Neither his fame nor his works — 


were confined to Italy, for the former caused him to be invited to 
Spain in 1586, by Philip IL, where he was employed both in his 
capacity of architect and in that of painter, in which last he executed 
many admirable frescoes in the Escurial. Liberally rewarded by 
Philip, who also conferred on him the title of Marquis of Valsolda (his 
birthplace), Tibaldi returned to Italy after passing about nine years in 
Spain, and died at Milan in 1598; such at least is the date assigned 
by Tiraboschi, though some make it much earlier, 1590 or 1591, and 
others about as much later, viz. 1606. ay 
(Tiraboschi; Lanzi; Milizia; Zanotti; Nagler.) ' 
TIBALDI, DOMENICO, younger brother, not son of the 


as he is sometimes called, was born in 1541, and was, if not equally — 


celebrated, like him both a painter and architect, but ranks far higher 
in the latter than in the other character. He executed many buildings 
at Bologna, the principal among which are the Palazzo Magnani, the 
Dogana, or custom-house, the chapel in the cathedral, so greatly 
admired by Clement VIII. as being superior to anything of the kind 
at Rome, and the small church of the Madonna del Borgo. - Domenico 
also practised engraving with success, and in that branch of art was 
the instructor of Agostino Caracci. He died at Bologna in 1583. 
TIBE’RIUS CLAU’DIUS NERO was born in Rome, on the 16th 
November, 8.0. 42, according to Suetonius. He belonged to the gens 
Claudia, an old patrician family of great distinction, which was known 
for its aristocratical pride. Tiberius belonged to this house by the 
side of his father, Tiberius Claudius Nero, as well as his mother, 
Livia Drusilla, who was the niece of her husband, being the daughter 
of Appius Pulcher. 
Claudius Nero the elder, and they were both sons of Appius Cecus. 
His father was questor to C. Julius Cesar, and distinguished himself 


as commander of the fleet in the Alexandrian war. He became succes- | 


sively praetor and pontifex, and in the civil troubles during the 
triumvirate he followed the party of M. Antonius. Being compelled 
by Octavianus to fly from Rome, he escaped by sea, and hastened to 
M. Antonius, who‘was then in Greece. His wife and his infant son 
accompanied him in his flight, and they happily escaped. Tiberius 
the elder soon made his peace with Octavianus; he gave up to him 
his wife, Livia Drusilla, who was then pregnant with Nero Claudius 
Drusus, and he died shortly afterwards (B.c. 38). Thus Tiberius the 
younger and his brother Nero Claudius Drusus became stepsons of 
Octavianus, who from the year B.c, 27 was Augustus. 

The great talents of Tiberius were developed at a very early age. 
In his ninth year he delivered a public speech in honour of his father ; 
in B.c, 29 he accompanied Octavianus in his triumph after the battle of 


Actium, and rode on his left side, Marcellus being on the right. After — 


having assumed the toga virilis, he distinguished himself by splendid 
entertainments which he gave to the people. He married Vipsania 
Agrippina, the daughter of Agrippa, and the granddaughter of Cicero’s 
friend T. Pomponius Atticus. She brought him a son, Drusus, and 
she was again with child when Tiberius was obliged to sacrifice her to 
the policy of Augustus, who compelled him ,to marry his daughter 


Julia, the widow of Marcellus and of Agrippa, and the mother of © 


Caius and Lucius Cesar. (B.c. 12.) Tiberius obeyed reluctantly, but 
he never ceased to love Vipsania. Such was his affection for her, that 
whenever he saw his repudiated wife he would follow her with tears ; 
and accordingly an order was given that Agrippina should never 
appear in sight of Tiberius. Forsome time Tiberius lived in harmony 
with Julia, and had a son by her, who died young. But the scanda- 
lous conduct of Julia soon disgusted him, and he withdrew from all 
intimate intercourse with her. a 
During this time Tiberius took an active part in public affairs. He 
defended the interests of King Archelaus (of Judea, or of Cappadocia), 
of the Tralliani, and of the Thessalians; he was active in obtai 
relief for the inhabitants of Laodicea, of Thyatira, and of Chios, who, 
having suffered from an earthquake, had implored the assistance of the 
senate: he pleaded against Fannius Cepio, who had conspired against 
Augustus, and who was condemned for high treason; and he was 
twice intrusted with the ‘cura annone.’ Tiberius made his first 


campaign as Tribunus militum in the Cantabrian war. From Spain 


This Appius Pulcher was a brother of Tiberius — 


TIBERIUS CLAUDIUS NERO, 


_ eo ee rene ane A 


TIBERIUS CLAUDIUS NERO. 46 


_ he went to Asia Minor, and succeeded in restoring Tigranes to the 
_ throne of Armenia, and in forcing the Parthians to surrender the 

eagles which they had taken from M. Crassus, He returned to Rome 
 ins¢.18. During a year he had the command in Gallia Comata, the 
_ peace of which province was troubled by disputes between the princes 
_ and by incursions of the barbarians. 

Tn B.c. 15 he and his brother Drusus brought the Alpine nations of 
_ Rhetia to obedience, He also put an end to the war in Pannonia, 
_ which had lasted since 8.0, 18, and which he terminated by subduing 
_ the Breuci, the Scordisci, aud the Dalmatsz, who were allied with the 
- Pamnonians. (8.c. 14.) The Germani having defeated M. Lollius and 
taken the eagle of the fifth legion in Bc. 16, (Velleius Paterculus, 
ii. 97), Drusus was sent to the Rhine, and Tiberius returned to Rome, 
where he celebrated his first triumph. In the Rhetian war Tiberius 
had shown great military skill, but the Romans carried on the war 

with unheard-of cruelties against the inhabitants, of whom the 
majority were killed or carried off as'slaves, In memory of his 
vi a monument was erected at Torba (now Monaco, in the 
_ neighbourhood of Nizza), on which the names of forty-five Rheetian 
tribes were inscribed. (Plinius, ‘ Hist. Nat.,’ iii, 24.) In Bo. 13 
_ Tiberius was appointed consul, together with P. Quintilius Varus, 
_ Meanwhile Drusus carried on the war in Germany with great success ; 
but in B.C. 9, on his retreat from the banks of the Elbe to the Rhine, 
_ he had a fall from his horse, which proved fatal. Tiberius was then 
_ at Pavia, but as soon as he was informed of this accident, he hastened 
_ to Germany, and arrived in the camp of his brother, near the Yssel 
- and the Rhine, just before he died. 

Tiberius led the army to Mainz (Moguntiacum). He ordered the 
body of his brother to be carried to Rome, and he accompanied it on 
_ foot. After discharging this pious duty, he returned toGermany. In 
the new war with the Germani, Tiberius at first defeated them, and 
_ transplanted 40,000 Sigambri from the right bank of the lower Rhine 
to the left bank; but he afterwards employed peaceable measures, 

and by negociation he obtained more influence over them than his 
brother Drusus by all his victories. (Velleius Paterculus, ii. 97; 

Tacitus, ‘ Annal., ii. 26.) He left the command in Germany in B.c. 7, 
and returned to Rome, where he celebrated his second triumph, and 
he was consul for the second time in the same year. 

_ Tiberius was now at the height of his fame; he was respected by the 
army, and admired by the people; and he enjoyed the confidence of 
_ the emperor. He nevertheless suddenly abandoned his important 
_ functions, left Rome, and; without communicating his motives to 

anybody, retired to the island of Rhodes. So firm was his resolution 

to retire from public affairs, that he refused to take any nourishment 
for four days, in order to show his mother that her prayers and tears 
could not keep him any longer in Rome. (Suetonius, ‘Tiberius,’ c. 
10.) During eight years he led a private life at Rhodes, renouncing 
all honours, and living in the Greek style, and on terms of equality 
with those around him, with whom he kept up a friendly intercourse, 
especially Greek philosophers and poets. The Romans were surprised 
to see the step-son of their emperor retire to a distant island; and 
various hypotheses were raised to explain the motive of his voluntary 
exile. The disgusting conduct of his wife Julia was supposed to be a 
sufficient cause for this extraordinary resolution ; but Tiberius him- 
_ self afterwards avowed that he had renounced public business in order 
to escape all charges of having formed ambitious schemes against his 
ste Caius and Lucius Cesar, who were created ‘ principes juven- 
tutis,’ and appointed successors of Augustus in the very year in which 
Tiberius went to Rhodes. It seems that he was dissatisfied with the 
elevation of these two young men, and that there was discord between 
him and them; for when he afterwards wished to go back to Rome, 
Augustus would not allow it until Caius Cesar had consented, and it 
was also on condition that he should take no part in the government 
of the state. From all this we may conclude that Tiberius and his 
mother Livia had perhaps been intriguing to exclude Caius and Lucius 

Cesar from the succession, and that he preferred a voluntary exile to- 

a compulsory banishment, such as was inflicted by Augustus upon his 

own daughter Julia, But this is mere supposition, and there are no 

facts on which a direct accusation against Tiberius can be sustained. 

With regard to his banished wife Julia, Tiberius acted with great 

delicacy, notwithstanding her conduct, and he besought Augustus to 

leave her all those presents which he had formerly given her. (Sue- 
tonius, ‘Tiberius,’ c. 12, 13.) At last Tiberius returned to Rome 

(A.D. 2), and was received by the people with demonstrations of great 

joy. In the same year Lucius Cesar died at Massilia (Marseille), and 
his death was followed by that of his brother, who died in a.p. 4, in 
consequence of a wound which he had received in the Parthian war. 

Augustus then adopted Tiberius as his future successor, in A.D. 4, 

and Tiberius in his turn was compelled by Augustus to adopt Drusus 
_ Germaniecus, the son of his late brother Drusus Nero. Augustus also 

adopted M, Agrippa, the posthumous son of Agrippa and Julia, but he 

did not designate him as a successor in the empire. The imperial 

throne was thus secured to the house of the Claudii. In the same 

year (a.D. 4) Tiberius was appointed commander-in-chief in Germany, 
and he was accompanied by the historian Velleius Paterculus, who 
was preefectus equitum. After having subdued the Bructeri, and 
renewed the alliance with the Chatti, Tiberius in a.p. 5 made a cam- 
paign against the Longobards, who were defeated ; and he obliged the 


. 


whole north-west of Germany to acknowledge the Roman authority. 
In the following year (A.D, 6) he led 70,000 foot and 4000 horse against 
Maroboduus, the king of the Marecomanni, who was saved from ruin 
by a rising of the inhabitants of Pannonia and northern llyricum, 
who intercepted the communications of the Roman army with Italy. 
Tiberius employed fifteen legions and an equal number of auxiliaries x 
against these nations, and, in spite of difficulties of every description, 
he quelled the outbreak within three years. This war was especially 
dangerous because the Germani threatened to join the Pannonians, 
but Tiberius prevented their junction by negociations and by the 
success of hisarms. After having celebrated his third triumph, he 
was again sent against the Germani, who had slain Varus and his 
army (A.D. 9). Tiberius, who was accompanied by Germanicus, suc- 
ceeded in preventing the Germani from invading the countries on the 
left bank of the Rhine, and he then celebrated his fourth triumph. 
Velleius Patereulus, an able judge of military talents, gives us a most 
favourable idea of him as a general, Suetonius says also that, sharing 
in all the hardships of the common soldiers, he maintained a severe 
discipline, but at the same time he carefully watched over the security 
and the comfort of the soldiers, 

Augustus died at Nola on his return from Naples, where he had 
accompanied Tiberius, who was going to conduct the war in Illyria 
(29th of August, a.p. 14). Anxious to see her son at that critical 
moment in Rome, Livia concealed the emperor’s death until Tiberius, 
who was informed of it by messengers, had arrived at Nola. (Dio, 
Cassius, vi, 30, 31.) 

Tiberius became emperor in his fifty-fifth year, at an age when both 
the virtues and the vices have acquired strength from habit, and when 
a man’s character seldom changes, Until that time he was generally 
supposed to be a virtuous man; his virtues were imbued with the 
severe gravity of his character. Among his biographers none has 
blamed his early life; yet no sooner was he emperor, than he was 
charged with crimes the most dreadful and disgusting. His former 
life is represented as dissimulation and hypocrisy. An example of 
such dissimulation is known in history. Sixtus V. concealed his real 
intentions for thirty years; however it was not his real character 
which he thus concealed ; but by retiring from affairs, and by simu- 
lating disease and infirmity, he made the cardinals believe that by 
choosing him pope they would make him their instrument, because his 
infirmities would not allow him to act with energy. Tiberius however, 
except the eight years that he spent in Rhodes, was constantly 
employed in matters which, although they would have allowed him to 
conceal his real disposition, he could never have managed with such 
success, unless his conduct had been directed by the force of his real 
character. 

Augustus succeeded in making himself master of the republic by 
accumulating in his person the different high functions of the state, 
Tiberius, proud and energetic, abolished even the shadow of the 
sovereignty of a nation which he despised. The Romans being suffi- 
ciently disposed to obedience, the only obstacles in his way were the 
worn-out institutions of the ancient republic. Immediately upon the 
accession of Tiberius, Agrippa Postumus was put to death, probably 
by order of Tiberius (Suetonius, ‘ Tiberius,’ c. 22; Tacitus, ‘ Annal.,’ 
i. 6.) About this time the supreme power was offered by the troops 
on the Lower Rhine to Germanicus, who however refused it; and the 
mutiny was quelled by him and by Drusus, the son of Tiberius, who 
commanded in Pannonia, Tiberius began by some enactments which 
tended to ameliorate the state of morals; he abolished the comitia 
for the election of the various officers of the state, and transferred the 
election to the senate, the members of which were subservient to him. 
It has been already said that Tiberius intended to destroy the last 
reranants of the ancient sovereignty of the people, and to supplant 
the majesty of the Roman nation by the majesty of the emperor. 
Augustus had already employed the Lex Julia Majestatis to punish 
the authors of libels against his person (Tacitus, ‘Annal.,’ 1. 72) ; 
and his example was followed by Tiberius, who established the Judicia 
Majestatis, by which all those who were suspected of having impugned 
the majesty of the emperor either by deeds or words, were prosecuted 
with the utmost severity. The number of the delatores, or denouncers 
of such crimes, daily increased, and a secret police was gradually 
established in Rome, as well organised and as well supported by spies 
as the secret police of Napoleon. The property, honour, and life of 
the citizens were exposed to the most unfounded calumnies, and a 
general feeling of anxiety and moral disease prevailed throughout the 
empire. The natural severity of Tiberius gradually degenerated into 
cruelty, and he showed symptoms of that misanthropy and that gloomy 
state of mind which increased with years. In the meantime Germani- 
cus, the favourite of the army, had avenged the defeat of Varus, but 
Tiberius recalled him from Germany, and sent him into the East 
(A.D. 17). Germanieus conquered Cilicia and Commagene, and he 
renewed the alliance with the Parthians, but he died suddenly at 
Antioch (a.D.19.) Publie opinion accused Cneius Piso, the commander 
in Syria, of having poisoned Germanicus by order of the emperor; 
but before Piso could be sent to trial, he was found dead. i ae 

Sejanus, the son of a Prefectus Preetorio, sueceeded in obtaining 
the confidence of the emperor (4.D. 19-22), who henceforth gradually 
abandoned to him the direction of public affairs, of which Sejanus 
beeame the absolute master from the year aD. 22. (SEJANUS, 


47 TIBERIUS II. 


TIBERIUS II. - 48 


Luorvs AZ.] Drusus, the son of Tiberius, who had governed the 
Roman part of Germany with great ability, was poisoned by Sejanus 
(A.D. 23), and this crime was followed by a great many others, with 
which it is possible that the emperor was very imperfectly acquainted. 
His practice was to shut himself up within his palace, and to spend 
his time in the most revolting debauchery. After the death of Drusus, 
Tiberius recommended to the senate as his successors Nero and 
Drusus, the sons of the unfortunate Germanicus and of Agrippina, 
who was still alive, In a.p. 26 Sejanus at last persuaded him to retire 
from public affairs, Tiberius followed his advice, and went to Capua 
and Nola, until at last he fixed his residence on the island of Caprez 
in the Gulf of Naples, The life which he led at Caprese was a series 
of infamous pleasures, 

From this time all public affairs were directed by Sejanus: the 
emperor was inaccessible, ‘. Sabinus, a friend of Nero, was put to 
death; statues were erected to Sejanus, and received divine honours. 
After the death of Livia, in a.D. 29, the authority of Sejanus was at 
its height; but at last Antonio, the aged mother of Germanicus, 
penetrated through the barriers of Caprese, and informed the aged 
Tiberius that Sejanus had left him only the name of emperor. She 
was supported by Macro, the commander of the Praetorian guard. In 
consequence of this information, Tiberius ordered the senate to con- 
demn Sejanus; and the senate obeyed : Sejanus, his family, and his 
friends, were put to death in a.p. 81. Some time after this event, 
Tiberius retired from Caprese, and took up his residence at a villa 


near Misenum, which had formerly belonged to Lucullus. (Suetonius, | 


* Tiberius,’ c. 73.) On the 16th of March a.pD. 37, he fell into a 
lethargy, and everybody believing him to be dead, Caligula, the third 
son of Germanicus, the favourite of old Tiberius, was proclaimed 
emperor. However, Tiberius recovered, and Macro, in order to save 
himself and the new emperor, ordered him to be suffocated in his bed. 
Thus died Tiberius, at the age of seventy-eight, after a reign of 
twenty-three years. (Tacitus, ‘Annal.,’ vi. 50; Suetonius, ‘Tiberius,’ 
ce. 73. 

There is little doubt that the crimes said to have been committed 
during the reign of Tiberius, either by himself or by others in his 
name, are real facts. But the question is whether they are all to be 
imputed as crimes to Tiberius. His insanity is a fact which can 
hardly be doubted; a dark melancholy, disgust of life, and misan- 
thropy, had taken possession of him, and his struggle with the idea 
of self-destruction often threw him into wild despair. He found 
consolation in the sufferings of others, and thus gave those bloody 
orders which he afterwards regretted. The unnatural pleasures to 
which he was addicted were only another mode of soothing the 
despair of his soul. It is probable that his insanity was complete 
when he retired to Capree. Sometimes he had lucid intervals, in 
which he wrote those letters of which Suetonius gives some extracts 
(‘ Tiberius,’ c, 67), and in which he confesses the wretched state of his 
soul, His physical health was excellent, until some days before his 
death, Tiberius loved the arts and literature. According to Suetonius, 
he wrote a lyric poem, ‘Conquestio de L. Ceesaris Morte;’ he also 
wrote poems in Greek, choosing for his models Euphorion, Rhianus, 
and Parthenius, the author of an erotic poem which has come down 
to us. 

(Suetonius, Tiberius; Velleius Paterculus, ii, c. 94, &c.; Tacitus, 
Annal., lib. i.-vi.; Dion Cassius, lib. xlvi-xlviii.; Horn, Ziberius, cin 
Historisches Gemilde. The character of Tiberius has been defended 
by Buchholz, Philosophische Untersuchungen, vol. ii., p. 49, &c.) 

TIBE’RIUS IL, ANI’CIUS THRAX, FLA’VIUS CONSTAN- 
TI’NUS, one of the greatest and most virtuous emperors of the east. 

_ He was born in Thrace towards the middle of the 6th century, and 
belonged to a rich and very distinguished family, the history of which 
is unknown to us, He was educated at the court of Justinian, whose 
successor, Justin IT. (565-78), loved him as his son, and employed him 
in various civil and military offices. In 573 Tiberius, who was then 
general of the imperial guards, commanded the army against the 
Avars, who were powerful north of the Save and the Danube, His 
lieutenant having neglected to watch the passages of the Danube, 
Tiberius was surprised by the Avars and lost a battle. However, he 
recovered this loss, and concluded a peace, by which the possession of 
the important fortress of Sirmium, now Mitrowicz, on the Save, near 
its junction with the Danube, was secured tothe Romans. This was 
one of the few advantages obtained by the Greek armies during the 
unfortunate reign of Justin II. Italy, which had been conquered by 
Justinian, was overrun by the Longobards; the Berbers ravaged the 
kingdom of Carthage, which had been taken from the Vandals; and 
on the Persian frontier Chosroes (Khosrew) made various conquests. 
Justin, feeling his incompetency, and having lost his son, looked for a 
regent, and his choice fell upon Tiberius. The great talents of Tibe- 
rius, his amiable character, his generosity and love of justice,and his 
«Sincere piety, had won him the hearts of the nation, and the esteem 
of the emperor and his ministers. Justin was confirmed in his choice 
by the empress Sophia, whose private views on this occasion harmo- 
nised with the interest of the state. Tiberius was the handsomest 
man at the court, and it seems that Sophia intended to marry him 
cn the death of Justin. However this may be, before she declared in 
his favour she asked him whether he was married. Tiberius imme- 
diately guessed the motive of the question, and answered that he was 


not, although he was secretly married to a lady named Anastasia. He 
thus gained the protection of the empress, and was proclaimed Casar 
by Justin on the 7th of December 574, in a most solemn assembly of 
the civil and military officers, and of the clergy under the presidency 
of the patriarch Eutychius, by whom Tiberius was crowned with the 
imperial diadem. In this assembly the emperor Justin addressed to 
his future successor the remarkable speech (Theophylactus, iii. 11), 
which Gibbon translates thus :—‘* You behold the ensigns of supreme 
power. You are about to receive them, not from my hand, but from 
the hand of God. Honour them, and from them you will derive 
honour. Respect the empress your mother—you are now her son— 
before, you were her servant. Delight not in blood, abstain from 
revenge, avoid those actions by which I have incurred the public 
hatred, and consult the experience rather than the example of your 
predecessor. As a man, I have sinned; as a sinner, even in this life 
I have been severely punished: but these servants (his ministers), 
who have abused my confidence and inflamed my passion, will ap 
with me before the tribunal of Christ. I have been dazzled by the 
splendour of the diadem: be thou wise and modest ; remember what 
you have been, remember what you are.” ‘To this speech of a dyin 
sinner, Tiberius answered, “ If you consent, I live; if you command, 
I die: may the God of heaven and earth infuse into your heart what- 
ever I have neglected or forgotten.” — - 

The burden of government devolved upon Tiberius, whose authority 
was never checked by Justin. The war with Persia prevented Tibe- 
rius from expelling the Longobards from Italy; but he sent there all 
the troops he could dispose of, and succeeded in maintaining the 
imperial authority in the exarchate of Ravenna, on the Ligurian coast, 
in the fortified places in the Cottian Alps, in Rome, in Naples, and in 
the greater part of Campania and of Lucania. He saved Rome and 
Pope Pelagius II. from the Longobards by sending a fleet laden with 
provisions (775). Some years later he concluded an alliance with the 
Frankish king Chilperic, who checked the Longobards in the north of 
Italy, and Tiberius succeeded in bribing several of the thirty O- 
bardian dukes, who, after the murder of King Clepho (573-74) and 
during the minority of Antharis, imitated in Italy the Thirty Tyrants 
of Athens. The daughter of King Alboin and Rosamond, who had 
fled from Italy, was then living at the court of Constantinople. 

The most important event in the reigns of Justin and Tiberius 
was the war with Persia. Khosrew, the king of Persia, had made 
extensive conquests in Asia Minor during the reign of Justin, In 
575 Tiberius concluded a partial truce for three years with him, on 
condition that hostilities should cease except on the frontiers of 
Armenia, where the war was still carried on. These frontiers being 
easily defended on account of the great number of defiles in the 
Armenian Mountains, Tiberius levied a strong army while Khosrew 
lost time in forcing passages or in besieging small fortified places. For 
several centuries the Eastern empire had not seen such an army as was 
then raised by Tiberius. A hundred and fifty thousand men, among 
whom were many Teutonic and Slavonic barbarians, crossed the 
Bosporus in 576, under the command of Justinian, and advanced to 
the relief of Theodosiopolis, the key of Armenia. Theodore, the 
Byzantine general, defended the fortress against the whole army of 
Khosrew. At the approach of Justinian the Persian king left the 
siege and advanced to meet the Greeks. The encounter took place 
near Melitene (in the district of Melitene in Armenia Minor). The 
Persians were routed, and many of them were drowned in their retreat 
across the Euphrates; twenty-four elephants, loaded with the treasures 
of Khosrew and the spoil of his camp, were sent to Constantinople. 
Justinian then advanced as far as the Persian Gulf, and a peace was 
about to be concluded in 577 ; but Khosrew broke off the negociations 
on account of avictory which his general Tamchosroes (‘Tam-khosrew) 
unexpectedly obtained over Justinian by surprising him in Armenia, 
Tiberius now recalled Justinian, and appointed in his place Mauritius, 
who was afterwards emperor. Mauritius restored the old Roman pre- 
caution of never passing the night except in a fortified camp; he 
advanced to meet the Persians, who had broken the truce of 575, and 
attacked the empire on the side of Mesopotamia (577). The Persians 
retired at the approach of Mauritius, who took up his winter quarters 
in Mesopotamia (577-78). 

On the 26th of September 578 Tiberius became sole emperor by the 
solemn abdication of Justin, who died on the 5th of October next. 
After the funeral of Justin, when the new emperor appeared in the 
Hippodrome, the people became impatient to see the empress. The 
widow of Justin, who was in the Hippodrome, expected to be pre- 
sented to the people as empress; but she was soon undeceived by the 
sight of Anastasia, who suddenly appeared at the side of Tiberius, 
In revenge, Sophia formed a plot against Tiberius, and persuaded 
Justinian, the former commander in the Persian war, to put himself 
at the head of the conspiracy. Tiberius however was informed of this 
design. Justinian was arrested, and the emperor, by pardoning him, 
made him for ever his faithful friend. Sophia was deprived of her 
imperial pension and palaces, and she died in neglect and obscurity, 

A quarrel broke out between Eutychius, the patriarch, and Grego- 
rius, the apocrisiarius of Constantinople, who could not agree on the 
state of the soul after death. The Greeks were then the most disputa- 
tious people in the world about religious matters, and their disputes 
often led to serious trouble. The emperor accordingly undertook to 


< 


49 TIBERIUS ALEXANDER, 


TIBERIUS ABSIMARUS. 69 


settle this dispute. Adhering to the opinion of Gregorius, he con- 

vinced the patriarch that he was wrong, and he persuaded him to burn 

lt a which he had written on the corporeal nature of the soul after 
eath. 

Khosrew died in 579, after a reign of forty-eight years. He had 
entered into negociations with the Greeks, but his successor, Hormisdas 
(Ormuz) broke them off and recommenced the war. Hormisdas was 
defeated by Mauritius and his lieutenant, Narses, a great captain, who 
must not be confounded with Narses, the victor of the Ostro-Goths, 
They overran Persia in one campaign in 579, and in 580 they routed 
the army of Hormisdas in a bloody battle on the banks of the 
Euphrates, and took up their winter-quarters in Mesopotamia. At 
the same time the Greeks obtained great advantages in Africa. 
Gasmul, king of the Mauritani, or Berbers, had defeated and killed 
three Greek generals—Theodore, Theoctistes, and Amabilis; but in 
580 he was defeated by the exarch Gennadius, and put to death. 
Tiberius was less fortunate in Kurope, the Avars having surprised and 
taken the town of Sirmium. But in the following year (581) Mau- 
ritius destroyed the Persian army in the plain of Constantine, and 
their general, Tam-Khosrew, lost his life. Mauritius had a triumph 
in Constantinople, and on the 5th of August he was created Czsar by 
Tiberius, who was then worn out by illness, and who had no male 
issue. After having given his daughter Constantina in marriage to 
Mauritius, Tiberius died on the 14th of August 582, and since the 
time of-the great Theodosius no emperor’s death caused regret so 
universal. It is a remarkable circumstance in the reign of this 
emperor, that he was always provided with money without oppressing 
the people by taxation ; and yet his liberality was so great that the 
people used to say that he had an inexhaustible treasure. But all 
these resources did not enable him to save Italy, which may be 
accounted for thus :—During the invasions of Italy and other parts of 
the Roman empire by the barbarians, many -rich men saved great 


quantities of gold and silver, which they carried to Constantinople, 


then the only safe place in Europe. This city being the centre of the 
arts, and the commerce and industry of the East being very extensive, 
even the money which fell into the hands of the barbarians gradually 
found its way into the Greek empire, where the barbarians purchased 
all those articles which they had not skill enough to fabricate them- 
selves. This view is corroborated by the fact, that notwithstanding 
the immense tribute which the Greek emperors often paid to the bar- 
barians, there was always a want of coin in the barbarian kingdoms. 
On the other hand, the Greeks having lost their martial habits, the 
emperors were obliged to recruit their armies among the barbarians. 
These people however were as ready to fight against the emperors as 
for them ; and it would have endangered the existence of the empire 
if too large a number had been engaged in its service. Thus Tiberius 
preferred bribing the Longobardian dukes to raising a large army of 
barbarians, who would probably have joined the Longobards as soon 
as they had got their pay._ y ; 

(Cedrenus; Theophanes; Theophylactus; Zonaras; Gregorius 
Turonensis; Paulus Diaconus; Gibbon, Decline and Fall; Le Beau, 
Histoire du Bas Empire.) 

TIBE’RIUS ALEXANDER, prefect of Egypt, was the son of Tibe- 
rius Alexander who was alabarcha of Alexandria, and the brother of 
Philo Judzeus, the well-known writer. Tacitus calls him an Egyptian, 
but this only means that he was a native of Alexandria; for he was a 
Jew, though he afterwards adopted paganism. Nero appointed him 
governor of Judza, where he succeeded Cuspius Fadus, and he made 
him a Roman eques. In the last campaign of Corbulo against the 
Parthians, Tiberius Alexander and Vinianus Annius, the son-in-law of 
Corbvulo, were given as hostages to King Tiridates, who came to the 
Roman camp for the purpose of settling his differences with the 
Romans (4.D. 63). Tiberius Alexander was afterwards appointed 
prefect of Egypt, in which capacity he quelled a dangerous insurrec- 
tion of the Jews of Alexandria, who were jealous of the favour which 
Nero showed the Greek inhabitants of that town. The resistance of 
the Jews was so obstinate, that Tiberius was obliged to employ two 
legions and five thousand Libyan soldiers against them; and it is said 
that more than fifty thousand Jews perished on this occasion. On the 
Ist of July, a.p. 69, Tiberius Alexander proclaimed Vespasian emperor, 
pursuant to a scheme which had been concerted by Vespasian, Titus, 
and Mucianus, the proconsul of Syria. In consequence of this event, 
the ist of July 69 is regarded as the beginning of the reign of Ves- 
pasian, who showed great regard for his governor of Egypt. When 
Titus, the successor of Vespasian, was about to undertake the siege of 
Jerusalem, which resulted in its capture, he was accompanied by 
Tiberius Alexander. 

(Josephus, Antig. Jud. and De Bello Jud.; Suetonius, Vespasianus ; 
Tacitus, Annal., xv. 28; Hist. i.11; ii. 74,79; the notes of Ernesti 
to Suetonius and Tacitus.) 

TIBERIUS, an Alexandrine grammarian, who probably lived in the 
4th century of our era. Suidas (s. v. T:Bépios), who calls him a philo- 
sopher and a sophist, ascribes to him a long list of rhetorical works, 
all of which are lost, with the exception of one, which formerly used 
to be called TMep) ray mapa Anuocbéver oxnudtwy, and which is one of 
the best works of the kind that were produced at the time. The 
editio princeps of it, which is ascribed to Leo Allatius, appeared at 
Rome in 1643. The next edition is that of Gale, who incorporated 
. BIOG, DIV, VOL, VI, 


the work of Tiberius in his ‘ Rhetores Selecti,’ 8vo, Oxford, 1676. A 


reprint of this collection of rhetoricians was edited by J. F. Fischer, 
8vo, Leipzig, 1773. In all these editions the work of Tiberius contains 
only 22 short chapters, which treat on Schemata, that is, those forms 
of expression which are not the natural forms, but are adopted for 
ornament or use, In 1815 J. F. Boissonade published at London a 
new edition, in 8vo, from a Vatican manuscript, in which the work is 
called Mep) oxnudrwv pyropinoy, and in which there are 26 chapters 
more than had ever before been published; and this second part of 
the work treats on the so-called ‘ figure elocutionis,’ or the ornamental 
forms of elocution. This edition of Boissonade also contains a work 
of Rufus, entitled réxvn pyropixh, the author of which has only become 
known through the Vatican manuscript containing the complete work 
of Tiberius; in the editions of Gale and Fischer it was called the 
work of an anonymous writer. A few fragments of other works of 
Tiberius are preserved in the scholiast on Hermogenes, ii., pp. 385 and 
401, edit. Aldus. 

(Groddeck, Initia Historie Gracorum Literaria, ii. 173; Wester- 
mann, Geschichte der Griech. Beredtsamkeit, p. 251, &.) 

TIBE’RIUS ABSI’MARUS became emperor of the East, in a.p. 698, 
under the following circumstances :—Leontius dethroned and banished 
the tyrant Justinian IL, and having assumed the imperial title in 
695, continued the war with the Arabs in Africa. Notwithstanding 
the Greeks were assisted by the Berbers, they lost Carthage in 
697; they reconquered it shortly afterwards, but in 698 the Arabs 
retook the town from the Greeks and entirely destroyed it. A 
powerful fleet, commanded by the patrician John, was then off Car- 
thage; but although John entered the harbour with a division of his 
fleet, and landed a body of troops, his measures had only a partial 
effect, and he was obliged to leave Carthage to her fate. The destruc- 
tion of this famous town was attributed by the Greek officers to the 
incompetency of John, and they were afraid to return to Constanti- 
nople without having prevented the ruin of Carthage. Absimarus, 
the commander of the Cibyratz, or the troops of the provinee of 
Cibyra, then the collective name of Caria and Lycia, turned the dis- 
content of the soldiers to his own profit. He persuaded his men that 
the emperor would punish them severely for not having obtained 
some advantage aver the Arabs, and that they ran the risk of suffering 
for the faults of their commander-in-chief. When the fleet was off 
Crete, a mutiny broke out. The Cibyrate proclaimed Absimarus 
emperor, the rest of the fleet followed their example, and John was 
massacred, 

Absimarus having arrived at Constantinople, cast anchor in the bay 
of Ceras (now the Golden Horn), between this city and the suburb of 
Syce. Leontius prepared a vigorous resistance; but the courage of 
his soldiers and of the inhabitants was weakened by an epidemic 
disease, and at last Absimarus found his way into the town by bribing 
some sentinels. 

Absimarus assumed the name of Tiberius and was acknowledged 
emperor: his rival Leontius had his nose and his ears cut off, and was 
confined in a monastery. Tiberius Absimarus continued the war with 
the Arabs, and appointed his brother Heraclius commander-in-chief. 
This experienced general conquered Syria in 699 and 700, and treated 
the Mohammedan inhabitants most barbarously: it is said that 
200,000 of them lost their lives by the sword of the Greeks. This 
war continued during the years 701, 702, and 703; and, although 
the Greeks did not recover Carthage, they obtained many signal advan- 
tages. Tiberius Absimarus had great influence in Italy, where Popes 
Sergius and John VI. were continually harassed by John Platys, and 
afterwards by Theophylact, the Greek exarch of Ravenna. 

Tiberius Absimarus lost his crown by a sudden revolution. When 
Leontius dethroned Justinian II., this prince had his nose cut off, and 
was banished to the town of Cherson, in the present Crimea. Some 
years after, he fled to the khaghan, or khan, of the Khazars, who 
received him respectfully, and assigned for his residence Phanagoria, 
once an opulent city, on the island of Tamatarcha. The khaghan, 
whose name was Busirus, gave him in marriage his sister Theodora ; 
but Tiberius Absimarus bribed the khan with a large sum of gold, and 
Justinian was only saved by the affection of Theodora, who discovered 
to him the treacherous design of her brother. After strangling with 
his own hands the two emissaries of the khaghan, Justinian rewarded 
the love of his wife by repudiating her and sending her back to her 
brother Busirus ; and he fled to Terbelis, or Terbellus, the king of the 
Bulgarians. He now formed the plan of recovering his throne, and he 
purchased the aid of Terbelis by promising him his daughter and a part 
of the imperial treasury. At the head of 15,000 horse, they set out for 
Constantinople. Tiberius Absimarus was dismayed by the sudden 
appearance of his rival, whose head had been promised by the khaghan, 
and of whose escape he was yet ignorant, Justinian had still some 
adherents in Constantinople, who introduced his troops into the city, 
by means of an aqueduct. Tiberius escaped from Constantinople, but 
he was seized at Apollonia on the Pontus Euxinus (705), and Justinian 
ordered him, his brother Heraclius, and the deposed Leontius, who 
was still alive, to be dragged into the Hippodrome. Before their exe- 
cution, the two usurpers were led in chains to the throne, and forced 
to prostrate themselves before Justinian, who had sworn not to spare 
one of his enemies. Planting his feet on their necks, the tyrant 


watched the chariot-race for more than an hour, while — people 


61 TIBULLUS, ALBIUS. 


TICKNOR, GEORGE. 52 


shouted out the words of the Psalmist, “ Thou shalt trample on the asp 
and basilisk, and on the lion and dragon shalt thou set thy foot.” He 
then gave orders to behead Tiberius, Leontius, and Heraclius. Jus- 
tinian II, reigned till 711. The Greeks gave him the surname of 
Rhinotmetus, that is, ‘he whose nose is cut off”? Tiberius Absimarus 
had two sons, Theodore and Constantine, who probably perished with 
their father, It is said however that Theodore, who is also called 
Theodosius, survived his father, and became bishop of Ephesus, and 
one of the leaders of the Iconoclasts; but this is doubtful. 

(Theophanes; Cedrenus; Zonaras; Gibbon, Decline and Fall; Le 
Beau. Histoire du Bas Empire.) 

TIBULLUS, A’LBIUS, lived in the time of Augustus, and was a 
friend and contemporary of Horace. He was of equestrian rank, and 
originally possessed considerable property, of which he lost the greater 
part (Tibull., i. 1,19, &c,; iv. 1, 128, &c.), probably, as it is conjectured, 
in consequence of the assignments of lands among the veterans of 
Augustus; and this supposition is rendered still more probable by 
the circumstance that Tibullus never celebrates the praises of Augus- 
tus, like the other poets of his time. He was not however reduced to 
absolute poverty ; the estate on which he resided at Pedum (Horace, 
‘Ep.,’ i. 4), a town between Preeneste and Tibur, appears to have been 
his own, and to have descended to him from his ancestors. (Tibull., 
i, 10, 15, &c.) Here he passed the greater part of his time in the 
enjoyment of a quiet country-life, which had for him the greatest 
charms. He left it however to accompany his patron, Valerius Mes- 
salla, into Aquitania, and was present with him through the campaign, 
either in B.c. 28 or 27. (Tibull., i. 7,9.) He afterwards set out with 
him to Asia, but was taken ill at Corcyra; but that he died at Coreyra, 
as is stated by some modern writers, is only a conjecture, unsupported 
by any ancient authority, and is directly contradicted by what Ovid 
says. It appears from an epigram of Domitius Marsus (in Tibull,, iv. 
15), who lived in the age of Augustus, that Tibullus died soon after 
Virgil; and as Virgil died in B.o. 19, we may perhaps place the death 
of Tibullus in the following year, B.c. 18. 1t has been already men- 
tioned that Tibullus was the friend of Horace; two poems have come 
down to us addressed to him by the latter (‘Carm., i. 33; ‘ Epist.,’ i. 
4). Ovid too laments his death in a beautiful elegy, from which it 
appears that his mother and sister were present at his death (‘ Amor.,’ 
jii. 9), 

It is difficult to determine at what time Tibullus was born ; and we 
can but at best make some approximation to it. In the epigram of 
Domitius Marsus, already referred to, he is called juvenis, and Ovid 
deplores his untimely death. We must not however be misled by 
the expression juvenis into supposing that he was quite a young man, 
in our sense of the word, at the time of his death, since the ancients 
extended the meaning of juvenis to a time which we consider to be 
that of mature manhood. Several circumstances tend to show that 
he could not be much less than forty at his death. Ovid speaks of 
Tibullus as preceding Propertius, and of Propertius as preceding 
himself; and as Ovid was born B.C. 48, we must place the birth of 
Tibullus a few years at least before that time. Again, Horace in the 
first book of his Odes addressed Tibullus as an intimate friend, which 
hardly allows us to suppose that, Tibullus was a mere youth at the 
time. If Bentley’s supposition is correct, that the first book of the 
Odes was published about B.0, 30 or 28, Horace was then about 35, 
and Tibullus may have been a few years younger. Moreover he does 
not appear to have been a very young man when he accompanied 
Mesealla into Aquitania in B,0, 28 or 27. We may therefore perhaps 
place his birth at about B.c.57. There are indeed two lines in Tibullus 
(iii. 5, 17, 18), which expressly assign his birth to B.c. 48, the same 
year in which Ovid was born; but these are, without doubt, an inter- 
polation derived from one of Ovid’s poems (‘ Trist.,’ iv. 10, 6). 

We have thirty-six poems of Tibullus, written, with one exception, 
in elegiac metre, and divided into four books. The first two books 
are admitted by all critics to have been written by Tibullus, but of 
the genuineness of the last two, considerable doubts have been raised. 
J. H, Voss and others attribute the third book to a poet of the name 
of Lygdamis, but the style and mode of treating the subjects resemble 
the other elegies of Tibullus, and there do not appear sufficient reason 
for doubting that it is his composition. There are however stronger 
grounds for supposing the first poem in the fourth book, written in 
hexameters, not to be genuine. It differs considerably in style and 
expression from the other poems, and is attributed by some writers to 
Sulpicia, who lived under Domitian, by others to a Sulpicia of the 
age of Augustus; but we know nothing with certainty respecting its 
author. Of the other poems in this book, almost all bear traces of 
being the genuine works of Tibullus. 

The elegies of Tibullus are chiefly of an amatory kind. In the 
earlier period of his life Delia seems to have been his favourite, and 
afterwards Nemesis, and their names occur most frequently in his 
poems. Several of his elegies are devoted more or less to celebrating 
the praises of his patron Messalla, but these are the least pleasing 
parts of his works, for he does not appear to have excelled in 
panegyric. 

Tibullus is placed by Quinctilian at the head of the Roman elegiac 
poets: (‘ Inst. Orat.,’x. 1), His poems are distinguished by great ten- 
derness of feeling, which sometimes degenerates into effeminacy, but 
they at the same time excite our warmest sympathies. He seems to 


have been of a melancholy temperament, and to have looked at things 
from a gloomy point of view; hence we find the subject of death 
frequently introduced, and the enjoyment of the present interrupted 
by dark forebodings of the future. He constantly describes the 
pleasures of a country-life and the beauties of nature, for which he 
had the most exquisite relish; and there is in these descriptions a 
naturalness and truthfulness which place him above his contemporary 
Propertius. His style too is not of the artificial character which 
distinguishes the elegies of Propertius; and his subjects are not, like 
the latter, mere imitations or translations of the Greek poets, but 
essentially original works. 

Tibullus was formerly edited together with Catullus and Proper- 
tius, the earlier editions of which are mentioned under PRoPERTIUS. 
The principal separate editions are hy Brockhusius (Amst., 4to, 1708), 
Vulpius (Padua, 4to, 1749), Heyne (Leipz. 8vo, 1777, often reprinted, 
of which the fourth edition, containing the notes of Wunderlich and 
Dissen, appeared in 1817-19, 2 vols. 8vo, Leipz.), J. H. Voss (Heidel- 
berg, 8vo, 1811), Bach, (Leipz., 8vo, 1819), Goldbéry (Paris, 8vo, 1826), 
Lachmann (Berlin, 8vo, 1829), and Dissen (Gottingen, 2 vols. 8yo, 
1835), of which the two last contain the best text, 

Tibullus has been translated into English by Dart (1720), and 
Grainger (1759). There are modern German translations by J. H. 
Voss (Tiibingen, 1810), Giinther (Leipz, 1825), and Richter (Magde- 
burg, 1831). There are also French and Italian translations. 

Respecting the life of Tibullus and the Roman elegy in general, the 
reader may consult with advantage Gruppe’s ‘ Die Rémische Elegie,’ 
Leipzig, 1838. : 

TICKELL, THOMAS, an English poet of unblemished mediocrity, 
was born in 1686, at Bridekirk in Cumberland. He was sent to 
Queen’s College, Oxford, and he took his degree of Master of Arts in 
1708. Two years afterwards he was chosen fellow of his college, and 
as he did not comply with the statutes by taking orders, he obtained a 
dispensation from the crown for holding his fellowship, till he 
vacated it by marrying in 1726. His praises of Addison were so 
acceptable that they procured him the patronage of that writer, who 
“initiated him,’ says Johnson, “ into public affairs.” Wheu the queen 
was negociating with France, Tickell published ‘The Prospect of 
Peace,’ in which he raised his voice to reclaim the nation from the 
pride of conquest to the pleasures of tranquillity. This, owing 
perhaps to Addison’s friendly praises of it in ‘The Spectator,’ had a 
rapid sale, and six editions were speedily exhausted. On the arrival 
of King George I. Tickell wrote ‘The Royal Progress,’ which was 
printed in the ‘Spectator. Johnson says of it that “it is neither — 
high nor low,’ a very equivocal criticism, considering Johnson’s 
habitual tastes. 

The translation of the first book of the ‘Iliad’ was the most im- 
portant thing in Tickell’s poetical career, having been published in 
opposition to Pope’s; both appeared at the same time. Addison 
declared that the rival versions were both excellent, but that Tickell’s 
was the best that was ever made. Strong suspicions of Addison him- 
self being the translator have been thrown out by Pope, Young, and 
Warburton. Dr. Johnson says, “To compare the two translations 
would be tedious; the palm is now universally given to Pope. But I 
think the first lines of Tickell’s were rather to be preferred; and Pope 
seems since to have borrowed something from them in connection 
with his own.” 

During the dispute on the Hanoverian succession Tickell assisted 
the royal cause with his ‘ Letter to Avignon,’ of which five editions 
were sold. Addison now employed him in important public business, 
and when, in 1717, Addison himself rose to be secretary of state, he 
made Tickell under secretary. On Addison’s death, Tickell published 
his works, to which he prefixed an elegy on the author, which Johnson 
pronounces to be equal for sublimity and elegance to any funeral poem 
in the English language. Considering that we have the ‘Lycidas’ of 
Milton, this sounds oddly: on turning to this elegy, we are forced to 
admit, with Steele, that it is only “ prose in rhyme,” and occasionally 
very bad prose too. In 1725 Tickell was made secretary to the Lords 
Justices of Ireland, a place of honour in which he continued till his 
death, on the 23rd April 1740. ‘ 

* TICKNOR, GEORGE, a distinguished American scholar and 
writer, was born on the Ist of August 1791, at Boston, Massachusetts, 
and was educated at Dartmouth College, New Hampshire, where he 
graduated in 1807. He entered upon the study of the law, and was 
called to the bar in 1813; but his’ time and thoughts continued to be 
mainly given to literature, and in 1815 he finally abandoned the law 
and proceeded to Europe in order to fit. himself for the more con- 
genial occupation to which he now fully devoted himself. After 
remaining a couple of years in the University of Géttingen he visited 
successively the cities of Paris, Rome, Madrid (where he spent several 
months in the year 1818), Lisbon, Edinburgh, and London. During 
the four years which he stayed in Europe Mr. Ticknor had zealously 


prosecuted his philological studies, his chief attention being given to — 


the living languages of Europe, and he had made himself intimately 
acquainted with the literature of the middle ages. Among the many 
eminent literary men whose friendship he at this time acquired, were 
Southey and Sir Walter Scott, both of whom were delighted with 
his stores of old Spanish reading—Scott in writing to Southey 
in April 1819 (Lockhart’'s ‘ Life,’ c. xliv.), calls him a “wondrous 


53 TICOZZI, STEFANO. 


TIECK, LUDWIG. 54 


fellow for romantic lore and antiquarian research, considering his 
country.” The fame of his attainments had during his absence 
secured his election to the chair of modern languages in Harvard 
University, and on his return to America in 1819 he entered with 
energy upon the duties of his office. His lectures upon the great 
writers of Italy, France, Spain, and England excited, as Mr. Prescott 
has testified, a remarkable amount of interest, and Mr. Ticknor’s 
labours are acknowledged to have been largely instrumental in stimu- 
‘lating among his contemporaries the study of the modern languages 
and literature of Europe. Mr. Ticknor retained his professorship for 
fifteen years. He then returned in 1835 with his family to Europe, 
and spent there some three years in extending and verifying his in- 
vestigations, and in collecting, with the assistance of Professor Pascual 
_ de Gayangos of Madrid, rare and valuable Spanish books, of which he 
succeeded in forming an almost unrivalled collection. Whilst largely 
assisting other literary men and students, Mr. Ticknor had himself 
published nothing more than an occasional essay, but he was now 
concentrating his attention upon Spanish literature. With a rare 
amount of industry and intelligence he laboured on for years, and at 
length in 1849 produced his ‘ History of Spanish Literature: with 
Criticisms on the particular Works and Biographical Notices of Pro- 
minent Writers, 8 vols. 8vo. The work is by general consent the 
most complete history of Spanish literature in any language, full, 
minute, and precise in information, and eminently fair and candid in 
spirit. The author appears in his researches almost to have exhausted 
existing materials whether bibliographical or biographical—over- 
looking nothing and neglecting nothing. However other students of 
the poets and imaginative writers of Spain may differ from Mr. 
Ticknor in his critical estimates of particular authors or books, all 
willingly admit the immense benefit they derive from his labours, 
and with entire unanimity his work has been accepted by European as 
well as American scholars as the standard book of reference on the 
history of Spanish literature. It has been translated into both the 
Spanish and German languages. 

TICO’ZZI, STE’FANO, was born in 1762, in the Val Sassina, in the 
province of Como. He studied at Milan, and afterwards at Pavia, 
took priest’s orders, and afterwards was appointed incumbent of a 
country parish near Lecco, in his native province. When the French 
invaded Lombardy in 1796, he and his brother Cesare Francesco, who 
was an advocate, favoured the revolutionary movement; but when 
the Austrians came back in 1799, Ticozzi was obliged to emigrate into 
France, and his brother was seized and sent prisoner to Cattaro, 
Ticozzi returned with the victorious French in the following year, 
and was appointed to several political offices under the Italian repub- 
lic, and in 1806 was made sub-prefect of the department of the Piave 
under Napoleon’s administration. In 1810 he published some dis- 
quisitions on monastic institutions: ‘Degli Istituti Claustrali Dialoghi 
re,’ 8vo, Belluno. He lost his situation on the fall of Napoleon, and 
retired to Milan, where he lived mainly by literary labour. He trans- 
lated into Italian Sismondi’s ‘ History of the Italian Republics,’ Llorente’s 
‘History of the Inquisition,’ Agincourt’s ‘History of the Arts,’ and 

other works. In 1818 he published his ‘Dizionario dei Pittori dal 
Rinnovamento delle Arti fino al 1800,’ which he afterwards merged 
in his larger work, ‘Dizionario degli Architetti, Scultori, Pittori, 
Intagliatori in rame e in pietra, Coniatori di Medaglie, Musaicisti, 
Niellatori, Intarsiatori d’ogni Etd e d’ogni Nazione,’ 4 vols. 8vo, Milan. 


This is a really useful compilation, although not always exact about 


dates. He also published—1, ‘Memorie Storiche,’ 12 vols. 8vo, 
Florence, being a series of historical tales taken from the history of 
Italy in the Middle Ages; 2, ‘ Viaggi di Messer Francesco Novello da 
Carrara, Signore di Padova, e di Taddea d'Este, sua consorte, a diverse 
parti d’Europa,’ 2 vols. 8vo, a work also illustrative of the same 

iod; 3, a continuation of Corniani’s biographical work, ‘I Secoli 
della Letteratura Italiana,’ down to our own times, and also a con- 
tinuation of Bottari’s collection of letters concerning the arts : ‘ Rac- 
colta di Lettere sulla Pittura, Scultura, ed Architettura, scritti dai 
pit celebri Personaggi dei Secoli xv., xvi. e xvii., continuata fino ad 
nostri Giorni,’ 8 vols. 8vo; and likewise a continuation of Verri’s 
“History of Milan :’ ‘Storia di Milano del Conte Pietro Verri, dai suoi 
pit rimoti Tempi fino al 1525, continuata fino alla presente Eta,’ 
6 vols. 12mo, Milan, besides several dissertations upon various paint- 
ings and other minor works. He left inedited and unfinished a Life 
of Coreggio, and ‘A Treatise on the Art of distinguishing Copies from 
the Originals in Paintings.’ 

Ticozzi died in 1836. He married a grand-daughter of the historian 
Giannone, by whom he had several children. 

TIDEMAN, PHILIP, was a native of Niirnberg, where he was 
born in the year 1657. He studied first under a painter named 
Nicholas Raes, with whom he remained eight years, and was distin- 
guished by his diligent application to his art, in which he attained 
great proficiency. Desiring however to improve his knowledge and 
taste, he went to Amsterdam to study the capital works of the great 
masters in the collections in that city. “ 

Lairesse being at that time in great esteem at Amsterdam, Tideman 
resolved to place himself under his direction; and so gained the good 
opinion of his teacher by his pleasing manners and his talents, that 
Lairesse conceived a great affection for him, and not only gave him 
the best instruction in the art, but employed him to assist in some 


important works on which he was engaged. In executing these works 
Tideman gave such evident proof of his abilities, that he soon obtained 
sufficient employment independent of Lairesse, 

His compositions of fabulous history and allegory indicate a lively 
fancy, genius, and invention ; insomuch that in this respect his designs 
have been recommended as models to succeeding artists, ‘Two of his 
capital compositions were Venus complaining to Jupiter of Juno’s 
persecution of Aineas, and Juno applying to AZolus to destroy the 
Trojan fleet. He died in 1715, at the age of fifty-eight, leaving a very 
great number of sketches and designs, which afford proofs both of his 
industry and the fertility of his invention. 

TIECK, CHRISTIAN FRIEDRICH, a celebrated sculptor, brother 
of Ludwig Tieck, was born in Berlin on the 14th of August 1776. 
Having studied awhile under Schadow, he in 1798 proceeded to Paris, 
where he became a pupil of David. In 1801 he returned to Berlin, 
and afterwards went to Weimar, then a great centre of literary and 
artistic activity. Here he found in Géthe a warm and most valuable 
friend and adviser, and whilst here he not only assisted in the execu- 
tion of the sculptural decorations of the new palace, but executed 
busts of Géthe, Voss, and Wolff, besides many of members of princely 
and noble families. In 1805 he went with his brother Ludwig to 
Italy, and carefully studied the great works of art there, maintaining 
at the same time by his numerous busts, &c., his manual dexterity. 
Here he found friends and patrons in Madame de Staél, and the 
crown-prince, afterwards King Ludwig, of Bavaria. For the former 
he executed a rilievo for the family sepulchre at Coppet, and subse- 
quently a life-size statue of Necker, and busts of herself, the Duc de 
Broglie, Augustus Schlegel, and M. Rocca. For Ludwig of Bavaria 
he executed at various times busts of Ludwig himself, Jacobi, Schelling, 
Ludwig Tieck, Lessing, Erasmus, Grotius, Herder, Wallenstein, and 
several others, chiefly for the Walhalla. On his second visit to Italy 
(1812) he became acquainted with Rauch, and the two great sculptors 
ever after remained fast friends. He returned in 1819 to Berlin, where 
he established his atélier, and was elected a member of the academy. 
During the remainder of his life he was employed upon, many of the 
public works, and was a prominent actor in the artistic movements in 
the Prussian capital. Among his productions were the friezes, the 
sculptures in the pediment, and other external decorations of the 
Theatre Royal, the gates, and the statue of the angel in the porch of 
the Cathedral in Berlin; a series of fifteen seated marble statues of 
classical personages for the royal palace; a bronze equestrian statue 
of Frederick William at Ruppin, besides several monumental works 
and numerous busts and rilievi. He was also during many years 
extensively employed on the restoration of ancient works for the 
Royal Museum, in which institution he was director of the depart- 
ment of sculpture. He died at Berlin on the 14th of June 1851. 
Tieck was not possessed of much imaginative power; he executed 
some good statues and rilievi, but his chief strength lay in his memo- 
rial busts, many of which display great elevation of style and admirable 
chiselling. In his studio several eminent sculptors have been formed, 
among whom perhaps the best known is Kiss, the sculptor of the 
Amazon. There are casts of some of Tieck’s works in the Crystal 
Palace at Sydenham. 

TIECK, LUDWIG, one of the most influential actors upon the 
modern literature of Germany, was born in Berlin, on May 31, 1773. 
At the universities of Halle, Géttingen, and Erlangen, he studied with 
great ardour; history and the poetical literature of both the ancients 
and the moderns being his favourite pursuits, His poetical powers 
developed themselves early, but they took a direction opposite to the 
usual classical models, and exercised themselves on the feelings and 
opinions of what may be termed the Christian chivalry or romance of 
the Middle Ages, although his first efforts, ‘Almansur,’ a prose idyll, 
in 1790, and ‘Alla Moddin, a prose play, in three acts, in 1790-1, 
assumed an eastern locality. Both displayed great poetical ability, but 
he did not attempt verse, except in a few short pieces introduced amid 
the prose. In 1792 he produced the tragedy of ‘Der Abschied’ (The 


Parting), also in prose, which, like most of his other dramatic pieces, 


is more fitted for the closet than the stage. He probably himself 
began to perceive that his true strength lay in narrative, and in the 
same year he produced ‘ Das griine Band,’ a medieval tale of consider- 
able pathos, with great truth of characterisation and much interest; 
and ‘ Abdallah,’ an oriental tale, with little of oriental colouring, and 
of a ghastly terror-inspiring character. He had made much progress in 
the study of English literature, particularly the drama, and the result 
was, in 1793, a compressed translation, or rather paraphrase, of Ben 
Jonson’s ‘ Volpone,’ in three acts, in which it is remarkable how care- 
fully he has omitted all the more poetical passages which ornament 
the original, and in which, for the scene where Volpone plays the 
mountebank, he substitutes a satirical one between an Englishman and 
a German author come to England for a few weeks to write volumes 
on the character of the country and its inhabitants. To the same 
period belongs also his novel of ‘ William Lovell,’ of which the cha- 
racters and scénery are intended to be English, but they have a very 
foreign air, and the tone of the whole is more gloomy than most of 
Tieck’s productions. : : ee: 
The six years, from 1795 to 1860, both inclusive, was a period of 
incessant activity. During it he travelled; visited Jena, where he 
formed an intimate friendship with the two Scblegels, Novalis, and 


55 TIECK, LUDWIG. 


TIEDEMANN, DIETRICH, 56 


Schelling ; Weimar, where he became acquainted with Herder; and 
Hamburg, where he married the daughter of a clergyman named 
Alberti. The intercourse with the above-named literary celebrities had 
much influence on his future course. While still adhering to the roman- 
tic school, his productions embraced a wider field. He continued to 
write tales, novels, tragedies, and comedies ; but in embodying nursery 
tales, as in his ‘ Blaubart,’ a play in five acts, ‘Die Sieben Weiber des 
Blaubarts’ (Seven Wives of Bluebeard), a tale, and the ‘Leben und Tod 
des kleinen Rothkiippchen’ (Life and Death of Little Red Riding Hood), 
a tragedy in three acts, he united much of the simplicity of the old tradi- 
tions, with the added interest of poetical conception, a close adherence 
to the story, and occasional passages of pathos or of humour. Occa- 
sionally he took for his subject legends of a higher character, as in his 
‘Leben und Tod der heiligen Genoveva;’ and in 1804, in ‘ Kaiser Octa- 
vianus,’ a work which had been long expected, and which his country- 
men consider as one of the most successful of his romantic productions. 
To this he has prefixed a long prologue, in which various characters are 
introduced to display the prosaic element, and a poet, to whom comes 
Romance, a female, who describes herself as infusing joy throughout 
the world, and says that her father is Faith, and Love her mother. 
In this prologue, and in the following play, which is partly in 
prose, is found the most favourable specimen of Tieck’s versification. 
It is not of the most careful construction ; and it is singular that 
though his conceptions were highly poetical, the best examples of 
them are found in his prose. This line was followed out in subse- 
quent works, as in ‘Fortuniit,’ which however embodies a considerable 
amount of good-humoured satire on the various conditions of the 
existing state of society. Another class comprises, what are styled by 
the Germans Art-Novels, to which belong ‘Franz Sternbald’s Wan- 
derungen, ‘Phantasien iiber die Kunst,’ and ‘ Herzensergiessungen 
eines Kunstlicbenden Klosterbruders’ (Heart-outpourings of an Art- 
loving Monk), written in conjunction with his friend Wackenroder, in 
all of which he displays a love and knowledge of the beautiful and 
elevated in art, a contempt for the self-complacency of affected con- 
noisseurship, and a manifestation of Roman Catholic feeling, to which 
faith he for some time adhered about this period. Perhaps less dis- 
tinctive as a class, as his previous tales had much of a similar character, 
were his ‘ Volksmiihrchen’ (Popular Legends), such as the history of 
Heymon’s Children, the Fair Magelone, Melusina, &c., legends which 
are European, and the ‘ Denkwiirdige Geschichtschronik der Schild- 
biirger’ (Memorable History of the Simpletons), a sort of German 
version of our Men of Gotham; tales in prose, abounding in pleasant 
fancy, interspersed with picturesque descriptions or strokes of broad 
humour, and told with a simplicity and an apparent childish belief 
in the wonders related that give an indescribable charm to the whole. 
Upon yet another class he evidently bestowed more thought and 
labour, In the dramas, for they assume that form, ‘ Der gestiefelter 
Kater’ (Puss in Boots); in ‘Prinz Zerbino, oder die Reise nach 
dem guten Geschmack’ (Travels in search of Good Taste); ‘Die ver- 
kehrte Welt’ (The World turned upside down); and ‘Leben und 
Thaten des Kleinen Thomas, genannt Diiumchen’ (Tom Thumb); in all 
of which he attacked with keen irony the low, material, anti-poetical 
notions of poetry advocated by learned pedants, and defénded by 
implication, by example, and by occasional parodies on the classicists, 
the theory of the romantic school. A key to ‘Zerbino,’ by one 
thoroughly acquainted with the peculiarities of all the authors alluded 
to in that drama, would possess much interest for the English student. 
These pieces, independent of their critical merits, have an interest of 
their own from the wit and humour of the dialogue. Many of the 
productions of this period, including most of those above-mentioned, 
were subsequently published together, under the title of ‘ Phantasus,’ 
in a frame-work of a conversational party, to whom or by whom 
they are related. An excellent translation of ‘Don Quixote,’ a very 
good one of Ben Jonson’s ‘Epicoone, or the Silent Woman,’ and a 
remarkably successful one of Shakspere’s ‘Tempest,’ also belong to 
this period. 

In 1801-2, while residing in Dresden, he assisted F. Schlegel in 
bringing.out the ‘ Musen-Almanach,’ to which he contributed some of 
his tales. He then lived for a time at Berlin, and next at Ziebingen 
near Frankfurt-on-the-Oder, seeming to enjoy a poetical leisure, 
during which he produced nothing but ‘ Kaiser Octavianus’ of which 
we have already spoken, in 1804; and in the same year he made a 
journey to Italy, returning from thence in 1806 to Munich, where he 
had the first attack of gout, from which he was ever after an extreme 
sufferer. This attack was so violent, that he produced little for 
several years. He occupied himrelf, when able, in revising and adding 
to his previous works, publishing the ‘Phantasus’ as above stated, 
and a collection of his poems; in studying and collecting the early 
poetry of his own country, of which in 1803 he had published ‘ Minne- 
lieder aus dem Schwibischen Zeitalter’ ( Love Songs of the Swabian 
period), and in 1815 ‘ Ulrich’s von Lichtenstein Frauendienst ’ ( Worth 
of Woman); and in extending his acquaintance with the English 
drama. In 1812 he published the ‘ Alt-englisches Theater,’ containing 
translations of the old King John, the Pindar of Wakefield, 
Pericles, Locrine, the Merry Devil of Edmonton, and the old 
Lear, all of which he contends are the genuine, though chiefly early, 
productions of Shakspere. In 1817 he published two volumes of 
specimens of the early German drama, and in the same year visited 


England for the purpose of acquainting himself with the literature 
connected with the drama which he could not procure in Germany. 
He laboured diligently ; the treasures of the British Museum as well 
as those of many private collections were opened to him; and it is 
probable that no foreigner ever attained so wide and so exact an 
acquaintance as Tieck with the English literature of the great Eliza- 
bethan period, or so just an appreciation of Shakspere, although his 
enthusiasm has led him.to the discovery of beauties hidden from 
Englishmen in the apocryphal or rejected works attributed to Shak- 
spere, in the genuineness of nearly all of which he is a stedfast believer, 
but of which his countryman and follower Ulrici has formed a more 
sober judgment. On his return to Germany he settled at Dresden, 
and for some time his literary publications were chiefly novels and tales 
for the pocket-books and similar {annuals. In 1823 he published the 
first volume of ‘Shakspeare’s Vorschule’ containing translations of 
Green’s § Friar Bacon,’ ‘Arden of Feversham,’ of which he has doubts 
whether it is a production of Green’s or an early work of Skakspere, 
and Heywood’s ‘ Lancashire Witches ;’ this was followed by a second 
volume in 1829 containing ‘Fair Em,’ ‘The second Maid’s Tragedy,’ 
by Mussingen, translated from one of the three manuscript plays 
saved from the fire by Warburton the herald, and ‘The Birth of 
Merlin :’ the first he considers to be more probably an early effort of 
Shakspere’s than of any of the other names to which it has been 
assigned, grounding his apinion of this and other of the doubtful 
plays on the belief that Shakspere commenced writing for the stage 
many years earlier than had at that time been admitted; a belief 
which the investigations of Mr. C. Knight in his ‘ Pictorial Shakspere’ 
has shown to be very probable, though not leading always to the con- 
clusions at which Tieck has arrived regarding the particular plays. In 
1828 he published his ‘Dramaturgische Blitter,’ chiefly written in 
1817, a collection of reviews or criticisms of modern German plays, 
including notices of Schiller’s ‘ Piccolomini, and ‘ Wallenstein’s Tod;’ 
Gothe’s ‘Jery und Biitelei, and ‘ Clavigo ;’ and Shakspere’s ‘ Romeo 
and Juliet,’ ‘Lear, ‘Henry VIIL.,’ ‘ Macbeth,’ and ‘Hamlet ;’ all con- 
taining much genial criticism, with a delicate and true apprehension of 
their poetical feeling and harmony ; with notices of the acting of Kemble 
and Kean; and Appendices on the German and English stage. About 
the same time he took an active part in the continuation and 
completion of the translation of Shakspere’s acknowledged plays, 
which had been begun by Schlegel, and of which the first volume 
appeared in 1825. The merits of this translation, of which many 
were entirely from his own hands, and all were subjected to his 
revision, are universally acknowledged. Less literal, but more spirited 
and equally true to the sense of the author, than the previous trans- 
lation by the Vosses, they are illustrated by a number of notes which 
display a vast amount of reading, and many ingenious conjectures as 
to various disputed readings, and they now form the recognised text 
of Shakspere’s plays in Germany. The work was completed in 1829. 
But his labours were not confined to this work, he continued to write 
tales for periodical publications, and in 1828 he produced his novel 
of ‘Dichtersleben,’ ( Life of a Poet) in which Shakspere and several 
of his contemporaries are introduced, and in which the death of 
Marlow is vividly described. In 1829 he published ‘Der Tod des 
Dichters,’ (the Poet’s Death) in which the unhappy fate of Camoens 
is pathetically related. In 1826 he also produced one of his most 
picturesque narratives, ‘Der Aufruhr in den Cevennes,’ in which the 
insurrection in the Cevennes is graphically told, but unfortunately 
was left incomplete. While residing at Dresden his evening circles 
became celebrated, at which his readings and the relation of his 
tales formed a principal charm, and which were attended by all 
the literary celebrities who were in the vicinity and could gain admis- 
sion. In 1836 and 1840 he published his two latest novels—‘ Der 
Tischlermeister’ (The Cabinet-maker) and ‘ Victoria Accorombona,’ 
both of which are very inferior to most of his previous works of a 
similar character. He also took an active part in the management of 
the Dresden theatres. In 1840, on the accession of Friedrich Wilhelm 
IV. to the throne of Prussia, Tieck was invited to Berlin, an invitation 
which he accepted. Hewasthen created a privy-councillor, and passed 
the remainder of his life partly in Berlin and partly at Potsdam, occu- 
pied chiefly with some theatrical productions, and in revising and 
correcting his works, which were published in 20 volumes at Berlin 
between 1828 and 1846. At various times he also edited ‘ Novalis’s 
Schriften,’ in conjunction with Friedrich Schlegel, 1802; Heinrich yon 
Kleist’s ‘Nachgelassenen Schriften’ (Posthumous Works, 1826; 
Solger’s ‘Nachlass und Briefwechsel’ (Remains and Correspondence) 
with Friedrich von Raumer, 1826; and Reinhard Lenz's ‘Gesam- 
melte Schriften,’ (Collected Works) in 1828. After suffering for some 
years from continued illness, borne with wonderful patience and 
cheerfulness, he died at Berlin, April 28, 1853, leaving a name which 
may rank with the highest in his native country, and which English- 
men may reverence as that which in Germany is most connected with 
the popularising of the fame of the great dramatic poet of England. 
TIEDEMANN, DIETRICH, a German philosopher, was born on 
the 3rd of April 1748, at Bremervirde, neac Bremen, where his father 
was burgomaster. He received his earliest education at home, and as 
he was scarcely allowed to have any intercourse with other children, 
his leisure hours were spent in reading. His father sent him in 1763 
to Verden, where he was chiefly engaged in acquiring a knowledge of 


| 


a. 87 TIEDEMANN, DIETRICH. 


TIEDGE, CHRISTOPH AUGUST. 


58 


the ancient and some modern languages. After a stay of two years 
he entered the Atheneum of Bremen. The system of education and 
the distinguished masters of this institution had great influence on 
young Tiedemann. It was here that he first conceived a love for 
_ philosophy and its history, and he began his philosophical studies by 
_ reading the works of Descartes, Locke, Helvetius, and Malebranche. 
_ After spending eighteen months at Bremen, he entered the University 
_of Gottingen, with the intention of studying theology pursuant to his 
father’s wish; but he continued the study of classical literature, 
“mathematics, and philosophy. The study of philosophy raised in his 
mind strong doubts respecting certain main points of the Christian 
religion, which he was unable to overcome, and this led him to aban- 
don the study of theology. He now tried jurisprudence, but not- 
“withstanding the entreaties of hfs father to devote himself to somu 
profession, he abandoned the study of the law also, and at last deter- 
‘mined to follow his own inclinations, and to give himself up entirely 
_to philosophy and its history. His father, dissatisfied with his son’s 
conduct, refused to send him further means of subsistence. After 
having spent two years and a half at Gottingen, Professor Eyring 
lsepeed to him to take the place of tutor ina nobleman’s family 
in Livonia, which Tiedemann accepted very reluctantly. In 1769 he 
_ entered his new situation, in which he remained four years, although 
he was shut out from all means of prosecuting his own studies, and 
had to devote almost all his time to his pupils. Nevertheless, he 
_ found time to write a little work on the origin of language, a favourite 
ic with the philosophers of that time. It was published under the 
e, * Versuch einer Erkliirung des Ursprungs der Sprache,’ 8vo, Riga, 
1772. In the year following he returned to his native place, and after 
- having spent a year there in studying various subjects which he had 
_ neglected in Livonia, he again went to Gittingen. His friend Meiners, 
who was now a professor in the university, introduced him to Heyne, 
who immediately made him a member of the philological seminary. 
The small income derived from this institution, and from private 
_ instruction, together with what he got by writing, enabled him to live 
_imindependence. His work on the Stoic philosophy appeared under 
_ the title of ‘System der Stoischeri Philosophie,’ 8vo, Leipzig, 1776. 
with a preface by Heyne, who had recommended the publication. In 
this year Heyne was applied to in order to recommend a competent 
person for the professorship of ancient literature at the Carclinum in 
Cassel. Heyne recommended Tiedemann, and accepted the place for 
him without telling him of it. Tiedemann was delighted with the 
place, as it did not occupy too much of his time, and put him in con- 
nection with some of the most distinguished men in Germany. The 
study of philosophy .and its history was now prosecuted with fresh 
_ zeal and vigour. The philosophical views which he had imbibed from 
the authors whom he had most studied tended towards materialism ; 
but his friend Tetens vigorously counteracted them, and at length 
succeeded in turning his mind in a different direction. In the year 
_ 1786, when the Carolinum was broken up, Tiedemann was transferred 
with the other professors to Marburg. Here he lectured at different 
times on logic, metaphysics, the law of nature, on moral philosophy, 
psychology, universal history, history of philosophy, and sometimes 
also on some classical Greek writer. His lectures were very popular, 
and his kind disposition made his hearers look upon him more as a 
friend than as a master. Sometimes, especially during the last period 
of his life, he did not conduct himself with the calmness and dignity 
of a philosopher in combating the philosophy of Kant, to which he 
was opposed. He died in the midst of literary undertakings, after a 
short illness, on the 24th of May 1803. 

Tiedemann was beloved and esteemed by all who knew him. His 
life was spent in intellectual occupations and bodily exercise, of which 
he was very fond. His striking qualities were great self-control, 
cheerfulness, and a total absence of all pretension to literary supe- 
riority, although his works were extremely popular. Besides the works 

ady mentioned, the following deserve notice :—‘ Untersuchungen 
tiber den Menschen,’ 3 vols, 8vo, Leipzig, 1777, &c.; ‘Griechenlands 
erste Philosophen, oder Leben und Systeme des Orpheus, Pherecydes, 
Thales, und Pythagoras,’ 8vo, Leipzig, 1780; ‘Hermes Trismegists 
Poemander, oder von der gittlichen Macht und Weishiet, 8vo, Berlin 
and Stettin, 1781. This work is a translation from the Greek of 
Hermes Trismegistus. ‘Geist der Speculativen Philosophie,’ 6 vols. 
8vo, Marburg, 1791-97. This work is a history of philosophy from the 
+ time of Thales down to Leibnitz and Christian Wolff, and is still 
useful for the materials which it contains. In style and arrangement 
_ itis deficient, and the author did not possess that critical and profound 
knowledge of philosophy which would have enabled him to perceive 
the organic connection and the necessary succession of the various 
philosophical systems. ‘Theaetet, oder tiber das menschliche Wissen,’ 
8vo, Frankfurt, 1794; ‘Handbuch der Psychologie.’ This work was 
edited after the author’s death (8vo, Leipzig, 1804) by L. Wachler, 
who has prefixed to it a biographical memoir of Tiedemann. Besides 
these greater works, Tiedemann wrote numerous smaller treatises and 
made many translations from the French : he also contributed papers 
to several periodicals. He is the author of some Latin dissertations, 
among which we may mention three programs: ‘De Antiquis quibus- 
dam Musei Fridericiani Simulacris, 4t0, Cassel, 1778-80 ; ‘ Dialogorum 
Platonis Argumenta exposita et illustrata,’ 8vo, Bipont, 1786 ; ‘ Disser- 
_ tatio de Questione: que fuerit artium magicarum origo, quomodo 


pre 


7 


ee af 


>" 


ah oe 


eae 


iim “FT 


wty mn 


VY 


ill ab Asie populis ad Gracos atque Romanos et ab his ad ceteras 
gentes sint propagate,’ &., 4to, Marburg, 1787. 

(L. Wachler’s Memoir of Tiedemann, in his Handbuch der Psycho- 
logie; Creuzer, Memoria Diterici Tiedemanni, 4to, Marburg, 1803; 
and 4 Bay” Lexikon Deutscher Dichter und Prosaisten, vol. Vey 
Pp. 10-00, 

* TIEDEMANN, FRIEDRICH, a celebrated German anatomist, was 
the son of the celebrated philosophical writer, Dietrich Tiedemann, 
and was born at Cassel on the 23rd of August 1781. He received his 
early education at the gymnasium at Marburg, where he also com- 
menced the study of anatomy and physiology. He subsequently 
studied in the hospitals of Bamberg and Wiirzburg, and took his 
degree in 1804, At this time he took up the study of phrenology, 
and pursued it with great. earnestness. He visited Frankfurt, and 
made the friendship of the celebrated Sémmering. He also attended 
a course of Schelling’s lectures on natural philosophy at Wiirzburg, 
and afterwards repaired to Paris. In 1805 he was appointed professor 
of anatomy and physiology at Landshut. Here he published his first 
work on ‘ Zoology,’ the first volume of which appeared in 1808 and the 
third in 1810, In 1809 he also published a work on the ‘ Anatomy ot 
the Heart of Fishes,’ which was the result of a journey in Italy and the 
“Tyrol, In 1811 he published his ‘ Anatomy of the Flying Lizard or 
Dragon.’ In 1813 appeared an essay on the ‘ Anatomy of Headless 
Monsters.’ He obtained the prize offered by the Institute of France 
in 1811 for the best essay on the ‘Structure and Relations of the 
Radiate Animals.’ In order to qualify himself for this work he made 
a journey to the coast of the Adriatic. This essay was published in 
1820. In 1816 he was called to the chair of comparative anatomy and 
zoology at Heidelberg. In this position he not only gained a great 
reputation as a teacher, but published a large number of works upon 
human anatomy and zoology, which have contributed greatly to the 
advancement of those sciences during the present century. Amongst 
these the best known are his two great illustrated anatomical works 
on the ‘ Nerves of the Uterus’ and the ‘ Arteries of the Human Body,’ 
These were published in folio in 1822. In the same year he also pub- 
lished ‘ Plates of the Brain of Monkeys.’ In 1830 he commenced the 
publication of a ‘ Physiology of Man,’ which was finished in 1836. As 
a physiologist he devoted great attention to the physiology of digestion, 
and in conjunction with Leopold Gmelin, professor of chemistry in 
Heidelberg, he made many original researches and observations on this 
subject. In conjunction with L. C. Treviranus he edited five volumes 
of the ‘ Zeitschrift fiir Physiologie.’ He has also published numerous 
papers in journals, &c,, both on anatomy and zoology, of great value. 
In 1849 he retired from his chair at Heidelberg on the occasion of the 
death of his eldest son, who was commander of the castle of Rastadt, 
and who was condemned to death for having sided with the revolu- 
tionary party. 

TIEDGE, CHRISTOPH AUGUST, ‘The Nestor of German 
Poetry,’ and one who has now taken his place among the German 
classics, was born at Gardelegen in Altmark, December 14th 1752. 
His early prospects in life were by no means flattering, for the death 
of his father (Conrector at the Magdeburg gymnasium), in 1772, left 
him and a family of young children in a very destitute situation. He 
completed however his legal studies at Halle; but notwithstanding 
the favourable opinion his talents had acquired for him, he soon 
abandoned the profession for which he had prepared himself, and in 
1776, accepted the situation of private teacher in the Arnstadt family 
at Elrich in Hohenstein. The choice he had made proved a fortunate 
one, since it eventually led to connections and frieridships that proved 
very advantageous. The immediate result of the course he had 
adopted was an intimacy with Gokingk, Gleim, and other literary 
persons of that day, including the Baroness von der Recke. The 
friendships thus formed, laid the foundation of the prosperous and 
unruffied tenour of his after-life. On quitting Elrich he was invited 
by Gleim to reside with him at Halberstadt, which he continued to do 
until 1792, when he became private secretary to Domherr von Stedern; 
and though he died in the following year, Tiedge remained in the 
family upon the same footing during the life of Madame von Stedern, 
who, at her death, in 1799, secured to him a handsome competency. 
Being thus placed perfectly at ease in his circumstances, he travelled 
through the north of Germany, and visited Berlin, where it was his 
good fortune again to meet with Madame von der Recke, and the 
intimacy thus resumed continued for life. Though not in accordance 
with the ordinary usages of society, it was as entirely free from the 
slightest suspicion of impropriety, as was the similar domestication of 
Cowper with Mrs, Unwin. ‘This union, of a kind so exceedingly rare 
that no name has been invented for it, was that of two noble and pure 
minds, congenial in their tastes, and equally inspired with a feeling 
for poetry and those pursuits which, while they refine, also elevate our 
nature. The author of ‘ Urania’ was as well shielded from scandal as 
was the author of the ‘Task;’ for although very different in form, 
the first-mentioned poem is, like the other, deeply tinged by religious 
sentiment; and its merits were more immediately recognised, for it 
went through several editions within a very short time from its first 
appearance in 1801. 

In 1804 Tiedge and his female friend visited Italy, where they 
remained about two years; and of this journey we have an account 
from the pen of Madame von der Recke herself, ‘Tagebuch einer 


59 TIEPOLO, GIOVANNI BATTISTA. 


TIGRANES. 


Reise,’ &c., 4 vols. 8vo, with a preface and notes by Béttiger, which, 
besides being very superior to the general class of tour-books, affords 
evidence of her being a zealous though candid Protestant, and a 
woman of strict piety, On their return to Germany, Madame von 
der Recke made Berlin, and afterwards (1819) Dresden, her chief place 
of residence, passing the summer months at Teplitz or Carlsbad. The 
only change Tiedge henceforth experienced was that occasioned by the 
loss of his companion and benefactress, for she had taken care that 
her death (1833) should cause no change whatever in his outward 
circumstances, not even that of his residence; as she directed that her 
establishment should be kept up for him precisely as before, and that 
he should continue to enjoy the luxuries and comforts he had so long 
been accustomed to. Nor was her anxious solicitude for her friend's 
welfare useless; for so pre-eminently was Tiedge favoured beyond the 
ordinary lot, that he not only attained an unusual age, but remained 
nearly free from all infirmities of either body or mind. In his eighty- 
ninth year, says one who appears to have known him personally, he 
did not seem to be much more than sixty: the only alteration in him 
was, that for some years he could not take exercise on foot, or stir out 
except in a iage or a wheel-chair. Even but a week before his 
death (March 8th 1841) he was at the birth-day féte of one of his 
friends, 

Soon after his death, his ‘ Life and Literary Remains’ were given to 
the world by Dr. K. Falkenstein, in 4 vols. ; and a complete edition 
of his works has been published in 10 vols. 8vo. After his ‘ Urania,’ 
his most original production is perhaps his ‘ Wanderungen durch den 
Markt des Lebens,’ 1836, which, like the other, may be said to be 
lyrie-didactic, and similar in tendency, though of a less decidedly 
religious character, the seriousness of its moral precepts being relieved 
by the tone of playful irony which pervades many parts of the poem. 
His principal other productions are his ‘ Poetical Epistles,’ his 
‘Elegies, and his ‘Frauenspiegel,’ all of which have contributed to 
his reputation. The esteem in which the poet of ‘ Urania’ is held is 
proved by the fact that, in honour of his memory, a ‘ Tiedge Verein,’ 
or Tiedge Institution, was after his death established at Dresden, one 
object of which is to give a literary prize every five years, and another 
to make some provision in their declining years for meritorious writers 
who may have fallen into adversity in consequence of age and 
infirmities. 

TIE/POLO, GIOVANNI BATTISTA, a celebrated Italian painter 
of the 18th century, was born of a good family at Venice in 1693. 
Tiepolo, says Lanzi, was the last of the Venetians who acquired a 
European fame; celebrated in Italy, in Germany, and in Spain. He 
studied as a boy under Gregorio Lazzarini, painted at first in his 
manner, then imitated the style of Piazzetta, but attached himself 
eventually to that of Paul Veronese. Already at the age of sixteen 
he was known even out of Venice, and when still young he received 
invitations from various Italian cities to decorate their churches and 
their public buildings. His works in the north of Italy, both in oil 
and in fresco, are numerous: one of bis first works of note was the 
Shipwreck of San Satiro, in the church of St. Ambrose, at Milan: he 
excelled chiefly in fresco, and his colouring and the folds of his 
draperies bear great resemblance to those of Paul Veronese. In Ger- 
many also Tiepolo executed several works: at Wiirzburg he painted 
the staircase and the saloon of the bishop's palace and two altar-pieces. 
He was afterwards invited by Charles III. to Spain, where, in Madrid, 
he painted the ceiling of the saloon in the new palace of the king, and 
the hall of the royal guard, by which he is said to have excited the 
jealousy of Mengs: he executed also the chief altar-piece in oil for the 
convent church of St. Paschal, at Aranjuez. He died in Madrid in 
1769 or 1770. 

Tiepolo’s style was slight and brilliant, yet his colouring was not 
glaring: the effect of his paintings was not produced by a recourse to 
bright colours, but by a judicious contrast of tints: his drawing was 
however feeble, though this weakness was nearly concealed by the 
gracefulness of his attitudes. One of his best pictures in oil is the 
Martyrdom of St. Agatlia, in the church of St. Antonio, at Padua. 
He etched several plates in a very free and spirited manner. He left 
two sons, Giovanni Domenico and Lorenzo, who were both painters : 
the elder etched some of his father’s designs, 

TIGHE, MRS. MARY, was born in 1773, the daughter of the Rev. 
William Blachford, by Theodosia, the daughter of William Tighe of 
Rosanna, in Wicklow county, Ireland. She married in 1793 her rela- 
tive Henry Tighe of Woodstock, in the county of Wicklow. In 1805 
she printed for private circulation her poem of ‘Psyche, a work 
founded on the story of Cupid and Psyche, as told in the ‘Golden 
Ass’ of Apuleius, The poem is remarkable for the beauty of its 
descriptions, the tenderness and purity of its sentiments, the ingenious 
manner in which the writer has completed the story, the poetical 
imagery, and the musical flow of the versification, which is in the Spen- 
serian stanza, managed with great skill. After six years of continued 
ill-health she died on March 24, 1810, and in 1811 ‘ Psyche’ was pub- 
lished with a collection of miscellaneous poems, many of them written 
during her illness, and breathing a deep religious feeling. All of them 
show the same virtuous tendencies as are developed in her principal 
work, but they do not on the whole display the same amount of 
poetic power. 

TIGRA’‘NES, king of Armenia, the ally of Mithridates the Great, 


who gave him his daughter Cleopatra in marriage, He was master 
the large tract between Egypt in the south-west, and the Caspian Sea 
in the north-east, which was bounded by Assyria and Media on the 
east, and by id 
north-west. The earlier history of Tigranes is little known; Strabo 
(p. 532, Cas.) and Justin (xxviii. 3) state that he was sent in his youth — 
as a hostage to the king of the Parthians, who afterwards restored 

him to liberty. He conquered Gordyene and Mesopotamia, 


Syrians chose him for their king in B.o. 84, or, according to nm 
i B.0.. aca 


(‘De Reb. Syr.,” 70), in B.c, 80. Before B.c. 74 he con al 
alliance with Mithridates, who was then about to begin his third war 
with the Romans. The conditions of this alliance were, that Mith- 
ridates should be master of the countries which they hoped to 
conquer, and that Tigranes should have the inhabitants and all the 


moveable property that he could carry off. Plutarch states (‘ Lucullus,’ — 
of 260,000 


p. 509, Xyland.) that the army of Tigranes was composed 
men,—20,000 archers, 55,000 horse, 150,000 foot, and 35,000 ee 
and train,—and that Arabs and warlike Albani from the sus 
abounded in the Armenian camp. The campaign was opened in 
BO. 74. ate 

laid siege to Cyzicus in Bithynia, but Lucullus came to relieve it, and 
after various reverses Mithridates was compelled to fly to Tigranes 
(z.c. 69). The conduct of the Armenian king had been insincere 
during these events, and the Romans being now victorious, he not 
only refused to receive his father-in-law, but set a prize of a hundred 
talents on his head, on the pretext that the king had 
son, who was likewise called Tigranes, to rebel against ; 
to join the Romans. Mithridates nevertheless succeeded in ‘ 
his son-in-law, and they joined their armies to meet Lucullus, who had 


crossed the Euphrates and the Tigris, and had laid siege to Tigrano- — 


B'S 


the kingdoms of Pontus and Cappadocia on the west and 


and the 


' 


| 
i 
{ 


‘ 


«| 
[ 


Cappadocia and Bithynia were conquered, and Mithridates — 


' 
4 
' 
4 
1 


certa, the new capital of the Armenian kingdom. A battle ensued — 


near this town, in which Tigrahes was completely defeated (6th 
October, B.¢. 69), and his capital fell into the hands of the Romans. 


Tigranes and Mithridates having entered into negociation with Phraates — 


IIL, king of the Parthians, for the purpose of drawing him into their — 


alliance, Lucullus, who had now carried his conquest in Armenia as 
far as Artaxata on the upper part of the Araxes, marched to Mesopo- 
tamia to attack the Parthians, But a mutiny of his soldiers com 
him to retreat to Cappadocia, where they dispersed, as it seems, by 
the instigation of Pompey, who aimed at the supreme co in 


‘ 


the war (B.c. 67). ‘The Romans lost Cappadocia, and Tigranes carried — 

off a great number of the inhabitants of this province, as well as of — 
Cilicia and Galatia. Pompey entered Asia Minor in 2.c. 66, and in the © 
same year he defeated Mithridates in a great battle on the Euphrates. — 


Mithridates, having experienced the faithless character of his son-in- 
law, fied to Phanagoria in the island of Taman, while Tigranes 
humiliated himself before the Romans, then encamped in the neigh- 


bourhood of Artaxata, He went to the tent of Pompey, and, kneeling — 


before his victorious enemy, took off his royal diadem, which Pompey 
however would not accept. The policy of the Romans required an 
independent kingdom between their dominions and the dangerous 
power of the Parthians. Tigranes therefore was reinstated in Armenia, 
except the districts of Gordyene and that of Sophene, or the western- 
most part of Armenia Magna, which he was obliged to cede to his 
rebellious son Tigranes, then an ally of the Romans. Besides these 
districts, he ceded to the Romans his kingdom of Syria, including 


Pheenicia and all his conquests in Cilicia, Galatia, and Cappadocia ; he — 


paid six thousand talents, and he gave half a mina to each Roman 
soldier, ten minz to each centurion, and sixty ming, or one ta to 
each tribune. (Plutarch, ‘ Lucullus,’ p. 637, Xyland.; comp. Ap; 

‘De Bello Mithrid.,’ c. 104.) It seems that after this humiliation 
Tigranes led an obscure and tranquil life, for his name disappears from 
history, and the year of his death is unknown. His successor was 
Artavasdes. [MirHripatrs ; Pomprrus; Lucut1uvs.] 


(Valerius Maximus, v. 1, 9; Velleius Paterculus, ‘ii, 33, 1, oor di 


87; Cicero, Pro Lege Manilia; Woltersdorf, Commentatio 
Mithridatis M. per annos digestam sistens, Goettinge, 1812.) 


Coin of Tigranes. 
British Museum. Actual size. Silver. Weight 245} grains. 


TIGRA’NES, prince of Armenia and lord of Sophene, was the want 
of Tigranes, king of Armenia. During the last war between the 
Romans and Mithridates aided by his ally king Tigranes, prince 


Tigranes forsook his father and went over to the Romans. 
father humiliated himself before Pompey, he sat by the side of the 
Roman general, but he did not rise before his father, nor did he show 


\ 


en his — 


ee 


Pt TILLEMONT, SEBASTIEN-LENAIN-DE. 


TILLEMONT, SEBASTIEN-LENAIN-DE. 62 


him the slightest degree of filial respect. Having been created lord of 
Sophene and Gordyene, he refused to surrender the treasures of 
Sophene to Pompey, who suspected him of being in secret communi- 
cation with Phraates, the king of the Parthians, whose daughter he 
had married. Tigranes also became suspected of having formed a 
plan for seizing or putting to death his father, and accordingly he was 
arrested by order of Pompey, who sent him to Rome. He figured in 
the triumph of Pompey. 
_ Appian (‘De Bello Mithrid.,’c. 105 and 117) states that Tigranes 
_ was afterwards put to death in his prison. [‘T1GRANES.] 
_ TILLEMONT, SEBASTIEN-LENAIN-DE, an historical writer of 
_ considerable note, was born at Paris on the 30th of November 1637. 
He was the son of Jean Lenain, master of the requests, and his wife 
“Marie le Ragois. His excellence of character was manifested very 
early; and even as a child he always abstained from those mischievous 
pee in which children commonly indulge. When between nine and 
years of age he was placed under the charge of the members of the 
religious society then established in the vacant abbey of Port Royal, 


———: 


SS, ee 


- learning and piety. His favourite author, while at school, was Livy ; 
a preference indicative of the bias of his mind to historical studies. 
He studied logic and ecclesiastical history under Nicole; and his 
_ questions on the latter subject at once evinced the earnestness with 
_ which he pursued it, and put the knowledge of his instructor to a 
severe test. He studied the theology of Estius, from which, when 
about eighteen years of age, he turned with much satisfaction to the 
study of the Scriptures themselves, and of the Fathers ; and while 
thus engaged he began to collect the historical notices of the Apostles 
and Apostolical Fathers, and to arrange them after the plan of Usher's 
* Annales.’ 
The tenderness of his conscience, and the strictness of his notions of 
duty, kept him for some time undetermined. as to the choice of a pro- 
fession. At the age of twenty-three he entered the Episcopal seminary 
_ of Beauvais, where he was received with such respect from his reputa- 
_ tion for historical knowledge, that fearing it might be a snare to 
his humility, he contemplated leaving it, but was persuaded to remain 
by Isaac de Sacy, one of the members of the Society of Port Royal, 
- whom he had chosen for his spiritual guide. He remained three or 
four years in the seminary of Beauvais, and then spent five or six 
_ with Godefroi Hermant, canon of that city. He was much respected 
and beloved by the bishop of Beauvais, Choart de Buzanval, and 
fearing still’ that this estimation would make him vain, he suddenly 
left the place and returned to Paris, where he remained two years 
with his intimate friend and school-fellow at Port Royal, Thomas du 
_ Fossé; but not finding in Paris that retirement which he desired, he 
sooner to St. Lambert, a country parish in the neighbourhood of 
that city. , 
In September 1672, at the mature age of thirty-five, he became sub- 
- deacon, and fifteen months after deacon. The following extract from 
a letter addressed to his brother (Pierre Lenain, then or afterwards 
subprior of La Trappe) evinces at once his piety and his humility. 
After stating that it was at the desire of Isaac de Sacy, his friend and 
guide, that he had become subdeacon and was about to take on him 
the deaconship, he goes on, “I assure you, my dearest brother, that it 
is with great agitation and fear that I have resolved to comply with 
his wish, for I feel that I am far from those dispositions which I 


myself see to be necessary for entering upon this office ; and above all, 


I am obliged to confess that I have profited little from the grace 
which I might have received from the order and duties of the sub- 
deaconship.. But on the other hand I could not resist one whom I 
believe I ought to obey in everything, and who, I am well aware, has 
the greatest love for me. I beg of you then, my dearest brother, to 
pray to God for me, and to ask him either to cause M. de Sacy to see 
things in a different light, or to give to me such dispositions that the 
advice of my friend may be for my salvation, and not for my con- 
demnation.” 

In 1676 he received priest’s orders, at the further persuasion of De 
Sacy, who contemplated making him his successor in the office of 
spiritual director of the Bernardine nuns, now re-established in their 
original seat, the abbey of Port Royal, to the immediate neighbour- 
hood of which establishment Tillemont removed. He was however, 
in 1679, obliged to remove, and he took up his residence at the estate 
of Tillemont, a short distance from Paris, near Vincennes, which 
belonged to his family, and from which he took his name. In 1681 he 
visited Flanders and Holland; and in 1682 undertook the charge of 
the parish of St. Lambert, where he had formerly resided, but soon 
gave it up at the desire of his father, to whom he ever paid the 

greatest respect and obedience. 

Having prepared: the first volume of his great work on ecclesiastical 
history, he was about to publish it when it was stopped by the censor, 
under whose notice, as a work connected with theology, it had to pass, 
and who raised some objections of the most frivolous character. 
Tillemont refused to alter the parts specified, deeming them not justly 
within the censor’s province ; and chose rather to suppress the work, 
upon which however he continued to labour diligently, though without 
any immediate intention of publishing it. 

___ This exercise of the censorship led to an alteration of his plan: he 
determined to separate from the rest of his work the history of the 


~ 


= * 


and under these instructors he devoted himself to the exercises of: 


Roman emperors and other princes whose actions were interwoven 
with the affairs of the Christian church, and to publish it separately : 
the first volume of this work, which, as not being theological, was 
exempt from the censorship, appeared in 1690, and was received with 
general approbation, It excited a desire for the appearance of his 
Church history, and the chancellor Boucherat, in order to remove the 
obstacle to its publication, appointed a new censor. Thus encouraged 
he brought out the first volume in 1693, under the title of ‘Mémoires 
pour servir & l'Histoire Eeclesiastique des Six Premiers Sidcles,’ 
A note to this volume, on the question whether Jesus Christ cele- 
brated the Passover the evening before his death, in which he 
examined the views of Bernard Lami, a learned priest of the Oratory, 
on that question, involved him in a controversy with that writer, who 
read Tillemont’s note before publication, and examined the arguments 
contained in it in a subsequent work of his own, ‘Tillemont in con- 
sequence addressed to Lami a letter, which is printed at the close of 
the second volume of his ‘ Mémoires,’ and is remarkable for its spirit 
of modesty and meckness. Lami replied, but Tillemont declined to 
continue the discussion, thinking he had said enough to enable those 
interested in the question to form a judgment. Faydit de Riom, an 
ecclesiastic whom the Congregation of the Oratory had expelled from 
their body, a man of considerable talent, but of jealous disposition, 
published at Baile, in 1695, the first number (28 pp. 4to.) of a work, to 
be continued every fortnight, entitled ‘ Mémoires contre les Mémoires 
de M. Tillemont.’ It contained several violent and unjust strictures 
on the work, to which Tillemont did not reply, though some of his 
friends with needless apprehension procured the stopping of Faydit’s 
work, which never proceeded beyond the first number. Faydit 
Spence’ his attack in a subsequent work, but it produced little 
effect. 2 

The remainder of Tillemont’s life was passed in the quiet pursuit of 
hisstudies. He was attacked by a slight cough at the end of Lent, 
1697, and in the course of the summer was seized with fainting, 
owing to a sudden chill while hearing mass in the chapel of Notre 
Dame des Anges: toward the end of September his illness increased 
so as to excite the anxiety of his friends, He consequently removed 
to Paris for the sake of medical advice; and there, after an illness 
which rendered his piety and submissiveness to the divine will more 
conspicuous, he breathed his last, on Wednesday, 10th January 1698, 
aged sixty years. He was buried in the abbey of Port Royal, in 
which the Bernardine or Cistertian nuns, to whom the abbey had 
originally belonged, were now again established. 

The works by which Tillemort is known are, his ‘Histoire des 
Empereurs,’ and his ‘Mémoires pour servir d |’ Histoire Ecclésiastique.’ 
The first was published in 6 vols. 4to; the first four during the 
author’s life, at intervals from 1690 to 1697 : the remaining two after 
his death, in 1701 and 1738. The earlier volumes were reprinted 
at Brussels in 12mo, in 1707, et seq., and a new edition appeared at 
Paris, in 4to, in 1720-23, with the author’s latest corrections. He 
explains his plan in the ‘Avertissement’ to the first volume: his 
intention was to illustrate the history of the Church for the first six 
centuries; but instead of commencing with the first persecutor, Nero, 
he goes back to Augustus, whose edict occasioned the journey of 
Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, and thus determined the place of our 
Lord’s nativity. The history ends with the Byzantine emperor 
Anastasius (a.D. 518). The style is unpretending, and consists for the 
most part of a translation of the original writers with slight modifica- 
tions, and with such additions (marked by brackets) as were needed to 
form the whole into one continuous narrative, or such reflections as 
the author deemed requisite to correct the false morality of heathen 
writers. To each volume are appended notes relating to difficulties of 
history or chronology which require discussion of a kind or extent 
unsuited for insertion in the body of the work. “There is nothing,” 
says Dupin, “which has escaped the exactness of M. Tillemont; and 
there is nothing obscure or intricate which his criticism has not 
cleared up or disentangled.” 

The ‘Mémoires,’ &c., extend to 16 vols, 4to, of which the first 
appeared in 1693; three volumes more during the author’s lifetime, in 
1694-5-6; and the fifth was in the press at the time of his death. 
These five volumes came to a second edition in 1701-2, and were 
followed in 1702-11 by the remaining eleven, which the author had 
teftin manuscript. This great work is on the same plan as the former, 
being composed of translations from the original writers, connected by 
paragraphs or sentences in brackets. Dupin characterises it as being 
not a continuous and general history of the Church, but an assemblage 
of particular histories of saints, persecutions, and heresies, a description 
accordant with the modest title of the work, ‘Mémoires pour servir 2 
lHistoire, &c. The author concerns himself chiefly with facts, with- 
out entering into questions of doctrine and discipline; and notices not 
all the saints in the calendar, but only those of whom there are some 
ancient and authentic records. Hach volume has notes of similar 
character to those given in ‘ L’Histoire des Empereurs.’ 

Tillemont supplied materials for several works published by others, 
as for the Life of St. Louis, begun by De Sacy and finished and pub- 
lished by La Chaise; for the lives of St. Athanasius and St. Basil, by 
Godefroi Hermant; of Tertullian and Origen, by Du Fossé, under the 
name of La Mothe, &e. 

(Vie de M. Lemain de Tillemont, by his friend Trouchay, afterwards 


~— 


63 TILLOCH, ALEXANDER, LL.D. 


TILLY, JOHN TSERCLAS. 64 


canon of Laval, Cologne, 1711; Dupin, Bibliotheque des Auteuys Eeclé- 
siastiques du Dixseptidme Siecle ; Biographie Universelle.) 

TILLOCH, ALEXANDER, LL.D., was born at Glasgow, on the 
28th of February 1759, and was educated with a view to following the 
business of his father, who was a tobacconist, and for many years 

-filled the office of magistrate in that city. He was however more 
inclined to the pursuit of scientific knowledge than to the routine of 
business. His biographer states that in early life his attention was 

tly attracted by the occult sciences, and that although he was not 
2 subject to their delusions, he never was inclined to treat judicial 
astrology with contempt. One of the earliest subjects to which 
Tilloch applied himself was the improvement of the art of printing ; 
his experiments enabled him, in connection with Foulis, the celebrated 
printer of Glasgow, to carry farther the process invented by Ged of 
Edinburgh, of printing from casts of whole pages of type; but he 
stopped short of arriving at a practical application of stereotype 
printing, though to his communications to Earl Stanhope, nearly 
thirty years later, may be ascribed its eventual application. — After 
carrying on the tobacco business for a time in his native city in con- 
nection with his brother and brother-in-law, Tilloch abandoned it, and 
for several years exercised that of printing, either singly or in partner- 
ship with others. : 

In 1787 he removed to London, where he subsequently resided ; 
and in 1789 he, in connection with other parties, purchased the ‘Star,’ 
a daily evening newspaper, of which he became editor, This office he 
continued to hold until within a few years of his death, when bodily 
infirmities and the pressure of other engagements compelled him to 
relinquish it. The political opinions of Tilloch were temperate. For 
many years he devoted attention to means for the prevention of the 
forgery of bank-notes, and in 1790 he made a proposal to the British 
ministry on the subject, which met with an unfavourable reception. 
He then offered his invention to the French government, who were 
anxious to apply it to the printing of assignats; but, after some expe- 
riments had been made, and negociations had been urgently sought by 
the French authorities, all communication on the subject was cut 
short by the passing of the Treasonable Correspondence Bill. In 
1797 he presented to the Bank of England a specimen note, produced 
by block or relief printing, which was certified by the most eminent 
engravers to be impossible of imitation; yet nothing was done towards 
the adoption of his or of any similar plan. 

Considering that there was room for a new scientific journal, in 
addition to that published by Nicholson, Tilloch published, in June 
1797, the first number of the ‘ Philosophical Magazine,’ a periodical 
which has ever since maintained a high reputation as a record of the 
progress of science, and a digest of the proceedings of learned societies 
at home and abroad. Of this work he was sole proprietor and editor 
until a few years before his death, when Mr. Richard Taylor, who suc- 
ceeded him in its management, became associated with him. In the 
earlier numbers of the ‘Star,’ Tilloch published several essays on 
theological subjects, some of which, relating to the prophecies, were 
subsequently collected into a volume by another person, and published 
with the name ‘Biblicus;’ and in 1823 he issued an octavo volume 
entitled ‘ Dissertations introductory to the study and right under- 
standing of the language, structure, and contents of the Apocalypse,’ 
in which he endeavours to prove that that portion of Scripture was 
written much earlier than is usually supposed, and before most of the 
apostolical epistles. His views on this and other points are discussed 
at length in a notice of this work, published soon after his death, in 
the ‘ Eclectic Review.’ The last work undertaken by Tilloch was a 
weekly periodical entitled the ‘ Mechanic’s Oracle,’ devoted principally 
to the instruction and improvement of the working classes. The first 
number appeared in July 1824, and it was discontinued soon after his 
death, which took place at his residence at Islington, on the 26th of 
January 1825. 

Tilloch married early in life. His wife died in 1783, leaving a 
daughter, who became wife of Mr. John Galt. His religious opinions 
were peculiar, and he was one of the elders who acted as ministers of 
a small body who took the name of Christian Dissenters, and met for 
worship in a private house in Goswell Street Road. He wasa member 
of many learned societies in Great Britain and elsewhere, and was pro- 
posed, about twenty years before his death, as a Fellow of the Royal 
Society of London; but his name was withdrawn before coming %6 
the ballot, in consequence of an intimation that he would be objected 
to, not on account of any deficiency in talent or character, but solely 
because he was the proprietor of a newspaper. A memoir of Dr. 
Tilloch appeared in the ‘Imperial Magazine’ for March 1825, from 
which, with the assistance of other obituary notices, the above account 
iscondensed. This was reprinted in the last number of the ‘Mechanic's 
Oracle,’ with a portrait. 

TILLOTSON, JOHN, D.D. (died 1694), a prelate and one of the 
most celebrated divines of the Church of England, was born in 1630 
at Sowerby in Yorkshire, a member of the great parish of Halifax, of 
a Puritan family. His father, who was engaged in the clothing trade, 
belonged to that extreme section of the Puritans who were for estab- 
lishing a general system of Independency, and he belonged himself to 
an Independent church, of which Mr. Root was the pastor. After 
having been a pupil in the grammar-schools in the country, the writers 
of his Life not having told us what schools they mean, but doubtless 


' the grammar-school at Halifax was one, he became a pensioner of — 
| Clare Hall, Cambridge, in 1647, and a Fellow of the college in 1651. 
It appears that he remained in the University till 1657. Puritanism — 
was at that period in the ascendancy at Cambridge; but Tillotson very — 
early freed himself from his educational prejudices, became a great — 
admirer of the writings of Chillingworth, and soon showed himself 
one of a class of persons who were then beginning to be considerable — 
in England, who, taking their stand on the Scriptures, opposed them- 
selves at once to Romanism on the one hand and to Calvinism on the — 
other. This position he ever after maintained, and his celebrity arises 7 
principally from the ability with which he illustrated and defended, — 
both from the pulpit and the press, the principles of Protestantism, — 
and of a rational and moderate orthodoxy, It may be added rae: % 
that so much of the effects of his original Puritan education d- 
with him, that he was in politics a Whig, although it must be owned — 
that he entertained and occasionally expressed notions of the duty of j 
submission, which, if acted upon, would have maintained the House of — 
Stuart on the throne. ' ay. 

Before he entered holy orders, he was tutor in the family of Pri- 
deaux, the attorney-general to Cromwell. This led to his residence in — 
London, and brought him into acquaintance with several eminent 
persons. He was thirty years of agé before he received ont 
and the service appears to have been performed with some degree of © 
privacy, as it is, we believe, not known when or where it was performed, — 
and only that the bishop from whose hands he received it was not a ~ 
bishop of the English Church, but the bishop of Galloway in Scotland, — 
Dr. Thomas Sydserf. All the supposed irregularities and imperfections — 
of his early religious history—for amongst other things it was even — 
asserted that he had never been baptised—were brought before the — 
public by the non-juring party, when they saw him elevated to the © 
primacy from which Sancroft had retired. : 4 

It is said by his biographer, Dr.. Thomas Birch, that he was not per- 
fectly satisfied with the terms of ministerial conformity required by 
the Act of 1662, which restored the Episcopal Church of England; 
yet on the whole he judged it proper to accept of the terms, and to 
become a regular and conformable minister of that Church, 

He was for a short time curate at Cheshunt, and also for a short — 
time rector at Ketton in Suffolk, a living to which he was presented 
by Sir Thomas Barnardiston, one of his Puritan friends. But he was 
soon called to a wider sphere of duty, being appointed in 1664 the 
preacher at Lincoln’s Inn, and lecturer at St. Lawrence’s church ip 
the Jewry. Here it was that those sermons were preached which 
attracted crowds of the most accomplished and the learned of the 
time, and which have been since read and studied by many succeeding 
divines of eminence, and are at this day the basis of his fame. A 

The course of his preferment in the Church during the reign of 
Charles II. was—1669, a prebendary in the church of Canterbury; — 
1672, dean of Canterbury; 1675, a prebendary in the church of St. — 
Paul; and 1677, a canon residentiary in the same cathedral. But as 
soon as King William was established on the throne he was made dean 
of St. Paul’s and clerk of the closet; and in April 1691, he was 
nominated by the king to the archbishopric of Canterbury, an appoint- 
ment which appears to have been really received by him with reluet- 
ance, aud which exposed him to no small share of envy from very 
different parties, The truth is, that besides his eminent merits as 
having been the ablest opposer both of popery and irreligion, in a — 
reign when the tendencies of too many persons in exalted stations 
were in one or other of these directions, he had a strong personal 
interest in the new king’s affections, who is said, on credible authority, 
to have declared that there was no honester man than Dr. Tillotson, — 
nor had he ever a better friend. He was archbishop only three 
years and a half, dying at the age of sixty-four. He was interred in 
the church of St. Lawrence Jewry, which had been the chief scene of 
his high popularity. 

Tillotson died poor. He had survived both his children; but he 
left a widow, who was a niece of Cromwell and the stepdaughter of 
Bishop Wilkins, without any provision except the copyright of his 
works, which it is said produced 2500/. The king granted her a 
pension, first of 4001, and afterwards of 200/. more, which she enjoyed 
till her death in 1702. raf 

An account of the Life of Dr. Tillotson was published in 8yo, 1717. 
There is a much larger Life of him by Dr. Birch, prefixed to an edition 
of the works of Tillotson, and published also in an 8vo volume, the 
second edition of which was printed in 1753, containing additional — 
matter. There is also an account of him in Le Neve’s ‘ Lives of the — 
Protestant Archbishops of England.’ Birch’s edition of the Works is — 
in 8 vols. folio, 1752. on 

TILLY, or TILLI, JOHN TSERCLAS, Count or, was the son of © 
Martin Tserclas, of Tilly. The Tserclas, whose name is also written 
T’Serclaes, were an old patrician family of Brussels; John, a member 
of this family, acquired, in 1448, the lordship of Tilly, in South Bra- — 
bant. John Tilly was born in 1559, at the castle of Tilly, and he early — 
entered the order of Jesuits, from whom he acquired that spirit of — 
fanaticism, of blind obedience, and of absolute command, which j 
distinguished him during his whole life. He soon abandoned his — 
ecclesiastical profession, and entered the army of Philip II, king of — 
Spain and lord of the Netherlands, and he learned the principles of 
war under Alba, Requesens, the governor of the Netherlands, Don f 


} 
_ 
* ‘ 
«| 


65 TILLY, JOHN TSERCLAS. 


TIMAUS, 


66 


Juan of Austria, and Alexander Farnese. In the war of the Spaniards 
against the Protestant inhabitants of the northern Netherlands he 
acquired that hatred of heretics and that warlike enthusiasm for the 
Roman Catholic religion, which became one of the most prominent 
features of his character. Towards the end of the 16th century he 
entered the service of the Emperor Rudolph II., and distinguished 
himself, first as lieutenant-colonel, and afterwards as colonel and com- 
mander of a regiment of Walloons, in the wars against the Hungarian 
insurgents and the Sultans Murad III. and Ahmed J. After the peace 
of Sitvatorok in 1606, between Rudolph II. and Ahmed I., he was 
pointed commander-in-chief of the army of Maximilian, duke of 
Bavaria, which was in a very disorganised state. In 1609 Tilly com- 
_manded the expedition against Donauwerth, an imperial town which 
had been put under the ban for having persecuted the Roman Catho- 
lies, and which surrendered to Tilly without defence. The Liga, or 
the union of the Roman Catholic states in Germany, appointed him 
-commander-in-chief of their troops, and he held this high office until 
his death. Tilly gained the first great victory in the Thirty Years’ 
War, which broke out in 1618. After having conquered the Upper 
Palatinate with the troops of the Liga and those of the Duke of 
Bavaria, he proposed to the Imperial generals to pursue the army of 
Frederick, king of Bohemia, instead of taking winter-quarters and 
thus losing all the fruits of their conquests. Warfare in winter was, 
in the 17th century, a very uncommon thing, and Tilly met with 


_ much opposition to his plan; but at last the Imperial generals con- 


sented to continue the war. ‘Tilly attacked the Bohemians, who had 
taken up a fortified position on the Weisse Berg, near Prague, and in 
afew hours the Bohemian army was nearly destroyed (8th of Novem- 
ber 1620), while only some hundreds of the Bavarians were killed. 
Several of the Bohemian nobles, who lived at Prague or resided in 
their castles, were warned by Tilly to fly if they would avoid the 
vengeance of the emperor; but they paid no attention to this generous 
advice, and were surprised : twenty-seven of them were beheaded. 
After the brilliant victory on the Weisse Berg, Tilly hastened to the 
Rhine for the purpose of preventing the Count of Mansfield from 
joining the margrave of Baden. He succeeded in his object by his 
skilful manceuvres. ._The margrave of Baden-Durlach was attacked in 
the defiles of Wimpfen, and defeated, after an heroic resistance (1622). 
On the 2nd of June 1622, he defeated Christian of Halberstadt at 
Hochst; he pursued Christian and Mansfield to Westphalia; defeated 
them at Stadt-Loo, near Miinster, in a battle which lasted three days 
(4th to the 6th of August 1623), and forced them both to disband 
their troops and to take refuge in England. For this victory at Stadt- 
Loo, Tilly was created a count of the empire. With extraordinary 
skill Tilly first weakened and then destroyed the army of King 
Christian IV. of Denmark ; but the principal glory of this campaign 
was earned by Waldstein, who after having joined Tilly on the banks 
of the Lower Elbe, persuaded Tilly to turn his arms against Holland, 
and to leave him the conquest of Denmark. After Waldstein had been 
deprived of his command in 1630, and Gustavus Adolphus, king of 
Sweden had landed in Germany, Tilly was appointed field-marshal and 
commander-in-chief of the imperial army. He appreciated so justly 
the military talents of his new opponent, that in the assembly of the 
electors of Ratisbon he declared Gustavus Adolphus to be so great a 
commander, that not to be beaten by him was as honourable as to 
gain victories over other generals. 


The first great event of the new campaign was the capture of. 


Magdeburg, on the 10th of May 1631. The Croats and the Walloons in 
the imperial army committed unheard-of cruelties against the unhappy 
inhabitants ; 30,000 of them were killed, and the town was entirely 
destroyed after three days’ plunder. It has generally been believed 
that some imperial officers besought Tilly to stop the atrocities of the 
soldiers, and that he coolly answered, “ Let them alone, and come back 
in an hour.” But this appears to be a mere invention, and however 
severe Tilly was, he cannot be charged with having urged the commis- 
sion of cruelty, although he considered the plunder of a conquered 
town as the fair reward of the soldier. On the 14th of May Tilly 
made his entrance into the smoking ruins of Magdeburg. In a letter 
to the emperor he said that since tie destruction of Troy and Jerusa- 
lem there had been no such spectacle as that which Magdeburg pre- 
sented. Six months later Tilly, who was in a fortified camp at 
Breitenfield near Leipzig, was forced, by the impetuosity of his lieu- 
tenant, Pappenheim, to engage in battle with Gustavus Adolphus 
before his reinforcements had arrived. Tilly himself was successful 
in his attack on the left wing of the Swedes, which was broken, and the 
elector of Saxony, who commanded it, fled as far as Eilenburg. But 

 Gustayus Adolphus, who had beaten the left wing of the Imperialists, 
under the command of Pappenheim, stopped the progress of Tilly, and 
after a long and bloody struggle the imperial army was routed. When 
Tilly saw the flight of his soldiers,-he swore that he would. not survive 
the day on which he, the victor in thirty-six battles, was to fly for the 
first time in his life. Alone on the field the old field-marshal, bleeding 
from three wounds, shed tears of despair, and looked for death as his 
only consolation. However Duke Rudolph of Saxe-Lauenburg per- 
suaded him to withdraw; and Tilly, putting himself at the head of 
four regiments of veterans, fought his way through the main body of 
the Swedish army. He narrowly escaped from the bold attack of a 
Swedish captain, called ‘ Long-Fritz, who was killed by a pistol-shot 
» BIOG, DIV, VOL. VL 


at the moment when he was seizing the field-marshal (17th of Septem- 
ber 1631). After the loss of the battle of Leipzig, fortune abandoned 
Tilly for ever. Although he afterwards succeeded in driving the 
Swedes from Franconia, Gustavus Adolphus compelled him to retire 
beyond the Lech. In order to prevent the Swedes from penetrating 
into Bavaria, Tilly took up a very strong position near Rain, on the 
right bank of that river. Gustavus Adolphus, having arrived on the 
left bank opposite Rain, opened a fire from all his batteries upon the 
Bavarian camp, while his pontooniers endeavoured to construct a 
bridge over the river (5th of April 1632). ‘Tilly made a most active 
resistance, but a ball broke his thigh, and he was removed from the 
field and carried to Ingolstadt. After the fall of Tilly, the elector of 
Bavaria abandoned his invincible position, and the Swedes crossed the 
river. Tilly died on the day after the battle, in his seventy-third 
year, without leaving any issue. 

Tilly was a little ugly man, with red hair, large whiskers, a pale 
face, and piercing eyes. He continued to lead a monastic life in the 
midst of the noise and the licence of his camp ; he boasted that he had 
never touched wine nor women; he spoke little, but thought much ; 
he despised honours and money; the emperor wished to confer the 
duchy of Brunswick-Calenberg upon him, but Tilly refused it, and he 
died poor. 

(Julius Bellus, Lawrea Austriaca; Breyer, Geschichte des Dreissig- 
jahrigen Krieges ; Schiller, Geschichte des Dreissigjihrigen Krieges ; 
Leo, Uniwersal-Geschichte.) 

TIM AUS (Tiuaos), the son of Andromachus, was born at Taurome- 
nium in Sicily, whenee he is sometimes called a Tauromenian, and 
sometimes a Sicilian, to distinguish him from other persons of the 
same name. The year of his birth was B.c. 352. He was a disciple of 
Philiscus of Miletus, who had himself been instructed by Isocrates. 
He was driven from his native country by Agathocles, the tyrant of 
Syracuse, whereupon he went to Athens. This seems to have hap- 
pened in B.c. 310, when Agathocles, after the battle of Himera, and 
before taking his army over to Africa, confiscated under,various pre- 
texts the property of his wealthy subjects, and endeavoured to secure 
his possessions in Sicily by putting to death or sending into exile such 
as he thought ill-disposed towards him. (Diodorus Siculus, xx. 4.) 
Timeeus spent fifty years at Athens in reading and studying, (Polybius, 
xii. 25.) About B.c. 260, when Athens was taken by Antigonus, Timzeus 
returned to his native country, either to Tauromenium or to Syracuse, 
where he spent the remainder of his life, and died (B.c. 256) at the 
advanced age of ninety-six. 

Timeeus wrote a great historical work, the main subject of which 
was a history of Sicily. It began at the earliest times, and brought 
the events down to Olympiad 129 (B.c. 264), where the work of Poly- 
bius begins. (Polybius, i. 5.) How many books the history contained 
is uncertain, though we know that there were more than forty. It 
appears to have been divided into large sections, each of which formed 
in itself a separate work, whence they are spoken of by several writers 
as so many independent works. Thus one section bore the title of 
SuceAte, kad IradAucd, and contained the early history of Sicily in con- 
nection with that of Italy; another was called SuceAucd nad “EAAnuiKd, 
and contained the history of Sicily and Greece during the time of the 
Athenian expeditions to Sicily. Another part again contained the 
history of Agathocles; and the last the history of Pyrrhus, especially 
his campaigns in Italy and Sicily. This last section was, according to 
the testimony of Cicero (‘ Ad. Fam.,’ v. 12), a separate work, though, 
as regards the period which it comprehended, it may be viewed as a 
continuation of the great historical work. 

The history of Timzus, which, with the exception of a considerable 
number of fragments, is now lost, was commenced by him during his 
exile at Athens, and at a very advanced age, but he did not complete 
it till after his return to his own country; and it was here that he 
added the history of the last years of the reign of Agathocles, and 
wrote the history of Pyrrhus. As regards the character and value of 
the work the ancients do not agree. Polybius is a vehement opponent 
of Timzeus, and complains of his ignorance of political as well as mili- 
tary affairs; he further states that Timeeus made blunders in the 
geography even of places and countries which he himself had visited. 
His knowledge, he says, was altogether derived from books ; his judg- 
ment was puerile; and the whole work bore strong marks of credulity 
and superstition. But this is not all that Polybius blames: he even 
charges him with wilfully perverting the truth. The fondness which 
Timeeus himself had for censuring others is said to have drawn upon 
him the nickname of Epitimzeus (‘fault-finder’), (Athenus, vi. 272.) 
Most parts of this severe criticism of Polybius may be perfectly just ; 
but in regard to others we should remember that these two historians 
wrote their works with such totally different views, that the work of 
Timzus, who knew the world only from his books, must in many 
respects have appeared absurd to the author of a ‘ pragmatical’ history, 
and to a statesman and general like Polybius. But the loss of the 
work of 'Timzeus, even if he did no more than make an uncritical com- 
pilation of what others had told before him, is one of the greatest in 
ancient history. Other ancient writers, such as Diodorus, Agathar- 
chides, Cicero, and others judge far more favourably of Timeus. The 
style of the work, as far as we can judge from the fragments, is justly 
censured by some ancient critics for its rhetorical and declamatory 


character; although others, like Cicero (‘ De Orat.,’ii. 14; ‘Brutus,’ 95), 
= 


67 TIMAUS, 


TIMBS, JOHN. ies 


speak of it with praise. Timsus is the first Greek historian who intro: | 
duced a regular system of chronology—that is, he regularly recorded 
events according to Olympiads and the archons of Athens; and 
although in the early period of his history his want of criticism 
led him into gross chronological errors, he set the example which 
others found very useful and convenient. It must have been with a 
view to an accurate study of chronology that he wrote a work on the 
victors in the Olympian Games, of which we still possess a few 
fragments. $3 

The fragments of Timsus are collected in Gdller’s work, ‘De Situ 
et Origine Syracusarum,’ p. 207, &¢., which also contains (pp. 179-206) 
an elaborate dissertation on the life and writings of Timeus. The 
fragments are also contained in C. and T. Miiller, ‘ Fragmenta Histori- 
corum Grecorum,’ Paris, 1841, pp. 193-233. _ Compare Vossius, De 
Historicis Gracis, p. 117, edit. Westermann; Clinton, Fast. Hellen., iii., 

. 489, &e. 

‘ TIMALUS (Tiuaos), of Locri, a Pythagorean philosopher, was @ con- 
temporary of Plato, who is mentioned among his pupils, and is said to 
have been connected with him by friendship. (Cicero, § De Finibus, 
v. 29; ‘De Re Publ.’ i, 10.) There exists a work, Hep) rijs rov Kéo ov 
Wuxiis (‘De Anima Mundi,’ or on the Soul of the Universe), written in 
the Doric dialect, which is usually ascribed to Timzus the Locrian, It 
contains a brief exposition of the same ideas which are developed in 
the ‘ Dialogue’ of Plato, which is called after him Timeus. (Tenne- 
mann, ‘System der Platonischen Philosophie,’ i. 93, &e,) Separate 
editions of it have been published by D’Argens, 8vo, Berlin, 1762, with 
a French translation; and by J. J. de Gelder, 8vo, Leyden, 1836, 

This Timeus of Locri is said by Suidas to have also written the 
Life of Pythagoras; but the usual carelessness of Suidas renders this 
a doubtful point, as he may possibly have confounded the Loerian with 
the Sicilian Timeous, who in his great historical work must have treated 
of the History of Pythagoras at considerable length. 

(Fabricius, Biblioth. Gree, iii. 94, &e.; Géller, De Sitw et Origine 
Syracusarum, p. 200, &c.) . 

TIMALUS, a Greek sophist, who, according to the supposition of 
Ruhnken, lived in the 3rd century of the Christian era. Concerning 
his life nothing is known; his name has only come down to us in con- 
nection with a vocabulary containing the explanation of words and 
phrases which occur in the writings of Plato. It bears the title 
é« Tay Tod TAdrwyos Adkewv, and is dedicated to one Gentianus, of 
whom likewise nothing is known. Whether we possess the genuine 
and complete Vocabulary of Timeus is doubtful; and from the title, 
as well as from certain articles in it which have no reference to Plato, 
and must undoubtedly be regarded as interpolations, one might feel 
inclined to consider the work as it now stands as an abridgment of 
the Glossary of Timzus, if Photius, who must have had the genuine 
work before him, did not describe it as a very little work (Spaxv 
movnudriov év évi Adyw). But notwithstanding its brevity, the work is 
very valuable; and Ruhnken owns that he has not discovered in it a 
single instance of a word or a phrase being explained incorrectly. 
There is only one manuscript of this Glossary, which appears to have 
been made in the 10th century of our era, and which was unknown 
until Montfaucon drew attention to it. It was first edited, with an 
excellent commentary, by Ruhnken, at Leyden, 8vo, 1754; a second 
and much improved edition appeared in the same place, 8vo, 1789. 
Two other editions have since been published in Germany, with 
additional notes by G, A. Koch (8vo, Leipzig, 1828 and 18383). 

Suidas (s. v. Tiuaos) ascribes to Timeus, the Sicilian historian, a 
rhetorical work, called SvAdoyh pntopixay &opuey, in 68 books, which 
Ruhnken, with great probability, ascribes to Timseus the Sophist, who 
wrote the Glossary to Plato. 

(Ruhnken, Prefatio ad Timaei Glossarium Platonicium.) 

TIMANTHES, a native of Sicyon or of Cythnos, was one of the 
most celebrated painters of Greece ; he was contemporary with Zeuxis 
and Parrhasius, and lived about B.c. 400. The works of Timanthes 
were distinguished particularly for their invention and expression, and 
one of the chief merits of his invention was, that he left much to be 
supplied by the imagination of the spectator. There is a remark in 
Pliny (‘ Hist. Nat.,’ xxxv. 36), probably a quotation, which bestows the 
highest. praise upon Timanthes: it says, though in execution always 
excellent, the execution is invariably surpassed by the conception. 
As an instance of the ingenuity of Timanthes’ invention, the same 
writer tells us of a picture of a sleeping Cyclops, painted upon a small 
panel, but in which the painter had conveyed a perfect idea of the 
me huge size, by adding a few satyrs measuring his thumb with a 
thyrsus. 

Though Timanthes was evidently one of the greatest painters of 
antiquity, ancient authors have mentioned only five of his works: 
Pausanias makes no mention of him at all, and Cicero classes him 
among the painters who used only four colours, He painted a cele- 
brated picture of the stoning to death of the unfortunate Palamedes, 
the victim of the ignoble revenge of ee for having proclaimed his 
apparent insanity to be feigned—a subject worthy of the pencil of a 
great master. This picture is said to have made Alexander shudder 
when he saw it at Ephesus. (Tzetzes, ‘Chil, viii. 198 ; Junius, ‘ Cat. 
Artif,’ v. ‘Timanthes.’) Timanthes entered into competition with 
Parrhasius at Samos, and gained the victory; the subject of the paint- 


ae 


ings was the contest of Ajax and Ulysses for the arms of Achilles 


[Parruasius.] His most celebrated work however was that with 
which he bore away the palm from Colotes of Teos; the subject was 
the Sacrifice of Iphigenia; and perhaps no other work of ancient art 
has been the object of so much criticism, for and against, as this 
painting, on account of the concealment of the face of Agamemnon in 
his mantle. The ancients have all given the incident their unqualified - 
approbation, but its propriety has been questioned by several modern 
critics, especially by Falconet and Sir Joshua Reynolds; Fuseli, how- 
ever, in an elaborate and excellent criticism in his first lecture, has 
amply justified the conception of the painter. The Sacrifice of Iphi- 
genia was given as the subject of a prize-picture to the, students of 
the Royal Academy in 1778, and all the candidates imitated the ‘trick’ 
of Timanthes, as Sir Joshua Reynolds terms it, which was the origin 
of his criticism upon the subject in his eighth lecture: he 
“Supposing this method of leaving the expression of grief to the 
imagination to be, as it was thought to be, the invention of the 
painter, and that it deserves all the praise that has been given it, still 
it is a trick that will serve but once; whoever does it a second time 
will not only want novelty, but be justly suspected of using artifice to 
evade difficulties.” * 
The shallow remark of Falconet about Timanthes’ exposing his own 
ignorance by concealing Agamemnon’s face, is scarcely worthy of an 
allusion, It may be questioned whether Agamemnon, under such 
cireumstances as he was placed, could have been well or even natu- 
rally represented in any other way: although many things might 
combine to render his presence at the sacrifice absolutely n 
still it is not to be supposed that he could calmly stand by and be an 
eye-witness of his own daughter’s immolation; notwithstanding his 
firm conviction that his attendance was n to sanction the 
deed, he could not look upon it, it would be unnatural. The criticism 
of Quintilian, Cicero, and others, that the painter, having represented 
Calchas sorrowful, Ulysses much more so, and having expressed extreme 
sorrow in the countenance of Menelaus, was in consequence compelled 
to conceal the face of the father, is not more pertinent than that of the 
modern critics. “They were not aware,” says Fuseli, “that by making 
Timanthes waste expression on inferior actors at the expense of a 
principal one, they call him an improvident spendthrift, and not a wise 
economist.” Falconet observes that Timanthes had not even the 
merit of inventing the incident, but that he copied it from Euripides: 
upon this point Fuseli remarks, “It is observed by an ingenious critic 


that in the tragedy of Euripides the procession is described; and 
upon Iphigenia’s looking back upon her father, he groans and hides 
his face to conceal his tears; whilst the picture gives the moment 
that precedes the sacrifice, and the hiding has a different object, and 
arises from another impression ” (v. 1550). 

*T am not prepared with chronologic proofs to decide whether 
Euripides or Timanthes, who were contemporaries about the per 
of the Peloponnesian war, fell first on this expedient; though the 
silence of Pliny and Quintilian on that head seems to be in favour of 
the painter, neither of whom could be ignorant-of the celebrated 
drama of Euripides, and would not willingly have suffered the honour 
of this master-stroke of an art they were so much better acquainted 
with than painting, to be transferred to another from its real author, 
had the poet’s claim been prior.” As far as regards priority, the 
‘expedient’ was made use of by Polygnotus long before either Timan- 
thes or Euripides; in the Destruction of Troy, in the Lesche at 
Delphi, an infant is holding his hands over his eyes, to avoid the 
horrors of the scene. (Pausanias, ‘ Phoc.,’ x. 26.) 1 

The fifth work of Timanthes mentioned by the ancients was the 
picture of a hero, preserved in the time of Pliny in the Temple of 
Peace at Rome, an admirable performance. 

There was another ancient painter of the name of Timanthes; he 
was contemporary with Aratus, and distinguished himself for a 
painting of the battle of Pellene, in Arcadia, in which Aratus gained 
a victory over the Atolians, Olym. 135.1 (B.c, 240). Plutarch praises 
the picture; he terms it an exact and animate representation. 
(‘ Aratus,’ 32.) 

*TIMBS, JOHN, was born in 1801, at Clerkenwell, London. He 
was educated under the Rev. Joseph Hamilton, D.D., and his 
Mr. Jeremiah Hamilton, at New Marlows, Hemel Hempstead, where 
he issued a manuscript newspaper for the edification of his school- 
fellows. At the age of fourteen he was articled toa and 
printer at Dorking, in Surrey, where, at his master’s table, he first 
met Sir Richard Phillips, the publisher, who kindly encouraged him to 
contribute to his ‘Monthly Magazine,’ and he furnished to that work 
‘A Picturesque Promenade round Dorking,’ in 1822, In 1821 John 
Timbs came to London, and for some years served as amanuensis to 
Sir Richard Phillips, in Blackfriars. About this time Mr. Timbs 
became acquainted with Mr. Britton, F.S.A., with whom he long main- 
tained an unbroken friendship, In 1825-26 Mr. Timbs published 
anonymously ‘ Laconics,’ an excellent selection of moral passages, the 
result of a course of ethical reading. In 1827 he became editor of 
‘The Mirror,’ and so continued until 1838; compiling also an annual 
volume of records of Discoveries in Science and Art. This design 
he improved as ‘The Year-Book of Facts’ in 1839, fitly characterised 
as “a laborious production of patient industry.” Besides contributing 
to periodicals, Mr. Timbs has written, compiled, and edited at least a 
hundred volumes. His most recent and most successful works are— 


\ 


69 TIMOLEON. 


TIMON. 70 


* Curiosities of London,’ 800 pp. 1855; ‘ Things not generally known 
familiarly Explained, and ‘Curiosities of History,’ 1856: of the two 
latter works, more than 20,000 copies were sold within twenty months. 
His ‘Arcana of Science’ was published yearly from 1828 to 1839 inclu- 
sive, and his ‘ Year-Book of Facts’ from 1839 to 1857. Soon after the 
establishment of the ‘Illustrated London News, in 1842, Mr. Timbs 
wnat one of its editors, in which position he has ever since con- 

_ tinued, In 1854 he was elected Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries. 
_ TIMO’LEON, a Greek general and statesman. He was a native of 
Corinth, and the son of Timodemus and Timariste, Respecting his 
hapa we know nothing, except that he was no less distinguished by 
his noble character and his love of freedom than by his illustrious 
descent. When he had grown up to manhood, his elder brother 
phanes, who had been elected general by the Corinthians, assumed 
‘the tyrannis in his native city by the help of his friends and his 
mercenaries. Timoleon at first only remonstrated with his brother, 
_ but when this was useless, he formed a plot against him, and Timo- 
Into was killed. Soon after this event, which threw all Corinth 

; in 


a state of violent agitation, some extolling the conduct of Timo- 
as magnanimous and worthy ofa real patriot, others cursing and 
eondemning him as a fratricide, there arrived at Corinth ambassadors 
from Syracuse soliciting the aid of the Corinthians against its op- 
aah This was a favourable opportunity for the party hostile to 
_Timoleon to get rid of his followers, while at the same time it opened 
to Timoleon a field of action in Sicily, where he might act according 
to his principles and deliver the island from its oppressors. Timoleon 
‘Was accordingly sent to Syracuse with a small band of mercenaries, 
which he himself had raised, p.c. 844. Syracuse was then divided 
into three parties: the popular party, which had engaged the service 
_ of Timoleon; a Carthaginian party; and the party of Dionysius, the 
tyrant, who had returned from Italy in 3B.c. 346. Dionysius had 
already been driven out of a part of the city by Hicetas, the tyrant of 
Leontini, who supported the Carthaginian party. On the arrival of 
_ imoleon, Hicetas was compelled to withdraw to Leontini, and 
Dionysius, who was reduced to surrender himself and the citadel to 
_ ‘imoleon, was allowed to quit the island in safety, and he withdrew 
to Corinth, in B.c, 343. [Dronystus.] Syracuse had almost become 
desolate by the successive revolutions and party warfare. During the 
winter and the spring following his victory over Dionysius, Timoleon 
endeavoured as much as was in his power to restore the prosperity of 
the city by recalling those who had been exiled, and by inviting 
colonists from other parts of Sicily and assigning lands to them. After 
this he continued to carry on petty warfare partly against the Cartha- 
ginians and partly against Hicetas. The Carthaginians in the mean- 
time collected a new army, which is said to have consisted of 70,000 
foot and 10,000 horse, and which was conveyed to Sicily by a large 
fleet. Timoleon could muster no more than 3000 Syracusans and 
_ 9000 mercenaries, but in order to strengthen himself he concluded a 
peace with Hicetas, some of whose troops now joined his army. He 
marched out against the enemy, and by his superior generalship he 
‘succeeded in gaining a brilliant victory over the Carthaginians on the 
banks of the river Crimessus, and confined them to the part of Sicily 
between the river Halycus and the western coast, B.c. 339. After this 
victory and the conclusion of a peace with Carthage he directed his 
arms against the tyrants in other towns of Sicily, whom he compelled 
to surrender or withdraw, partly by the terror of his name and partly 
by force of arms. Hicetas was made prisoner, and condemned to 
death by the Syracusans, with his wife and family. 

After freedom and the ascendancy of Syracuse were thus restored in 
the greater part of Sicily, Timoleon directed his attention to the 
restoration of the prosperity of the towns and the country. The 
former, especially Syracuse, were still thinly peopled, and ‘he invited 

colonists from Corinth and other parts to settle there, and distributed 
lands among them, He himself, with the consent of the Syracusans, 
undertook to revise and amend their constitution and laws, and to 
adapt them to the altered wants and circumstances of the state. 
Although it would have been easy for him to establish himself as 

_ tyrant and to secure to his descendants the kingly power at Syracuse, 
he fulfilled the duties of the office entrusted to him with a fidelity 
which has rarely been equalled. He had no other end in view but the 
establishment of popular liberty, for which he prepared and trained 
the people. Some acts of cruelty and apparent injustice with which 
he is charged, find their excuse in the character of those whom he had 
to deal with, for the Syracusans at that time were a motley and 
demoralised people, who could not be managed without Timoleon’s 
assuming at times the very power which it was his wish to destroy. 
| But Syracuse and Sicily felt the benefits of his institutions for many 

‘years after his death, and continued to enjoy increasing prosperity. 
During the latter part of his life Timoleon was blind and lived in 
_ Yetirement, respected and beloved by the Sicilians as their liberator 
and benefactor. He died in the year B.C. 337, and was buried in the) 
Agora of Syracuse, where subsequently his grave was surrounded by 
porticoes and adorned with a gymnasium called the Timoleonteum, 
Athenee and C. Nepos, Life of Timoleon ; and Diodorus Siculus, 
. Xvi. 

TIMO’MACHUS, a celebrated ancient painter, a native of Byzan- 

___ tium, and said to have been the contemporary of Julius Cesar. Pliny 
+ (Nat. Hist.,’ xxxv. 40) informs us that Caesar purchased two pictures 


in encaustic by Timomachus, for eighty Attic talents, about 17,2801. ; 
one representing Ajax the son of Telamon brooding over his mis- 
fortunes ; the other, Medea about to destroy her children: he dedi- 
cated them in the temple of Venus Genetrix. These pictures have 
been much celebrated by the poets ; there are several epigrams upon 
them in the Greek anthology, and they are alluded to by Ovid in the 
two following lines :— 


“‘Utque sedet vultu fassus Telamonius iram, 
Inque oculis facinus barbara mater habet,” (Trist.,’ ii. 525.) 
(Ajax, the son of Telamon, is seated, showing his anger by his countenance ; 
and the barbarous mother betrays by her eyes her intended crime.) 


We learn from Pliny also that the picture of Medea was not finished ; 
its completion was interrupted apparently by the death of the painter, 
yet it was admired, he says, more than any of the finished works of 
Timomachus, as was the case likewise with the Iris of Aristides, the 
Tyndaride of Nicomachus, and a Venus by Apelles, which were more 
admired than any of the finished works of their respective masters. 
This picture is noticed also by Plutarch (‘De Aud. Poet., 3) in a 
passage where he speaks of the representation of improper subjects, 
but which we admire on account of the excellence of the execution, 

In the common text of Pliny, Timomachus is said to be the con- 
temporary of Cesar (‘Julii Cesaris state’), but Durand, in his 
‘ Histoire de la Peinture Ancienne,’ &c., expresses an opinion that the 
word ‘tate’ is an addition of the copyist, for which he assigns 
several reasons. The conjecture has much in its favour; the price of 
these pictures (17,280/.) is enormous, if we suppose it to have been 
paid toa living painter; but on the contrary it is a case with many 
parallels if we suppose the money to have been paid for two of the 
reputed masterpieces of ancient painting. The fact of the Medea 
being unfinished puts it beyond a doubt that the picture was not 
purchased of the painter himself; and from a passage in Cicero (‘In 
Verr.,’ 1. iv., c. 60) it seems equally clear that both pictures were 
purchased of the city of Cyzicus; and from the manper in which 
they are mentioned with many of the most celebrated productions of 
the ancient Greek artists, it would appear that they were works of 
similar renown, and were likewise the productions of an artist long 
since deceased. ‘Timomachus was therefore most probably a contem- 
porary of Pausias, Nicias, and other encaustic painters, about B.C. 300. 
Pliny himself, elsewhere speaking of Timomachus, mentions him 
together with the more ancient and most celebrated painters of Greece, 
with Nicomachus, Apelles, and Aristides, as in the passage above quoted. 

Pliny mentions also the following works of Timomachus: an 
Orestes; and Iphigenia in Tauris; Lecythion, a gymnasiast; a ‘cog- 
natio nobilium;’ two philosophers or others, with the pallium, about 
to speak, one standing, the other sitting; and a very celebrated 
picture of a Gorgon. 

TIMON (Tiuwv), a Greek poet and philosopher who lived in the 
reign of Ptolemeus Philadelphus, about B.c. 270. He was the son of 
Timarchus, and a native of Phlius in the territory of Sicyon. 
studied philosophy under Stilpo, at Megara, and under Pyrrho, in 
Elis. He subsequently spent some time in the countries north of the 
Aigean, and thence went to Athens, where he passed the remainder of 
his life, and died in the ninetieth year of his age. 

Diogenes Laertius, who has written an account of Timon (ix., c. 12), 
ascribes to him epic poems, sixty tragedies, satyric dramas, thirty 
comedies, silli (ofAAoz), and cineedi (xivaidor) or licentious songs. The 
silli however appear to have been the kind of poetry in which he 
excelled. They were satires directed against the arrogance and pedantry 
of the learned. Timon wrote three books of silli (Athenzus, vi., p. 
251; vii., p. 279), in which he parodied all the dogmatic philosophers 
of Greece: he himself was a Sceptic. The metre of these poems was 
the hexameter, and it appears that sometimes he took whole passages 
from Homer which he applied as parodies. In the first book Timon 
spoke in his own person; in the second and third the form of the 
poems was that of a dialogue, in which he conversed with Xenophanes 
of Colophon, who was supposed to have been the imventor of the 
silli, (Diogenes Laert., ix. 111.) We now only possess a few fragments 
of these poems, which show that in their way they must have been 
admirable productions. They are collected in H. Stephanus, ‘ Poesis 
Philosophica ;’ and by Wolke in ‘De Greecorum Syllis,’ Warsaw, 1820; 
in F. Paul, ‘De Sillis Gracorum,’ Berlin, 1821, p. 41, &c.; in Brunck’s 
‘ Analecta,’ ii, 67; and iv. 139. Respecting the other works ascribed 
to him we possess no information. 

a “s Langheinrich, De, Timone Sillographo, in 3 parts, Lipsie, 
1720-23, 

TIMON, surnamed the Misanthrope, was a son of Echecratides, and 
a native of Colyttus, a demos in Attica. (Lucian, ‘Timon,’ c. 7; 
Tzetzes, ‘ Chil.,’ vii. 278.) He lived during the Peloponnesian war, and 
is said to have been disappointed in the friendships he had formed, 
in consequence of which he conceived a bitter hatred of all mankind. 
His conduct during the period that his mind was in this state was 
very extraordinary. He lived almost entirely secluded from society, 
and his eccentricities gave rise to numerous anecdotes, which were 
current in antiquity. The sea is said to have separated even his 
grave, which was on the sea-coast, from the mainland, by forming it 
into an island and thus rendering it inaccessible. (Plutarch, ‘ Anton.,’ 
70; Suidas, 8. v. dmoppayas.) The comic poets, such as Phrynichus 


He . 


71 TIMOTEO DA URBINO. 


TIMOTHEUS. 72 


. 


(Bekker. ‘Anecdota,’ p. 344), Aristophanes (‘Lysistr., 809, &e. , 
‘ Aves,’ 1548), Plato, and Antiphanes, ridiculed him in their comedies. 
Antiphanes wrote a comedy called ‘ Timon,’ which perhaps furvished 
Lucian with the groundwork for his dialogue in which this misanthrope 
acts the most prominent part. His name has remained proverbial to 
designate a misanthrope down to the present day, and is immortalised 
by the genius of Shakspere. : 

TIMOTE’/O DA URBI’NO, or DELLA VITE, a celebrated Italian 
painter of the Roman school, was born at Urbino in 1470, or rather 
1480. In about his 20th year, by the advice of a brother living in 
Bologna, he repaired to that city to learn the business of a jeweller, 
&c.; but displayinga power of design worthy ofa greater purpose, he 
devoted himself to painting, and according to Malvasia attended the 
school of Francia in Bologna for about five years: Vasari however 
says that T'imoteo was his own master. At the age of twenty-six he 
returned to Urbino, where iu a short time he so far distinguished 
himself, says Vasari, as to recive an invitation from his cousin 
Raffaelle in Rome to repair thither and assist him in some of his 
extensive works. This statement creates a difficulty not easy to be 
cleared up: Vasari says that Timoteo died in 1524, aged fifty-four ; 
yet we find him in his twenty-seventh or twenth-eighth year, conse- 
quently in 1497 or 1498, going to Rome to assist Raffaelle, who 
however did not go to Rome himself until 1508: 1524 was very pro- 
bably therefore a misprint for 1534 in the original edition of Vasari, 
and the error has found its way into all the later works. By this 
supposition and by allowing a year or two to have elapsed between 
his return to Urbino and his visit to Rome, the various dates may be 
easily reconciled, and what Vasari says about Timoteo’s assisting 
Raffaelle to paint the Sibyls in the Chiesa della Pace, which were 
painted in 1511, becomes quite consistent. He did not remain long 
in Rome, but returned to his native place at the solicitation of his 
mother, much to the displeasure of Raffaelle. He remained however 
long enough to learn to appreciate and to imitate the beauties of 
Raffaelle’s style, and to become one of the most distinguished painters 
of the Roman school; yet there are in all his works traces of the 
style of Francia, a certain timidity ‘of design, a delicacy of execution, 
and a richness of colouring. His chief works are at Urbino, at Forli, 
and in the neighbourhood; he executed many of them in company 
with Girolamo Genga, as a chapel at Forli and part of the paintings in 
the chapel of San Martino in the Cathedral of Urbino ; the altar-piece 
was painted entirely by Timoteo: he executed also some excellent 
works in fresco at Castel Durante. Further, in Urbino there are—in 
the Cathedral, a Magdalen; in San Bernardino, outside the city, a 
celebrated picture of the Annunciation of the Virgin; and another 
fine picture with several figures in Santa Agata; also in the residence 
of the Dukes of Urbino, an Apollo and two of the Muses, extremely 
beautiful ; besides many other works. Vasari remarks that he left 
some works unfinished at his death, which were afterwards completed 
by others, and he adds that there could not be a more satisfactory 
evidence of the general superiority of Timoteo. He was of a cheerful 
disposition, and used to play every kind of instrument, but especially 
the lyre, which he accompanied with his voice, with extraordinary 
grace and feeling. Lanzi says that the Conception at the Observan- 
tines at Urbino, and a ‘Noli me tangere’ in the church of Sant’ 
Angelo at Cagli, are perhaps the best of his works that remain. The 
same writer observes that Pietro della Vite, the brother of Timoteo, 
also a painter, was probably the priest of Urbino mentioned by Baldi- 
nucci (vol. vy.) as Raffaelle’s cousin and heir. 

TIMO’THEUS (Tizd6eos) of Miletus, a Greek musician and lyric 
poet. The time when his reputation had reached its height was 
about the year B.c. 398. (Diodorus Sic., xiv. 46.) He was a contem- 
porary of Euripides, and spent the last year of his life at the court of 
Macedonia, where he died in B.c. 357, at the advanced age of 97. He 
increased the number of the strings of the lyre to eleven, an innova- 
tion which was considered by the Spartans, who would not go beyond 
the number of seven strings, to be a corruption of music, and a decree 
was passed at Sparta, which is still extant in Boéthius, condemnatory 
of his innovation, (Plutarch, ‘De Mus.,’ p. 1141, ed. Frankf.; Athe- 
nzeus, xiv. p. 636.) Suidas mentions a great number of poetical com- 
positions of Timotheus, which were in their time very popular in 
Greece ; among them are nineteen nomes, thirty-six procemia, eighteen 
dithyrambs, and twenty-one hymns. All these works are now lost, 
with the exception of a few fragments which are preserved in Athe- 
neeus and the grammarians. 

(Vossius, De Poetis Grecis, p. 46; Bode, Geschichte der Lyrischen 
Dichtkunst der Hellenen, vol. ii. p. 305, &c.) 

TIMO’THEUS (Tiud6cos), an Athenian poet of the so-called middle 
comedy. Suidas mentions the titles of several of his plays, and 
Athenzus (vi. p. 243) has preserved a fragment of one which bore the 
title ‘The Little Dog.’ (Compare A. Meineke, Historia Critica Comi- 
corum Grecorum, p. 428. 

TIMO’THEUS, son of Conon of Athens. He inherited from his 
father a considerable fortune, and if we may judge from his intimacy 
with Isocrates, Plato, and other men of talent, and from the manner 
in which others speak of him, he received a most excellent education; 
but no important particulars are known respecting his earlier life. 
The first time that he comes prominently forward in the history of 
his country, was during the war between Thebes and Sparta. In the 


year B.C. 375, after the battle of Naxos, the Thebans, who were 
threatened with an invasion by the Lacedawmonians, requested the 
Athenians to avert this danger by sending a fieet round Peloponnesus, 
as they had done at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war. 
request was readily complied with, and Timotheus was appointed 
commander of a fleet of sixty ships, with which he was to sail round 
Peloponnesus and along the western coast of Greece. In this expe- 
dition he first took Corcyra, which he treated with the utmost mild- 
ness and without making any use of his right as conqueror. The con- 
sequence was, that he had very easy work with Cephalonia and Acar- 
nania, and that even Alcetas, king of the Molossians, was induced to 
join the Athenian alliance. But while Timotheus was thus reviving 
the power of Athens in that part of Greece, the Lacedemonians sent 
out a fleet against him, under the command of Nicolochus, A battle 
was fought near the bay of Alyzia, in which the Spartans were — 
defeated. Soon after Nicolochus offered another battle, but as the 
fleet of Timotheus had suffered too much to allow him to accept it, 
Nicolochus raised a trophy. But Timotheus soon restored his fleet, — 
which was increased by reinforcements of the allies to seventy ships, 
against which Nicolochus could not venture anything. The cnigiad ; 
object of the expedition however was now accomplished, as the 
Spartans had not been able to make their projected invasion of Beotia, 
and Thebes was thus enabled to direct her forces against the Boootian 
towns which asserted their independence. Timotheus at the head of 
his large fleet had no means of maintaining it, for Thebes herself had 
contributed nothing towards it, and Athens, which was not in a very 
prosperous condition, had been obliged to bear all the expenses of the 
fleet, with the exception of what Timotheus himself had farnished 
from his private purse. Athens therefore concluded a separate peace - 
with Sparta, and sent orders to Timotheus to return home. On his 
way thither he landed at Zacynthus a body of exiles who probably 
belonged to the democratical party of the place, and who had sought 
his protection. He provided them with the means of opposing and 
annoying their enemies, the oligarchical party of Zacynthus, which 
was in alliance with Sparta. The oligarchs sent envoys to Sparta 
to complain, and Sparta sent envoys to Athens to remonstrate 
against the conduct of her admiral. But no satisfaction was given, as 
the Athenians would not sacrifice the Zacynthian exiles for the purpose 
of maintaining the peace. The Spartans therefore looked upon the 
peace as broken, and prepared for new hostilities. ' 

Soon after these occurrences Corcyra was hard pressed by the 
Peloponnesian fleet, and implored the Athenians for protection. Timo- 
theus, who, on his former expedition, had given such great proofs of 
skill and talent, was again entrusted with the command of sixty ships. 
But Athens, which was itself in great financial difficulties, had not the 
means to equip them, and Timotheus in the spring of B.c. 373 sailed 
to the coasts and islands of the Aigean to request the Athenian 
allies to provide him with the means of assisting the Corcyrwans. He 
appears to have received some support from Bceotia (Demosth, ‘in 
Timoth.,’ p. 1188), and in Macedonia he formed friendly relations with 
King Amyntas. His proceedings however went on very slowly, and 
apparently without much success, for he was of too gentle a disposi- 
tion to force the allies to furnish what they could not give conveniently. 
At last however he had sailed as far as the island of Calaurea, where 
his men began to murmur because they were not paid. The state of 
affairs in Corcyra had grown worse every day. His enemies at Athens - 
seized upon the slowness of his progress as a favourable opportunity 
for aiming a blow at him. Iphicrates and Callistratus came forward 
to accuse him, whereupon he was recalled, and the command of his 
fleet given to his accusers and Chabrias. His trial was deferred till 
late in the autumn; but he was acquitted, not indeed on account of 
his innocence, though it was well attested, but on account of the inter- 
ference of Alcetas, the Molossian, and Jason of Phere, who had come 
to Athens to protect him. : 

In Bc. 361, after the removal of his rival Iphicrates, Timotheus 
received the command of the fleet on the coast of Macedonia. He 
took Potidea and Torone from Olynthus, and these conquests were 
followed by the reduction of all the Chalcidian towns. From thence 
he proceeded to the Hellespont, where, with the assistance of Ario- 
barzanes, he again gained possession of several towns. In the year — 
following he commenced his operations against Amphipolis, in which 
however he had no success at all, probably on account of the inter- 
ference of the Macedonians, who supported the town, and Timotheus 
was nearly compelled to take to flight. 

In the year B.c. 357 Timotheus and Iphicrates, who had for some 
time been reconciled to each other through the marriage between a 
daughter of the former and a son of the latter, obtained the command 
of a fleet of 60 sail against the rebellious allies of Athens, especially 
against Samos, But the Athenian arms were unsuccessful, and a 
treaty was concluded between the belligerents, which put an end to 
the Social War. The Athenian generals however, Timotheus, Iphi- 
crates, and Menestheus, were charged with having caused the ill-luck 
of the Athenians, and brought to trial. Timotheus in particular was 
accused of having received bribes from the Chians and Rhodians, 
His colleagues, who were themselves in the greatest danger, were so 
convinced of his innocence, that they declared they were willing to 
take all the responsibility upon themselves. But he was nevertheless — 
condemned to pay a fine of 100 talents. As he was unable to pay the 


_ Holy Scriptures.” 


73 TIMOTHY, 


TIMOTHY. 74 


sum, he withdrew to Chalcis in Eubcoea, where he died soon after, in 
B,0. 854. The injustice of this sentence was tacitly acknowledged by 
the Athenians after the death of Timotheus, by the manner in which 
his son Conon was allowed to settle the debt of his father: nine-tenths 
of the penalty were remitted, and the other tenth Conon was per- 
mitted to expend in repairing the city walls. 
Timotheus was no less distinguished as a man than as a general. 
was of a very humane and disinterested character. He sacrificed 


_ all his property in the service of his country, while other men of. his 


= used public offices only as a means of enriching themselves, 
en Alcetas and Jason came to Athens to protect him, they ‘lodged 


in his house, at which time he was so poor, that he was obliged to 

_ borrow furniture to receive his illustrious friends in a manner worthy 

_ Of their station. Even his enemies, when they came to know him, 
_ could not help feeling attachment and esteem for him. 


(Xenophon, Hellen., v. 4, 63, &e., vi. 2,11, &c,; Isocrates, De Per- 
mutatione ; C. Nepos, Timotheus ; Diodorus Sic, xv. and xvi. ; com- 


_ pare Thirlwall and Grote, Histories of Greece.) 


TIMOTHY, to whom the Epistles of St. Paul, known by his name, 


- are addressed, was a native of Lystra, a city of Lycaonia, in Asia 


Minor. His father was a Greek, or Gentile, but his mother, Eunice, 
was a Jewess. Both his mother and grandmother Lois were Christian 
believers (2 Timoth., i. 5), who were probably converted to the faith 
by the preaching of Paul and Barnabas on the occasion of their first 


_ apostolical journey among the Gentiles, Whether Timothy was him- 


self converted by St. Paul or by the teaching of his mother does not 
appear ; but it is certain that she had taken great pains with her son’s 
education, for from a child, as St. Paul says, “he had known the 
(2 Timoth., iii, 15.) His devotion to his new faith 
was so ardent, and the progress he made in the knowledge of the 


4 gospel so great, that he gained the esteem and good word of all his 
_ Christian acquaintance. 


Accordingly when St. Paul paid his second 
visit to Lystra, the believers both of that city and Iconium commended 
him so highly to Paul, that he “would have ‘Timothy go forth with 
him” as the companion of his travels. Previously to commencing 
them however St. Paul circumcised Timothy, “because of the Jews,” 
who were numerous and powerful in those parts and likely to take 
offence at the preaching and ministration of an uncircumcised teacher. 
(Acts, xvi. 1-3.) He was then solemnly admitted and set apart to the 
office of an evangelist, or preacher of the gospel, by the elders of 
Lystra and St. Paul himself laying their hands upon him (1 Tim, iv. 
14; 2 Tim. i. 6), though he was probably not more than twenty years 
of age atthe time. From this period (4.D. 46) mention is frequently 
made of Timothy as the companion of St. Paul in his journeys, as 


_ assisting him in preaching the gospel, and in conveying his instructions 


» 


to the different Christian churches. His first mission was in company 
with St. Paul and Silas, when they visited the churches of Phrygia 
and delivered to them the decrees of the council of elders at Jerusa- 
lem, by which the Gentiles were released from the obedience to the 
law of Moses as a requisite for salvation. From Phrygia he proceeded 
in the same company to Troas, and thence to Macedonia, where he 
assisted in founding the churches of Philippi, Thessalonica, and Bercea, 
at the last of which cities he and Silas were left when St. Paul was 
driven from Macedonia by the persecution of the Jews in that country 
and retired to Athens, In this city St. Paul was subsequently joined 
by Timothy (1 Thess., iii. 1), who gave him such an account of the 
afflicted state of the Thessalonian Christians as induced him to send 
Timothy back to “establish and comfort them, concerning their faith :” 
a charge both of difficulty and danger. From Athens St. Paul went 
to Corinth, where he was joined by Timothy and Silvanus, who both 
assisted him in converting the Corinthians and establishing the 
Corinthian church, for a period of a year and a half, (2 Cor., i.) 
When St. Paul left Corinth, Timothy appears to have accompanied 
him on his return to Asia, where they resided nearly three years, 
without interruption, except during the visit of St. Paul to Jerusalem, 
to keep the feast there, in which however it does not appear that he 


‘was accompanied by Timothy. Towards the expiration of their 


residence at Ephesus, St. Paul despatched Timothy and Erastus 
together to precede himself on a journey to Macedonia. (Acts, xix. 
22.) It would also seem (1 Cor., iv. 17) that St. Paul at the same time 
charged Timothy to visit the church of Corinth. On returning from 
Corinth to Macedonia, Timothy was joined by St. Paul from Ephesus, 
and henceforward they were frequently together, till Timothy was 
appointed by St. Paul to govern the Church of Ephesus. 
terval between St. Paul’s joining Timothy in Macedonia and the 
appointment of the latter to the superintendence of the Church at 
Ephesus, Timothy appears either to have accompanied St. Paul on his 
first journey to Rome, or to have visited him there, St. Paul, as is 
well known, was a prisoner at Rome, though under but little restraint, 
and from Hebrews (xiii. 23) we may conclude that Timothy also suf- 
fered imprisonment either at Rome or elsewhere in Italy; and that 
he was released before St. Paul left that city. The subsequent history 
of St. Paul and Timothy is not clearly given either in the Acts of the 


Apostles or the Epistles of the New Testament ; but it is reasonable. 


to suppose that when they were both set at liberty, they renewed the 
journeys made for founding new churches and revisiting old. (See 
Hebrews, xiii. 23; Philipp., i. 1; ii 19; 1 Tim, i. 3.) 

Timothy was eventually left with the charge of the Church at 


In the in- | 


Ephesus, where St. Paul had made his headquarters in Asia. How 
long Timothy exercised this office is not known, nor can we determine 
the time of his death. An ecclesiastical tradition relates that he 
suffered martyrdom, being killed with stones and clubs (a.p. 97) while 
he was preaching against idolatry in the neighbourhood of the temple 
of Diana at Ephesus. His supposed relics were removed to Constan- 
tinople, with great pomp, in 356, in the reign of the Emperor Con- 
stantine. Shortly after Timothy’s appointment to the superintendence 
of the Church of Ephesus, St. Paul wrote to him his first Epistle; 
the date of which was probably about a.p. 64, after St. Paul’s first 
imprisonment at Rome. Some critics indeed assign to it as early a 
date as 56, supporting their opinion by 1 Tim. i. 3, from which it 
appears (1.) that Timothy was in Ephesus when the Apostle wrote his 
first letter to him ; (2.), that he had been left there when Paul was 
going from Ephesus into Macedonia. A careful examination however 
of the narrative in the Acts will convince the reader that the contem- 
plated journey into Macedonia, of which the Apostle speaks (1 Tim. 
i. 3), is some journey not mentioned in the Acts, and therefore subse- 
quent to St. Paul’s release from his first confinement at Rome. But 
whatever doubt there may be as to the date of the first, there is none 
about the genuineness of either of the two Epistles to Timothy. 
They have always been acknowledged to be the undisputed production 
of the Apostle Paul. The object and design of the First Epistle to 
Timothy were such as we might have expected from the relation 
between St. Paul the writer, and Timothy, to whom it was addressed. 
It was written with the view of guiding and directing Timothy in his 
responsible and difficult ministry as the head of the Church at Ephe- 
sus, to instruct in the choice and ordination of proper officers, and to 
warn him against the false teachers (Michaelis thinks they were 
Essenes) who had “turned aside” from the simplicity of the gospel, 
to idle controversies and “ endless genealogies,” and who, setting them- 
selves up as teachers of the Law of Moses, had insisted upon the 
necessity of obedience to it as a requisite for salvation. 

The Epistle was written from Nicopolis in Macedonia (‘ Titus,’ iii. 
12), and not from Laodicea, as the subscription informs us. The 
undesigned coincidences between it and the Acts of the Apostles are 
given in Paley’s ‘ Hore Pauline,’ p. 323-338. 

The Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy appears from chap. i, vers. 
8, 12, 17, to have been written by St. Paul while he was a prisoner at 
Rome; but whether he wrote it during his first imprisonment, 
recorded in Acts, xxviii., or during a second imprisonment, has been 
much questioned. According to the uniform tradition of the ancient 
church, it was written during the second confinement. The modern 
critics, who refer it to the time of the first, are for the most part anti- 
episcopalians or Romanists: the former being concerned to deny the 
permanency of Timothy’s charge at Ephesus; the latter not knowing 
how to account for the omission of Peter's name in the salutations 
from Rome. The arguments adduced by Macknight (Preface to 2 
Timothy) in support of the opinion of the ancient church are, we 
think, conclusive. St. Paul, it is generally agreed, returned to Rome 
after his first imprisonment, early in 65; where, after being kept in 
bonds as an ‘evil-doer’ for more than a year, he is believed to have 
suffered martyrdom, in 66. As therefore the Apostle requests 
Timothy (iv. 21) to come to him at Rome before winter, it was pro- 
bably written in July or August, a.p. 65; and it is generally supposed 
that Timothy was at Ephesus when St. Paul addressed it to him. 

The immediate design of St. Paul in writing this Epistle was, it 
would seem, to apprise Timothy of the circumstances that had recently 
happened to himself at Rome, and to request his immediate presence 
there. Accordingly we gather from the last chapter of this Epistle, 
that St. Paul was closely confined as a malefactor for some crime laid 
to his charge; that when he was brought before the Roman magis- 
trates to make his first answer, ‘no man stood by him, but all men 
forsook him;” that only Luke was with him: that being thus deserted 
by almost all, he was greatly desirous of seeing Timothy, “ his dearly 
beloved son in the gospel,” before the “time of his departure,” which 
he knew “was at hand.” He therefore requested him to come to 
Rome immediately, but being uncertain whether he shouid live to see 
Timothy again, he gave him in this Epistle a variety of admonitions, 
charges, and encouragements. This Epistle in fact is an appropriate 
and affecting sequel to the first, the principal injunctions and warnings 
of which it repeats, but with additional earnestness and fervour. St. 
Paul, as if for the last time (chap. i.), conjures Timothy to apply him- 
self with all his gifts of grace to his holy work, to hold fast the 
doctrine which he had received from him, and not to be ashamed 
either of the testimony of the Lord or of St. Paul’s own sufferings. 
In chap. iii. St. Paul gives a description of the “ perilous times which 
should come,’ and which were to be anticipated by every possible 
exertion in performing the duties of a Christian minister. To this . 
work, in chap. iv., he exhorted him by a solemn charge before ‘God 
and the Lord Jesus Christ, the judge of the quick and the dead.” He 
then depicted his own present state, and his presentiment of an 
approaching martyrdom; and after requesting the immediate presence 
of Timothy, concluded by sending to him the greeting of some of the 
brethren of the Church at Rome, Whether Timothy arrived at Rome in 
time to find St. Paul alive, does not anywhere appear : the latest authen- 
tic information we have concerning him being given in this letter. 

The Epistles to Timothy, in conjunction with those to the Thessa- 


765 TIMUR, SULTAN, 


TIMUR, SULTAN. 76 


lonians and Titus, are extremely valuable, as furnishing very strong 
evidence to the truth of many of the facts related in the Acts of the 
Apostles. The undesigned coincidences between the Second Epistle 
to Timothy and the Acts are given by Paley, in his ‘ Hore Pauline,’ 
pp. 389-856. Their value in another respect is thus described by 
Macknight, Preface to 1 Timothy—* These Epistles are likewise of 
great use in the church, as they exhibit to Christian bishops and 
deacons in every age the most perfect idea of the duties of their 
functions: teach the manner in which these duties should be per- 
formed : deseribe the qualifications necessary in those who aspire to 
such offices, and explain the ends for which they were instituted, and 
are still continued in the ehurch.” 

T’MUR, SULTAN, KIAMRAM KOTB-ED-DI’N GURGAN 
SA’HEB-KIRA’N JIHA/NGIR, that is “Sultan Timur, the fortunate, 
the axis of the faith, the great wolf, the master of time, the conqueror 
of the world.” Timur, a name which frequently occurs among the 
princes of the Eastern Turks, signifies ‘iron’ in the Jagatai dialect, 
and corresponds to the Osmanli ‘demur.’ Timur was born on the 
5th or 25th of Sha’bén, 736 a.u. (A.D. 1835), at Sebz, a suburb of 
Kesh, a town south-east of Samarkand. He was the son of Tédrdghai- 
Nowian, who was chief of the Turkish tribe of the Berlas, which 
inhabited the district of Kesh. Timur was deseended from a younger 
son of Bardam-Khan Behadir, or Baghatur, whose eldest son, Yessugai, 
was the father of Genghis-Khan, and he was a direct descendant of 
Genghis-Khan on the female side. He was consequently of Mongol 
origin, and, being of royal blood, he held a high rank among that. 
Mongol nobility which was founded by Genghis-Khan among the 
Eastern Turks. This rank is expressed by the title Nowian, which 
was added to the name of his father. Yet the power of his family 
was not great. Timur was a soldier at the age of twelve years, and 
he spent his youth in the continental feuds between the nobles of 
those different kingdoms and principalities into which the empire of 
Genghis-Khan was divided by his successors. After the death of his 
father, his uncle Seif-ed-din became chief of the Berlas, being the eldest 
of the family; but a war having broken out between Husein, khan of 
Northern Khords#n, and Mawerainnehr (Mawar-el-nahr), or Jagatai, 
and Timur-Togluk, khan of the Getes (Gete), in Northern Turkistan, 
young Timur actively supported Husein, and was appointed chief of 
the tribe of the Berlas in aH. 763 (A.D. 1361). In this war Timur 
reesived a wound in the thigh, in consequence of which he became 
lame. From this he was called Timur-lenk, or the lame Timur, which 
has been corrupted by Europeans into Tamerlane, by which name 
Timur is as well known in Europe as by his real name. Husein 
rewarded him also with the hand of his sister Turkan, a.H. 765 (A.D. 
1363). Notwithstanding these favours Timur intrigued against his pro- 
tector; and after the death of his wife he openly rebelled against him, 
A.H. 767 (A.D. 1865). With a body of only 250 horsemen he surprised 
and took Nakhshab, a town which was defended by a garrison of 
12,000 men, among whom there were most probably a great number 
of traitors. In A.w. 768 (A.D. 1366) he defeated Husein near his 
eapital, Balkh, and this prince was murdered by some emirs, who, 
seeing their former master forsaken by fortune, endeavoured to obtain 
the favour of Timur by putting his rival to death. Balkh, which 
was defended by the adherents of Husein, was taken by storm and 
destroyed by fire after a siege of three years, a.H. 771 (A.D, 1369), and 
Timur was proclaimed khan of Jagatai in the same year by the Kurul- 
tai, or the general assembly of the people, He chose Samarkand for 
his capital. Husein-Sofi, khan of Kowaresm (Khiwa), having im- 
prisqned Timur’s ambassadors, was attacked by Timur, who, after five 
campaigns, at last suceeeded in taking the town of Kowaresm, in A.H. 
781 (A.D. 1379). The town was destroyed, and the principal inhabi- 
tants, especially artists and scholars, were transplanted to Kesh, which 
became the second capital of Timur’s empire. Previously to this the 
khan of the Getes, who was master of the country between the Sihun, 
or Jaxartes, and the Irtish, had likewise been compelled to pay 
homage to Timur, who thus became master of a part of Siberia and 
of the whole country which we now call Turkistan, and which was 
formerly known by the name of Great Tartary. After these conquests 
Timur thought himself strong enough to carry into effect the plan of 
making himself master of all those countries which had once obeyed 
his ancestor Genghis-Khan. He first attacked Khordsdén, on the 
north-eastern part of Persia, which was then divided between Gaiydth- 
ed-din-Pir-’Ali, who resided at Herat, and Kojah-’Ali-Murjid, whose 
capital was Sebsewdr. Kojah-’Ali-Murjid, whose dominions were on 
the boundaries of Jagatai, paid homage to Timur as soon as he was 
summoned, but the master of Herat prepared a vigorous resistance. 
Timur took Herat by storm, but did not destroy it. He carried off as 
his only trophy the iron gates of this town, which were noted for their 
- beautiful workmanship, and which he ordered to be transported to his 
birthplace, Kesh. The larger towns of Khorasan surrendered without 
resistance, and Timur was only checked by several strong fortresses, 
stich as Shaburkdn, Kabushdn, and especially Kéhkdha, between 
Balkh and Kelat, in the mountains of the Hindu-Kush. When these 
fortresses fell, all Khords4n was under his yoke. The inhabitants of 
Sebsewdr having revolted, Timur took the town by storm: two thou- 
sand of the inhabitants were placed alive one upon the other, till they 
formed a mass like a tower, and each layer of human beings was 
fastened to the rest by mortar, as if they were so many bricks. 


Beginning his career at an age when other conquerors are satisfied 
with their laurels, Timur had employed twenty years in reflecting on 
the principles of warfare. He led his armies with the prudent bold- 
ness of an experienced general, but not with the superiority of genius. 


The differences between the numerous successors of Genghis-Khan 


enabled Timur to attack them one after another, and each was pleased 


with the fall of his rivals. He employed the same policy in his war 


— Persia. This country was governed by several princes, Shah- 
Sheja, of the dynasty of Mozaffer, who reigned in Fars and Southern 
Irdk, or in that part of Persia which was most exposed to any army 
from the east, submitted to Timur without resistance. The Sultan 
Abmed, of the house of the Ilkhans, the master of Northern Irék and 
Azerbijin, or Western Persia, had alone to sustain the attacks of the 
Tatars, A.u. 788 (A.D. 1386). Timur entered the dominions of Ahmed 
by following the coast of the Caspian Sea. In one campaign he eon- 
quered the provinces of Mazanderdn, Rei, and Rustemdar, and took 
the towns of Sultania, Tabris, and Nakhshiwdén. He crossed the 
Araxes at Julfa on a magnificent bridge, which was strongly fortified 
on both sides, but which is now destroyed. Kars, now the key of 
Eastern Turkey, fell into his hands ; Tiflis surrendered, and the Prince 
of Georgia purchased his protection by adopting the Mohammedan 
faith. ‘The prince of Shirwdn sent tribute to the camp of Timur, nine 
pieces of each thing sent (nine was a holy number among the Mongol 
princes), but only eight slaves; the ninth was himself. On these 
terms he was allowed to remain in possession of his dominions. 
Taherten, king of Armenia, submitted to Timur without any resist- 
ance; but Kérd-Ydsuf, prince of Diyarbekir, and master of eal 
round Lake Wan, prepared to defend himself. A body of Timur’s 
army marched against him, and took the fortresses of Akhlat and 
Adiljuwdz by storm; and Timur himself conducted the siege of Wan. 
This famous fortress fell after a siege of twenty days, the garrison was 
cast from the steep rock on which this town is situated, and the forti- 


fications were razed by ten thousand miners and pioneers. Ready to — 


cross the Carduchian Mountains and to desvend into the valley of the 
Upper Tigris, Timur was obliged, by a revolt of the inhabitants of 
Ispahan, to march suddenly to Southern Persia. He took Ispahan by 
a general assault: he spared the lives and the houses of artists and 
scholars, but the remainder of the city was destroyed, and the 
inhabitants were massacred. More than 70,000 heads were laid at 
the feet of the conqueror, who ordered his soldiers to 
on the public places of the town, A.w. 789 (A.D. 1387). 


Satisfied with having conquered the greater part of Persia, Timur — 


turned his arms towards the north, and overran the kingdom of Kipt- 
shak, which was then governed by Toktamish-Khan. This war lasted 
from a.H. 789 to 799 (A.D. 1387 to 1896). We shall here only mention 
the march of Timur in the campaign of A.H. 793 (4.D. 1891). Accord- 
ing to Sheref-ed-din, Timur started from Tashkend, on the Jaxartes, 
on the 13th of Safer, A.u. 793 (19th of January 1391). He marched in 
a northern direction, and passed by Kdrd-suma, Ydzi, Kard-chuk, and 
Sabrdn, until he reached Sdrik-Uzen, on the river Arch: thence he 
proceeded as far as Mount Kuchuk-dagh, and subsequently crossed 
Mount Ulu-dagh, or the range of the Altai, He then took a north- 
western direction until he reached the upper part of the river Tobol 
in Siberia, and thence proceeded westward, crossing the Ural Moun- 
tains, and the upper part of the river Ural, or Yaik, where he drew 
up his army on the banks of the Bielaya, a southern tributary of the 
Kama, which flows into the Wolga. Toktamish, who awaited Timur 
in the environs of Orenburg, was not a little astonished to find him so 
far advanced towards the north; but being informed of his having 
taken that direction, he hastened to the country of the Bielaya (Bash- 
kiria), and fought that dreadful battle which took place on the 15th 
of Rejeb, a.H. 793 (18th of June 1391), in which his whole army was 
slaughtered, 
In the following year (a.H. 794; A.D. 1892) Timur returned to his 
residence at Samarkand, and he left the war with Kiptshak to his 
lieutenants; he only appeared in the field in a.H. 797 (A.D, 1315) in 
order to stop the progress of Toktamish in the Caucasian countries. 
Meanwhile troubles broke out in northern Persia, which were put down 
by Timur’s generals, who committed unheard-of cruelties, especially 
in the town of Amul, where the whole tribe of the Fedayis was mas- 


sacred. Timur himself attacked Southern Persia after his first return — 


from Kiptshak. The country of Fars was governed by several princes 
of the dynasty of Mozaffer, vassals of Timur, who aimed at independ- 
ence. After having occupied Loristdn, Timur entered Fars by the 
mountain-paszes east of Shiraz, which were defended by the stronghold 
of Kalai-zefid; but this fortress and the capital Shiraz were taken, the 
princes were put to death or fell in battle, and Timur’s son Mirén- 

was invested with the government of Fars and Khuzistén, From 
Shiraz Timur marched westwards to attack the King of Baghdad, Ahmed 
Jelair, of the house of Ilkhan. Baghdad surrendered without resistance, 
and Sultan Ahmed and his family fied towards the Euphrates, accom- 
panied by a small body of cavalry. Timur and forty-five emirs 
mounted on the swiftest Arabian horses pursued the Sultan, and came 
up with him before he had reached the Euphrates, In the engagement 
which ensued Ahmed was again defeated and compelled to fly, leaving 
his harem and one of his sons in the hands of the victor. The scholars 


and artists of Baghdad were transplanted to Samarkand; Timur — 


remained at Baghdad for two months, allowing so little licence to his 


pile them up — 


a 


i ee) ee te Oe te 


i 


UY a a a ei i, a ee eee 


b 


was taken and plundered. 


TIMUR, SULTAN. 


TIMUR, SULTAN. 


73 


soldiers that he ordered all the wine which was found in the town to 
be thrown into the Tigris. 

During this time Kird-Yuisuf, prince of Diyarbekir, had recovered 
part of those districts round Lake Wan which Timur had taken from 
him in a former campaign; and several princes in Armenia and 
Georgia were still independent, Timur resolved to bring them to 
submission, and after having succeeded in this, to attack the king- 
dom of Kiptshak on its boundaries in the Caucasus. Starting from 
Baghdad in 4.4, 797 (4.D. 1394), he marched to the Upper.'ligris by 

 Tekrit, Roha or Edessa, Ho-su, and Keif, all situated in Mesopotainia. 


He laid siege to Mardin, a strong place in the mountain-passes south- 
east of Diyarbekir, but not being able to take it, he contented himself 


_ with the promise of an annual tribute which Sultan Iza, the master of 
_ Mardin, engaged to pay, and he marched to Diyarbekir, This town 
From Diyarbekir Timur marched to 
north of Lake Wan, crossing the mountains, as it seems, by 

ses of the Bedlis, or Centrites.. After having subdued all 
Armenia and Georgia, Timur reached the river Terék in the Caucasus, 


Wand there fought another bloody battle with the Khan of Kiptshak. 
~ In ap. 1395 and 1896 Timur conquered all Kiptshak, and penetrated 


throne. 


| 


“a 


f 


- 


as far as Moscow, whereupon he left the command of these countries 
to his lieutenants, and returned to Samarkand, in order to prepare for 
& campaign against India. 

After the death of Firus-Shah, the master of India between the 
Indus and the Ganges, several pretenders made claim to the vacant 
At last Mahmud succeeded in making himself master of 
Delhi, and in establishing his aythority over all the empire of Firus- 


Shah. Under the pretext of supporting the rivals of Mahmud, 


Timur declared war against India; and such was the renown of his 
name, that ambassadors from all the countries of the East arrived at 
Samarkand and congratulated him on his new conquests before he had 
obtained any triumph. Timur left his capital in a.n. 801 (A.D. 1898). 
He took his way through the passes in the Ghur Mountains, or the 

' western part of the Hindu-Kush; and on the 8th of Moharrem, .H, 
801 (19th of September 1398), he crossed the Indus at Attock, where 
Alexander had entered India, and where Genghis Khan had been com- 
pelled to give up his plan of advancing farther. Timur traversed the 
Punjab in a direction from north-west to south-east, crossing the 
rivers Behut, Chunab, Ravee, the Beeah, the Hyphasis of the ancients, 
where Alexander terminated his conquests, and the Sutlej, the eastern- 
most of the five great rivers of the Punjab, Although no great battle 
had been fought, the Tatars had already made more than 100,000 pri- 
soners ; and as their number daily increased, Timur ordered them all 
to be massacred, to prevent any mutiny, which might have become 
fatal to him in case of a defeat. At last the Indian army was defeated 
in a battle near Delhi, and this town, with all its immense treasures, 
fell into the hands of the conqueror. Delhi was plundered, and a part 
of it was destroyed, the inhabitants having set fire to their houses, 
and thrown themselves and their wives and children into the flames. 
Several thousands of artists and skilful workmen were transplanted to 
Samarkand. Timur pursued the army of Mahmud as far as the 
‘sources of the Ganges, and after having established his authority in 
the conquered countries, returned to Samarkand in the same year in 
which he had set out for the conquest of India. 

Meanwhile troubles had broken out between the vassal princes in 
Persia and the countries west of it; and Timur’s own sons, who were 
governors of this part of the empire, had attacked each other, and one 
of them was accused of having made an attempt to poison his brether, 
These events became as many occasions of new conquests for Timur, 
who overran the whole country between Persia and Syria. Siwas 
(Sebaste), one of the strongest towns of Asia Minor, which belonged to 
the Osmanlis, was taken after a siege of eighteen days. The Moham- 
medan inhabitants were spared; the Christians, |among whom were 
moré than 4000 Armenian horsemen, were interred alive. (a.H. 803; 
A.D. 1400.) Among the prisoners was Ertoghrul, the son of Bayazid, 
sultan of the Osmanlis, who defended the town for his father, and 
who was put to death after a short captivity. The fall of Siwas and 
the murder of Ertoghrul were the signals for war between Timur and 
Bayazid, who had filled Europe with the terror of his name, and who 
was then besieging Constantinople. The rapidity of his marches and 
the impetuosity of his charges had.procured him the surname of 
‘Ilderim,’ or the ‘ Lightning ;’ and accustomed to victories over the 
knights of Hungary, Poland, France, and Germany, he did not dread 
the Tatars of Timur, 
negociated with Timur about some Turkish emirs in Asia Minor, and 
especially about Taherten, king of Armenia, a vassal of Timur, who 
had been deprived by Bayazid of several of their best towns, and 
whom Timur protected. ‘’o humble his pride, Bayazid imprisoned 
the Tatarian ambassadors, and Timur in revenge carried devastation 
into the dominions of the Osmanlis. 

Before Bayazid had crossed the Bosporus, Timur, offended by 
Ferruj, sultan of Egypt, overran Syria, then a dependence of Egypt. 
The army of Ferruj was routed with dreadful slaughter at Haleb, and 
this populous town was taken by the Tatars, who entered it with the 
flying Egyptians. Plunder, bloodshed, and cruelties signalised this 
new conquest (1]lth to 14th of Rebuil-ewwal, a.m. 803; 30th of Octo- 
ber to 2nd November, a.p. 1400), which was followed by the fall of 
Damascus (9th of Sha’bdn, a.n. 803; 25th of March 1401), Artists 


. 


Previously to the siege of Siwas, he had, 


and workmen were as usual carried off to Samarkand and other towns 
of Turkistan. Ferruj became a vassal of the Tatars.. Baghdad having 
revolted, Timur took it by storm on the 27th of Zilkide, a.u, 803 (9th 
of July .p.-1401), and 90,000 human heads were piled up on the 
public places of the town. 

Hitherto negociations had still been carried on between Timur and 
Bayazid, who had advanced into Asia Minor with a well-disciplined 
although not very numerous army. But Bayazid having discovered 
that Timur had bribed several regiments of ‘l'urkomans that were in 
the army of the Osmanlis, the negociations were broken off, and the 
pt Firemen conquerors of their time advanced to meet each other in 
the field. 

After the fate of Haleb, Damascus, and Baghdad, Timur had assem- 
bled his army near Haleb, and, crossing the range of the Taurus, he had 
proceeded north-westward, to the northern part of Anatolia. At 
Angora he met with Bayazid. The battle, one of the most eventful 
which have ever been fought, took place on the 19th of Zilhije, a.n. 
804 (20th of July, a.p. 1402). After an obstinate resistance the 
Osmanlis, who were much less numerous than the Tatars, were 
routed. Old Bayazid, to whom flight was unknown, despised every 
opportunity of saving himself, and so strong was the habit of victory 
in him, that he could not conceive his defeat even when he saw the 
general rout of his warriors. At the head of his janissaries, Bayazid 
maintained himself on the top of a hill; his soldiers died of thirst or 
fell by the sword and the arrows of the Tatars; at last he was almost 
alone. When the night came he tried to escape; his horse fell, and 
Bayazid was made a prisoner by the hand of Mahmud Khan, a 
descendant of Genghis Khan, and who was under-khan of Jagatai. 
One of his sons, Muza, was likewise made prisoner; another, Mustafa, 
fell most probably in the battle, for he was never more heard of ; 
three others, Soliman, Mohammed, and Iza, escaped with part of their 
troops. Timur received his royal prisoner with kindness and gene- 
rosity. Afterwards, when some faithful Osmanlis tried to save their 
master, he was put into chains, but only at night. Accompanying 
Timur on his march, he sat in a ‘kafes,’ that is, in a sedan hanging 
between two horses, and this was probably the origin of the story that 
Timur had put Bayazid in an iron ‘cage’ like a wild beast, a story 
which has chiefly been propagated by Arabshah and the Byzantine 
Phranzes (i, c. 26). Bayazid died in his captivity at Akshehr, about 
a year after the battle of Angora (14th of Sha’ban, a.u. 805 (8th of 
March, a.D. 1403), and Timur allowed Prince Muza to carry the body 
of his father to Brusa. ; 

The sons of Timur pursued the sons of Bayazid as far as the Bospo- 
rus, but having no fleet, they did not cross this channel. They ravaged 
the country, and afterwards joined their father Timur, who with the 
main body of his army took Kphesus and laid siege to Smyrna. This 
town, which belonged to the Knights of St. John at Rhodes, fell after a 
gallant resistance, in the month of December 1402. However, the 
conquest of Asia Minor from the Osmanlis was only a temporary 
triumph, for a short time afterwards it was recovered by Mohammed I., 
the son and successor of Bayazid. After having thus carried his arms 
as far as the shore of the [onian Sea, Timur withdrew to Persia to 
quell an insurrection, and then retired to Samarkand. He was pre- 
paring for the conquest of China, but he died on his march to that 
country, at Otrar on the Jaxartes, on the 17th of Sha’bdn, a.n. 807 
(19th of February 1405), in his seventy-first year, after a reign of - 
thirty-six years, leaving thirty-six sons and grandsons, and seventeen 
grand-daughters. A considerable part of Timur’s western and northern 
conquests, Asia Minor, Baghdad, Syria, Georgia, Armenia, and the whole 
kingdom of Kiptehak, were lost by his successors almost immediately 
after his death. In Persia and Jagatai his descendants reigned for a 
century; and for three centuries they ruled over Northern India 
under the name of the Great Moguls, 

Timur has been compared with Alexander, but he is far below him. 
It is true, that except in India, Alexander found only effeminate 
nations on his way, while Timur fought with the most warlike nations 
of the world; but the enemies of Alexander formed great political 
bodies which were governed by one absolute master, while the warlike 
nations which were subdued by Timur were divided into a multitude 
of tribes and governed by numerous princes, each of whom was 
jealous of his neighbour. Timur overran the territory of two mighty 
nations, the Turks-Osmanlis, and the Tatars of Kiptshak, but he was 
not able to subdue them. Both Alexander and Timur protected the 
arts and sciences, but Timur could only transplant them by force 
from one place to another, while poets and scholars flocked to 
Alexander because he could appreciate their talents. Timur’s cruelty 
was the consequence of his savage and barbarous temper; Alexander 
only forgot the laws of humanity when he was overpowered by wine 
or by passion. Timur was a man of extraordinary talents, who accom- 
plished great things after long experience and severe struggles; 
Alexander, a true genius, came, saw, and vanquished. The greatness 
of Timur inspires awe, and we shrink from it with horror ; the great- 
ness of Alexander attracts us because it is adorned with the amiable 
qualities of his character. 

The life of Timur is the subject of many valuable works. Sheref- 
ed-din-Ali wrote the history of Timur in Persian, which has been 
translated into French by Pétis de la Croix, under the title ‘ Histoire 
de Timur-Bec, connu sous le nom du Grand Tamerlan,’ &c., Paris, 


a 


79 TINDAL, MATTHEW, LL.D. 


TINDAL, MATTHEW, LL.D. 


1722. This is the best work concerning Timur, although the author 
often flatters. Arabshah, a Syrian, on the contrary, depreciates the 
character of Timur; his history, or rather his epic, has been trans- 
lated under the title ‘Ahmedis Arabsiadw Vite et Rerum Gestarum 
Timuri qui vulgo Tamerlanes dicitur, Historia,’ Lugduni-Batavorum, 
1636. Longdit, Argote de Molina, Petrus Perundinus Pratensis, 
Boekler, Richerius, &c. have also written the life of Timur. Among 
the Byzantines, Ducas, Chalcondylas, and Phranzes contain many 
valuable accounts, though Phranzes is less critical than the others. A 
very interesting book is ‘Schildtberger eine Wunderbarliche und 
Kurzweilige Histoire,’ &c., 4to. The same book was translated into 
modern German by Penzel, Miinchen, 1813. Schildtberger, a German 
soldier, was made prisoner by the Turks in the battle of Nicopolis 
(1396), when he was only sixteen years old. In the battle of Angora 
he was taken by the Tatars, and became a kind of secretary to Shah- 
rokh and Miran-Shah, the sons of Timur. He finally returned to 
Germany in 1427, after a captivity of thirty years, and then wrote the 
history of his adventures. _ 4 , 

Gibbon gives a splendid view of Timur’s conquests in the ‘Decline 
and Fall, chap. lxv. Another most valuable work is Clavijo, ‘ Historia 
del gran Tamerlan, e Itinerario,’ &c. Clavijo, ambassador of King 
Henry III. of Castile at the court of Timur, was present at the battle 
of Angora. (Desguignes, ‘ Histoire des Huns,’ vol. ii) Timur may 
be considered as the author of the ‘ Tufukat, or the Code of Laws.’ 
This work was originally written in the East-Turkish language, and was 
translated into Persian. The Persian version, with the English trans- 
lation and a most valuable index, was published by Major Davy and 
Professor White, 4to, Oxford, 1783; another version with a full biblio- 
graphical account of the work prefixed, was published by Major C. 
Stewart, late professor of Oriental languages in the East India Com- 
pany’s College, under the title of ‘The Mulfuzat Timtr, or Autobio- 
graphical Memoirs of the Moghul Emperor Timir,’ 8vo, 1830; and 
the late Professor Langles translated the Persian version into French, 
under the title, ‘ Instituts Politiques et Militaires de Tamerlan,’ Paris, 
1787. This work is of great importance for the history of Timur; we 
see that this Tatarian conqueror was provided with maps and works 
concerning geography, which were composed by his order. 

TINDAL, MATTHEW, LL.D., was the son of the Rev. John 
Tindal, parish clergyman at Beer-Ferres in Devonshire, where Matthew 
was born about the year 1657. In 1672 he was admitted of Lincoln 
College, Oxford, where Dr. Hickes was his tutor ; but he afterwards 
removed to Exeter College, and he was finally elected to a law fellow- 
ship at All Souls, soon after he had taken his degree of B.A. in 1676. 
He proceeded LL.B. in 1679, and was created LL.D. in 1685. If we 
may believe certain charges which were long afterwards made in print 
by the opponents of his theological opinions, his debaucheries while 
he resided at Oxford were so scandalous as to have drawn down upon 
him on one occasion a public reprimand from his college. Soon after 
he obtained his Doctor’s degree he went over to the Church of Rome, 
not without subjecting himself to the imputation of having an eye to 
the worldly advantages which such a step might seem to promise 
under the popish king just come to the throne. It does not appear 
however that he actually obtained any court favour or patronage by 
his change of religion; and, according tohis own account, given in a 
pamphlet he published in his own defence in 1708, he reverted to the 
Church of England some months before the revolution, having attended 
mass for the last time at Candlemas 1688, and publicly received the 
sacrament in his college chapel at Easter following. He asserts that 
his mind, which came a tabula rasa to the university, had been 
prepared for being seduced by James’s Romish emissaries by the 
notions as to the high and independent powers of the clergy which 
then prevailed there, and which he had adopted without examination. 
Accordingly, when he threw off Popery, he abandoned his high church 
principles at the same time; or rather, as he puts it, he discovered 
that these principles were unfounded, and that at once cured him of 
his Popery. “ Meeting,” he says, “upon his going into the world, 
with people who treated that notion of the independent power as it 
deserved, and finding the absurdities of Popery to be much greater at 
hand than they appeared at a distance, he began to examine the whole 
matter with all the attention he was capable of; and then he quickly 
found, and was surprised at the discovery, that all his till then 
undoubted maxims were so far from having any solid foundation, that 
they were built on as great a contradiction as can be, that of two 
independent powers in the same society. Upon this he returned, as 
he had good reason, to the Church of England, which he found, by 
examining into her constitution, disclaimed all that independent power 
he had been bred up to the belief of.” The revolution having taken 
place, he now also, naturally enough, became a zealous partisan of that 
settlement. The history of the rest of his life, during which he 
appears to have resided mostly in London, consists almost entirely of 
that of his successive publications and of the controversies in which 
they involved him. 

He first appeared as an author in November 1693, by the publi- 
cation, in 4to, of ‘An Essay concerning Obedience to the Supreme 
Powers, and the Duty of Subjects in all Revolutions, with some con- 
siderations concerning the present juncture of affairs. This was 
followed in March 1694 by ‘An Essay concerning the Law of Nations 
and the Rights of Sovereigns,’ a second edition of which, with addi- 


tions, was brought out in the same year. This year also he published 
‘A Letter to the Clergy of both Universities,’ in recommendation of 
certain alterations which there was then some talk of making in the 
Liturgy; and in 1695 another pamphlet in support of the same 
views. But the first work by which he attracted general attention 
was an 8vo volume which he published in 1706, entitled ‘ The Rights 
of the Christian Church Asserted, against the Romish and all] other 


priests who claim an independent power over it.’ This work, which is — 


an elaborate attack upon the theory of hierarchical supremacy, or 
what are commonly called high-church principles, immediately raised 
a vast commotion. It is related that to a friend who found him one 
day engaged upon it, pen in hand, he said that he was writing a book 
which would make the clergy mad. Replies to it were immediat 
published by the celebrated William Wotton, by Dr. Hickes (Ti 8 
old college tutor), and others ; the controversy continued to for 
several years. A bookseller and his shopman were indicted for selling 
the book. In 1707 Tindal published ‘A Defence’ of his work, and a 
few months after, ‘A Second Defence, both of which he republished 
together, with additions, in 1709 : the same year he also reprinted his 
two Essays on Obedience and the Law of Nations, along with ‘A 
Discourse for the Liberty of the Press, and an Essay con 
Rights of Mankind in matters of Religion.’ About the same time he 
came forth with a fresh pamphlet, entitled ‘ New High Church turned 
Old Presbyterian,’ in exposure of the pretensions put forward - 
Sacheverell and his party ; upon which the House of Commons, 

the day before had condemned Sacheverell’s sermons to be burned, on 
the 25th of March 1710 impartially ordered Tindal’s ‘Rights of the 
Christian Church,’ and the second edition of his two ‘ Defences,’ to be 
committed to the flames at the same time. This proceeding drew 
from Tindal the same year three more pamphlets—the first entitled 
‘A High-Church Catechism ;’ the second, ‘The Jacobitism, Perjury, 
and Popery of the High-Church Priests;’ the third, ‘The Merciful 
Judgments of High Church triumphant, on Offending Clergymen and 


cerning the | 


4 


a i te i i ed ee ee 


| 


others, in the reign of CharlesI.’ The next year, on the Lower House ~ 


of Convocation having drawn up and printed ‘A Representation of the 
present state of Religion, with regard to the late excessive growth of 
Infidelity, Heresy, and Profaneness,’ Tindal forthwith replied in ‘ The 
Nation Vindicated from the Aspersions cast on it’ in the said repre- 
sentation. The second part of this performance is occupied with an 
explanation and defence of what has since been called the doctrine of 
philosophical necessity, in opposition to the assertion of the Conyo- 
cation, that such views went to overturn the foundations of all 
morality, and of all religion, natural as well as revealed. For some 
years from this date Tindal’s active pen was exclusively occupied with 
the politics of the day; but his performances do not appear to have 
been very effective at the time, and have been long forgotten. It is 
remarkable however that in so voluminous a work as Coxe’s ‘Memoirs 
of Sir Robert Walpole,’ no notice should be taken of a personal con- 
troversy in which Tindal became involved with that minister after his 
resignation in 1717, and which produced various pamphlets on both 
sides. Tindal considered himself to have been ill-used by Walpole, 
who, according to his account, had first courted his alliance, and then 
suddenly dropped him after he had so far committed himself in 
writing that it was imagined his hostility in print was not to be 
dreaded. Walpole, on the other hand, or his friends, accused Tindal 
of a treacherous desertion to the opposite faction as soon as he found 
that Walpole had been or was about to be deprived of power. It is 
probable that there was some misunderstanding on both sides. In 
any case this ministerial rupture was merely a personal quarrel, in 
which little or no public principle was involved; and it implies there- 
fore no political versatility or inconsisteney in Tindal that a few years 
after this, in 1721, 1722, and 1723, when Walpole was at the head of 
the ministry, he came forward as’a strenuous defender of bis govern- 
ment in a succession of pamphlets. He did not return to his angen 
field of theological polemics till 1728, when he published ‘ An Ad 

to the Inhabitants of the two great Cities of London and Westminster,’ 
in reply to a pastoral letter which the Bishop of London, Dr. Gibson, 
had addressed to the people of his diocese on the subject of Anthony 
Collins’s ‘Scheme of Literal Prophecy Considered,’ and other recent 
deistical writings. 


A ‘Second Pastoral Letter,’ soon after published _ 


by the bishop, called forth a ‘Second Address’ from Tindal; and both — 


addresses were reprinted the same year, in an 8vo volume, with altera-— 
tions and additions. 

From this date Tindal seems to have remained quiet till the year 
1730, when he produced, in a 4to volume, the work by which he is 
now chiefly remembered, his ‘ Christianity as Old as the Creation, or 
the Gospel a Republication of the Religion of Nature.’ The object 
of this work, as is indeed sufficiently declared in its title, is to contend 
that there is nothing more in Christianity, properly understood, than 
what the human reason is quite capable of discovering for itself, and 
by implication to deny that any special revelation has ever been made 
by the Deity to man. It did not however contain any express denial 
of the truth of Christianity ; of which indeed the author and his 
partisans rather professed to think that he had found out a new 
defence stronger than any that had been previously thought of. 
“Tindal,” says Warburton, some years after, “a kind of bastard 
Socrates, had brought our speculations from heaven to earth ; and, 
under pretence of advancing the antiquity of Christianity, laboured to 


' 


1 


81 TINDAL, REV. NICHOLAS. 


eee 


TINTORETTO, JACOPO, 


82 


undermine its original.” The book made a great noise, and various 
answers to it soon appeared, the most noted of which were—Dr. 
Waterland’s ‘Scripture Vindicated,’ 1730; ‘The Usefulness, Truth, 
and Excellency of the Christian Revelation defended,’ by Mr. (afterwards 
te) James Foster (the eminent Dissenting clergyman), 1731; ‘A 
Defence of Revealed Religion,’ by Dr. Conybeare (afterwards bishop of 
Bristol), 1732; and ‘An Answer to Christianity as Old as the Creation,’ 
by the Rev. John (afterwards Dr.) Leland (another learned and distin- 
hed Dissenting divine), 1733. The book is also discussed in the 

mentioned writer’s more celebrated work; his ‘View of the Prin- 
cipal Deistical Writers, published in 1754. Tindal defended himself 
in ‘Remarks on Scripture Vindicated, and some other late Writings,’ 
published along with anew edition of his ‘Second Address to the 

abitants of London and Westminster,’ in 1730. But this was his 


Test publication : his health now began to give way, and he expired on 
_ the 16th of August 1733, at a lodging in Cold-bath Fields, to which 


the had been prevailed upon to remove'a few days before from his 
chambers in Gray’s Inn. Tindal never held any preferment except 
his fellowship ; but it is stated, in the ‘ Biographia Britannica,’ that in 
the reign of King William he frequently sat as judge in the Court of 
Delegates, and had a pension of 200/. a year granted to him by the 
crown for his services in that capacity. It is added that he “ rarely, if 
ever, practised as an advocate in the courts of civil or ecclesiastical 
law,” which would seem to imply that he had been called to the bar, 
or been admitted an advocate of Doctors’ Commons, although that 
fact is not mentioned. A new edition of his ‘Essay on the Law of 
Nations’ was published the year after his death; but the publication 
of a second part of his ‘ Christianity as Old as the Creation,’ which he 
left ready for the press, is said to have been prevented by the inter- 
ference of Bishop Gibson. A will, in which he left nearly all he had 
to Eustace Budgell, in whose hands he was for some time before his 
decease, was contested by his nephew, the Rev. Nicholas Tindal, and 
was at last set aside. The will was printed in a pamphlet, with a 
detail of circumstances connected with it, in 1733. 

Of the amount of talent and learning shown in Tindal’s writings 
very different estimates have been formed by his admirers and his 
opponents. Waterland, in the Introduction to his ‘Scripture Vindi- 
cated,’ characterises his antagonist in the following terms :—* His 
attacks are feeble, his artillery contemptible ; he has no genius or taste 
for literature, no acquaintance with the original languages, nor so 
much as with common critics or commentators; several of his 
objections are pure English objections, such as affect only our trans- 
lation : the rest are of the lowest and most trifling sort.” Dr. Conyers 
Middleton, on the other hand, in a letter which he addressed to Water- 
land immediately after the latter had published bis book, says, “ For 
my own part, to observe our English proverb, and give the devil his 
due, I cannot discover any such want of literature as you object to him; 
but, on the contrary, see plainly that his work has been the result of 
much study and reading ; his materials collected from a great variety 
of the best writers; his pages decently crowded with citations; and 
his ind-x of authors as numerous as that of most books which have 
lately appeared.” Tindal’s English style is unaffected and perspicuous. 

TINDAL, REV. NICHOLAS, was the son of a brother of Dr. 
Matthew Tindal, and was born in 1687. Having studied at Exeter 
College, Oxford, and taken his degree of M.A. in 1713, he was after- 
wards elected a Fellow of Trinity College in that university. In 1722 
he was presented by his college to the vicarage of Great Waltham in 
Essex ; in 1738 Sir Charles Wager, then first lord of the admiralty, with 
whom he appears to have some years before sailed for a short time as 
chaplain, appointed him chaplain to Greenwich Hospital ; in 1740 he 
is said to have been presented to the rectory of Colbourne in the Isle 
of Wight, upon which he resigned Great Waltham; and very soon 
after he appears to have obtained his last preferment, the rectory of 
Alveistoke in Hampshire, from the bishop of Winchester (Hoadley). 
He died at Greenwich Hospital on the 27th of June 1774. 

Mr. Tindal’s first literary attempt was a work published in monthly 
numbers in 1724, under the title of ‘ Antiquities, Sacred and Profane, 
being a Dissertation on the excellency of the History of the Hebrews,’ 
&c., which is described as a translation from the French of Calmet. 
This was followed by two numbers of a History of Essex, which was 
then dropped. He then engaged in his most memorable undertaking, 
the translation, from the French, of Rapin’s ‘ History of England,’ 
which appeared in a succession of octavo volumes in 1726 and follow- 
ing years, and was reprinted in two volumes folio in 1732. This 
second edition was dedicated to Frederick, prince of Wales, who in 
return presented the translator with a gold medal of the value of 
forty guineas. In 1744 a Continuation of Rapin, by Tindal, began to 
be published in weekly folio numbers, which was completed in two 
volumes (commonly bound in three), in 1747, the history being 
brought down to the end of the reign of George I. A second folio 
edition of this Continuation appeared in 1751, and a third, in 21 vols. 
8vo, in 1757, with the addition of the reign of George II. down to 
that date. The translation and continuation of Rapin were very 
successful speculations; and the publishers, the Messrs. Knapton, of 
Ludgate Street, evinced their gratitude by making Tindal a present of 
2001, It is generally stated that he was assisted in both undertakings 
by Mr. Philip Morant, to whom solely is attributed the Abridgment or 
Summary of the History and Continuation given at the end of the 

BIOG, DIV. VOL. VL, 


latter, and also printed in 3 vols. 8vo, in 1747; but it does not appear 
upon what authority it is asserted by Coxe, in the Preface to his 
‘Memoirs of Sir Robert Walpole,’ that the Continuation, though 
published under the name of Tindal, “ was principally written by 
Dr. Birch.” There is no hint of this in the very full and elaborate 
Life of Birch, in the second edition of the ‘Biographia Britannica,’ 
which is stated to be compiled from his own papers and the communi- 
cations of surviving relations and friends. “His papers,” Coxe pro- 
ceeds, “in the Museum and in the Hardwicke Collection, which I 
have examined with scrupulous attention, and various other documents 
which were submitted to his inspection, and to which I have had 
access, prove great accuracy of research, judgment in selection, and 
fidelity in narration. He derived considerable assistance from persons 
of political eminence, particularly the late Lord Walpole, the late earl 
of Hardwicke, and the Honourable Charles Yorke. The account of 
the Partition Treaty was written by the late earl of Hardwicke. The 
account of Lord Somers’s argument in Barker’s case was written by his 
great-nephew the late Mr. C. Yorke. I can also trace numerous com- 
munications by Horace Walpole, though they cannot be so easily 
specified. Birch was a stanch Whig, but his political opinions have 
never led him to forget his duty as an historian. He has not garbled 
or falsified debates, or mis-stated facts ; he has not wantonly traduced 
characters, or acrimoniously reviled individuals because they espoused 
the cause which he disapproved; but in his whole work, whether he 
praises or blames, there is a manly integrity and candid temperance, 
which must recommend him to the discerning reader.” This is a 
sufficiently just character of the Continuation of Rapin: but, although 
in some parts the work has a claim to be considered as an original 
authority, it is in the greater part not only a compilation, but a mere 
transcription from preceding writers. The authors indeed fraukly 
state in their prefatory notice that they have not scrupled to copy 
or imitate any part of the several authors they have made use of, 
when conducive to the usefulness of the work, or where there was no 
occasion to alter or abridge. The numerous documents inserted at 
full length make tie Continuation a convenient repertory of authentic 
information; and the notes which accempany the translation of the 
preceding part of the work add greatly to the value of the original 
text. Tindal’s other publications were—the pamphlet relating to his 
uncle’s will, an abridgment of Spence’s ‘ Polymetis,’ under the title of 
‘A Guide to Classical Learning for Schools,’ and a translation, from 
the Latin, of Prince Cantemir’s History of the Growth and Decay of 
the Othman Empire, which appeared in a folio volume in 1734. 

TINTORETTO, JA/COPO, one of the most celebrated painters of 
modern times, and one of the heads of the Venetian school, was the 
son of a dyer (Tintore), whence the agnomen of Tintoretto: his family 
name was Robusti; and he was born at Venice in 1512. Heexhibited a 
remarkable facility for drawing at a very early age, which induced his 
parents to place him in the school of Titian. Ten days however after 
young Tintoretto had entered the school of the great painter, he was 
sent home again to his parents; Titian’s attention being attracted by 
some very spirited drawings he saw in his studio, he inquired who did 
them, and upon Tintoretto’s acknowledging himself the author,- 
Titian ordered one of his scholars to conduct the boy home. 

This remarkable rebuff in the career of the young painter seems to 
have added vigour to his energies, and he commenced a course of 
indefatigable application. He purchased some casts from the antique 
and some from the models of Daniel da Volterra, from the statues of 
Michel Angelo of Morning, Twilight, Night, and Day, at the tomb of 
the Medici, in San Lorenzo at Fiorence, resolving to follow the style 
of Michel Angelo in design, and to combine with it the colouring of 
Titian,—which intention he proclaimed to his visitors by the following 
line, which he wrote upon the wall of his apartment :— 


**Tl disegno di Michel Angelo, e ’1 colorito di Tiziano.” 


By day he copied pictures by Titian ; and by night he made draw- 
ings upon coloured paper, with chalk, from his casts, lighted merely 
by a candle; by which means he acquired a taste for strong con- 
trasts of light and shade, a peculiarity for which all his works are 
conspicuous, To these studies he added the occasional study of the 
living model and of anatomy ; and to attain a still greater mastery of 
chiar’oscuro, he used to make models of figures in wax, and place them 
in pasteboard cases, making apertures for the light as he required it: 
he also suspended models and casts from the ceiling, for the purpose 
of becoming familiar with various perspective views of the figure, In 
addition to these studies, he is said to have received much gratuitous 
assistance from Schiavone in colouring. ‘Tintoretto’s first picture 
which attracted notice was one containing portraits of himself and his 
brother, by candle-light, himself holding a cast in his hand, and his 
brother playing the guitar. He exhibited this picture in public, and 
shortly afterwards he exhibited a large historical piece upon the 
Rialto, which gave him a rank amongst the great painters of Venice. 
It would be impossible to enumerate all his works here; they 
amounted to many hundreds. One of his first great works in fresco 
was a facade in the Arsenal, which he painted in 1546, representing 
Balshazzar’s Feast and the Writing upon the Wall. Of his first oil 
pictures, the following were most remarkable :—The Tiburtine Sibyl, 
for the church of Santa Anna ; the Last Supper, and the Washing of 
the Disciples’ Feet, for the church of Santa Marcola; for San Severo, 

G 


83 TINTORETTO, JACOPO. 


TIPPOO SAIB. 84 


a Crucifixion, very large; and in the church of the Trinita, the 
Temptation of Eve and the Death of Abel, besides some others. 

Tintoretto was so eager for employment, and so desirous of public 
notice and applause, that he undertook every commission which 
offered itself, and rather than be inactive or unoccupied with any 
public work, he frequently volunteered his services, or at most 
required no futher outlay from his employers than would cover the cost 
of the materials, He painted upon such terms the fagade in fresco of 
a large house near the Ponte dell’ Angelo; on the lower part of the 
house he painted a very spirited representation of a cavalry battle, 
above which he placed an ornamental cornice in bronze} over this he 
painted a large historical composition containing many figures; 
between the windows he introduced various figures of women; and at 
the top arich frieze: the great extent and the boldness of these paint- 
ings astonished the Venetian painters of that period. Upon very 
similar terms he executed two of his greatest works, at Santa Maria 
dell’ Orto, where he painted, for 100 ducats, two immense pictures 
fifty feet high. In one was the Procession of the Jews with the 
Golden Calf, and Moses upon a rock in the background receiving the 
Tables of the Law, which were supported by a group of naked angels; 
the other was a representation of the Last Judgment, containing an 
immense number of figures; an extraordinary work, which, in the 
opinion of Vasari, would have been perhaps without its rival as a 
work of art, if the execution of the parts had been equal to the con- 
ception of the whole. 

The following works also are accounted amongst Tintoretto’s master- 
pieces :—Saint Agnes restoring to life the son of the Prefect, painted 
for the chapel of Cardinal Contarino ; the Miracle of St. Mark, called 
‘Tl Miracolo dello Schiavo,’ where the saint delivers a Venetian, who 
had become a Turkish slave, from a punishment ordered by his master, 
by rendering him invulnerable, so that hammers and other instruments 
of torture were broken upon his body without hurting him; this 
picture, which is generally considered the best of all Tintoretto’s 
works, was painted in his thirty-seventh year, for the brotherhood of 
St. Mark, and when it was finished and put up, the worthy friars 
disputed with one another about the price, a dispute which Tinto- 
retto settled by ordering the picture to be taken down and sent home, 
and telling the brotherhood that they should not have it at any price. 
He however, after some entreaty, restored it to its place and received 
his own price, and the friars further gratified him by ordering him to 
paint three other subjects from the life of the same saint,—the Ex- 
humation of the Body of the Saint at Alexandria, through the two 
Venetian merchants Buono da Malamocco and Rustico da Torcello; 
the Transport of the Body to the Ship; and the Miraculous Preserva- 
tion at Sea of a Saracen Sailor through the Saint: the miracle of the 
slave is in the Academy of Venice; it has been engraved by J. Nathan; 
the other three are in the Scuola di San Marco. Pietro di Cortona is 
reported to have said, that if he lived in Venice, he would never pass 

‘a holiday without going to see these works; he admired chiefly the 
drawing. The pictures he painted for the Scuola di San Rocco are 
equally celebrated : they consist of the famous Crucifixion, which was 
engraved by Agostino Caracci, to the greatest satisfaction of Tinto- 
retto; the Resurrection of Christ, engraved by E. Sadeler; the 
Slaughter of the Innocents and the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes, 
engraved by L, Kilian; and several others of less note. To these 
must be added three painted for the Padri Crociferi, an Assumption of 
the Virgin, and the Circumcision of the Infant Christ, painted in 
competition with Schiavone; and a Marriage at Cana, now in the 
church of Santa Maria della Salute. The Miracolo dello Schiavo, the 
Crucifixion at San Rocco, and the Marriage at Cana, are said to be the 
only pictures to which Tintoretto put his name. There is an engraving 
- a Marriage at Cana, by Volpato, and a spirited etching by E. 
ialetti. 

Tintoretto executed many great works for the government of Venice, 
both in oil and fresco; aud such was his activity, perseverance, and 
success, that he left little to be done by others. He was always 
occupied, and he worked with such unexampled rapidity that he used 
to be called Il Furioso, Sebastian del Piombo said that Tintoretto 
could do as much in two days as he could do in two years. He 
painted for the senate, in the council-hall, the Coronation of Frederick 
Barbarossa, by Pope Adrian IV., at Rome; and in consequence of 
Paul Veronese painting a picture in the same hall, Tintoretto procured 
permission to paint another, in which he represented Pope Alexander 
Mil. surrounded by cardinals and prelates, excommunicating the same 
emperor: the pope was represented throwing the extinguished candle 
amongst the populace, and a crowd of people was rushing forward to 
endeavour to catch it. He painted also for the senate, in the hall 
dello Scrutinio, the celebrated naval victory of the Venetians over the 
Turks in 1571. He painted many other works in the ducal’palace, 
historical and allegorical, commemorating the history of Venice, of 
which the most famous are the capture of Zara by storm; and the 
great picture of Paradise, upon canvas, 74 feet by 34, containing a 
surprising number of figures. This was his last great work; he com- 
menced it in several pieces in the Scuola Vecchia della Misericordia, 
and finished it, with the help of his son, in its place on the ceiling of 
the great council-hall of the Senate, now the library. 

Tintoretto painted at Venice eight friezes for the Duke of Mantua, 
recording the duke’s feats, to be placed in his castle, and he visited 


the duke at Mantua, with all his family, and was splendidly entertained 
by him. He painted also the portrait of Henri III. of Franceand | 
Poland, when that king visited Venice; of which picture Ridolfi 
relates a curious history. Tintoretto was engaged with Paul Veronese 
in painting some figures in chiar’oscuro upon the arch of trium 
erected by Palladio at Venice in honour of the landing of Henri III. 
king of France and Poland; but wishing to take a portrait of the 
king as he landed, he prevailed upon Paul Veronese to complete the 
arch; and he dressed himself as one of the doge’s attendants, and 
went in the Bucintoro, the state barge, with the others to receive the _ 
king, whose portrait he drew in small, in crayons, unknown to the ~ 
king, whilst he was proceeding in the barge to the landing-place, This 
portrait he afterwards enlarged in oils, and procured permission from 
the king: to retouch it from life. The king expressed himself very 
much pleased with the portrait, and accepted it from the ter, 
whom he wished to create a cavaliere; but Tintoretto declined the 
honour, upon the plea that to bear a title was inconsistent with his 
habits. Henri IIL. afterwards presented the portrait to the doge — 
Luigi Mocenigo, Tintoretto painted many portraits, all ina 

ably bold style; he painted several of the series of doges’ portraits 
along the frieze of the great council-hall. 

It has been said above that Tintoretto was a remarkably rapid 
painter: he was however as careless about the execution of the parts 
as he was bold. There are pictures by him painted in his youth that 
are extremely carefully finished, but these are very few: Susanna at 
the Bath with the two Elders, is of this class; several of his 
pictures are merely dead coloured, and many of them were painted 
off without the slightest previous preparation. His rapidly-executed 
and low-priced productions were a frequent source of complaint to 
his fellow-artists. Upon one occasion, when the brotherhood of San 
Rocco requested Paul Veronese, Salviati, Zuccaro, Schiavone, and Tinto- — 
retto to send them designs for a picture of the Apotheosis of San ; 
that they might select the best of them, Tintoretto sent his fini me 
picture as soon as the others sent in their designs, affirming that he 
had no other way of drawing; and to ensure its being fixed in its 
destined place, he made the institution a present of the work. — 
Although Tintoretto professed to draw in the style of Michel Angelo, — 
and to colour like Titian, there are few traces of either quality in the 
great majority of his works; they are however all conspicuous for — 
his own peculiar style of chiar’oscuro, which is frequently both heavy — 
and cold. In his larger compositions a principal characteristic is the 
number of figures, which are often crowded and confused, and the 
spectator looks in vain for a spot of repose to relieve the mind; this 
is however not the case with such pictures as the Miracolo dello — 
Schiavo and other earlier productions. Annibal Caracei has well — 
expressed the inequality of this great painter—that if he was some- 
times equal to Titian, he was often inferior to Tintoretto. The Vene- 
tians used to say that he had three pencils, one of gold, one of silver, 
and the other of iron. In his design Tintoretto was muscular, but — 
lean, and often incorrect; and in the cast of his draperies uently 
mean and confused ; his colouring was not gaudy, like that of many 
of the Venetians, but was often even cold, and shadow predominates 
in perhaps all his pictures. He was once asked which were the pret- 
tiest colours, and he answered “black and white.” It was also a 
maxim of his that none but experienced artists should draw from the 
living model, as they were alone capable of distinguishing between the 
beauties and the imperfections of an individual model. Tintoretto 
painted Aretin’s portrait, and Ridolfi relates the following anecdote — 
connected with it :—Aretin was a great friend of Titian’s and was in — 
the habit of abusing Tintoretto occasionally: the latter one day — 
meeting the poet, invited him to come and sit to him for his portrait, — 
to which Aretin assented ; but he had no sooner seated himself in 
the painter's studio, than Tintoretto pulled out with great violence a 
pistol from underneath his vest and came towards him: up jumped 
Aretin in a great fright, and cried out * Jacopo, what are you about ?” 
“Oh! don’t alarm yourself,” said Tintoretto, ‘I am only going to — 
measure you ;”’ and suiting the action to the word, he said, “you are — 
just two pistols and a half.” “What a mountebank you are!” — 
returned Aretin; ‘ you are always up to some frolic.”’ The poet was 
afterwards more cautious, and they became friends. Ridolfi records a ~ 
few other whimsical feats of Tintoretto’s. He died at Venice in 1594, — 
aged eighty-two. He had two children—a son, Domenico, and a — 
daughter, Marietta—who both practised painting. Domenico was born © 
in 1562, and died in 1637. He followed in the steps of his father — 
both in history and portrait; but, says Lanzi, as Ascanius did those © 
of Asneas, non passibus eequis. Marietta was born in 1560, and died — 
before her father, in 1590. She painted very excellent portraits, The — 
only picture by Tintoretto in the National Gallery is one of no great — 
merit, ‘St. George destroying the Dragon.’ 

(Ridolfi, Ze Maraviglie dell Arte, ovvero le Vite degli Illustri Pittort — 
Veneti, ¢ dello Stato ; Zanetti, Della Pittura Veneziana, e delle Opere — 
pubbliche dé Veneziani Maestri, &c.) q 

TIPPOO SAIB, sultan of Mysore, was born in the year 1749. His — 
father Hyder Aly Khan [Hypr- ALY], sensible of the disadvantages 
under which he himeelf laboured from want of education, procured 
for his son the best masters in all the sciences which are cultivated — 
by the Mohammedans. But Tippoo, although he had acquired a 
taste for reading, did not make any considerable progress, and he 


a a 


ALC 


as ‘'TIPPOO SATB. 


TIPPOO SAIL. 86 


preferred martial exercises, into which he was initiated at an early age. 
_ The French officers in the employment of his father instructed him 

in tactics; and in 1767, when Hyder Aly overran the Carnatic, Tippoo 

was entrusted with the command of a corps of cavalry. He was at 
that time nineteen years of age; but the success with which he carried 
on the war in the neighbourhood of Madras sufficiently proved how 
much he had profited by his European teachers. During the war 
with the Mahrattas, which lasted from 1775 to 1779, Tippoo acquired 
the universal esteem of the army; and he rose so high in the favour 
_ of his father and his counsellors, that the left division of the Mysore 
army, consisting of 18,000 cavalry and 6000 regular infantry, was put 
under his command. With this force Tippoo attacked Colonel Bailey 
_ in the neighbourhood of Perimbakum, on the 6th of September 1780. 
_ He was obliged to retire; but on the 10th of the same month an 
_ engagement, in which Tippoo Saib is said to have taken an active part, 
ended in the entire defeat of the English army. The whole of the 
war in the Carnatic gave him opportunities of perfecting himself in 
the art of war; and on the 18th of February 1782, he showed his 
_ skill in the attack and complete defeat of Colonel Braithwaite, on the 
banks of the Kolerun. This was undoubtedly his greatest stroke of 
generalship, yet the disproportion of force was very great. Tippoo 
had 400 Europeans, 10,000 native infantry, and 10,000 cavalry, besides 
20 guns; while the entire force under Colonel Braithwaite consisted 
of 100 European soldiers, 1,500 sepoys, and 300 native cavalry. A 
few months afterwards Tippoo was obliged to move towards the south, 
in order to meet the English troops in the provinces of Tanjore and 
Malwa, under the command of Colonel Humbertson. On the 20th of 
- November Tippoo found the English at Paniany. He made a vigorous 
; attack, but was repulsed and compelled to retreat. He crossed the 
iver Paniany, and prepared himselt for another engagement, when on 
the 11th of December 1782, he received intelligence of the death of 
his father. On the 20th he was at Seringapatam, where he mounted 
j the musnud without much display or ceremony. He had scarcely per- 
formed the funeral rites of his father when he returned to Arcot, and 
assumed the command of his army. But whilst he was engaged in 
__ the Carnatic General Matthews took Onore, and the country of Bed- 
nore was in the hands of the English. In order to regain these more 
_ valuable possessions, Tippoo was obliged to relinquish his conquest in 
_ the Carnatic, and by the end of March 1783, scarce a Mysorean was 
left in that country. His operations were so rapid and successful, 
that on the 28th of April Tippoo Saib had already reduced the garri- 
gon of Bednore to the necessity of capitulating. General Matthews 
and several of the principal officers were barbarously put to death. 
After the reduction of this city, it was Tippoo’s object to repossess 
himself of Mangalore, the principal seaport in his dominions. But 
the place was well-defended; and in the midst of his preparations for 
the assault accounts were received in the camp of peace having been 
concluded between England and France. It was early in July 1783 
when M, de Bussy, in consequence of this news, declined to act any 
longer against the English. He quitted the camp with his detach- 
ment. A considerable reinforcement having arrived under General 
Macleod, Tippoo agreed to a suspension of arms; and early in the 
year 1784 Sir George Staunton and two other ambassadors from 
Madras arrived in the camp, and on the 11th of March a treaty of 
peace, which stipulated for the liberation of all the prisoners and the 
restitution of all places taken by either party during the war, was 
concluded. About the end of the same year Tippoo concluded a 
treaty of peace with the court of Poonah. He then returned to Serin- 
patam, and assumed the title of Sultan, thereby throwing off all 
ependence on or allegiance to the captive Rajah (imprisoned by his 
father) or the Great Mogul. 

In 1786 he occupied himself with internal regulations; and from 
an inventory made at this period we find that the treasure, jewels, and 
other valuable articles were estimated at eighty millions sterling. He 
had also 700 elephants, 6000 camels, 11,000 horses, 400,000 bullocks 
and cows, 100,000 buffaloes, 600,000 sheep, 300,000 firelocks, 300,000 

' matchlocks, 200,000 swords, and 2000 pieces of cannon, and an 
immense quantity of gunpowder and other military stores. His 
regular army consisted of 19,000 cavalry, 10,000 artillery, and 

70,000 infantry. He had also 5000 rocket-men, and 40,000 irregular 

infantry. 

Daring the years 1787 and 1788 the attention of the sultan was 

_ principally engaged in the conversion and subjection of the Nairs, or 
chiefs of Malabar. He is said to have carried away from that province 
70,000 Christians, and to have made Mussulmans of 100,000 Hindus, 

This > effected by forcible circumcision, and compelling them to 
eat beef. . 

| It was about this time that he published an edict for the destruction 
of all the Hindoo temples in his dominions, excepting those of Seringa- 

; a and Mail Cottah. Fortunately his officers did not enforce this 

- barbarous regulation, 

Although Tippoo Saib did not show any overt hostility toward the 
English after he had signed the treaty of 1784, yet in 1787 he sent an 
embassy to France, to enter into an offensive and defensive alliance, 
and to stimulate the court of Versailles to a speedy renewal of hostili- 
ties with England. The ambassadors returned to Seringapatam in the 
month of May 1789, without having obtained their object. The dis- 
appointed sultan vented his rage by putting two of them to death as 


} 
j 


having betrayed his interests. Tippoo hated the British power in 
India, and he took every opportunity to annoy such of the native 
kings as were under its protection. The Rajah of Travancore had by 
the treaty of Mangalore stipulated for the security of his territories. 
In April 1790 Tippoo invaded the country and subjected the whole of 
the northern district, The reasons assigned by Tippoo for the infrac- 
tion of the terms of the treaty were, that two forts, Cranganagore and 
Jyacotta, which were on the northern boundaries of the raja’s pos- 
session, had belonged to his father. This aggression was considered 
by the English equivalent to a declaration of war, and Colonel Hartley 
was sent with a considerable detachment to the assistance of the raja. 
At this intelligence Tippoo withdrew his army from Travancore, and 
returned to Seringapatam, when, to his dismay, he heard that the 
Mahrattas and the Nizam had promised the English a zealous co-opera- 
tion with their forces. 

On the 15th of June 1790 the English troops, under the command 
of General Meadows, entered the sultan’s territory, and took possession 
of the fort of Carur without resistance. Daraporam and Coimbatore 
were shortly afterwards reduced. About the same time a detachment, 
under Colonel Stuart, captured Dindigul and Paligautchery. The 
movements and operations of the English forces were so well con- 
ducted that Tippoo found himself unsble to oppose them, and he 
resolved to follow the plan of warfare adopted by his father: instead 
of defending his own territories, to lay waste those of his enemy, 
This he did with considerable ability ; for in the beginning of 1791 
the English, instead of being masters of great part of Mysore, as they 
had expected, found themselves attacked and annoyed in the very 
neighbourhood of Madras, 

On the 29th of January 1791, Lord Cornwallis assumed the command 
of the army, and on the 11th of the same month he was at Vellore. 
On the 21st of March the fort of Bangalore was taken by storm. On 
this event Tippoo retired to some distance, and wrote to Lord Corn- 
wallis, requesting a truce. This was refused, and he proceeded to 
Scringapatam, leaving his army under the command of one of his gene- 
rals, to watch the motions of the English. On the 8rd of May Lord 
Cornwallis was at Arakery, within sight of the sultan’s capital; but 
his troops had suffered a great deal from want of food and forage, and 
he was compelled to retreat towards Bangalore. The Mahrattas came 
however to his assistance, and the warfare was carried on with great 
success, 

However, whilst the English were carrying on their successful 
operations in the north-west part of Mysore, the sultan made a diver- 
sion towards Coimbatore, situated to the south of Seringapatam ; and 
Lieutenant Chalmers with the whole of his party were made prisoners. 
The skill of Tippoo Sultan enabled him to protract the war till the 
month of February 1792, when the allies (the English, the Mahrattas, 
and the troops of the Nizam) encamped in sight of the capital. But 
it was not until General Abercromby had united his forces to those of 
Lord Cornwallis, and had determined to take the town by storm, that 
the haughty mind of the sultan was humbled. He agreed to give the 
allies one-half of his dominions, and to pay them in the course of 
twelve months the sum of three krores and thirty lacs of rupees 
(3,030,000/.), to restore all the prisoners, and to deliver up as hostages 
two of his sons. Abdul-khalik and Modiz Addeen were the names of 
the two princes, and the attention and kindness evinced by Lord 
Cornwallis towards them, were such as to afford the highest gratifica- 
tion to the sultan their father. By signing the definitive treaty of the 
16th of March 1792, the sultan lost one-half of his dominions. Soon 
after this the allies quitted the neighbourhood of Seringapatam, and 
Tippoo sought the means of replenishing his treasury. This was soon 
done by imposing exorbitant and extraordinary taxes, which were 
chiefly levied upon the agriculturists. 

Notwithstanding this seeming tranquillity from 1792 to 1796, the 
sultan was engaged in inciting all the native chiefs against the British 
power in India; but it was not until 1798 that the whole extent of 
his secret machinations and intrigues became known. At the com- 
mencement of this year ambassadors were sent from Seringapatam to 
the Mauritius. Their object was to renew the sultan’s relations with 
France, and to solicit the aid of 10,000 European and 30,000 negro 
troops. The proceedings of the embassy were first made known in 
the month of June to the Marquis Wellesley, the governor-general. 
About the same time intelligence was received in India of the opera- 
tions of the French in Egypt. Circumstances like these left no doubt 
as to the intentions of the sultan, and on the 3rd of February 1799, 
orders were issued for the British armies and those of the allies imme- 
diately to invade the dominions of Tippoo. Hostilities commenced on 
the 5th of March; and on the 5th of April General Harris took a 
strong position opposite the west side of Seringapatam. After be- 
sieging the place some time, a general attack was made on the 4th of 
May 1799. The sultan had scarcely finished his repast when he heard 
the noise of the assault. He instantly repaired towards a breach which 
the English had succeeded in making a few days before. His troops 
fled ; he endeavoured to rally them; and so long as any of his men 
remained firm, he continued to dispute the ground against an English 
column which had forced the breach and gained the ramparts. Finding 
all his efforts against the enemy fruitless, he mounted his horse, and, 
in endeavouring to effect his retreat, arrived at a bridge leading to the 
inner fort; but the place was already occupied by the English, and in 


87 TIRABOSCHI, GIROLAMO, 


TIRABOSCHI, GIROLAMO. 


his attempts to proceed he was met by a party of Europeans from 
withinside the gate, by whom he wasattacked. Owing to two wounds 
which he received in his breast he fell from his horse; his attendants 
placed him upon a palankeen in one of the recesses of the gateway, 
and entreated him to make himself known to the English. This he 
disdainfully refused to do. A short time afterwards some European 
soldiers entered the gateway, and one of them attempting to take off 
the sultan’s sword-belt, the wounded prince, who still held his sword, 
made a thrust at him and wounded him in the knee; upon which the 
soldier levelled his musket and shot him through the head. On the 
afternoon of the 5th of May he was buried in the mausoleum of Hyder 
Aly. Four companies of European troops escorted the funeral pro- 
cession, which was strikingly solemn. 

When Tippoo met his death he was in his fiftieth year. Although 
after his misfortunes in 1792 he oppressed the people more than they 
had ever been in the time of his father, he was nevertheless popular ; 
and the Mysoreans considered him as a martyr to the faith, and asa 
prince who fell gloriously in the cause of his religion. He used to 
pass a great portion of his day in reading, and his library, consisting 
of about 12,000 volumes, was well selected. About one-half of this 
collection is preserved at the East India House, London; the other 
half was left at Fort William for the nse of the college. The museum 
and library of the East India House contain many articles both of 
value and curiosity which once belonged to Tippoo Saib. 

(‘ Memoirs of Tippoo Sultan,’ in Stewart's Descriptive Catalogue of the 
Oriental Library of the late Tippoo Sultan of Mysore, Cambridge, 1809.) 

TIRABOSCHI, GIRO’LAMO, was born at Bergamo in 1731. He 
studied in the college of’ Mouza, and afterwards entered the order of 
the Jesuits. About 1766 he was made professor of rhetoric in the 
University of Milan, where he wrote his first work, the history of a 
monastic order long since suppressed, under peculiar circumstances : 
*Vetera Humiliatoruam Monumenta,’ Milan 1766. In 1770 he was 
appointed by the Duke of Modena librarian of his rich library, in the 
place of Father Granelli, deceased. He now applied himself to the 
undertaking of his great work, ‘Storia della Letteratura Italiana,’ 
published at Modena 1772-1783, which he completed in eleven years. 
The subject was ‘vast and intricate; the only author who had yet 
attempted to write a general history of Italian literature, Gimma of 
Naples, had only sketched a rough and very defective outline of it in 
his ‘Storia dell’ Italia Letterata.’ There were however local histories 
and biographies concerning particular towns and districts, and the rest 
of the materials had to be souglit among the archives and libraries of 
Italy. ‘liraboschi undertook to write the history of the literature of 
ancient and modern Italy in the most extended sense of the word, 
including most of, if not all, the individuals deserving of mention in 
every department of learning, who have flourished in Italy, from the 
oldest times on record, beginning from the Etruscans and the Greek 
colonies of Magna Grecia and Sicily, and then proceeding with the 
history of Roman literature through its rise, progress, and decay, 
down to the invasion of the northern tribes, with which the second 
volume concludes. The author distributes the great divisions of learning 
in separate chapters; poetry, grammar, oratory, history, philosophy, 
medicine, jurisprudence, and the arts; he gives an account of the 
principal libraries, and of the great patrons of learning, and although 
he does not profess to write biography, properly speaking, yet he gives 
biographical notices of the more illustrious writers and of their pro- 
ductions, The third volume comprises the literary history of Italy 
during the dark ages, as they are commonly called, from the 5th to the 
12th century. The author makes his way through the scanty and 
obscure records of those times, and brings to light much curious 
information concerning the intellectual state of Italy under the Goths, 
the Longobards, and the Franks, The ecclesiastical writers come in 
for a great share of this part of the work. The fourth volume includes 
the period from 1183 to the year 1300. The revival of studies, the 
formation of the Italian language, the foundation of universities, 
notices of the civilians and canonists who flourished in that age, an 
account of the Italian troubadours, of the earliest Italian poets, and 
of the Italian Latinists, and a view of the splendid architectural 
works of Arnolfo di Lapo, of Niccold and Giovanni of Pisa, and other 
artists, impart a cheering aspect to this period. The fifth volume 
embraces the 14th century, the age of Dante, Petrarca, and Boccaccio. 
The author is particularly diffuse in speaking of Petrarca. The 
sixth volume concerns the 15th century, an age of classical studies, 
the age of Cosmo and Lorenzo de’ Medici, of Poggio, Filelfo, Niccoli, 
Palla Strozzi, Coluccio, Salutati, Paolo Manetti, Cardinal Bessarion, 
and other collectors of manuscripts, founders of libraries, and encou- 
ragers of learning, and the age also of distinguished jurists and eccle- 
siastical writers. This volume is very large, and is divided into three 
parts, whilst the preceding volumes are divided each into two parts, 
each part being subdivided into books and chapters. We cannot help 
thinking that this mode of division is too formal and cumbersome, 
and that it might have been simplified and made clearer. 

The seventh volume of Tiraboschi’s history treats of the 16th 
century, the age of Leo X., the Augustan age, as it is sometimes called, 
of Italian literature. This volume, which is still more bulky than 
the one preceding, is divided into four parts. After giving a sketch of 
the general condition of Italy during that period, of the encourage- 
ment to learning afforded by the various princes, of the universities, 


academies, libraries, and museums, the author treats first of the 
theological polemics which arose with the Reformation, then of the 
philosophical and mathematical studies, of natural history and medi- 
cine, of civil and ecclesiastical jurisprudence, of historical writing, and 
of the Italian Hellenists and Orientalists. He passes next in review 
the Italian poets, among whom Ariosto and Tasso hold a conspicuous 
place, and afterwards the Latin poets, the grammarians, rhetoricians, 
and pulpit orators, and lastly the artists, among whom Michel Angelo, 
Raffaelle, Tiziano, and Correggio stand prominent. It is impossible to 
peruse this long list of illustrious names without being struck with the 
seemingly inexhaustible fertility of the Italian mind in almost every 
branch of knowledge. we 
The eighth volume embraces the 17th century, which in Italy is 
scornfully styled the age of the “seicentisti,’ or the age of bad taste, a 
reproach however which applies mainly to the poets, and not even to 
the whole of them. The department of history is filled with good 
names, as well as that of the mathematical sciences, in which Galileo” 


holds the first rank. With the 17th century ‘Tiraboschi concludes his — 


88° 


work, Various reasons prevented his entering the field of contem- — 


porary history. This however has been done of late years by Lombardi, 


in his continuation of Tiraboschi’s work: ‘Storia della Letteratura — 


Italiana nel Secolo xviii.’ 
Tiraboschi’s work was highly esteemed, and went through numerous: 
editions in various parts of Italy. The author himself superintended 


the second edition of ‘ Modena,’ 1787-94, in which he made corrections — 


and additions, chiefly in the shape of notes to the text. Antonio 
Landi made an abridgment of the work in French, which was pub- 
lished at Paris, and at Bern, in 1784; and J. Retzer made a similar 
abridgment of it in the German language. 
boschi appeared, no other country in Europe had a general history of — 
its own literature. 


When the workiotstuaaae 


The learned Benedictines of St. Maur had beguna 


work of this kind concerning the literature of France, which however | 


they left imp-rfect. The work of Tiraboschi does not give all the 
information that one might wish, but contains probably as much 


( 
4 


information as could be collected and compressed together by any one — 
man upon the subject. It has been said to be deficient in criticism, and in — 


the analysis of conspicuous works, of which he has not given extracts; 


but this, as he says in his preface, did not form part of his plan, which _ 


was already extensive enough, or the work would have had no end. 


His accuracy and conscientiousness are undisputed. The tone of his © 


remarks, especially on religious matters, is perhaps as temperate as 
could be expected from a man of his profession, times, and country, . 


who was a sincere believer in the tenets of his church, though nota — 


bigot. Fora proof of this we might refer the reader to Tiraboschi’s 


letter to Father Mamachi, a Dominican, who edited at Rome an 


edition of Tiraboschi’s great work with corrections and notes to those 
passages which were not consonant with his own high notions of Papal 


prerogative and Roman supremacy, both spiritual and temporal. Tira- — 


boschi’s letter was published at Modena in 1785, and was afterwards — 


inserted at the end of the last volume of the second Modena edition of — 


the ‘ History of Italian Literature.’ A tone of refined cutting irony, 
half veiled, under a most courteous style of language, pervades the 
whole of the letter. The French writer Ginguené has followed closely 
Tiraboschi’s footsteps in his ‘ Histoire Littéraire d’Italie,’ which how- 


ever contains only the modern part, or the history of the literature of 


the Italian language. [GINGUENE.] 


The Duke of Modena, Ercole III. of Este, in consideration of Tira-~ 
boschi’s useful labours, made him a knight, and appointed him member ~ 


of his council in 1780. By the suppression of the order of Jesuits, 
Tiraboschi had become a secular priest. In 1781 he began to publish 

another work of bibliography and biography : ‘ Biblioteca Modenese, o 

Notizia della Vita e delle Opere degli Scrittori natii degli Stati del 

Serenissimo Duca di Modena,’ 6 vols. 4to, Modena, 1781-86; to which 

he afterwards added a seventh volume, containing notices of the artists 

who were born in the dominions of the house of Este. Having thus — 
illustrated the literary history of Modena, and of the other territories — 
of the house of Este, he afterwards wrote the political history of the — 
same country, in his ‘Memorie Storiche Modenesi, col codice diplo- — 
matico, illustrato con note,’ 3 vols. 4to, Modena, 1793. He also — 
published the history of the ancient monastery and abbey of Nonan- 

tola in the duchy of Modena, founded about the middle of the 8th — 
century by Auselmus, Duke of Friuli, and afterwards greatly enriched — 
by Charlemagne and other princes, and which became a powerful com- 

munity during the Middle Ages; ‘Storia dell’ augusta Badia di 8. — 
Silvestro di Nonantola, aggiuntovi il codice diplomatico della mede- 

sima, illustrato con note,’ 2 vols. folio, Modena, 1784. The other — 
works of Tiraboschi are: 1, ‘ Vita del Conte D. Fulvio Testi.’ Testi — 
was a lyric poet of the 17th century, and enjoyed for a time a high © 
office at the court of Modena, but ended his days in prison for state — 
reasons; 2, ‘ Lettere intorno ai viaggi del Sigr. Bruce,’ inserted in the — 
‘Notizie Letterarie’ of Cesena, 1792; 3, ‘Memoria delle cognizioni — 
che si avevano delle sorgenti del Nilo prima del Viaggio del Sigr. 
Jacopo Bruce,’ inserted in the 1st vol. of the ‘Memorie dell’ Acca- — 
demia delle Scienze di Mantova;’ 4, Two memoirs on Galileo, his — 
discoveries, and his condemnation by the Inquisition, inserted in the | 
last vol. of the second Modena edition of the ‘ History of Italian 
Literature ;’ 5, ‘ Notizie della Confraternits di S Pietro Martire;’ 

6, ‘ Vita di Sant’ Olimpia, Vedova e Diaconessa della Chiesa di Costan-— 


t 

- 

ee! 
I 


php SPB oy" “8 


- 


ood 12 


i Na ale a ae 


=e 


oy 


89 TIRIDATES. 


TISCHBEIN, JOHN HENRY. 90 


tinopoli;’ 7, ‘Elogio Storico di Rambaldo de Conti Azzoni Avo- 
garo;’ besides other minor writings, especially in answer to the 
critics of his ‘ History of Italian Literature’ He left unpublished: 1, 
‘Dizionario Topografico degli Stati Estensi,’ published since at Modena, 
1824-5; 2, ‘Catalogo ragionato dei Libri del gii Collegio dei Gesuiti 
di Brera;’ 8, ‘ Lettera sulla Venuta di Gustavo Adolfo in Italia;’ 
4, ‘Vita di Giannandrea Barotti Ferrarese;’ 5, ‘ Notizie sulla Zecca di 
Brescello, sopra aleuni Luoghi del Modenese, ed Albero della casa 
Montecuccoli;’ besides several dissertations and orations. His volu- 
minous correspondence is preserved in the Modena Library. ; 

Tiraboschi died at Modena, in June 1794, of a disease brought on by 
sedentary life and constant application. He was buried in the church 
of SS. Faustino e Giovita, outside of the city, and a Latin inscription 
was placed on his tomb, written by Father Pozzetti, who succeeded 
him as librarian, commemorative of his labours and his virtues, among 
which modesty and charity were most conspicuous. 

(Elogio di Girolamo Tiraboschi, by Pozzetti, prefixed to the later 
editions of the ‘Histoire of Italian Literature ;’ Ugoni, Storia della 
Letieratura Italiana nella seconda meta del Secolo XVIII. ; Lombardi, 
Storia della Letteratwra Italiana nel Secolo X VIII.) 

TIRIDA’TES, prince of Media, and afterwards king of Armenia, 
was the brother of Vologeses, king of the Parthians, that is, of Media, 
He first appears in history in a.p. 58, in the first war of Corbulo 
against Vologeses (Tacitus, ‘ Hist.,’ xii, 50), who was compelled to 
desist from his schemes upon Armenia in 54. In 58 however the 
Parthians.again overran Armenia, having been invited by the inhabit- 
ants of that country, and Vologeses ceded his conquest to his brother 
Tiridates, who thus became king of Armenia. As the Romans would 
‘not allow this country to become a possession of the Parthians, Cor- 
bulo directed his forces against the royal brothers, knowing that 
Vologeses was prevented from employing his army against him in 
consequence of an insurrection of the province of Hyrcania. Corbulo 
therefore soon persuaded Tiridates to submit to the emperor Nero, 

and to prefer a moderate dependence to an uncertain and dangerous 
independence, When they were about to meet, in order to settle the 
conditions of the peace, Tiridates suddenly became afraid of some 
treacherous design on the part of the Romans, and he therefore 
broke off the negociations and renewed the war. Corbulo however 
defeated him at Artaxata on the Araxes, took and destroyed this old 
capital of Armenia, and forced the new capital, Tigranocerta, to sur- 
render after a short siege. (Tacitus, ‘ Hist., xiv. 24; Frontinus, 
* Stratag.,’ ii 9, exempl. 5.) 

Tiridates fled to his brother, who had taken the field against the 
Hyrcanians, and who entrusted him with the command of a new army, 
with which 'liridates hoped to expel the Romans from Armenia. He 
attacked them on the side of Mesopotamia, but the strong position 
which the Romans kept at Tigranocerta, and the care which they 
showed in watching the passages of the Euphrates, prevented him 
from either penetrating into the valley of the Upper Tigris, or from 
invading Syria, a mancuvre by which Corbulo would have been 
obliged to hasten to the relief of this province, and to leave Armenia 
to the incursions of Vologeses. Tiridates therefore listened once 
more to the pacific proposals of the Romans, who were anxious to 
avoid any war with the Parthians if they could do so on conditions 
which would secure their influence over Armenia. Their intention 
was not to make a Roman province of Armenia, Ambassadors from 
Tiridates arrived in the camp of Corbulo, and they declared, in the 
name of Tiridates and his brother Vologeses, that Tiridates was ready 
to submit to Nero, as a vassal-king, and that Vologeses would keep in 
future a better understanding with the Romans than before. In order 
to settle the peace, a day was fixed on which Tiridates was to appear 
in the camp of Corbulo, who sent Tiberius Alexander [T1BERIUS 
ALEXANDER] and his son-in-law Vivianus Annius as hostages into the 
camp of Tiridates (a.p. 63). When Tiridates entered the tent of 
Corbulo, he took off his royal diadem, and placed it at the foot of a 
portrait of the emperor Nero, taking an oath that he would not exer- 
cise any right of sovereignty in Armenia till he had again received the 
same diadem from the hands of the emperor in Rome. (Tacitus, 
‘ Hist.,’ xv. 28, 29.) Tiridates arrived in Rome in 66, and when he 
approached the city a great number of people came out from the 
gates to behold the entrance of an oriental king descended from the 
mighty sovereigns of the Parthians. In Zumpt, ‘ Annales veterum 
Regnorum et Populorum, imprimis Romanorum,’ the Armenian king 
who entered Rome in 66 is called Tigranes, but this is a typographical 
error. (Tacitus, ‘ Hist.,’ xvi. 23.) The latter circumstances of the 
life of Tiridates are unknown. 

TISCHBEIN, JOHN HENRY, called the Elder, one of the most 
celebrated painters of the 18th century, was the fifth son of a baker 

. of Hayna, near Gotha, where he was born in 1722. He was first 
apprenticed to an uncle on the mother’s side, who was a locksmith ; 
but he displayed so much talent in drawing, that an elder brother, 
John Valentine, took him away from his uncle and placed him, in his 
fourteenth year, with a paper-stainer and decorator in Cassel of the 
name of Zimmermann, He received also some instruction fron Van 
Freese, the court painter at Cassel, and soon gave proof of his ability. 
Tischbein met with an early and a valuable patron in Count Stadion, 
through whose assistance he was enabled, in 1743, to visit Paris, 
where he remained five years with Charles Vanloo, and acquired his 


style of painting. From Paris he went to Venice, and there studied 
eight months with Piazzetta. From Venice he went to Rome, where 
he remained two years. He again visited Piazzetta in Venice, and 
after a short time, in 1751, he returned to Cassel, where, in 1752, he 
was appointed cabinet painter to the landgrave, 

Tischbein excelled in historical and mythological subjects, in which 
lines are his best pictures, painted from about 1762 until 1785. He 
died in 1789, as director of the Academy of Cassel, and a member of 
the Academy of Bologna, A biographical notice of Tischbein, with 
criticisms upon his works, was published in Niirnberg in 1797, eight 
years after his death, by J. F. Engelschall, entitled ‘J. H. Tischbein, 
als Mensch und Kiinstler dargestellt.’ In that work there is a list of 
144 historical pieces by Tischbein, of which the following have been 
considered the best :—the Resurrection of Christ, very large figures, 
painted in 1763, for the altar of St. Michael’s church at Hamburg; 
the Transfiguration, in the Lutheran church at Cassel, 1765; Her- 
mann’s Trophies after his Victory over Varus in the year 9, in the 
palace of Pyrmont, 1768 ; ten pictures of the life of Cleopatra, painted 
in the palace of Weissenstein, 1769-70; sixteen from the Life of 
Telemachus, in the palace of Wilhelmsthal; an Ecce Homo, in the 
Roman Catholic chapel at Cassel, 1778; a Deposition from the Cross, 
and an Ascension, altar-pieces in the principal church of Stralsund, 
1787; Christ on the Mount of Olives, an altar-piece presented by 
him to the church of his native place, Hayna, 1788; the Death of 
Alcestis, 1780; and the Restoration of Alcestis to her Husband by 
Hercules, 1777. 

Tischbein painted many pictures from the ancient poets, and some 
from Tasso, several of which are now in the Picture-Gallery at Cassel. 
He painted also a collection of female portraits, selected chiefly for 
their beauty, which is now at the palace of Wilhelmsthal near Cassel. 
He also frequently copied his own pictures. Nearly all his works 
remain in his own country, on which account he is little known out of 
it. It is remarkable that of all the great galleries of Germany, Miinich 
is the only one that possesses a specimen of his works, and that is only 
a portrait. 

Tischbein painted very slowly, but he was very industrious : he was 
generally at his easel by five in the morning in the summer time, and 
he painted until four in the afternoon. He painted in the French 
style; his colouring was a mixture of the French and the Venetian, 
and in large compositions very gaudy, but his drawing and chiar’- 
oscuro were very good; in costume however he was incorrect, and, 
according to the critics, he generally contrived in his ancient pieces to 
make his actors look much more like Frenchmen and Germans than 
Greeks or Romans. In his religious pieces he was more successful : 
he was no follower of Lessing’s theory of beauty; he considered 
beauty of little consequence. He etched several plates after his own 
pictures :— Venus and Cupid, Women Bathing, Hercules and 
Omphale, Menelaus and Paris, Thetis and Achilles, and his great 
picture of the Resurrection of Christ, at Hamburg. 

Tischbein’s elder daughter Amalia was a clever painter: she was 
elected, in 1780, a member of the Academy of Cassel; she used to 
sit to her father for many of the females in his historical works. After 
Tischbein’s death, the Landgrave of Cassel purchased all the works 
that were in his house, and placed them together in the palace o 
Wilhelmshohe. ' 

(Meusel, Miscellaneen Artistischen Inhalts ; Fiissli, Allgemeines Kiinst- 
ler Lexicon ; ce. 

TISCHBEIN, JOHN HENRY WILLIAM, called the Younger, the 
youngest son of John Conrad Tischbein, and nephew of the preceding, 
with whom he is sometimes confounded, was born at Hayna in 1751. 
He was instructed by his uncle John Henry at Cassel in historical 
painting, and he afterwards studied landscape painting three years 
with his uncle John Jacob at Hamburg; in 1770 he went to Holland, 
where he remained two years, and in 1772 returned to Cassel and 
painted portraits and landscapes; he visited also Hanover and Berlin, 
and painted many portraits in both places. In 1779 he left Cassel, by 
the desire of the Landgrave, for Italy, but he spent about two years 
in Ziirich, where he painted many portraits and made the design of 
his celebrated picture of ‘Conradin of Suabia, playing, after his 
sentence to death, a game at draughts with Frederick of Austria.’ In 
1781 Tischbein arrived in Rome, and his first studies were some 
copies in oil after Raffaelle and Guercino, and some drawings after 
Raffaelle, Domenicbino, and Lionardo da Vinci. His first original 
picture was ‘ Hercules choosing between Vice and Virtue, after which 
he painted his picture of Conradin of Suabia, now in the palace of 
Pyrmont. In 1787 he went to Naples, and the next year painted the 
portrait of the crown-prince for the queen, who presented Tischbein 
with a valuable snuff-box and 2060 ducats, expressing her complete 
satisfaction with the picture. In Naples he appears to have acquired 
laurels rapidly, for in 1790 he was appointed director of the Academy 
with a salary of 600 ducats per annum, which however he lost again 
in 1799, at the breaking out of the revolution at Naples, but he 
found no difficulty in obtaining permission from the French authori- 
ties to return to Germany with what property he chose to take with 
him. He accordingly embarked, with the painter Hackert and another, 
for Leghorn, taking with him the plates of his illustrations to Homer, 
his designs for Sir W. Hamilton’s second collection of vases, and some 
other works of art: but the ship was driven by a storm upon the 


91 TISSOT, SIMON ANDREW. 


TITI, SANTI DI. 92 


coast of Corsica, and was captured by a French ship of war; it was 
however set at liberty again, and after a troublesome journey of four 
months Tischbein at last reached Cassel in safety. During his resi- 
dence in Naples he published there in 1796, a remarkable work upon 
animals, in two parts, folio, entitled ‘Tétes des différents Animaux, 
dessinés d’aprds Nature, pour donner une idée plus exacte de leurs 
caractéres,’ The first part contains sixteen designs of animals, and 
the first plate of this part is the celebrated design called in Italy Tisch- 
bein’s Laocoon ; it represents a large snake attacking and destroying 4 
lioness and her young in their den: the second part contains eight 
plates only, consisting of characteristic heads of men and gods, as— 
Correggio, Salvator Rosa, Michel Angelo, Raffaelle, Scipio Africanus, 
Caracalla, Jupiter, and Apollo. Tischbein after his return to Germany 
lived principally at Hamburg and at Hutin in Oldenburg near Liibeck ; 
the majority of his works are in the possession of the grand-duke of 
Oldenburg: the following paintings are three of his most celebrated 
works :—Ajax and Cassandra, painted in 1805; ‘ Suffer the Little 
Children to come unto me,’ painted in 1806, for the altar of the 
church of St, Angari at Bremen; and Hector taking leave of Andro- 
mache, painted in 1810. He painted also the portraits of Klopstock, 
of Heyne, and of Bliicher. 

In Géttingen in 1801-4 he published in royal folio his favourite 
work on Homer, with explanations by Heyne—‘ Homer, nach Antiken 
gezeichnet von Heinrich Tischbein, Direcktor, &c., mit erliuterungen 
von Chr. Gott]. Heyne,’ i-vi., each number containing six plates: the 

rtraits of the Homeric heroes were engraved by R. Morghen. Tisch- 
bein’s drawings for Sir W. Hamilton’s second collection of vases, 
published at Naples from: 1791, in 4 vols. folio, amount to 214: the 
work is entitled ‘A Collection of Engravings from Ancient Vases, 
mostly of pure Greek workmanship, discovered in Sepulchres in the 
Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, but principally in the environs of 
Naples, during the years 1789 and 1790; now in the possession of 
Sir W. Hamilton, published by William Tischbein, director of the 
Royal Academy of Painting at Naples.’ The text, which is in French 
and English, is by Italinsky. Tischbein published other works, and 
etched also several plates, after Paul Potter, Roos, Rosa di Tivoli, 
Rembrandt, &c. As a painter his drawing was correct, and his 
expression and colouring good, and he excelled in drawing animals. 
He died in 1829. There were many other artists of this family, of 
various degrees of merit, but they are unknown beyond their own 
circles, 

TISSOT, SIMON ANDREW, an eminent Swiss physician, was born 
at Lausanne, in the canton de Vaud, in 1728. He studied first at 
Geneva, and then at Montpellier, from 1746 to 1749, where he took 
his degree of Doctor of Medicine. He then returned to Switzerland 
and settled at Lausanne, where he joined to an extensive practice a 
considerable degree of theoretical knowledge, His reputation spread 
rapidly through Europe in consequence of his medical publications, 
and caused him to be consulted from all parts. He was also offered 
at various times several important situations at different foreign 
courts and universities, all of which he declined, and remained satis- 
fied with the respect and comfort which he enjoyed at home, and 
with the office of professor of medicine at the college of Lausanne. 
However in 1780, he could not resist the warm solicitations of the 
Emperor Joseph II., who conferred on him the professorship of clinical 
medicine at the university of Pavia. Being thrown thus late in life 
into so difficult a post, and being naturally of a modest and shy dis- 
position, he did not at first answer the expectations formed of him. 
However there soon after broke out in the province an epidemic bilious 
fever, as to the treatment of which the physicians of the place were 
not agreed. On this occasion the Count de Firmian, the celebrated 
_ Ininister under the archduke, gave orders that Tissot’s directions 

should be followed, as he had treated a similar disorder with great 
success in the canton of Le Valais in 1755. His system was again 
successful, and the students not only celebrated his triumph with fétes, 
but, wishing to render the memory of it more durable, they caused a 
marble inscription, beginning with the words ‘Immortali Preceptori,’ 
to be placed under the portico of the school. After holding his pro- 
fessorship for three years, Tissot obtained permission to retire from 
office, During his stay in Italy he had made use of the vacations to 
travel through the finest parts of that country, and was everywhere 
received with the most marked and flattering attention. Pope 
Pius VI. signified his desire of seeing so estimable and eminent a 
man; he accordingly received him with much kindness, excused him 
(as being a Protestant) from the ceremonial customary at presenta- 
tions at the Papal court, and made him a present of a set of the gold 
medals struck during his pontificate. 

Having always lived economically and without any display, Tissot 
had saved while in Italy a sum of money sufficient for the purchase 
of a country-seat, which he intended to be the retreat of his old age. 
He had only engaged himself in the Austrian service for a very limited 
period ; he had now finished the medical education of a favourite 
nephew; and, lastly, as he himself with characteristic playfulness 
expressed it, having received the title of ‘Immortal,’ he thought it 
prudent not to run any risk of descending from such a height, and 
of outliving (as he might easily do) his apotheosis. He was succeeded 
in his professorship at Pavia by the celebrated J. P. Frank, and died 
unmarried, on the 15th of June 1797, in his native land, at the age 


of sixty-nine. A complete list of his works is given in the ‘ Biographie 
Médicale,’ from which work the above account is taken: of these the 
following are the most interesting: ‘Tentamen de Morbis ex Manu- 
stupratione Ortis,’ 8vo, Louvain, 1760; which was translated into 
French, and has been frequently republished. ‘ Dissertatio de Febri- 
bus Biliosis, seu Historia Epidemiw Lausanensis anni 1755, 8vo, Lau- 
sanne, 1758. ‘Avis au Peuple sur sa Santé,’ 12mo, Lausanne, 1761 
which was translated into no less than seven different languages, and 
in less than six years reached the tenth edition. It has since been 
frequently reprinted, and contributed more than any of his other 
works to make the author’s name known throughout Europe. It 
served also as the model and foundation for many similar popular 
works in more recent times, ‘De Valetudine Litteratorum, 8yo, 
Lausanne, 1766, which was translated into French, and 
reprinted, and of which the latest and best edition is that by F. G. 
Boisseau, 18mo, Paris, 1826, with notes by the editor, and a memoir 
of the author. ‘Essai sur les Maladies des Gens du Monde,’ which 
has also gone through several editions. There is a complete edition 
of his works by J. N. Hallé, in 11 vols. 8vo, Paris, 1811, with notes 
by the editor and a memoir of the author. Besides these original 
works Tissot edited at Yverdun, 1779, in three volumes 4to, the 
treatise of Morgagni, ‘De Sedibus et Causis Morborum per Anatomen 
Indagatis,’ to which he prefixed a history of the Life and Works of 
the author. 

*TITE, WILLIAM, M_LP., F.R.S., &c., architect, was born in London 
near the close of the last century, Although possessing a very exten- 
sive city connection, and carrying on a large business, Mr, Tite had not 
had opportunities of making his name very generally known fp Ae 
important public work prior to the erection of the new Royal 
Exchange. His chief work perhaps was the Scotch Church, Regent- 
square, London, erected in 1828. In the first open competition of 
designs for the Royal Exchange, Mr. Tite was not among the successful 
competitors; but it having been decided that neither of the three 
designs to which prizes were awarded was suitable for the pi 
contemplated, the committee resolved to abandon the principle of 
open competition, and to name five architects who should be requested 
to send in designs, Three of these—Sir R. Smirke, Mr. (now Sir 
Charles) Barry, and Mr. Gwilt—declined to compete, lew the 
field to the other two, Mr. Tite and Mr. Cockerell ; and ultimately the 
committee decided in favour of Mr. Tite, The building was com- 
pleted in the short space of three years from its commencement near 
the close of 1841, at a cost within the estimate of 150,000/., and opened 
in state by her Majesty, October 28, 1844. On so well known a 
structure it is unnecessary to offer any remarks: it may suffice to say 
that its chief architectural feature, the portico of eight Corinthian 
columns at the western end, is undoubtedly one of the very finest 
porticoes in the metropolis. The work placed the architect in the 
foremost rank of his profession, but it remains his only grand work, 

His subsequent works have been artistically of a comparatively 
unimportant character, The chief are the London and Westminster 
bank, Lothbury, executed by him in conjunction with Mr. Cockerell ; 
the Vauxhall (original) terminus of the London and South-Western 
railway, the terminus at Southampton, and the stations along the line 
of the same railway; the Blackwall terminus of the London and 
Blackwall railway; and termini and stations on the Caledonian, 
Scottish Central, and various other railways; the London station 
of the Woking Cemetery Company, and other buildings for com- 
mercial purposes. Mr, Tite has been himself a good deal connected 
with commercial undertakings, and lately with political matters, 
He is chairman of the North-Devon railway; a director (ha 
first been for ten years deputy-chairman and managing director’ 
of the Globe Assurance Company, &e. He was also for awhile vice- 


president of the Administrative Reform Association, under whose © 


auspices he unsuccessfully contested the borough of Barnstaple, and 
in August 1854 was returned as member for Bath, for which place he 
was re-elected in April 1857. He is a vice-president of the Institute of 
British Architects; he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1835, 
and he is a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries and of the Geological 


Society. Mr, Tite is the author of a‘ Report of a Visit to the Estates 


of the Hon. Irish Society in Londonderry and Coleraine in the year 
1884;’ and of the Introduction to a ‘Catalogue of Roman Anti- 
quities found in the site of the Royal Exchange. 

TITI, SANTI DI, an Italian painter and architect, was born of a 
noble family at Borgo San Sepolero in Tuscany in 1538. He was a 
scholar of Bronzino, and, according to Lanzi, also studied under 
Cellini. While at Rome he was employed upon some subjects in the 
chapel of the Palazzo Salviati, and painted a St. Jerome in San Gio- 
yauni de’ Fiorentini, besides executing several works in the Belvedere 


of the Vatican. He returned to Florence in 1566, with a reputation — 


for great ability in design; nor was his reputation at all diminished 
by the works he there produced, for among them are some of his best, 
including his Resurrection and Supper at Emmaus, in Santa Croce; 
of which, and of his other performances, a full account is given by 
Borghini, in his ‘Reposo.’ It was also at Florence that he chiefly 
exercised his profession of architect. The Casa Dardanelli, the Villa 
Spini at Peretola, and his own house at Florence, are exumerated 
among his works of that class, but without much commendation. He 
is said however to have displayed much taste in some of his archi- 


93 _ TITIAN, 


TITIAN. 94 


tectural backgrounds in painting, in which he also showed great 
knowledge of perspective. His pencil was frequently employed on 
merely temporary decorations, either on occasions of solemn funeral 
obsequies or splendid festivities, of which latter kind were those which 
he painted at the celebration of the nuptials of the Duke of Brac- 
ciano. Santi died in 1603, leaving a son named Tiberio, who was also 
an artist, and who did not long survive him, 

TITIAN, TIZIA'NO VECE/LLIO, commonly called TITIAN, 
one of the greatest painters of modern times, was born at Capo del 


_ Cadore, asmall place on the river Piave in the Venetian state, in 1477, 


the common accounts say 1480]. He was of the ancient family of 
fecellio, of which was San Tiziano, bishop of Uderzo, At the age of 
about ten young Titian was sent by his father to Venice to an uncle, 


_ to be placed with some competent painter. He was first placed with 


bastiano Zuceati, and shortly afterwards with Gentile Bellini, whom 
wever he also soon left for Giovanni his brother, the most eminent 
inter of his time at Venice. Titian ‘soon surpassed his master. 
is early works, in themselves extraordinary, are infinitely more so 
when compared with the works of the leading artists of Venice of his 
time. His early portraits are finished with remarkable care, drawn 


in excellent taste, and some of his pictures rival the works of the 


Dutch and old German artists in finish: there is in the gallery of 
Dresden a picture of the Tribute Money of this description. The 


at improvement in the works of Titian upon those of Giovanni 


Illini and his school has been considered to be in a great degree 
derived from the works of Giorgione di Castel Franco who had appro- 
ete much of the style of Lionardo da Vinci. [GroRGIONE.] 

jorgione was two years the senior of Titian, and their works were so 
much alike that they could not always be distinguished; but the 
merit of introducing the new style into Venice belongs to Giorgione. 
These two painters were fellow-pupils, and for some time friends, 
until, upon an occasion when ‘litian was appointed, or Giorgione 
employed him, to assist him in some frescoes for the new fondaco de’ 
Tedeschi (German warehouse), the portion executed by Titian was 
preferred to that of Giorgione by some of his own friends, and a jealousy 
arose between them, 

At the death of Giovanni Bellini in 1512, Titian was employed by 
the state to complete a work in the Sala del Gran Consiglio of the 
Homage of Frederic Barbarossa to Pope Alexander III., which he had 
left unfinished. Titian completed the picture, but he made many 
alterations in it; the senaté was however so well satisfied with the 
work, that they presented him with the office of La Senseria, with a 
salary of about 300 crowns per annum, by which he was obliged to 
paint for eight crowns the portrait of every doge created in his time, 
to be placed inthe palace of St. Mark. He painted by virtue of this 
place the portraits: of Pietro Lando, Francesco Donato, Marcantonio 
Trevisano, and the Venieri: he was unable to paint the portraits of 
the last two doges of his time on account of the infirmities of age. 

In 1514 Titian painted his Bacchus and Ariadne, and other Baccha- 
nalian and similar works in the palace of Alfonso I., duke of Ferrara, 
which display his extraordinary power of seeing and imitating nature 
to aremarkable degree, It was upon a door in an apartment of this 
palace that he painted his celebrated picture of the Tribute Money 
noticed above: it represents a Pharisee showing Christ a piece of 
money, who appears to be asking him the question, “ Whose is this 
image and superscription?” The figures are half-length and of the 
natural size. He painted also at the same time the portrait of the 
duke with his hand resting upon a cannon, and one of the Signora 
Laura, who afterwards was married to the duke. All these pictures 
are amongst Titian’s finest works; and Michel Angelo, when he first 
saw the duke’s portrait, is said to have exclaimed, “ Titian alone is 
worthy of the name of a painter.” Titian became acquainted at 
Ferrara with Ariosto, and painted his portrait. The poet compliments 
the painter in his ‘Orlando Furioso’ (c, xxxiii. 2) :— 


*¢ Bastiano, Rafael, Tizian, ch’onora 
Non men Cadore, che quei Venezia e Urbino.” 


In 1516, shortly after he returned from Ferrara to Venice, he painted 
in oil his famous picture of the Assumption of the Virgin, for the 
great altar of the church of Santa Maria gloriosa de’ Frari: it is now 
in the Academy of the Fine Arts at Venice. This picture is very 
large, and the figures are larger than life: in the highest part is God 
the Father between two angels; in the middle the Virgin ascending, 
accompanied by angels; and on the ground are the twelve apostles 
Witnessing the miracle. It is certainly one of the finest pictures in 
the world, grand in composition and design, and in colouring wonder- 
ful. Titian never surpassed it in these respects by any of his later 


~~” works. 


_ This and the works Titian painted at Ferrara so spread his reputa- 
tion, that he was invited by Leo X.to Rome. Reaffaelle also entreated 
him to make the-journey; the deaths however of the pope and 
Raffaelle in 1520, put an end fora time to the project. He was invited 
likewise about the same time by Francis I., whose portrait he painted, 
to France; an inyitation which he showed no disposition to accept. 

Tn 1528 he painted his celebrated picture of St. Peter Martyr, for 
the chapel of that saint, in the church of SS, Giovanni e Paolo. This 
work has been extravagantly praised by many critics, both for its 
arrangement and execution ; the landscape is particularly excellent. 


Algarotti calls it a picture without a fault: its general truth and 
appearance of reality are not its least remarkable properties. This 
picture, as well as the Assumption already mentioned are painted in 
a much freer style than Titian’s earlier works, Aretin wrote in 1536 
a letter to Tribolo, the sculptor, in praise of the St, Peter Martyr, by 
which we learn that this sculptor and Benvenuto Cellini were strongly 
impressed with its extraordinary excellence, It is full 16} feet high, 
by nearly 10 wide, was painted upon wood, but was transferred to 
canyas by M, Haquin, at Paris, in 1799, whither it had been taken 
with many other fine works: it was sent back to Venice in 1815. 

In consequence of the St, Peter Martyr, Titian received a commis- 
sion to paint the Victory of the Venetians over the Janissaries in the 
great council.chamber at Venice, which was considered the best 
picture there: it perished by fire, but there is a print of it by Fontana. 
Another celebrated picture which Titian painted about the same time 
was his St. Sebastian, for the church of San Nicolo de’ Frari, at 
Venice, but now in the Vatican at Rome. This work also has been 
the subject of much eulogy, especially for its colouring: it has been 
engraved by Lefevre. 

Notwithstanding Titian’s great reputation, he lived in a very humble 
way until he obtained, through his friend Aretin, the notice and the 
patronage of the emperor Charles V. In 1530 Charles sent for him to 
Bologna to paint his portrait: he painted that of Ippolito de’ Medici 
at the same time; besides portraits of many other distinguished person- 
ages; and he received also several other commissions from the 
emperor. ‘Titian went from Bologna to Mantua with the Duke 
Frederico Gonzaga, for whom he executed many works; amongst 
them eleven of the twelve Caesars. Domitian was painted by Bernar- 
dino Campi: they were lost in 1630 at the plundering of Mantua, but 
they have been often copied. In 1532 Titian went again to Bologna, 
and painted the emperor a second time: about this time also he 
appears to have accompanied Charles into Spain, and remained there 
three years, during which time he executed many celebrated works ; ° 
but there will be occasion to mention this subject lower down. In 
1536 also Titian appears to have met Charles at Asti, after his return 
from Africa, ‘ 

In 1587 he painted for the church of Santa Maria degl’ Angeli, at 
Murano, an Annunciation, which was rejected on account of the price, 
500 crowns (about 100 guineas); and he presented the picture to 
Charles V., who sent him 2000 crowns in return. In 1541 he painted 
the Descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles for the altar of the 
church of Santo Spirito; and three others, in oil, for the ceiling, the 
Sacrifice of Abraham, David and Goliah, and the Death of Abel. 
Copies were afterwards substituted for these works, which were re- 
moved to Santa Maria della Salute ; and in 1543 he painted a picture 
of the Virgin and San Tiziano for his native place, in which he intro- 
dueed his own portrait. In the same year he was invited by Pope 
Paul III. to Bologna, and painted his portrait there, a celebrated 
picture, with which the pope was so much pleased, that he requested 
Titian to go with him to Rome; but the painter was obliged to decline, 
on account of an engagement with the Duke of Urbino, for whom he 
painted several pictures. 

A letter from Aretin to Titian, of the year 1545, shows in what 
great favour Titian stood with the government of Venice: it speaks of 
his large pension, and the many imposts from which he was exempted. 
In the same year there was a false report of his death, which appears 
to have distressed the emperor, from a letter which Titian himself 
wrote to Charles to contradict it. In this year also Titian visited 
Rome, and painted Paul III. again, with the Cardinal Farnese and 
Duke Octavio Farnese in one group. Northcote terms this picture 
one of the finest examples of portrait in the world; and he relates that 
he and Fuseli saw it together at Capo di Monte, at Naples, and the 
latter exclaimed upon seeing it, “ That is true history.” 

Aretin wrote several letters to Titian whilst he was at Rome, one of 
which, dated October, 1545, he finishes by requesting him not to be so 
lost in contemplation of the Last Judgment, in the Sistine ehapel, as 
to forget to make haste back, and be absent from him and Sansoyvino 
all the winter. Michel Angelo visited Titian with Vasari in the 
Belvedere, whilst he was painting a picture of Jupiter and Danaé, and 
Vasari says he praised the picture very much in the presence of 


‘Titian: and he afterwards spoke very highly of his colouring and 


execution; but he observed that it was a pity that the Venetian 
painters had not a better mode of study, and were not early initiated 
in sound principles of drawing: and he added, that if Titian had 
been as much assisted by art as, he was by nature, nothing could 
surpass him. ; 

Titian appears to have left Rome in May 1546; and he visited 
Florence on his return to Venice, Vasari however says that after the 
death of Sebastian del Piombo, in 1547, Pope Paul III. offered his 
office of keeper of the seals of lead to Titian, which however Titian 
declined, and this has led some writers to suppose that Titian must 
have been then in Rome, but it is most probable that the offer, if 
made, was forwarded to Titian after his return to Venice. Late in 
1547 he was invited by the emperor to Augsburg, whither he went in 
the beginning of 1548. In 1550 he went again to Charles to Augsburg 
and in 1553 is said to have accompanied him into Spain, where accord. 
ing to some accounts, he remained three years, but this is certainly 
incorrect. It was at Barcelona that Charles created Titian count 


95 TITIAN. 


TITSINGH, ISAAC, 


palatine of the empire and made him knight of the order of St. Iago. 
In the patent of nobility given at Barcelona, as Ridolfi says, in 1553, 
which ought probably to be 1535, Titian is styled besides count pala- 
tine, knight, and count of the sacred Lateran palace, and of the 
imperial court and consistory. Charles left Barcelona in 1542, and did 
not return until 1556: for this reason Bermudez concludes that 1553 
in Ridolfi has originated from an error of the copyist for 1535. Ber- 
mudez supposes that Titian left Spain in May 1535, when Charles 
went to Africa, and that he went to that country in 1532, after he 
painted Charles for a second time at Bologna, Titian painted several 
works in Spain; but of those which were in the royal galleries it is 
not exactly known which were painted in Spain, or which were sent 
there from Italy, both to Charles and to Philip, or which were 
purchased after the death of Titian, There are however in Spain 
several of Titian’s masterpieces: a Sleeping Venus, “a matchless 
deity,” as Cumberland terms it, which was saved from the conflagra- 
tion of the Prado, in the time of Philip IV., by which several of 
Titian’s and other valuable pictures were destroyed; also two cele- 
brated groups from the Ludovisi palace at Rome, one of Bacchanals, 
the other of Cupids; a Last Supper in the refectory of the Escurial, 
painted for Philip II. ; Christ in the Garden, and St. Margaret with 
the Dragon, The Last Supper was sent by Titian to Philip in 1554; 
and in an accompanying letter he states that he had been occupied 
seven years over it, during which time, to use his own words, he had 
laboured almost continually upon it: this is another testimony that 
Titian was not in Spain so late as 1553 and the following years, In 
this letter Titian complains of the irregularity with which two grants 
made to him by the emperor, in 1541 and 1548, were paid, amounting 
to 400 crowns per annum. Philip answered it in 1558, and gave 
peremptory orders that the sums should be duly paid, with the follow- 
ing admonition, in his own handwriting, to the governor of Milan: 
- “ You know how I am interested in this order, as it affects Titian; 
comply with it therefore in such a manner as to give me no occasion to 
repeat it.” These 400 crowns, together with the 300 granted by the 
state were alone sufficient to support Titian in a comfortable manner ; 
and the income derived from his works enabled him to live in great 
affluence : his house was a place of resort to the nobles of Venice, 
He painted many pictures for Philip. In a letter addressed by Titian 
to Philip, shortly after Philip married Queen Mary of England, Titian 
mentions a Venus and Adonis, which he sent him at the same time, 
also a Danaé, which he had previously sent, and a Perseus and Andro- 
meda, and a Medea and Jason, which he was about to send ; likewise 
a religious piece, which he had had ten years in hand. He does not 
name this religious piece ; but about this time he painted his celebrated 
picture of the Martyrdom of San Lorenzo for Philip II. : it is a night 
scene, and the whole light of the picture is from the fire, two torches, 
and a ray of light from heaven. In this picture, though he was then 
old, Titian has displayed a power of composition and design equal to 
his colouring, and has much surpassed every other master who has 
painted this subject: he repeated the picture, with some slight 
alterations in the background, for the church of the Jesuits at Venice. 
Titian often repeated his pictures; but the principal part of the 
copies were painted by his scholars: he finished them only, but he 
generally introduced some alterations in the backgrounds. 

In 1566 Vasari visited Titian, and, although he was then eighty-nine 
years of age, he found him with his pencil in his hand, and derived 
great pleasure from his conversation. The pencil of Titian however was 
active for still ten years, although the pictures he produced at this 
time were not calculated to add to his reputation: they are extremely 
careless and slight in their execution. He died of the plague in 1576, 
aged ninety-nine, with the reputation of the greatest colourist and 
one of the greatest painters that ever lived; and having himself 
enjoyed a European fame for upwards of seventy years. He was 
buried, by express permission of the senate (which, as he died of the 
plague, was necessary), without pomp in the church of Santa Maria 
gloriosa de’ Frari, where his famous picture of the Assumption of the 
Virgin stood before it was removed to the Academy ; but no monument 
has yet been raised to him, though a splendid one was projected in 
Canova’s time. 

Much has been said by the Florentines, and some recent critics of 
different schools, in disparagement of the design of Titian ; yet, as far 
as regards propriety of design, there can be no comparison between 
the earlier and best works of Titian and those of the anatomical 
school of Florence in the latter half of the sixteenth century, In the 
works of Titian there is no ostentation of any kind whatever; no 
artifice. In composition, in design, in chiaroscuro, and in colouring, 
he sought truth only, and that according to his own perception of it. 

It is generally allowed that for the pictorial imitation of nature, 
without any addition or selection, Titian has surpassed all the other 
great painters of Italy; but in invention, composition, and design he 
was inferior to many of the great painters of Rome and of Florence; 
yet in design he has had no superior in the Venetian school. His works 
are purely historical, or simple pictures of recorded facts, and he is 
said to have always painted from nature. It is in colouring that Titian 
is pre-eminent: the same grandeur of colour and effect characterise 
everything that he painted—whether in the figure, in the landscape, in 
the draperies, or in other accessories. Hischiar’oscuro is true, because 
in his works it is a part of the colouring, but it never constitutes, as 


in some of the works of Correggio, an independent object. Titian’s 
object appears, from his works, to have been to produce a faithful 
imitation of every appearance of nature in what he represented— 
thus we find in all his best pictures that infinite variety of local tones 
which appear in nature. He was one of the first who commenced the 
practice of glazing. He excelled in women and in children: his 


numerous Venuses, as they are called, are well known: of these 


perhaps the most richly and transparently coloured is that at Dresden ; 
there is a duplicate of this picture in the Fitzwilliam Museum at 
Cambridge. In his naked men he was not so successful ; perhaps of 
these the best is his John the Baptist, in the Academy at Venice, 
formerly in the church of Santa Maria Maggiore, There are two 
other remarkable pictures by Titian in the collection of the Venetian 
Academy which have not been mentioned—a Presentation in the 
Temple and a Deposition from the Cross. The former, originally 
belonging to the old church della Carita, is an admirable example of 
Titian’s simple and natural style of composition ; it contains 

portraits: the latter is a remarkable specimen of the surprising bold- 


ness of touch, yet truth and brilliancy of colouring, which distinguish — 


the best of his latest works, 

There is no list of the works of Titian, and it would not be an we" 
task to make one. His portraits are extremely numerous, and in 
department he is almost universally considered to have surpassed all 
other painters, not excepting Vandyck. There is at Windsor a picture 
said to be the portrait of Titian and Aretin, or some senator, by 
Titian, which cannot be too highly praised: it is certainly, for 
colouring, one of the first pictures in the world. There are several 
other admirable pieces by Titian in England : two in the Bridgewater 
Gallery, of Actzeon and Calisto; the Princess Eboli with Philip IL, at 
Cambridge, from the Orleans Gallery, the repetition of the Dresden 
Venus mentioned above; and the Cornaro Family, at Northumber- 
land House. There is also in the Louvre at Paris a remarkably fine 
picture for the composition of colour, representing the Entombment 
of Christ: it is a repetition of the picture of the same subject in the 
Manfrini palace at Venice. The National Gallery contains seven 
pictures attributed to Titian, of, which the Bacchus and Ariadne, and 
Venus and Adonis are brilliant examples of his manner of painting 
mythological subjects. 

Titian, Aretin, and Sansovino the architect, were great friends, and 
were almost inseparable when at Venice. ‘Titian painted Aretin 
several times; he is also said to have painted several portraits of 
Ariosto, who was likewise his friend: there is one in the Manfrini 
palace at Venice. Considering Titian’s great reputation, little is 
known concerning his private life, but he appears to have been of 
an amiable disposition and agreeable conversation: he seems however 
to have been particularly susceptible of jealousy. He is said to have 
been even so jealous of his own brother Francesco Vecellio, that he 


A 


induced him to give up painting and to follow the occupation of a — 


merchant; his reputed jealousy of Tintoretto as a boy has been 
mentioned. [TinToRETTO. | 

His biographers Ridolfi and others relate several anecdotes showin 
his intimacy with Charles V., and the respect that the emperor had 
for him. Upon one occasion, when Charles was present, whilst he 
was painting, Titian let his brush fall, and the emperor immediately 
picked it up and gave it to Titian, saying, “ Titian is worthy of being 
served by Cesar” (“Titiano e degno essere servito da Cesare”). 
Northcote the painter wrote a Life of Titian, or, as some say, got 
Hazlitt to write it for him: ‘The Life of Titian, with Anecdotes of 
the Distinguished Persons of his Time, 2 vols. 8vo, London, 1830. 
This book of 784 pages is a mass of matter thrown together without 
judgment or arrangement, and it contains several inaccuracies and 
some contradictions. It consists of two reviews of Titian’s life, which 
are distinct lives; the second review, ‘from Ridolfi, Ticozzi, and 
others, beginning with ch. xxviii. or page 73 of the second volume, is 
the better portion of the work, but does not appear to have been 
written by the same hand that wrote the other portion. 

To be enabled to appreciate fully the powers of Titian it is neces- 
sary to examine his works at Venice; after Venice he is seen to most 
advantage in Madrid. Bermudez has given a kind of list of his public 
works in Spain, in his ‘ Dictionary of Spanish Artists ;) he enumerates 
about eighty. Titian’s scholars were not very numerous: the best 
were Paris Bordone, Bonifazio Veneziano, Girolamo di Tiziano, and his 
son Orazio Vecellio. 
certain extent all the great painters of Venice of his time, who 
acquired a reputation subsequently to his own. Titian is said to 
have engraved on copper and on wood. 

There were several other painters of the family of the Vecelli, for 
whom see VECELIIO. 

TITSINGH, ISAAC, one of the most able civilians in the Dutch 
East Indian service during the last century, was born at Amsterdam 
in 1740. He entered the service of the East India Company of Hol- 
land at an early age, and rose to the rank of counsellor. His naturally 
vigorous constitution defied the pestilential effects of the climate of 
Batavia, where in the course of seventeen years he saw the entire body 
of his colleagues twice renewed. He was sent as supercargo to Ja 
in 1778. The war which then raged prevented the despatch of the 
ship sent annually from Batavia to the Dutch factory at Desima, and 
Titsingh was in consequence detained there for several years, He did 


His imitators were more so, for they include toa 


ee 


 Filiale,*traduit du Japonais par feu M. Titsingh.’ 


TITTMANN, JOHANN AUGUST. 


97 


98 


not quit Japan till 1784. After his return to Batavia he was appointed 
governor of the Dutch factory in the vicinity of Chandernagore : how 
long he filled this office is uncertain. 

In 1794 Titsingh was appointed by the government at Batavia chief 
of the embassy which Van Braam, hoping to be himself appointed 
ambassador, had persuaded them to send to the court of Pekin. The 
mission left Canton on the 22nd of November 1794, and reached that 
city on its return on the 11th of May 1795. The ill-health of Titsingh 
during the greater part of his residence at Pekin caused the discharge 
of the functions of ambassador to devolve in great measure on Van 
Braam. Not long after the termination of this mission Titsingh 
returned to Holland, after a residence of about thirty-one years in 
the East. ‘The involuntary prolongation of his residence in Japan had 


enabled him to obtain a greater amount of information relative to 


those islands than his predecessors, and the friendships he had con- 
tracted with several of the nobles enabled him to procure, at a later 
date, by their good offices, material additions to the collections he had 
made himself. He was acknowledged both by the Japanese and 


Chinese to possess a knowledge of their customs and manners rare in 


a European. He was esteemed by his colleagues for his business 
talents ; and the literati of Europe who had applied to him for infor- 

ation had ever found him as courteous and liberal as he was intel- 

ent: consequently great additions to our knowledge of Japan were 
anticipated on his return to Europe. These expectations were how- 
ever in a great measure disappointed. With the exception of infor- 
mation which he supplied to Marsden, De Guignes and others, nothing 
appeared during his life; and after his death, by a fever which he 
neglected, in February 1812, his collections were dispersed; only a 
portion of his manuscripts, maps, and curiosities were ultimately 
recovered. M. Nepven, who had become the purchaser of the frag- 
ments, published in 1819, in two vols. 8vo, * Cérémonies usitées au 
Japon pour les Mariages et les Funérailles, suivies de Détails sur la 
Poudre Doxia, et de la Préface d’un livre de Confoutzée sur la Piété 
In the introduction 
to the Memoirs the author states that many of the most distinguished 
Japanese are fully aware of the advantage their country would derive 
from an extended intercourse with foreigners. In 1820 M. Abel 
Rémusat published in 8vo, from the manuscripts of Titsingh, Mémoires 
et Anecdotes de la Dynastie régnante des Djogouns, souverains du 
Japon, avec la Déscription des Fétes et Cérémonies observées aux 
différentes époques de l’année & la cour de ces Princes, et un Appendice 
contenant des Détails sur la Poésie des Japonais, leur Maniére de 
diviser Année, &c.’ An English translation of these two works, by 
Frederic Shoberl, was published in 1822. The volumes edited by M. 
Rémusat, and the English translation, contain a catalogue of the books, 
printed and in manuscript, the maps, plans, coins, &c., collected by 
Titsingh. -Among the manuscripts are his journal of travels from 
Canton to Pekin; copies of letters addressed by him to various 


persons during the years 1790 to 1797; forty-six autograph letters’ 


addressed to him by Japanese functionaries and Roman Catholic mis- 
sionaries; thirty-five autograph letters addressed to him by Volney, 
De Guignes, senior, and other eminent literary characters; and an 
exposition of the official conduct of M. Titsingh. The twenty-fourth 
volume of the ‘Annales des Voyages’ contains an account of the island 
of Yesso, translated from the Japanese by Titsingh, anda ‘ Notice sur 
Japon, in Charpentier Cossigny’s ‘Journey to Bengal,’ contains a 
rather inaccurate report of the substance of conversations with him 
respecting that country. The important work the ‘ Japanese Ency- 
clopeedia,’ in the ‘ Bibliothéque du Roi, at Paris, was obtained from 
Titsingh. . 

TITTMANN, JOHANN AUGUST HEINRICH, one of the most 
distinguished German theologians of modern times, was born on the 
1st of August 1773, at Langensalza, where his father, Carl Christian 
Tittmann, was then preacher. Young Tittmann was originally of a 
very weakly constitution, but he gained strength as he grew older, 
especially from the time that he lived at Wittenberg, where his father 
was appointed preepositus and professor in the year 1775, His extra- 
ordinary talents enabled him to enter upon the study of theology and 
philosophy at Wittenberg as early as 1788, after he had the year 
before published a Latin essay, ‘De Virgilio Homerum imitante,’ 
Wittenberg 1787. On completing his studies there, he went to 
Leipzig in 1792, where he began his career as academical teacher on 
the 15th of May 1793. His talents and the extensive knowledge he 
possessed at this early age would have made him the first theologian 
of his time, if he had not been frequently drawn away from his regular 
studies, and occupied with different subjects. Nevertheless he dis- 
tinguished himself so much, that in 1795 he was appointed morning 
preacher (Friihprediger) to the university, and the year after professor 
extraordinary of philosophy, and in 1800 professor of theology. In 
1805 he was made a doctor of divinity, and obtained the fourth ordinary 
professorship of theology, and in 1818 he became first professor of 
theology in the university of Leipzig. During the last year of his life 
he was dean of the cathedral of Meissen. He died, in consequence of 
a cold he took in 1828, and of which he never recovered, on the 31st 
of December 1831, 

As an academical teacher Tittmann distinguished himself by his 


_ acuteness, sound judgment, and by the simplicity and clearness with 


which he treated his subject. It was perhaps owing to the variety of 
BIOG. DIV. VOL, VI. 


employed by his government. At the congress of Vienna, which he 
attended for some time, he spoke with great frankness, and particularly 
exerted himself to realise his favourite plan of uniting the German 
Protestants, and giving to their body a new ecclesiastical constitution. 
But his object was not attained. During the last years of his life he 
was a member of the first chamber of the Saxon deputies, in which 
he represented the university of Leipzig, and often exercised great 
influence by his ability and his powers as a speaker. 

The numerous writings of Tittmann are distinguished by great 
clearness of style, those written in German, as well as those in Latin. 
The following are the most important for the theological student :— 
‘Encyclopiidie der Theologischen Wissenschaften,’ Leipzig, 8vo, 1798 ; 
‘Theocles, ein Gespriich iiber den Glauben an Gott,’ Leipzig, 8vo, 
1799; ‘Ideen zu einer Apologie des Glaubens,’ Leipzig, 8vo, 1799; 
*Theon, oder iiber unsere Hoffnungen nach dem Tode, Leipzig, 
1801; ‘Lehrbuch der Homiletik, Breslau, 8vo, 1804; ‘ Pragmatische 
Geschichte der Theologie und Religion in der Protestantischen Kirche 
wihrend der zweiten Hilfte des 18ten Jahrhunderts’ (of this excellent 
work only the first volume appeared, Breslau, 8vo, 1805); ‘ Ueber 
Supranaturalismus, Rationalismus, und Atheismus,’ 8vo, Leipzig, 1816 ; 
‘Ueber Vereinigung der Evangelischen Kirchen,’ Leipzig, 1818; ‘ Die 
Evangelische Kirche im Jahre 1530 und 1830,’ Leipzig, 8vo, 1830. 
Tittmann also edited the Greek text of the New Testament, Leipzig, 
12mo, 1824, which has often been reprinted, and Zonaras and Photius’s 
Greek Lexicon, Leipzig, 4to, 1808; but of this work only two. volumes 
appeared, which contain the Lexicon of Zonaras. He also wrote a great 
number of Latin dissertations in programmes and on other occasions, 
which were edited after his death by Hahn, under the title, ‘ Opuscula 
varii Argumenti, maximam partem dogmatici, apologetici, et historici,’ 
Leipzig, 8vo, 1833. Another Latin work, ‘De Synonymis in Novo 
Testamento,’ was edited by Becher, Leipzig, 8vo, 1832. 

TITUS, FLA/VIUS VESPASIA’NUS, the son of the Emperor 
Vespasianus, was born on the 29th of December, a.p. 40. He received 
his education together with young Britannicus, who was poisoned by 
Nero in 4.p. 55, and as Titus fell dangerously ill after the death of his 
unfortunate friend, it was said and believed that he had drunk a part 
of that deadly potion by which Britannicus perished. Titus after- 
wards erected two statues to the memory of the companion of his 
youth. Possessed of uncommon beauty and vigour, and extraordinary 
talents, Titus distinguished himself at an early age. The first cam- 
paigns which he made as tribunus militum were in Britannia and 
Germany. He first married Aricidia Tertulla, the daughter of a 
Roman knight, and after her death, Marcia Furnilla, who was of a 
noble family, but from whom he was divorced some time after she had 
borne him a daughter. Titus became afterwards questor. The Jews, 
having been oppressed by Gessius Florus, revolted in a.D. 66, and 
defeated Cestius Gallus, the proconsul of Syria, but they were beaten 
by M. Licinius Mucianus, the new proconsul of Syria, and T. Ves- 
pasianus, the father of Titus, who was the commander of the Roman 
army, which consisted of three legions. One of these legions was 
commanded by Titus, who showed as much military skill as personal 
courage, especially in the siege and capture of the towns of Tarichee 
and Gamala (A.D. 67). During his sojourn in Palestine he fell in love 
with Berenice, the daughter of Herod Agrippa. [BERENICE (6).] 

In the mean time the Emperor Nero was murdered, and Galba suc- 
ceeded (a.D, 69). In consequence of this event, T. Vespasianus sent 
his son Titus to Rome, in order to gain the favour of the new emperor. 
Perhaps also Vespasianus wished to be informed of Galba’s intention 
with regard to the war in Palestine, the command of the forces 
employed there being an office by which Vespasianus had acquired 
great influence in the Hast. (Tacitus, ‘ Hist.,’ ii. 1, and the notes to 
this passage in the edition of Gronovius, ii., p. 127.) The people said 
that Titus had some hope of being adopted by Galba, who was old and 
without issue; but although this motive of his going to Rome is 
rejected by Tacitus, the mere existence of such a rumour proves that 
Titus had already attracted the public attention. When Titus arrived 
at Corinth he was informed that Galba had been murdered (15th of 
January, 69), and that the imperial power was disputed by Vitellius 
and Otho. This event perplexed him. His commission being to con- 
gratulate Galba, he could not expect, to be well received by Vitellius, 
by whose instigation Galba had been massacred; nor did he deem it 
prudent to adhere to either of the imperial rivals before he had taken 
the advice of his father. He therefore returned to Judea. There 
was a rumour that his love for Berenice was the secret cause of his 
return; but however strong his passion was, it never prevented him 
from doing his duty. On his way from Greece to Syria he landed on 
Cyprus, and there consulted the oracle in the temple of Venus of 
Paphos, The answer was favourable with regard to his voyage, and 
highly flattering to his ambition: Sostratus, the priest of the temple 
and the reporter of the oracle, promised him the empire. (Tacitus, 
‘ Hist., ii, 2-4 ; Suetonius, ‘ Titus,’ c. 6.) 

Titus was one of the leaders of the new revolution by which 
Vitellius lost his power a short time after his victory over his com- 
petitor Otho at Brixellum. Full of filial admiration for the character 
of his father, Titus endeavoured to remove the only obstacle to his 
succession, which might have frustrated their plans, notwithstanding 

H 


99 TITUS, FLAVIUS VESPASIANUS. 


Vespasianus was at the head of three legions and a strong body of 
auxiliaries. This obstacle was a serious misunderstanding which 
existed between Vespasianus and Muscianus, the proconsul of Syria. 
Titus succeeded in reconciling them. ‘Their difference had chiefly a 
political character, yet Titus, by the mildness of his manner and by the 
modesty of his persuasion, brought together two highly-gifted men 
who were divided by the most intractable of passions. Supported by 
Mucianus, by Tiberius Alexander, and by Titus, Vespasianus. was pro- 
claimed emperor by the army in the East, while his brother Flavius 
Sabinus occupied for him the Capitol in Rome, and compelled Vitel- 
lius to lay down the imperial diadem. [Vespastanus; TiBERIUS 
ALEXANDER; ViTELLIUs.] Vespasianus left Judza for Rome, and the 
command of the army of Judwa and the continuation of the war 
devolved upon Titus, Domitianus, the younger brother of Titus, 
having incurred the displeasure of his lather, Titus interceded for 
him with brotherly affection. (Tacitus, ‘ Hist.’ iv. 51, 52.) 

The army in Juda, of which Titus was now the commander, con- 
sisted of six legions, twenty cohorts of allies, eight corps of cayalry, 
the troops of the Kings Agrippa and Sohemus, the auxiliaries of King 
Antiochus of Commagene, and a small body of Arabs. After a long 
siege, Jerusalem was taken by storm; the whole population, more 
than 600,000 men, was massacred; and the remainder of the Jews 
were dispersed over the world (2nd of September, a.p, 70). In this 
memorable siege Titus distinguished himself both as a general and as 
a soldier, and it is said that he killed twelve men of the garrison with 
his own hand. In the same year Titus was created Casar by Ves- 
pasianus, whose colleague he was in his first consulship; and he was 
again consul in the years 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, and 79. Vespasianus 
however recalled his son from Judwa. A rumour was spread that 
Titus secretly aimed at making himself master of the East, and this 
rumour had reached Vespasianus. 

So universally was Titus beloved, that the army implored him 
either to stay with them, or at least not to go without them; but he 
obeyed the command of his father, and by his speedy return proyed 
that those rumours were entirely unfounded. He celebrated a triumph 
together with Vespasianus, for their victories over the Jews, in com- 
memoration of which a triumphal arch was erected, which is still one 
of the finest monuments of that kind existing in Rome. Titus was 
likewise tribune with his father, who esteemed him so much, that he 
allowed him not only to write letters in his name, but also to draw up 
the imperial edicts. (Suetonius ‘Titus,’ 6.) During the reign of 
Vespasianus, various high functions were successively conferred upon 
Titus, whose character however seems to haye been somewhat altered 
by the influence of the general corruption of the capital. He was 
charged with acting rashly: he subjected himself to the reproach of 
having ordered the murder of Cecina, which was an act of cruelty, for 
though Cecina was guilty of treason, he had not been legally sentenced 
(Suetonius, ‘Titus,’ 6); and he was generally reproached for taking 
money from those who solicited his intercession with the emperor. 
On the other side however he remonstrated with his father on thosé 
measures which this very economical prince adopted for the purpose 
of improying the finances, which were exhausted by the dissipation of 
Vitellius. He was also charged with love of women. But he ordered 
Berenice, who had followed him to Rome, to go back to Judza, and he 
thus proved once more that-his passion for her did not prevent him 
from doing his duty. The consequence of this was, that the Romans, 
who, by the example of Tiberius, Caligula, and Nero, knew that the 
virtue of exalted men is exposed to great temptations and strange 
changes, feared that Titus would become a new proof of the truth of 
their experience. 

But no sooner did Titus become emperor by the death of Ves- 
pasianus in 4.D. 79, than he showed that all these fears were unfounded. 
His virtuous conduct was the subject of general admiration. During 
his short reign the empire was visited by great calamities. An erup- 
tion of Vesuvius destroyed the towns of Herculaneum, Stabie, and 
Pompeii, and carried ruin over the fertile coast of Campania (August, 
79) [Ptiny]: in the year 80 a conflagration broke out in Rome, which 
lasted three days, and destroyed a great part of this city; the build- 
ings on the Campus Martius, the Capitol, the library of Octavianus, 
were laid in ruins, and the Pantheon was damaged; and no sooner 
had the people recovered from their consternation than the plague 
broke out, of which 10,000 persons died every day. Titus supported 
his unhappy subjects with the greatest liberality; he exhausted his 
treasures, and he ordered the property and estates of those who had 
perished without leaving heirs, to be distributed among the sufferers, 
although the property of such persons belonged to the fiseus, or the 
emperor's priyate purse. His liberality was so great that his friends 
reproached him for it; he answered, that it was not just that any- 
body should leave the emperor with a sorrowful eye. He punished 
severely and exiled to the small barren islands in the Mediterranean 
those who followed the profession of false accusers [TIBERIUS CLAUDIUS 
Nero]; and he disliked the punishment of death so much, that he 
used to say that he would rather die than cause the death of others. 
Two patricians conspired against him, but he did not punish them: he 
only said, “ Do not do it again ; Providence alone distributes crowns” 
(Suetonius, ‘ Titus,’ 9); and he then invited them to accompany him 
to the amphitheatre. He acted with the same generosity towards his 
brother Domitianus, who was guilty of more than one conspiracy 


TITUS. 100 
against his brother, He gained all hearts by his extreme affability, 
which however was always accompanied by dignity; and he delighted 


the Roman people with splendid entertainments, giying them amongst 
others the spectacle of five thousand wild beasts fighting with each 
other in the Colosseum, or Flavian amphitheatre, which was fini: 
by his order, the construction of it having been commenced under 
Vespasianus. 

During the reign of Titus, Agricola restored tranquillity to Britain, 
and penetrated as far as the Frith of Tay. (a.D. 80.) In the folk 
year he constructed the wall between the rivers Glota and 
(the Frith of Clyde and the Frith of Forth), in order to p 
Britain against the invasions of the Caledonians, : 

In order to recover his broken health Titus retired, in a.D. 81, toa 
villa in the neighbourhood of Reate, which belonged to his ly, 
and where Vespasianus had died. Here he was attacked b 
fever, and died on the 13th of September 81. It was sai that 
brother Domitianus, who had accompanied him to Reate, hi hse 
cause of his death by advising the use of improper remedies. 
death-bed Titus exclaimed that he died without regret, except for 
act, which however he did not specify. The news of his death x 
Rome in the evening, and the senators assembled in the same n 
anxious to know each other's hopes and fears with 1 
unworthy successor of Titus, Domitianus. The consternation of 
people was general, for they had lost him to whom they had given 
name of “the delight of the human race.” 

(Josephus, Jewish War, vi. 6, &c.; Dion Cassius, lxyi, 18, &e, ; 
Aurelius Victor, De Cesaribus, 10; Eutropius, vii. 14.) 


wer ° 
p 
KA 
JENS 
aN Cc 


Coin of Titus, 
British Museum. Actual size, Copper. Weight 398°7 grains. 


TITUS. Little is known of the personal history of Titus, to whom 
the epistle of St. Paul is addressed. His name is not even mentioned 
in the Acts of the Apostles, and all authentic information about him 
is derived from the Epistles of St. Paul. From these it appears that 
Titus was converted by St. Paul, by whom he is called * his own son 
after the common faith” (i. 4), but when and where is not recorded. 
Accordingly there are various conjectures on this subject. This we 
know for certain, that Titus was (Acts, xv.; Gal., ii.) with St. Paul in 
Antioch before the first Council was holden at Jerusalem, and that he 
was one of the party sent by the Church at Antioch to consult the 
Apostles at Jerusalem, on the question whether it was necessary for 
the Gentile converts to submit to circumcision “ after the manner of 
Moses.” To this rite the Judaising Christians at Jerusalem were 
anxious that Titus should submit; but St. Paul (Gal., ii.) informs us 
that he firmly refused to do so. After the Council it would seem that 
Titus returned with St. Paul to Antioch, and subsequently accom- 
panied him on some of his travels. \ tke eee 

At any rate, from the expression in 2 Cor., viii. 23, it appears almost 
certain that Titus assisted St. Paul in preaching the Gospel at Corinth. 
From 1 Gor., xvi. 8, compared with 2 Qor., vii., it is not improbable 
that Titus was also with St. Paul during his long residence at lata 
(Acts, xix. 10), aud that he was selecied to be the bearer of the first 
Epistle to the Corinthians, which was written by St. Paul at Ephesus. 
On his return from Corinth, whatever might be the occasion of the 
visit alluded to in 2 Cor. vii. Titus met St. Paul in Macedonia, and 
gave him such an account of the Corinthian Church, and of the effect 
produced by his first letter to it, as gave him the highest satisfaction. 
(2 Cor., vii. 6-13.) Titus also appears to have been the bearer of the 
apostle’s second letter to the Corinthians, when he was charged to 
excite them to finish their collections for the poor converts in Judza, 
which they had begun during his former visit. From 58, when we 
suppose him to have been the bearer of St. Paul’s second epistle to 
the Corinthians, to 62, we hear nothing of him; in the latter year, in 
all probability, he was left by St. Paul in Crete, “to set in order the 
things that were wanting, and to ordain elders in every city.” (Titus, 
i, 4.) This year was the date of St. Paul's release from his first con- 
finement at Rome, when he is supposed to have touched at Crete, and 
made some converts there, on his way from Italy to Judea, Subse- 
quently to this, Titus was requested by St. Paul (iii. 12) to visit him — 
at Nicopolis in Epirus, and it seems that he was also with him during 
his second residence at Rome. (2 Timothy, iv. 10.) We have no 
certain information as to the time and place of Titus’s death; but 
according to an ancient tradition, he lived to the age of ninety-four 
years, and died and was buried in Crete. The date of the epistle has — 


101 TOALDO, GIUSEPPE. 


TOCQUEVILLE, COUNT DE 102 


been a subject of much controversy, some placing it as early as 52, 
and others as late as 65. From the striking verbal resemblances 
between it and the first epistle to Timothy, it is not improbable that 
they were written about the same time, and while thé sate ideas 
aid phrases were present to the author’s mind, The genuineness 
and authenticity of the epistle have nover been disputed. 

St. Paul’s design in writing it was to instruct Titus in the discharge 
f the duties of his ministry as head of the chtirch in Crete. Accord- 
ngly, in chap. i. he gives Titus instructions concerning the ordination 

of elders, who were to be appointed for every city, and describes 
What qualifications they should possess, and also directs him to oppose 
1¢ Judaising teachers of Christianity, who seem to have been numerous 
n the island. In chap. ii, St. Paul informs Titus what precepts he was 


to inculeate, according to the age and circumstances of those whom he 


teach, and admonishes him how to show himself a pattern of all 
good works, and an example of the doctrines which he taught. In 
chap. iii. he teaches Titus to inculeate obedience to principalities and 
pay in opposition to the Jews, who thought it an indignity to sub- 
nit to idolatrous magistrates; and also that lie should enforce gentie- 
ness and meéekness towards all men. He then concludes with a request 
that Titus would inculcate the necessity of good works, and avoid 
en guetons ; an injunction of the same kind as St. Paul gave to 
‘imothy. 
For the undesigned coincidences between this epistle and the Acts 
ff the Apostles, see Paley, ‘Hore Paulinx,’ pp. 357-367. See also 
orne’s ‘ Introduction to the Critical Study of the Scriptures,’ vol. iv., 
Ra } Macknight on the New Testament, vol. iii.; Collyer’s ‘Sacred 


Tah ter, 
_ TOALDO, GIUSEPPE, a celebrated Italian geographer and meteoro- 
logist, was born in 1719 at asmiall village near Vicenza. After having 
received the usual rudiments of education, he was sent to the Uni- 
versity of Padua, in order to qualify himself for the priesthood by 
the study of literature and theology ; and while there, a taste for 
natural philosophy, and particularly for astronomy, induced him to 
devote a considerable portion of his time to the pursuit of those 
branches of science; this pursuit he continued, during the intervals 
which his pastoral duties afforded, after he had quitted the university 


and become the curate of a village in the neighbourhood. 


an observed trdiisit of the moon. 


In 1762 he was appointed professor of physical geography and 
astronomy in the same university, and he immediately availed himself 
of the influence which his appointment gave him to obtain the grant 
of a building which might be occupied as an observatory ; in this he 
succeeded, and being allowed the use of an ancient tower, he placed 
in it all the instruments which he could collect. In this building he 


‘made a series of astronomical observations, in continuation of those 


which had been made about forty years previously by Poleni; and the 
first thunder-rod erected in the Venetian states was one which Toaldo 
applied to the same building. 

He died suddenly at Padua, in December 1798, in consequence of a 
fit of apoplexy, which was supposed to have been brought on by a 
domestic calamity. 

‘The Abbé Toaldo applied himself to the study of mathematics only 
as far as that branch of science is applicable to geography. In 1769 
he published at Padua a treatise on plane and spherical trigonometry, 
with a collection of tables; and at Venice, in 1773, a tract entitled 
*Compendio della Sfera e di Geographia.’ In 1782 he published his 
‘Saggio di Studi Veneti nell’ Astronomia e nella Marina ;’ and two 
years afterwards, his method of finding the longitude of a place by 
In 1789 appeared his ‘Trattato di 
Gnomonica,’ and in 1791 a work entitled ‘ Schediasmata Astronomica.’ 
In 1776 he gave, in a letter to Mr. Strange, the British resident at 
Venice, an account of the tides in the Adriatic, which he drew from 
the, observations of Signior Temanza, an Italian architect and engineer. 
(‘ Phil. Trans.,’ vol. Ixvii.) ; , 

The attention of Toaldo was strongly directed to meteorology at a 
time when this branch of natural philosophy was but little studied ; 
and he is the first who took notice of the supposed connection of 
atmospherical phenomena with the movement of the moon in hér 
orbit.. Having observed that those phenomena return in nearly the 
same order at the end of évery éighteen years, he drew. up tablés 
exhibiting the state of the weather during three such periods; and an 
account of his system was given in a paper entitled ‘Le Saros Météoro- 
logique,’ &c., which is contained in the ‘ Journal de Rosier’ for 1782. 
In 1770 Toaldo published a tract entitled ‘Saggio Meteorologico sulla 
vera Influenza degli Astri ;’ and two years afterwards, a tract concern- 
ing the method of protecting buildings from the effects of lightning. 
He also published, in 1775, a work on the application of meteorology 
to agriculture. 

Toaldo wrote a life of the Abbé Conti, which was prefixed to an 
edition of the works of that philosopher and poet, who had been his 
instructor. 

TOBIN, JOHN. The author of one play which still holds possession 
of the stage—a play of considerable merit, although displaying little 
of what may be termed original genius—would scarcely be entitléd to 
notice in a work which does not profess to include the minor adven- 
turers in literature, were it not for the peculiar circumstances under 
which he devoted a life to dramatic writing. John Tobin was born at 
Salisbury in 1770. His father had property in the Isle of Nevis, and 


from the political circumstances of the period, thinking his presence 
necessary upon his plantation, he took up his residence there, leaving 
three sons under the care of their maternal grandfather. They were 
placed at the free-school at Southampton, where John discovered some 
precocious talents. His father, returning to England, settled at Bristol 
in 4 mercantile employment, where his sons became pupils of the Rev. 
Mr. Lee. John, who was the third son, was in 1785 placed in the 
house of 4 London solicitor, in which house he eventually became a 
partner. His ambition was however early directed to dramatic com- 
position, and for fifteen years he persevered in offering to the theatres 
play after play, each of which was uniformly rejected by the managers. 
Tobin had perhaps more real talent than the greater number of those 
who had possession of the stage, at a period when a successful 
dramatic performance was not only highly paid, according to any 
commercial estimate of literary merit, but was very often a little 
fortune to its author. But the stage was then also in the hands of 
three or four writers, who perfectly understood the taste of the town, 
and especially adapted themselves to the peculiarities of the actors 
who were to represent their characters. It was a necessary conse- 
quence of this system that whilst no draina was composed upon a 
principle of art—whilst no attempt was made to sustain a plot by 
consistent and natural character, wit or humour, pathos or poetry— 
whilst the author modelled his jokes according to his conception of 
this comedian’s flexibility of face, and his sentiment with a due 
reverence for that tragedian’s stride and intonation,—there was still 
something produced which was perfect in its way, through the power 
of the machinery by which it was worked ; a thing to move laughter 
or tears upon the stage, but singularly provocative of sleep in the 
closet. This was the day when the drama existed upon slang,and 
clap-trap, miscalled comedy. Tragedy had died out in its dullness; 
and farce—not legitimate farce—demanded the five acts of Reynolds, 
Morton, and George Colman the younger. At this period Tobin 
essayed to becOme a writer of comedy. He produced ‘The Faro- 
Table,’ ‘The Undertaker, and ‘The School for Authors :’ these were 
all rejected. He then tried his hand at the romantic drama, and 
wrote, with equal ill success, ‘The Curfew’ and ‘The Indians. The 
latter piece was called forth by the success of Sheridan’s melo-drama 
of ‘ Pizarro.’ Some oné, it is said, proposed this question to Tobin at 
a social meeting where the state of the drama was a subject of dis- 
cussion ; “ Would a revival of the dtamatic spirit which produced the 
plays of Shakspere and Fletcher be relished by the public?” Tobin 
thought it would, and he wrote ‘The Honeymoon.’ This play was 
presented to the managers of Covent Garden, and refused. It was 
finally accepted at Drury Lane, and it was acted with a success which 
has attended very few dramatic compositions. In the meantime its 
author, who had a tendency to consumption, was obliged to leave 
London, seeking the recovery of his health. He had worked for 
many years at his profession by day, and at his dramatic compositions 
by night. He died on the 8th of December 1804; and ‘ The Honey- 
moon’ was prodtced at Drury Lane on the 31st of January 1805. 
Those who cater for the public taste have often an alacrity in dis- 
covering the merits of a man when he is dead; and so Tobin’s 
rejected pieces were eventually brought upon the stage. They are 
forgotten. ‘The Honeymoon’ is exactly such a piece as might have 
been calculated upon, looking at the theory which is said to have 
suggested it. It is throughout an imitation of the old dramatists; 
clever indeed—but as an automaton compared to a man, for the 
breath of poetical life has not been breathed into what moves before 
us in the attitudes of humanity. The dialogue is skilful, the chief 
situations are ifiteresting, there is a proper quantity of simile and 
other embroidery which looks like poetry. But the high art with 
which the old dramatists worked is not there. Tobin did the best he 
could as an imitator; but the Shaksperian drama is not a thing for 
imitation. The great and essential spirit of poetry is ever the same; 
but it only becomes original as it puts on new forms, the elements of 
which are to be found in the aggregate thought of its own age. The 
memoirs of John Tobin, with several of his unacted dramas, were 
published by Miss Benger in 1820. 

* TOCQUEVILLE, HENRI-ALEXIS, COUNT DE, French states- 
man and philosophical historian, was born in 1805, and received a 
careful education. In 1831 he went on a government missicn to North 
America, along with M. Gustave de Beaumont; and the fruit of this 
visit was his well-known work ‘De la Democratie en Amérique,’ pub- 
lished in 1835, in which the political institutions of the United States 
were described in a masterly manner, and their bearings philosophi- 
cally investigated. The work immediately attracted attention, and 
translations of it were executed in England and America. In 1839, 
M. de Tocqueville began active political life as a member of the Cham- 
ber of Deputies, and attached himself to the ranks of the opposition. 
In the same year a ‘Report’ on the subject of slavery came from his 
pen. But it is since 1848 that M. de Tocqueville has been most heard 
of as a politician. He was one of the ministry which Count Molé 
proposed to form during the revolution of February, before it had 
gone the length of the declaration of the republic. In the early days 
of the republic he figured as a moderate liberal opposed to extreme 
views. He wrote and spoke against the Right to Labour and other 
measures of the socialists and vehement republicans. In 1849 he was 
elected vice-president of the Assembly, and from June to October he 


103 TOD, JAMES. 


TODD, REV. HENRY JOHN. 104 


was ove of the ministers under the presidency of Louis-Napoleon. 
His conduct in relation to the French expedition to Rome was the 
theme of much reprobation on the part of the Italian patriots. Since 
the cowp-d'état, which made Louis-Napoleon emperor, he has been one 
of that band of French constitutionalists and men of letters, who, 
‘‘ divested of all authority, yet still not unattended by reverence, have 
been permitted by the power which has triumphed over them to 
record their implied protest against its supremacy, and to found on 
their cherished remembrances aspirations for better days.” Before the 
revolution of 1848 M. de Tocqueville had given to the world his second 
important historical work, entitled ‘ Histoire philosophique du Régne 
de Louis XV.,’ 2 vols., 1847; this was followed in 1850 by a sequel 
entitled ‘ Coup-d’coil sur le Régne de Louis X VI. depuis son avénement 
dla Couronne jusqu’d la séance royale du 23 Juin 1789;’ and since 
then M. de Tocqueville has published ‘ L’Ancien Régime et la Révo- 
lution,’ 1856. His views of the state of society in France prior to the 
great revolution are the result of laborious and minute investigations 
into a great variety of materials, and are, in some respects, novel and 
peculiar. These views are now accessible to the English reader in 
Mr. Henry Reeve’s translation, entitled ‘On the State of Society in 
France before the Revolution of 1789, and on the causes which led to 
that event.” M. de Tocqueville is still devoting his powers of histo- 
rical research and speculation to this great topic. He is a member of 
the French Academy. 

TOD, JAMES, Lieutenant-Colonel in the service of the East India 
Company, was born in England in 1782, but educated in Scotland. 
He went out to India in 1800, and obtained a commission in the 
2nd Bengal European regiment; thence he volunteered for the Mo- 
luccas, was transferred to the marines, served as a marine on board 
the Mornington, and in 1805, when in the subsidiary force at Gwalior, 
in Hindustan, was attached, under his friend Mr. Greeme Mercer, to the 
embassy sent at the close of the Mahratta war to the camp of Sindia in 
Mewar, where the embassy arrived in the spring of 1806.. Rajpootana, 
of which Mewar.is one of the states, thenceforward became the scene 
of his official labours, as well as of the geographical, historical, and 
antiquarian investigations by which he distinguished himself. He 
began to make surveys of Rajpootana soon after his arrival in the 
country, and the result of those surveys was the magnificent map 
which is given at the commencement of his ‘Annals of Rajast’han.’ 
The map was completed in 1815, and was presented to the Marquis of 
Hastings, then governor-general of India, and it was of great use in 
forming the plan of operations in 1817, the previous maps of the 
country having been very imperfect and erroneous, In 1817 he was 
appointed political agent, with the entire control of five of the states 
which had just then placed themselves under British protection— 
Mewar, Marwar, Jessulmeer, Kotah, and Boondee. The results of 
his investigations into the geography, history, and antiquities of 
Rajpootana are given in his ‘ Annals of Rajast’han.’ 

in 1822 the impaired state of his health rendered it necessary that 
he should return to the more congenial climate of his native country. 
Previously however to his departure from India he made a circuit of 
nearly the whole of Rajpootana, including Gujerat, which he com- 
pleted at the close of 1822, and in the beginning of 1823 he sailed from 
Bombay, and arrived safely in England. 

After his return to England his time was chiefly devoted to literary 
pursuits, He officiated for awhile as librarian to the Royal Asiatic 
Society. In 1834 he went to the Continent for the relief of a complaint 
in the chest, and remained abroad twelve months. He returned to 
England in September 1835. While at Rome he was occupied with a 
work to be entitled ‘Travels in Western India,’ the result of the 
journey which he made previous to his return to England, and espe- 
_ cially his observations in Gujerat.. The last chapters of the work were 
written in October 1835, while residing with his mother in Hampshire, 
and the manuscript was left nearly fit for publication. On the 16th of 
November, while transacting business with his bankers in London, he 
had an attack of apoplexy, and lay without consciousness for twenty- 
seven hours. He died November 17, 1835, at the age of fifty-three. 
He left a widow, the daughter of Dr. Clutterbuck, and a young family. 

Bishop Heber, who travelled through Mewar and the adjoining 
Rajpoot states in 1825, on his way to Gujerat, bears testimony to the 
affection and respect borne to Colonel Tod by the upper and middling 
classes of society in various towns through which the bishop passed. 
He says—“ Here and in our subsequent stages we were continually 
asked by the cutwals, &c. after ‘Tod Sahib’ (Captain Tod), whether 
his health was better sifice he returned to England, and whether there 
was any chance of seeing him again, On being told it was not likely, 
they all expressed much regret, saying that the country had never 
known quiet till he came among them, and that everybody, whether 
rich or poor, except thieves and Pindarees, loved him, He, in fact, 
Dr. Smith told me, loved the people of this country, and understood 
their language and manners in a yery unusual degree.” Bheelwara, a 
commercial town which had contained 12,000 families, had been 
entirely ruined by the depredations of the Mahrattas at the time when 
Colonel Tod was appointed political agent. Heset himself to restore 
it, and in less than a year there were 700 prosperous and peaceful 
families in it. Colonel Tod, in a letter to a friend, says—“ Regarding 
Bhilwarra, the work of my hands, in February 1818 there was not a 
dog in it; in 1822 I left 3000 houses, of which 1200 were bankers and 


merchants. An entire street, arcaded, was built under my directions 
and with my means. 
Surat, from every mart in India, had their correspondents, and in fact 
it was becoming the chief mart of Rajast’han. The affection of these 
people a thousand times repaid my cares.” Bishop Heber, after 
describing the prosperous state in which he found the town in 1825, 
says, “The place had been entirely ruined by Jumsheed Khan, and 


deserted by all its inhabitants, when Captain Tod persuaded’ the Rana 


to adopt measures for encouraging the owners of land to return, and 
foreign merchants to settle. He himself drew up a code of regulations 
for them, and obtained them an immunity from taxes for a certain 
number of years, and sent them patterns of different articles of English 


manufacture for their imitation. He also gave money liberally to the — 


beautifying of their town. In short, as one of the merchants who 
called on me said, ‘It ought to be called Todgunge, but there is no 
need, for we shall never forget him.’” 

The ‘Annals of Rajast’han’ were published in London in 2 vols, 


royal 4to, vol. i. in 1829, and vol. ii. in 1832. The ‘ Travels in Western ~ 


The merchants from Calcutta, Jessulmér, Delhi, 


India, embracing a Visit to the Sacred Mounts of the Jains and the — 


most celebrated Shrines of Hindu faith between Rajpootana and the 
Indus, with an Account of the ancient city of Nehrwalla,’ was pub- 
lished in 1839 in a handsome 4to volume. 

TODD, REV. HENRY JOHN, was born in 1763, and educated at 
Hertford College, Oxford, where he proceeded M.A. in 1786. He 
became a minor canon of Canterbury Cathedral soon after being 
ordained. In 1792 he was presented by the Dean and Chapter of 
Canterbury to the vicarage of Milton, near that city ; and some years 
after, by the same body, to the rectory of Allhallows, Lombard-street, 
London, on which he fixed his residence in the metropolis. In 
November 1803, he was appointed, by the archbishop, Keeper of the 
Manuscripts at Lambeth. In 1820 he was withdrawn from London, 
by being presented by the Earl of Bridgewater to the rectory of 
Settrington, in Yorkshire, of the value of 1045/.; in 1830 he was 
collated by the Archbishop of York to the prebend of Husthwaite, 
in that cathedral church ; and, finally, in 1832 he was appointed 
Archdeacon of Cleveland. 

His first publication was ‘Some Account of the Deans of Canter- 
bury, from the new foundation of the Church by Henry VIIL.,’ 8vo, 
1793. This was followed by an edition of Milton’s ‘Masque of 
Comus,’ with notes and illustrations, from a manuscript belonging to 


the Duke of Bridgewater, 1798; ‘The Poetical Works of John Milton,’ — 


with notes and a life, 6 vols. 8vo, 1801, for which he received 200/. 
from the booksellers, and of which there was a second edition in 1809, 
a third in 1826, and a fourth in 1843, and the portion of which con- 
sisting of the Life and the Verbal Index has also been published 
separately ; ‘A Catalogue of the Library of Christchurch, Canterbury,’ 
8vo, 1802; § The Works of Edmund Spenser,’ with notes and a Life, 
8 vols. 8vo, 1805, reprinted in 1845; ‘Illustrations of the Lives and 
Writings of John Gower and Geoffrey Chaucer,’ 8vo, 1810; ‘A Cata- 
logue of the Archiepiscopal Manuscripts in the Library at Lambeth 
Palace,’ fol., 1812 (100 copies privately printed); a new edition of 
‘Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language, with corrections 
and additions,’ 4 vols. 4to, 1814, &c., and again in 3 vols. 4to, 1827 ; 
‘The History of the College of Bonhommes, at Ashridge,’ folio, 1823 
(privately printed for the Earl of Bridgewater) ; * Original Sin, Free 
Will, Regeneration, Faith, Good Works, and Universal Redemption, as 
maintained in certain Declarations of our Reformers,’ &c., 8vo, 1818; 
‘A Vindication of our Authorised Translation and Translators of the 
Bible’ (in reference to Bellamy’s new translation), 8vo, 1819; ‘ Obser- 
vations on the Metrical Version of the Psalms, by Sternhold, Hopkins, 
and others,’ 8vo, 1819; ‘Memoirs of the Life and Writings of the 
Right Rev. Brian Walton, Bishop of Chester,’ 2 vols. 8vo, 1821; ‘An 
Account of Greek Manuscripts of the late Professor Carlyle, now at 
Lambeth,’ 8vo, 1823 (privately printed); a new edition of ‘ Arch- 
bishop Cranmer’s Defence of the Doctrine of the Sacrament,’ 8yo, 
1825, with a Vindication of Cranmer, reprinted in 12mo in 1826; ‘A 
Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, concerning the Authorship 
of Icén Basiliké,’ 8vo, 1825 (assigning the work to Bishop Gauden) ; 
‘A Reply to Dr. Lingard’s Vindication of his History of England, as 
far as respects Archbishop Cranmer,’ 8vo, 1827; ‘ Bishop Gauden the 
Author of Icén Basiliké further shown, in answer to Dr. Wordsworth,’ 
8vo, 1829; ‘Life of Archbishop Cranmer, 2 vols. 8vo, 1831 (an en- 
largement of the ‘ Vindication’); ‘Authentic Account of our Autho- 
rised Version of the Bible,’ 12mo, Malton, 1834. We have omitted a 
few theological pieces of inferior importance. He was also, in the 
early part of his literary career, a frequent contributor to the ‘ Gentle- 
man’s Magazine;’ and he is stated, in Hasted’s History of Kent, to 
have assisted largely in the preparation of that work. 

Archdeacon Todd, who was a Chaplain in Ordinary to her Majesty, 
died at Settrington, on the 24th of December 1845. From his will, 
an abstract of which is given in the ‘Gentleman's Magazine’ for June 
1846, he appears to have left several daughters. 

Archdeacon Todd, though the editor of Milton and Spenser, had no 
pretensions to either poetical talent or poetical taste; nor was even 
his acquaintance with our old poetry, or with our old literature in 
general, very extensive or intimate. His annotations, accordingly, are 
rather dry.. At the same time, if they do not overflow with much 
variety of knowledge, and rarely display any remarkable ingenuity, 


Ee ET eee a ee ae 


105 TODD, ROBERT BENTLEY. 


TOLAND, JOHN. 103 


they do not annoy the reader by any kind of superfluous disquisition. 
He is certainly not a very animated narrator; but his facts may: gene- 
rally be depended upon. His most useful services, perhaps, have been 
rendered in the field of bibliography. 

*TODD, ROBERT BENTLEY, M.D., F.R.S., an eminent physician 
and physiologist, was born and educated in Ireland. On the opening 
of Kings College, London, he was appointed Professor of Physiology. 
He is a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of Dublin, and a grad- 
uate in medicine of the University of Oxford. On settling in London 
he became a licentiate and afterwards a fellow of the Royal College 
of Physicians. On the opening of King’s College Hospital he was 


_ appointed physician to that institution, a post which he holds at the 


present day. In 1836, in conjunction with Dr. Grant, he became 
editor of the ‘Cylopxdia of Anatomy and Physiology,’ an extensive 
work which is only just completed. Latterly Dr. Todd was the sole 
editor, and he has himself contributed several articles, more espe- 
cially those on the Heart, Brain, and Nervous System. He has besides 
published many works, which have given him a wide reputation as a 
practical physician. One of his earliest works was ‘On Gout, Rheu- 
matic Fever, and Chronic Rheumatism of.the Joints.’ His clinical 
lectures on various subjects have been published in the ‘ Medical 
Gazette’ and ‘Medical Times.’ Two volumes of these lectures on 
diseases of the nervous system and urinary organs. were published 
in 1857. In conjunction with Mr. Bowman, who was for many years 
joint professor of physiology with him in King’s College, he published 
the ‘ Physiological Anatomy and Physiology of Man.’ He has also 
published a work on the ‘Anatomy of the Brain, Spinal Cord, and 
Qanglions.’ In addition to these works he has published many separate 
apers in the ‘Medico-Chirurgical Transactions,’ and in the medical 
journals. He has now resigned his professorship at King’s College, and 
is enjoying the fruit of his numerous labours in an extensive practice. 
*TODLEBEN, FRANCIS EDWARD, Russian General of Engineers, 
was born May 25, 1818, at Mitau, inthe Russian province of Courland. 
He studied at Riga, and was afterwards admitted into the College of 
Engineers at St. Petersburg. When the Russian army entered the 
anubian Principalities in 1853 he was 2nd captain in the corps of 
engineers, and he served under General Schilders in the campaign on 
the Danube. In August 1854 the Russian armies crossed the Pruth 
on their retreat from the Principalities, and on the 14th of September 
the French and English troops were landed in the Crimea. Having 
gained the victory of the Alma, the allies made a flank march round 
the head of the harbour of Sebastopol, and occupied the heights on 
the south side of the city. An elevated ridge with commanding 
eminences and deep ravines covered the city and docks ; and the position 
was thus eminently defensible, but little had then been done to improve 
it by art, for an attack on that side was quite unexpected. Prince 
Menschikoff, by sinking some of his great ships at the mouth of the 
harbour, having effectually prevented the allied fleet from entering, 
the allied armies were at the same time prevented from taking advan- 
tage of the undefended state of the city, and carrying it by a sudden 
attack ; for they would then have been exposed to the batteries of the 
ships in the harbour, far more powerful than any artillery which they 
then possessed, and would have risked the loss of their own position 
on the southern plateau. A siege was therefore resolved upon; but 
no sooner did the allies begin to cut their trenches and prepare for a 
bombardment, than earth-works and massive ramparts armed with 
formidable batteries began to rise up in opposition with incredible 
rapidity. The genius of Todleben seems to have been early discovered, 
and the fortifications were placed under his direction. When the city 
was ultimately taken, the defences, interior as well as exterior, were 
found to be far above as well as different from the works of ordinary 
engineering. The extent, completeness, and strength of the Flagstaff, 
the Malakhoff, the Redan, and other batteries smaller but connected, 
which had. so long protracted the siege and rendered the capture so 
difficult, filled the spectators with astonishment and admiration. 
Todleben was advanced rapidly in the grades of his profession, till at 
the termination of the war he had attained the rank of General of 
Engineers, and was decorated with the clasps of the order of St. 
George. At the latter part of the siege he was wounded in the leg, 
but all his great works of defence had then been completed. 
TOGRAI, or TOGHRAI, the surname of Abu Ismail Hosein Ben 
’Ali Ben Mohammed Mowayyed ed-Din al-Issfahani, and the name by 
which he is commonly known. He was descended from Abu’l-Aswad 
ad-Doioli, one of the most celebrated of the companions of Mohammed, 
and was born at Ispahan in the 5th century of the Hejra, or the 
11th of the Christian era, and gained great reputation as a poet. He 
was at first in the service of the celebrated Melek Shah (4.H. 465-485 ; 
A.D. 1073-92) and his son Mohammed, the third and fifth sultans of 
Persia of the Seljukian dynasty ; and he afterwards became vizir to 
Mas’oud, the son of Mohammed, and sultan of Mosul. When this 
prince revolted from his brother Mahmud, the seventh Seljukian Sultan 
of Persia, and was conquered in the battle at Esterabad near Hama- 
dan, A.H. 514 (a.p. 1120), Tograi was taken prisoner, and was at first 
kindly treated by the conqueror. This however excited the jealousy 
of his vizir, Abu Talib ’Ali Ben Ahmed as-Semiremi, who caused 
Tograi to be secretly put to death, a.H. 515 (a.p. 1121), under the 
pretence of his being a heretic who believed the doctrines of the Mola- 
heds or Ismaélites, but in reality from fear of his talents. This is 


the account of his death given by Abulfeda (‘ Annal, Moslem.,’ vol. iii., 
p- 417) and Ibn Khallekan (‘ Vit. Illustr. Viror.,” § 196, ed. Wiistenf.); 
that given by Leo Africanus (‘De Vir. Illustr. Arab.,’ cap. 13) is some- 
what different. He was rather more than sixty lunar, or fifty-eight 
solar, years old at the time of his death. He appears to have enjoyed 
a great reputation, and was distinguished by several titles or surnames, 
The word ‘Tograi’ is the name given to the person employed by the 
sultan to write on all the imperial decrees and proclamations his name 
and titles in a peculiarly large and flourishing character, which is 
called, from a Persian work, the ‘togra;’ and from Tograi’s skill in 
writing this, or perhaps from his celebrity as an author, he derived 
the title of ‘Fakhr al Cottab,’ or the Glory of Writers. His surname 
‘ Al-monshi’ signifies a person employed to draw up the letters written 
in the name of the prince; and that of ‘ Alostad’ means the master or 
doctor, 

The most celebrated of his poems, and the only one which has 
been published, is that entitled ‘ Lamiato ’1’Ajam,’ which he composed 
in Arabic at Baghdad, a.m. 505 (a.p. 1111-12). It derives its name 
‘Lamiat’ from the circumstance that all the verses end with the letter 
lam, orl; and ‘al-’Ajam,’ that is, ‘of the Persians,’ is added to dis- 
tinguish it from a celebrated Arabic poem written by Shanfara, and 
entitled ‘ Lamiato ’l-’Arab.’ It is a poem of the elegiac kind, written 
ina plaintive style, and composed of distichs ; and has been frequently 
published and translated. The first edition’ is that by the elder 
Pococke, 8vyo, Oxford, 1661, with a Latin translation, and copious 
elementary notes. At the end of the volume is a treatise on Arabic 
prosody by Samuel Clerk, the University printer.- There is an edition 
by Matthias Anchersen, with an unedited Latin translation by Golius, 
published in 1707, Utrecht, which is now exceedingly scarce, as almost 
all the copies were lost at sea. Tograi’s poem was also published in 
Arabic, together with that by Shanfara, by H. A. Friihn, 8vo, Casan, 
1814. It was translated into English by Leon Chappilow, 4to, Cam- 
bridge, 1758; into French by Pierre Vattier, 8vo, Paris, 1660; into 
German by Reiske, Friedrichstadt, 4to, (Dresden), 1756. A fuller 
account of the editions and translations of this poem may be found in 
Schnurrer’s ‘Bibliotheca Arabica,’ and Zenker’s ‘Bibliotheca Orien- 
talis,’ 8vo, Leipzig, 1840. Tograi also wrote a work on alchemy, 
entitled ‘ Directio in Usum Filiorum,’ which title has been the occasion 
of D’Herbelot’s making a great mistake as to the contents of the book. 

(Schnurrer, Biblioth. Arab. ; De Sacy’s article on TZograi in the 
Biograph. Univers. ; Wiistenfeld, Geschichte der Arabischen Aerzte und 
Naturforscher, Gottingen, 1840, § 151, p. 87.) 

TOLAND, JOHN, was born on the 30th of November 1669 or 
1670 (it is not certain which), in the most northern part of the county 
of Londonderry, in the peninsula called Inis-Eogan, whence in one of 
his works, published with a Latin title, he called himself ‘ Koganesius,’ 
Though it is not known who his parents were, it is known that they 
were Roman Catholics. He.tells us of himself, “Being educated from 
my cradle in the grossest superstition and idolatry, God was pleased 
to make my own reason, and such as made use of theirs, the happy 
instruments of my conversion.” (‘Christianity not Mysterious,’ Pre- 
face, p, viii.) And again, alluding, in his ‘Apology’ (p. 16), to a 
charge made against him that he was a Jesuit, he says that “ he was 
not sixteen years old, when he became as zealous against Popery as he 
has ever since continued. . . . Yet in Ireland that malicious report 
gained upon some few, because his relations were Papists, and that he 
happened to be so brought up himself in his childhood.” He was sent 
first to a school at Redcastle near Londonderry, where, we are told, 
that, having been christened Janus Junius, he was laughed out of this 
name by the boys, and took the name of John, which he ever after 
kept. He went in 1687 to the University of Glasgow, and after being 
there three years, to the University of Edinburgh, where he got a 
diploma as Master of Arts, in June 1690. Shortly after this he went 
into England, where managing to gain the favour of some influential 
dissenters, he was sent by them to the University of Leyden to study, 
and prepare himself for the duties of a minister. 

He stayed at Leyden about two years, and made the friendship of 
Le Clere, Leibnitz, and other learned men, with whom he afterwards 
corresponded. On his return to England he went for some time to 
Oxford, where he employed himself chiefly in collecting materials on 
various subjects in the Bodleian library. The vanity of his character, 
and the ostentatious avowal of free-thinking on religion, appear to 
have made him conspicuous at Oxford, as they did everywhere else 
through the whole of his life. But in a reply to a letter of advice 
which he received here, he denied his being either an atheist or a deist. 
(Collections of Several Pieces of Mr. John Toland, &c.,’ vol. ii. p. 302.) 

At Oxford he began his ‘Christianity not Mysterious,’ which was 
published in London in 1696, the year after his leaving Oxford. The 
remainder of the title, viz., ‘A Treatise showing that there is nothing 
in the Gospel contrary to reason nor above it, and that no Christian 
doctrine can be called a Mystery,’ more fully explained the object of 
‘the publication, The work created a very considerable sensation, and 
elicited much attack and some persecution. 

In 1697 Toland returned to his native country. Mr. Molyneux 
wrote to Locke, April 6th, 1697, from Dublin: “In my last to you, 
there was a passage relating to the author of ‘Christianity not Myste- 
rious.’ I did not then think that he was so near me as within the 
bounds of this city ; but I find since that he is come over hither, and 


107 TOLAND, JOHN. 


TOLAND, JOHN. 108 


have had thé favour of a visit from him. I now understand, as I 
intimated to you, that he was born in this country, but that he hath 
been a great while abroad, and his education was for some time under 
the great Le Clerc. But that for which I can never honour him too 
mich is his acquaintance and frietidship to you, ard the respect which 
on all occasions he expresses for you. I propose a great deal of satis- 
faction in his conversation—I take him to be a candid free-thinker, 
and a good scholat. But there is a violent sort of spirit that reigns 
here, which begins already to show itself against him, and I believe 
will increase daily; for I find the clergy alarmed to a mighty degree 
against him; atid last Sunday he lad his welcome to this city, 
in hearing hiniself harangued against out of the pulpit by a 
prelate of this county.” (Locke's ‘Works,’ vol. viii: p. 405, 8vo, 
ed. 1799.) Toland appeats to have become acqtainted with Locke; 
and this acquaintance he made the most of in conversation at Dublin. 
In Locke’s reply to the Bishop of Worcester, who, in defénding the 
doctrine of the Trinity against Toland, had connected Locke with 
him, he showed that he did not reciprocate in an equal degree Toland’s 
friendship and esteem for him. Mr. Molyneux wrote of him after- 
wards, May 27, 1697: “ Trily, to be free, I do not think his manage- 
metit, since hé camé into this city, has been so prudent. He has raised 
against him the clamour of all parties, and this not so titch by his 
difference in opinion, as by his unreasonable way of discoursing, pro- 
pagiting, and maintaining it. . Mr. Tolatid also takes here a 
great liberty on all occasions, td vouch yout patronage ard friendship, 
whith mikes many that rail at him rail also atyou. I believe you will 
not approve of this, as far as I am able to judge, by your shaking him 
off, in your letter to the Bishop of Worcester” (p. 421). Antid Locke, 
on Jutie 15; wrote what is worth quovitig for itself, as well as for the 
Opiiiion itiplied of Toland: “As to the gentlemati to whoiti you think 
my friendly admonishments may be of advantage for his conduct 
hereafter, I must tell you that he is a mani to whom I néver wroté in 
iny life, atid I think I shall not now begin; and as to his conduct, it is 
what I never so mitich as spoke to him of: thatis a liberty to be taken 
only with friends and intimates, for whose conduct one is mightily 
concetned, and in whose affaits one interests himself. I cannot but 
wish well to all men of parts aiid learniiig, and be ready to afford 
thein all the civilities and good offices in my power; but there must 
be other qualities to bring me to a friendship, and unite me in those 
stricter ties of concern; for I pita great déal of difference between 
those whom I thus receive into my heart and affection and those 
whom I receive into my chamber, and do not treat thém with a 
perfect strangeness” (p. 425). Pecuniary difficulties arid persecu- 
tions together obliged Toland to leave Ireland in a very short time. 
The parliament at Dublin voted that the book should be burnt by the 
common hangman. Mr. Molyneux gives an account of his departure 
in another letter written to Locke. 

He went to London, and, nothing daunted, published ‘An Apology 
for Mr: Toland, in a Letter from himself to a Member of the House 
of Commons in Ireland, written the day before his book was resolved 
to be buriit by the Committee of Religion: to which is prefixed a 
Natrative containing the occasion of the said Letter.’ He now 
devoted himself very vigordusly to book-making of all sorts, in politics, 
theology, literdture: showing always, even in the pamphlets which 
the niere pissibg occasions called forth, a degree of genius and erudi- 
tion deserving of a better fate that his very scanty and precarious 
éarhings. He published in 1698 a pamphilet, just after the Pedce of 
Ry&swick, when there arosé the question what forces should be kept 
on foot, ertitled, ‘The Militia Reformed, or an easy scheme of fur- 
nishing England with 4 constant Land Force, capable to prevent or 
to subdue atiy foreign power, and to maintain perpetual quiet at 
' home, withott endangering the public liberty ;’ and in the same yéar 
lis ‘Life of Miltow,’ which was prefixed to ‘ Milton's Prose Works,’ 
in 3 vols. folio. Then came, in 1699, the ‘Amyntor, or a Defence of 
Milton’s Life’ in answer to a Criticism of Dt. Blackall, bishop of 
Exeter, on some incidéntdl rémarks made by him it his ‘Life of 
Miltofi’ on thé geniitiétiess of sotie parts of Scripture. There 
followed in fapid sti¢cession his editions of Holles’s ‘ Menioirs,’ and of 
Haitington’s Works, with a life of Harrington prefixed; ‘Clito,’ a 
poeth on the forcé of eloquetice; ‘Anglia Libera, ot the Limitition 
atid Succession of thé Crown of England explained and asserted,’ and 
other political pamphlets. The ‘Angelia Libera’ was published in 
1701, on the passing of the act which settled the crown on the Princess 
Sophia of Hanovér and her heifs, after the déath of William, and of 
Anne without isstie; and Toland went over to Hanover and managed 
to get presented to the electress by thé Earl of Macclesfield, who had 
been sent on a special mission to carry the act t6 the electress, and then 
presented his ‘Anglia Libera’ to her with his own hands. He after- 
wards stayed in Hanover for sdiie short tinie, aid went from thence 
to the court of Berlin, acting at these courts apparently as a sort of 
politi¢al agent, and makitig the most of the recommendations which 
he catried from the English governrient to extend his repttation for 
literature and learning. He won the good opinion bothi of the Princess 
Sophia and of the Queen of Prussia; they both courted his conversa- 
tion, and afterwards his correspondence. On the occasion of his first 
visit to Berlin he held a theological discussion with Beausobre in the 
presence of the queéh, who acted as 4 sort of moderator, and closéd 
it, on observing that the disputants were beginning to lose their 


temper. His letters to Serena, published in 1704, were addressed to 
the queen of Prussia. 

In 1702, in an interval of his residence abroad, he published 
‘Vindicus Liberius, or Mr. Toland’s Defétice of himself the 
Lower House of Convocation and others.’ In this work his opinions 
have assumed a very subdued tone, which is perhaps to be accounted 
for in a great measure by the prospect of political advancement which 
seemed to be opening for him. “ Beitig now arrived to years that w 


not wholly exctisé inconsiderateness in resolving, or precipitancé in 


acting, I firmly hope that my persuasion and practice will show me to 
be a true Christian, that my due conformity to the public orship 
may prove me to be a good churchman, and that my untainted 
to King William will argue me to be a staunch commonwealth’s man.” 
Subsequent theological works showed this to have been a moderation 
merely assumed for the time. ' 
The mask of orthodoxy was thrown off in a pamplilet whith he 
published in 1705, in the title of which he did not scruple to 4 
himself a Pantheist : ‘Sociniahism truly stated, being ai exa 


le 
fair dealing in thedlogical controversies; to which is prefix 


ference in disputes recommended by a Pantheist to an orthodox friend’ 


But he was now enjoyitig the zealous patronage of Harley, afi ds 
edtl of Oxford, who had in the previous year become secretary of state, 
and he probably thought he could again afford to be a free-thinker. 
Harley employed him to write several political pamphlets, and sent 
him abroad agaiti in 1707, to Germany and Holland. The nature of 


his contiection with Harley may be gathered from the following extract’ 


from one of his ‘Memorials to the Earl of Oxford, which are printed 
in a posthuiious collection of his pieces written at a time when the 
zeal of his patron had cooled :—* I laid ani honester scheme of serviti 
iy country, your lordship, and myself; for seeing it was neither c 
veniént for you nor a thing at all desired by me, that I should appe 

in atly public post, I sincerely proposed, as occasions should , to 
commubdicate to your lordship thy observations on the temper of the 
thinistry, the dispositions of the people, the condition of our enemies 
or allies abroad, and what I might think most expedient in every con- 


juncture; which advice you were to follow in whole, or in part, or — 


not at all, as your own superior wisdom should direct. . . . 

much as I thought myself fit, of was thought so by others, for stich 
general observations, so mitch have I ever abhorred, my lord, those 
particular observers we call spies; but I despise the caluminy no less 
than I detest the thing.” (vol. ii. p. 223.) Toland was abroad on this 


occasion for about three years, acting as a sort of political spy for 


Harley, though he disavowed the name, and eking out his su ce 
by his pen, and apparently in ahy way that presented itself. He made 


a trip from Holland to Vienna, commissioned by a wealthy banker to 


procure for himi from the imperial ministers the rank of a count of 
the étipire; but he did not succeed in attaining the object of his 
mission. He matiaged in Holland to ingratiate himself with Prince 
Kugene, who was very attentivé and liberal to him. In the ‘Meimo- 
tial’ to the. Earl of Oxford, which has beeh before quoted, Toland 
mysteriously cotinects this prince with his mission to Vienna, and 
cunningly tries to give this foolish journey a character of great di 

and honour, “My impenetrable negociation at Vienna, hid under the 
pretence of curiosity, was not only applauded by the prince that 
employed me, but also proportionably rewarded” (p. 225). In due 
time he quarrelled with Harley, and then wrote pamphlets against 
him. Asa Whig pamphileteer, he had the honour of Swift's notice in 
* Tolsiid’s Letter to Dismal.’ : 

The principal publications of Toland which rémain to be metitioned 
are the following, with the dates of thei appearance :—a Voltimie pub- 
lishéd at the Hague in 1709, containing two Latin essays, with the titles 
‘Adeisidamon, sue Titus Livius, i Superstitione Vindicatus,’ and 
‘Origines Judaica, seu Strabonis de Moyse et Religione Judiaca His- 
toria bréevitér illustrata ;’ ‘The Art of Restoring, or the Piety and 
Probity of General Monk in bringing about the last Restoration, evi- 
denced from his own Authentic Letters, with a just account of Sir 
Roger, who runs the parallel as far as he can’ (by Sit 
meant thé Earl of Oxford, his former patron, who was then pl 
the restoration of the Pretender); and ‘A Collection of Letters 
General Monk, relating to the Restoration of the Royal Family,’ bot 

ublished in 1714: ‘Reasons for Naturalising the Jews in Great 

ritain and Ireland, on the samé footing with all other nations, with a 
Defence of the Jews against all Vulgar Prejudices in all ies,” 
published in 1714; ‘The State Anatomy of Great Britain, containing 
a particular account of its several Interests and Parties, their bent 


Roger was 
otting 


: 


and génius, and what each of them, with all the rest of Europe, on ¢ 


hope or fear from the reign and family of King George,’ which wor 
called forth several answers, that led Toland to publish a second part; 
‘Nazarenius, or Jewish Gentile, or Mahometan Christianity, containin 
the History of the Antient Gospel of Barnabas, atid 
Gospel of the Mahometans, attributed to the same Apostle, this last 
gospel being tow first made known among Chiistians: also the 
original plan of Christianity, occasionally explained in the Nazarenes, 
whereby divers cotitroversies about this divine (but highly perv 
institution may be happily terminated; with the relation of an Ir 
manuscript of the four gospels, as likewise a summary of the antient 


the Modern 4 


Irish Christianity, and the réality of the Keldees (an ordef of lay — 


religious), against the two last bishops of Worcester, which appeared 


a 


109 TOLEDO, DON PEDRO DE. 


TOLEDO, DON PEDRO DE. 110 


in 1718; ‘ Pantheisticon, sive Formula celebrand Sodalitatis Socra- 
tice, in tres partes divisa, qua Pantheistarum sive sodalium continent, 
1, Mores et axiomata; 2, Numen et philosophiam ; 3, Libertatem et 
non fallentem legem neque fallendam; Preamittitur de antiquis et 
novis eruditorum sodalitatibus, ut et de universo infinito et aterno, 
diatriba. Subjicitur de duplici Pantheistarum philosophia sequenda, ac 
de viri optimi et ornatissimi idea, dissertatiuncula,’ published in 1720; 
and in the same year, ‘ Tetradymus;’ and in 1721, ‘ Letters from the 
Right Honourable the late Karl of Shaftesbury to Robert Molesworth, 
Esq., now Lord Viscount of that name; with two letters written by 
the late Sir John Cropley.’ 

Some of these titles show at once the learning and the fantastical 
pedantry of Toland. The ‘Tetradymus’ consists of four treatises, 
which bear the names Hodegus, Clydophorus, Hypatia, and Mango- 
neutes, and have for their respective subjects the pillar of cloud and 
fire which led the Israelites, and which Toland argues was no miracle ; 
the exoteric and esoteric philosophy of the ancients; an account of the 
female philosopher Hypatia, who was murdered at Alexandria, as 
was supposed, at the instigation of the clergy;” and an answer to Dr. 

y, who had attacked his ‘Nazarenus.’ The ‘Nazarenus’ and the 
‘ Pantheisticon’ had again evoked the anger'of the church. Dr. Hare, 
dean of Worcester, in a treatise against Hoadley, spoke of Toland as 
often quoting Locke to support notions he never dreamed of. Toland 
published an advertisement to the effect that he had never quoted or 
even named Locke in his writings. Hare issued a counter-advertise- 
ment, in which he directs ‘‘ makes great use of Mr. Locke’s principles” 
to be read instead of “is offen quoted to support notions he never 
dreamed of.’ Toland then published a pamphlet, with the title ‘A 
Short Essay upon Lying, or a Defence of a Reverend Dignitary, who 
suffers under the Persecution of Mr. Toland, for alapsus calami’ This 
pamphlet, with Hare’s advertisement, was reprinted “at the end of the 
*Tetradymus.’ Hare returned to the charge, and, in the preface to a 
new edition of his work, speaks of ‘‘downright Atheists,” such as the 
impious author of the ‘ Pantheisticon.’ — 

Towards the close of his life, Toland, whom all his literary industry 
could not keep from pecuniary difficulties, found a benefactor in Lord 
Molesworth. Mr. Disraeli, who has devoted a chapter to Toland in his 
* Calamities of Authors,’ mentions from Yoland’s papers which he has 
seen, the paltry sums which he generally received for his writings. 


_ “For his description of Epsom he was to receive only four guineas in 


case 1000 were sold. He received ten guineas for his pamphlet on 
Naturalising the Jews, and ten guineas more in case Bernard Lintott 
sold 2000.” And in another place, in the ‘ Quarrels of Authors,’ in 
the chapter headed ‘Lintott’s Account-Book,’ he says, * It appears that 
Toland neyer got above 5/., 10/., or 201. for his publications. . . . 
All this author seems to have reaped from a life devoted to literary 
enterprise, and philosophy, and patriotism, appears not to have 
exceeded 200/.” This last statement must be a great exaggeration. 
Further details as to Toland’s literary gains, derived also from Lin- 
tott’s Account-Book, are to be found in Nichols’s ‘ Literary Anecdotes,’ 
vol. v., p. 302. ; 

Toland died at Putney, where he had lodged for about four years 
previous, choosing that place on account of its convenient distance 
from London, on the 11th of March 1722. ‘‘ Never,” says Mr. Disraeli, 
has author died more in character than Toland: he may be said to 
have died with a busy pen in his hand, Having suffered from an 
unskilful physician, he avenged himself in his own way; for there was 
found on his table an ‘Essay on Physic without Physicians. The 
dying patriot-trader was also writing a preface for a political pamphlet 
on the danger of mercenary parliaments; and the philosopher was 
composing his own epitaph, one more proof of the ruling passion pre- 
dominating in death; but why should a Pantheist be solicitous 
to perpetuate his genius and his fame ?” : 

Poland’s posthumous works were published in 1726, in 2 yols. 8vo, 
with a Life by Des Maizeaux prefixed, and were republished in 1747. 
The contents of these two volumes are an additional proof of the ver- 
satility of his powers: they contain, together with many other essays, 
the Memorials to the Karl of Oxford which have been referred to, and 
several private letters: an account of Giordano Bruno; the Secret 
History of the South-Sea Scheme, in which Toland had been con- 
cerned; a Plan for a National Bank; and a proposal, in Latin, for a 
new complete edition of Cicero. ‘An Historical Account of the Life 
and Writings of the late eminently famous Mr. John Toland, by one 
of his most intimate friends, in a letter to the Lord ——,’ was pub- 
lished in 1722; and is attributed to Curll. This is not so minute a 
biography as Des Maizeaux’s and is rather a sketch of his writings and 
opinions. There is appended to it a complete list of Toland’s works, 
many of the smaller of which are not'named in this article. 

Toland’s works have never been collected, and the notoriety which 
attended him during his life having soon died away, they are now 
little known. But they are almost all of some worth, and his political 
writings may throw some little light on the history of the times. 

TOLEDO, DON PEDRO DE, a younger son of Frederic of Toledo, 
duke of Alba, was born at Alba de Tormes, near Salamanca, in 1484, 
After going through his early studies he was placed as a page in the 
court of King Ferdinand the Catholic, who took him into particular 
favour; and it was by the king’s influence that young Pedro obtained 
the hand of Donna Maria Osorio, heiress of the house of Villafranca, 


in consequence of which he took the title of Marquis of Villafranea, 
and the possession of the rich estates attached to it. He afterwards 
served with distinction in the expedition against Jean d’Albret, king 
of Nayarre, and after King Ferdinand’s death he continued in the 
service of his successor Charles I. of Spain, afterwards Charles V. of 
Germany. He geryed against the revolted communeros of Castile, 
and afterwards followed the court of Charles V., whom he accompanied 
in his journeys through Flanders, Germany, and Italy. In 1532, 
being at Ratisbon with the emperor, the news arrived of the death of 
Cardinal Colonna, viceroy of Naples, when Charles V. appointed for 
his successor Don Pedro de Toledo, marquis of Villafranca, who 
immediately set out to take possession of his goyernment. He found 
the kingdom suffering from the consequences of the preceding foreign 
and civil wars, and especially of the recent French invasion of 1527-29, 
and the reyolt of many of the barons and the subsequent confiscation 
of their property; of the plague, which, originating in the French 
camp, had desolated the city of Naples; and the state of confusion, 
bordering upon anarchy, which prevailed in the provinces. The first 
care of the new viceroy was to enforce the rigorous administration of 
justice without respect for persons, and he sent to the scaffold the 
commendator Pignatelli, the count of Policastro, and other noblemen, 
who had been guilty of oppression: and other crimes. He pulled 
down the old dark arcades and other places which were the resort of 
thieves and murderers ; he abolished the abuse of making the palaces 
of the barons a place of asylum for criminals; forbade the use of 
weapons, except the side sword, then worn by gentlemen; he sen- 
tenced duellists to death, prescribed regulations for restraining the 
disorders that took place at funerals and marriages; and, lastly, by a 
‘bando,’ or public edict, he inflicted the penalty of death on any one 
found in the night with ladders scaling the windows of houses, a 
practice which had become frequent among dissolute men, who thus 
introduced themselves into ladies’ apartments. Don Pedro reformed 
the courts of justice, increased the number of judges, and made 
several regulations for the more humane treatment of prisoners and 
debtors; and also for the prevention of bribery and perjury. He 
raised an extensive building near Porta Capuana, where he placed all 
the higher courts of justice, civil and criminal. 

When Charles V., on his return from the Tunis expedition in 1535, 
visited Naples, where he remained till March, 1536, amidst the 
festivals and rejoicings with which he was greeted, he received hints 
and suggestions from several of the nobility against Toledo, but 
Charles stood firm in his good opinion of the viceroy, especially after 
having heard the deputies of the people, who explained to him that 
the nobility disliked Don Pedro because he would not permit them to 
oppress the lower orders, and to put themselves above the law, as 
they had been wont to do. It is reported that Charles, when he 
landed at Naples, on meeting the viceroy, said to him, * Welcome, 
margiis; I find that you are not become so large as I was told you 
were;” to which Toledo replied, smiling, “Sire, 1 am aware that you 
have been told that I was grown a monster, which I am not,” 

Toledo greatly embellished Naples; he enlarged the city, extended 
the walls, cleared, widened, and paved the streets, and made new 
drains and sewers; he built the royal palace near Castel Nuovo, 
which is now called ‘ Palazzo Vecchio,’ and constructed the handsome 
street which still bears his name. He adorned the city with fountains, 
enlarged the dockyard, fortified the castle of S. Elmo, built new 
hospitals and churches, and, in short, he quite altered the appearance 
of Naples. He also drained the marshes by opening the wide canal 
called dei Lagni, which carries the superfluous waters into the sea. 

In 1537, the Turks haying landed at Castro and other places of the 
province of Otranto, Toledo summoned the barons with their militia, 
and marched with them and the regular Spanish troops against the 
enemy, who, finding the country prepared for defence, took again to 
their ships and sailed away. Toledo fortified the maritime towns of 
Apulia, built towers of defence along the coast, restored Pozzuoli, 
which was nearly depopulated in consequence of the earthquakes and 
volcanic eruptions, and enlarged the ‘ Grotta,’ which leads to it from 
Naples. For all these and other services to the Neapolitans, ag well as 
for the just though severe tenor of his general administration, Don 
Pedro de Toledo had become very popular, until the year 1547, when 
his illjudged attempt to establish the tribunal of the Inquisition after 
the fashion of his own country, Spain, rendered him universally 
obnoxious. The cause of this attempt was that the doctrines of the 
Reformation had found their way to Naples, and made many converts, 
eyen among priests and monks. Charles V., who was at that time 


‘struggling in Germany with the religious and political dissensions 


arising out of the Reformation, dreaded a similar explosion in his 
Italian dominions, and the viceroy Toledo wished to save his master 
the additional trouble. Pope Paul III. was anxious to assist them in 
repressing the spread of heresy to Italy: but the Neapolitans, a lively, 
communicative people, had conceived a great horror of that gloomy 
and arbitrary court and its secret proceedings; they had heard of its 
deeds in Spain, and they determined to resist its introduction into 
their country, even by force of arms if necessary. The tumult began 
about the middle of May, when the people tore down the placards 
containing the edict which sanctioned the establishment of the Inqui- 
sition, from the gates of the archbishop’s palace. A cry of To arms!” 
resounded through the streets and squares; most of the nobles, who 


TOLETANUS, RODERICUS. 


TOLLENS, HENDRIK CORNELISZOON, 12 


hated Toledo for their own reasons, joined the citizens in their 
resistance. The people turned out some of their municipal magis- 
trates whom they suspected of being for the viceroy, and elected 
others without the viceroy’s sanction; and Toledo having resented 
this proceeding, the people took up arms, and attacked the Spanish 
soldiers who garrisoned the castles. The Spaniards fired with cannon 
into the city, and the people cut down all Spaniards whom they found 
straggling. The viceroy, having seized some of the head rioters, 
caused them to be summarily executed, which added fuel to the 
flame, and the citizens and nobles formed themselves into a union or 
patriotic convention, taking for their motto, “For the service of God, 
the emperor, and the city of Naples;” stigmatising as traitors to 
their country those who did not join the union. The;union sent as 
envoys to Charles V. the prince Sanseverino and another nobleman, 
refusing meantime obedience to the viceroy, who remained in the 
castle with his Spanish soldiers.and a few Neapolitan adherents, and 
the town was without any regular government. Frequent skirmishes 
took place in the streets between the viceroy’s men and the people; 
many individuals were killed, and houses were plundered. At last 
the answer came from Charles V., commanding the citizens to lay 
down their arms, with secret instructions to the viceroy to proceed 
leniently and prudently in the matter. 

On the 12th of August Toledo signified to the deputies of the city 
the will of the emperor that the Inquisition should not be established 
in Naples; that the past should be forgotten, except as to some of the 
principal leaders of the insurrection, who were obliged to emigrate; 
and that the city should pay one hundred thousand crowns as a fine: 
And thus this serious affair was hushed up, but the Neapolitans 
gained their point, and the tribunal of the Inquisition was never 
established at Naples, though persons accused of heresy were tried by 
the common ecclesiastical court, and several of them were put to 
death by the concurrence of the lay power. The prince Sanseverino, 
who had displeased Charles V., thought it prudent to emigrate to 
France, and was outlawed. [Tasso, BerNARDO.] 

In July, 1552, a large Turkish fleet, under Dragut Rais and Sinan 
Pasha, anchored near Procida, at the entrance of the Bay of Naples, 
when the emigrant prince Sanseverino of Salerno was to have joined 
them with a French squadron ; but the viceroy, it is said, by means 
of a large bribe, induced the Turkish commanders to leave the coast 
before the arrival of the French, 

Toward the end of the same year the viceroy, although old and 
infirm, was desired by Charles V. to march to Giena in Tuscany, 
which republic had thrown off the protection of the emperor and 
admitted a French garrison. Don Pedro having sent most of the 
troops by land, embarked with the rest for Leghorn. On arriving 
there he fell seriously ill, and was removed to Florence. The duke 
Cosmo de Medici had married his daughter Eleonora. He expired at 
Florence, in February, 1553, after having administered the kingdom of 
Naples for more than twenty years. He is by far the most dis- 
tinguished in the long list of the Spanish governors of Naples, and 
one of the few who are still remembered with feelings of respect by 
the Neapolitans. 

(Giannone, Storia Civile del Regno di Napoli; Botta, Storia d Italia.) 

TOLETA’NUS, RODERI’CUS, or RODRI’GO DE TOLE’DO, an 
eminent ecclesiastic and historian, was born at Rada, in Navarre, 
about 1170. His name was Rodrigo Simonis, commonly Ximenez; 
but he is better known as Rodericus Toletanus. On his return 
from Paris, where bis parents sent him to complete his education, 
he attached himself to Sancho V., king of Navarre, by whom he 
was employed to negociate a peace with Alfonso VIII. of Castile. 
The manner in which he discharged this mission procured him the 
favour of Alfonso, by whom, in 1192, he was appointed bishop of 
Siguenza, and on the death of Don Martin, archbishop of Toledo, he 
was raised to the vacant see. He showed great zeal in the frequent 
wars with the Moors, and at the battle of Las Navas, where the 
Almohades, under Mohammed An-ndsir, were defeated by Alfonso, his 
pennon was the first that entered the dense ranks of the enemy. 
Indeed such were his courage and martial disposition, that even when 
the king was at peace with the Moors, he would, at the head of his 
own vassals, make frequent inroads into the Mohammedan territory. 
He enjoyed so much favour with the kings of his time, especially 
with San Fernando, that nothing was undertaken without consulting 
him. His zeal for learning was no less ardent than his hatred of the 
infidel. He persuaded Alfonso to found the university of Palencia, 
and thereby avoid the necessity of sending youths to be educated in 
foreign countries. At the fourth Lateran council he is said not only 
to have harangued the fathers in elegant Latin, but to have gained 
over the secular nobles and ambassadors by conversing with each of 
them in his mother tongue, He died in France, in 1247, after attend- 
ing the council of Lyon, convoked by Innocent IV. His body was 
carried to Castile, and interred in the Cistercian monastery of Huerta. 
To him the history of his native country is more indebted than to 
any other man. He wrote several historical works, most of which are 
still inedited, His ‘Rerum in Hispania Gestarum Chronicon,’ which 
contains a history of the Peninsula from the most remote period to his 
own time, is an invaluable production, It was printed for the first 
time at Granada, in 1545, together with the chronicle of Antonius 
Nebrissensis, and was subsequently published in the collection entitled 


‘Hispania Illustrata,’ by Andreas Schott, 4 vols. fol., Frankfurt, 
1603-8. His ‘ Historia Arabum,’ or history of the western Arabs from 
the birth of the Mohammedan prophet to the invasion of Spain by 
the Almoravides, shows him to have been well versed in the language 
and history of the Arabs, This valuable work was first published, in 
1603, in the second volume of Andreas Schott, ‘ Hispania Illustrata,’ 
and subsequently, in 1625, by Erpennius, as an appendix to his ‘ His- 
toria Sarracenica’ of Georgius Elmacin, Thereis a third edition. He 
also wrote a history of the Ostro-Goths, another of the Huns, Vandals, 
Suevi, Alans, and Silingi, which were first published by Robert Bell 
in the collection entitled ‘Rerum Hispanicarum Scriptores aliquot,’ 
3 vols. fol, Frankfurt, 1579, and subsequently by Schott; a history 
of the Old and New Testament, entitled ‘ Breviarium Eeclesize Catho- 
licee,’ still inedited, and other works, the list of which may be seen in 
Nicolas Antonio. 

(Mariana, Hist. Gen. de Espavia, lib. ii, cap. 22; Zurita, Annales de 
Aragon, lib, ii., cap. 67 ; Nicolas Antonio, Bibl. Hist. Vetus, ii. 50.) 

TOLLENS, HENDRIK CORNELISZOON, long the most popular 
living poet of Holland, was born at Rotterdam on the 24th of Sep- 


tember 1780. His father carried on a thriving business, founded by — 


his grandfather, as a dealer in colours, and Hendrik was taken from 
school at the age of fourteen to assist behind the counter. The year 
after was that of the French entry into Holland, when many of the 
Dutch were disposed to look on them as deliverers, and young Tollens 
became the secretary of a “‘ Vaderlandsche Bijeenkomst,” or Patriotic 
Society, to whose purposes he soon contributed some songs, which 
had a run of success. His father, who had at first been pleased at his 
son’s reputation, soon grew alarmed that poetry would lead him away 
from business, though that alarm might surely have been spared in 
Holland. When Tollens, at the age of seventeen, made the acquaint- 
ance of two poets, one of them, Helmers [HELMERS], was a merchant, 
the other, Loots, a book-keeper in a counting-house, and Uylenbroek, 
a third, to whom they introduced him, a respectable bookseller. 
Tollens had learned some French at school, by Uylenbroek’s advice he 
now studied English and German, and thus enlarged his ideas ; but he 
followed Uylenbroek’s example in occupying himself with rendering 
French tragedies into Dutch verse. He afterwards ventured on 
original dramas, and his ‘ Lucretia,’ written in 1805, had, at all events, 
sufficient spirit to be prohibited by the government, Another tragedy, 
‘De Hoekschen en Kabeljaauwschen’ (‘The Hooks and the Codfish), 
had at least the merit of a national subject, being founded on the 
quarrels of the rival factions of these names, the Guelphs and Ghibel- 
ines of Dutch medieval history, whose hostilities, which lasted a 
century and a half, are said to have arisen in 1350 from a jocose dis- 
pute between some nobles at a banquet as to whether the codfish 
could be said to take the hook, or the hook the codfish. Tollens’s 
powers however did not lie in tragedy. In two contests with his 
friend Loots on subjects offered for prizes, one on the theme Hugo 
Grotius, and the other the death of Egmont and Hoorn, he won the 
second prize on the first occasion, and the first on the second; and in 
1807 ashort poem by him ‘To a Fallen Girl,’ attracted attention by 
its simple pathos. From that time his subjects were almost univer- 
sally taken from national history and from domestic scenes, and 
though even his admirers did not place him on a level in point of 
genius with Bilderdijk, he became decidedly the most popular poet 
of his country, and had the honour of forming a school of poets—* the 
school of Rotterdam.” In 1817 the third edition of his poems had 
10,000 subscribers; not long afterwards his fellow-townsmen pro- 
posed to erect his bust in a public place, and it was only the reluct- 
ance of Tollens himself which prevented the intention from being 
carried out when the subscription was already full. This popularity 
increased as he grew more advanced in life. On his seventieth birth- 
day, the 24th of September 1850, the minister of justice Mr. Neder- 
meijer van Rosenthal waited on him at his house at Rijswijk to bring 
him the congratulations of the King of Holland, and present to him 


the insignia of commander of the order of the Dutch Lion, a very 


unusual honour for a literary man. A committee waited on him the 
same day to offer him a gold medal struck in his honour, with the 
inscription ‘‘ Nederland zijnen geliefden Volksdichter’ (Netherland to 
its beloved national poet), and to inform him that a subscription had 
been organised, without his knowledge, for the formation of a ‘ Tollens 
Fund,’ to commemorate his name by a charitable institution, the 
nature of which was to be left to his own choice, He died in 1856, 
surrounded by universal respect. 

The shorter poems of Tollens, lyrical and narrative, are his chief 
title to remembrance. One narrative poem, ‘De Overwintering der 
Hollanders op Nova Zembla’ (The Wintering of the Hollanders at 
Nova Zembla), commemorative of the celebrated voyage of Barends in 
1596-97, is very popular and has often been reprinted, on one occa- 
sion in an illustrated edition. His ‘ Vierdaagsche Zeeslag,’ or Four 
Days’ Sea-Fight, commemorative of one of the desperate contests 
between the Dutch and English in the reign of Charles II, may be 
compared for spirit to his friend Loots’s ‘Overwinning bij Chattam’ 
(Victory at Chatham), a favourite subject of allusion with the Dutch 
poets. ‘ollens is a fertile author of ballads on subjects of Dutch his- 
tory, among which his ‘Jan Van Schaffelaar, ‘Kenau Hasselaar,’ &c., 
are conspicuous. His ‘ Wapenkreet’ (Call to Arms), written on occasion 
of Napoleon’s return from Elba, is one of his best productions. 


ee 5. oe 


ME 


*, ra i od EAS ce 


hie . 


TOLLIUS, CORNELIUS, 


TOMLINE, GEORGE. 114 


Tollens translated much from the German and English as well as the 
French, but often adapted the pieces he borrowed to Dutch subjects 
or history. An English reader would hardly suspect before reading it 
that his ‘Jonker van ’t Sticht’ was taken from Scott's ‘Young 
Lochinvar,’ which has also been done into Dutch by Van Lennep, 
under the title of ‘De Heer van Culemborg.’ ‘Trollens's works, of 
which a new edition is now publishing, are of some extent; his shorter 
poems alone occupy about ten 8vo volumes, not very closely printed. 

’ TO’/LLIUS, CORNE’LIUS, a Dutch philologer, was born at Utrecht 


- about 1620. His father, who had two other sons, Jacob and Alex- 


ander, possessed no means of giving his children a good education, 
but he had in G. J. Vossius a friend who gratuitously supplied the 
want. After Cornelius had for some years enjoyed the private 
instructions of Vossius, he entered the academy of Amsterdam, and 
continued his philological studies under the auspices of his bene- 
factor, who had formed a strong attachment to him, and made him 
his private secretary (famulus). In 1648 Tollius obtained the pro- 
fessorship of eloquence and of the Greek language at the academy of 
Harderwyk. The year after this event Vossius died, and Tollius 


' delivered on the occasion the customary eulogy, which was printed 


under the title ‘Oratio in orbitum G. J. Vossii,’ 4to, Amsterdam, 
1649. During his stay at Harderwyk Tollius exercised great influence 


_ on the affairs of the academy, for the curators are said to have had 


such confidence in him that they never appointed a professor without 
his previous sanction. The year of his death is not certain, but it 
appears to have been soon after 1652; this year at least is the last in 
which any work of his appeared. 

The works of Tollius are not numerous, but he had formed the 
plans for an edition of Valerius Maximus and Phurnutus, which his 
early death prevented him from executing. There is an edition of 
the work of J. P. Valerianus, ‘De Infelicitate Literatorum,’ 12mo, 
Amsterdam, 1647, with supplements by Tollius, which give some 
interesting accounts of literary men, and was in its time very popular. 
The Supplements were translated into French by Coupé, and inserted 
in his ‘ Soirées Littéraires,’ vol. xvi. p. 56, &e. He also edited Pale- 
phatus, ‘ De Incredibilibus,’? 12mo, Amsterdam, 1649, with notes and 
a Latin translation ; Joannes Cinnamus, ‘ De Rebus Joannis et Manuelis 
Comnenorum Libri iv.,’ with emendations and a Latin translation, 
4to, Amsterdam, 1652. 

Tollius has been charged by his biographers with having appro- 
priated numerous remarks and emendations on ancient authors which 
he found among the papers of his benefactor Vossius, but how far 
this is true cannot now be ascertained. 

(Casp. Burmann, Z'rajectum Eruditwm, p. 367, &c.; Saxius, Onomas- 
ticum Literariwm, vol. iv., p. 528.) . 

TOLLIUS, JACOB, a brother of Cornelius, was born about 1630, 
at Utrecht. He received his first education at Deventer, and after- 


‘wards studied under G. J. Vossius, who showed him the same kindness 
which he had before shown to his brother Cornelius. 


The younger 
Tollius is charged, and apparently with justice, with having been very 
ungrateful towards his benefactor, inasmuch as he appropriated to 
himself much which Vossius had written in illustration of the ancient 
writers. After the death of Vossius, Tollius returned to Utrecht, and 
became a corrector of the press in the printing establishment of J. 
Blaeuw, at Amsterdam. He gave perfect satisfaction to his employer, 
both by his great knowledge and the conscientious discharge of his 
duties. In the meantime D. Heinsius, who was staying at Stockholm, 
and preparing for a journey to Italy under a commission from Queen 
Christina, offered to Tollius the place of secretary to the commission. 
Tollius accepted the offer, and set out for Stockholm in 1662. 

Being entrusted with the various papers and manuscripts of Hein- 
sius, his old piratical inclination revived; when Heinsius discovered 
this, and, it would seem, some additional and more serieus offences, 
Tollius was dismissed, and returned to Holland, where after a short 
time the influence of his friends procured him the office of rector of the 
gymnasium at Gouda. Here he devoted all his leisure hours to the 
study of medicine, and in 1669 he obtained the degree of Doctor of 
Physic. Some dispute between him and the curators of the gymna- 
sium, and his free and unreserved mode of dealing with them, became 
the cause of his being deprived of his office at Gouda in 1673. After 
this he for some time practised medicine, and gave private lessons in 
Latin and Greek at Nordwyk. Finding that he could not gain a sub- 
sistence, he again obtained an appointment as teacher at Leyden, but 
in 1679 he gave up his place for that of professor of history and elo- 
quence in the University of Duisburg. His reputation as a mineralo- 
gist was also great; and in the year 1687 the elector of Brandenburg 
commissioned him to travel through Germany and Italy for the pur- 
pose of examining the mines of those countries. It appears that he 
faithfully discharged this commission. In Italy he was most hos- 
pitably received by Cardinal Barberini; and Tollius, who had hitherto 
not been promoted in his own country as he thought he deserved, 
secretly embraced the Roman Catholic religion. His long stay in 
Italy created in Germany some suspicion of his having renounced 
Protestantism ; and on hearing this he hastened, in 1690, from Rome 
to Berlin. His reception by the elector however was of such a nature 
that he thought it advisable to leave Berlin and return to Holland. 
Tollius, being now again without means and employment, opened a 
school at Utrecht, but it was closed by order of the city authorities. 

BIOG, DIV. VOI. VI. 


His friends were displeased with his conduct, and forsook him one 
after another; he sank into deep poverty, and died June 22, 1696. 

_The works of Tollius are rather numerous, and are partly philolo- 
gical, partly alchymistical, and partly on his travels. Among his 
alchymistical works are his ‘Fortuita, in quibus preter critica non- 
nulla, tota fabularis historia, Greaeca, Phosnicia, Egy ptiaca, ad chemiam 
pertinere asseritur,’ Amsterdam, 8vo, 1688, He published an edition 
of Ausonius, Amsterdam, 1671, which is the Variorum edition of 
Ausonius, and is still very useful; and also an edition of Lon- 
ginus, Utrecht, 4to, 1694, with notes and a Latin translation. ‘Tollius 
translated into Latin the Italian work of Bacchini, ‘De Sistrig,’ 
Utrecht, 1696, and the account of ancient Rome, by Nardini, both of 
which are incorporated in Grevius, ‘Thesaurus Antiquitatum Roma- 
narum,’ vols. iv. and vi. He is also the author of ‘ Gustus Avimad- 
versionum Criticarum ad Longinum cum Observatis in Ciceronis 
Orationem pro Archia,’ Leyden, 8vo, 1667. The works relating to his 
travels are :—‘ Insignia Itinerarii Italici, quibus continentur Antiqui- 
tates Sacre,’ Utrecht, 4to, 1696, and ‘ Kpistole Itinerariw, observatio- 
nibus et figuris adornate.’ This work was edited, after the author's 
death, by H. C. Hennin, Amsterdam, 4to, 1700, and is of greater use 
and interest than the former. There are also some dissertations on 
ancient poets, by Tollius, in Berkelius, ‘ Dissertationes selects critice 
de Poetis,’ Leyden, 8vo, 1704, 

TOLOME’I, CLAU’DIO, born at Siena, of a noble family, in 1492, 
studied the law in his native town, and afterwards went to Rome, 
where he founded an academy called ‘ Della Virti,’ of which Caro, 
Molza, Flaminio, and other learned men of Rome became members, 
and one of the purposes of which was the illustration of Vitruvius 
and the encouragement of architecture, Tolomei afterwards conceived 
the idea of introducing into the Italian poetry the Latin metre of the 
hexameters and pentameters, and he published rules and specimens 
for the purpose: ‘ Versi e Regole della nuova Poesia Toscana,’ Rome, 
1539. But this innovation, which had been already attempted by 
Leone Battista Alberti, did not succeed, and the Italian hexameters 
and pentameters soon fell into oblivion, 

Tolomei was for a time in the service of the Cardinal Ippolito 
d’Este, who sent him on a mission to Vienna in 1532. He afterwards 
attached himself to the court of Pier Luigi Farnese, son of Pope 
Paul IIL, and duke of Castro, and followed him to Piacenza, when 
Pier Luigi was created duke of Parma and Piacenza, After the 
tragical death of Pier Luigi, in 1547, Tolomci returned to Rome, 
where he lived in straitened circumstances, until his countrymen of 
Siena chose him, in 1552, for their ambassador to Henri II. of France, 
who protected the independence of that republic, threatened by the 
Medici and by Charles V. Tolomei repaired to Compiégne, where he 
delivered an oration to the king in presence of his court, which was 
afterwards published : ‘Orazione recitata dinanzi al Ré di Francia 
Enrico II. i Compiégne,’ Paris 1553. He died soon after his return to 
Rome, in 1554. He wrote several other orations in Italian, one of 
which, entitled ‘Orazione della Pace,’ Rome, 1534, has been most 
praised; a dialogue upon the Italian language; and several volumes 
of letters, which are the most interesting part of his writings— 
‘Lettere di Claudio Tolomei, libri vii.,’ 4to, Venice, 1547, afterwards 
repeatedly reprinted. He is one of the best letter-writers in the 
Italian language; his letters embrace a variety of subjects, scientific 
and philosophical, and his style is comprehensive and full of meaning. 
His correspondence was choice, and yet extensive. The edition of 
1547 contains an important letter to his friend Gabriele Cesano, about 
the manner of making the government of a state durable and perma- 
nent, which letter has been left out in the subsequent editions. In 
another letter, addressed to Count Lando, he suggests the plan of 
several philological and archzological works for the illustration of 
Vitruvius. (Corniani, Secoli della Letieratura Italiana; Tiraboschi, 
Storia della Letteratura Italiana.) 

TOMASIN. [THomasin.} 

TOMLINE, GEORGE, eldest son of George and Susan Pretyman, 
was born on the 9th of October 1750, at Bury St. Edmund’s, Suffolk, 
and was educated at the grammar-school in that town, which was the 
place of education at that time of most of the gentlemen’s families in 
Suffolk. At the age of eighteen he was sent to Pembroke Hall, Cam- 
bridge. He took his degree of A.B. in January 1772, and obtained the 
high honour of senior wrangler, and at the same time the first of Dr. 
Smith’s mathematical prizes. In the year 1773 he was elected Fellow 
of his college, and was immediately appointed tutor to Mr. Pitt. He 
was ordained deacon by Dr. Younge, bishop of Norwich, and priest 
by Dr. Hinchliffe, bishop of Peterborough. In 1775 he proceeded 
M.A., and in 1781 was moderator in the university. He resided in 
college till 1782, when he left it for the purpose of acting as private 
secretary to Mr. Pitt, on his appointment to the chancellorship of the 
exchequer. When Mr. Pitt was made first lord of the treasury, Tom- 
line became his secretary, and he continued with him till he became 
bishop of Lincoln and dean of S&. Paul’s. Dr. Pretyman’s first pre- 
ferment was a sinecure rectory of Corwen in Merionethshire, to which 
he was collated in 1782; and in 1784 he was appointed to a prebendal 
stall in Westminster, the first preferment of which Mr. Pitt had the 
disposal. In 1785 he was presented by the king to the rectory of 
Sudbourn-cum-Offord, in his native county of Suffolk. In January 
1787 he was advanced to the bishopric of Lincoln and the deanery of 

I 


115 TOMMASEO, NICCOLO. 


TONSTALL, CUTHBERT. 116 


St. Paul's, which were vacated by the promotion of Dr. Thurlow to 
the see of Durham, the first bishopric which became vacant after Mr. 
Pitt was minister. In 1813 he refused the see of London, and con- 
tinued bishop of Lincoln 32) years, in which time he performed the 
visitation of that most extensive diocese in the kingdom eleven times, 
at the regular interval of three years, which was never done by any of 
his predecessors. In July 1820 he was translated to the see of Win- 
chester, in which he continued till September 1827, the time of his 


death. His publications, besides single sermons, are ‘The Elements’ 


of Christian Theology,’ in 2 vols., now a standard work; ‘A Refutation 
of Calvinism,’ in 1 vol.; and ‘Memoirs of Mr. Pitt,’ in 3 vols. 8vo. 
Bishop Pretyman in 1803 assumed the name of Tomline, Marmaduke 
Tomline, Esq., having, without any relationship or connection, left him 
the valuable estate of Riby Grove in Lincolnshire. 

*TOMMASEO, NICCOLO, was born at Sebenico, in Dalmatia, but 
was educated in Italy. He became early an author, and for several 
years resided at Florence, where he was one of the most able con- 
tributors to the ‘ Antologia.’ In 1833, in consequence of having taken 
an active part in the revolutionary movements, he was forced to quit 
Italy, and resided for several years in France, chiefly in Paris, but also 
in several provincial towns, and in Corsica. In 1838, under an 
amnesty granted by the Austrian government, he returned to Italy, 
where he lived chiefly at Venice, occasionally visiting his birthplace. 
Towards the end of 1847, when another movement was commenced 
for the freedom of Italy, Tommaseo, in conjunction with Manin, pre- 
sented a petition to the Emperor of Austria for a milder exercise of the 
censorship of the press, For this act he and Manin were committed to 
prison on the 18th of January 1848, but were liberated on the 17th of 
March, when the inhabitants of Venice rose against the Austrian govern- 
ment. A few days subsequently he was elected a member of the provi- 
sional government, but resigned in June on account of a difference of 
opinion respecting the proposed union of Lombardy with Piedmont. 
In August however he rejoined the government, as minister of religious 
affairs and education, in order to resist the hostilities of the Austrians. 
To obtain assistance he visited Paris twice, but returned in January 
1849 with the conviction that no help was to be looked for in that 
quarter. The comparative moderation of Tommaseo lost him much 
of his influence during the investment of Venice; but when the city 
was forced to capitulate he was one of those who were obliged to quit 
Italy, and he has since resided at Corfu. Notwithstanding the keen 
interest he has taken in the political affairs of Italy, his life has been 
one of great literary activity ; and since his youthful ardour has 
become moderated in expression, his opinions and statements have 
become more philosophical and more truly patriotic, uniting a frank 
liberalism with devout Roman Catholicism. The learning he has dis- 
played, and the variety of subjects of which he has treated, are 
remarkable. Of his numerous productions, perhaps the most notice- 
able are—‘ Nuovo dizionario dei sinonimi,’ 1832, a work remarkable 
for its learning, acuteness, and critical accuracy; ‘ Della educazione,’ 
1834; ‘Nuovi scritti,’ in 4 vols., 1839-40, the contents of which are 
philosophical and esthetic; ‘Studj critici, 2 vols. 1843; and his 
Commentary on Dante contains many happy explanatory references to 
the Scriptures and the writings of the early fathers of the Church. 
He has also written ‘Il Duca d’Atene,’ 1836, a romantic history, por- 
traying in very dazzling colours that Grecian sovereignty; a history 
of France during the 16th century, from materials furnished by the 
despatches of the Venetian ambassadors, published at Paris in 1838 ; 
and ‘Lettere di Pasquale de’ Paoli,’ with an excellent introductory 
account of the war for independence in Corsica. In 1839 he published 
in 4 vols. a collection of popular poetry, which includes specimens of 
Tuscan, Corsican, Dalmatian, and Grecian productions, with historical 
introductions. Most of his works have gone through seyeral editions. 
He has also written some original poetry, which is clever and natural, 
but of no great excellence. 

TOMMA’SI, GIUSEPPE MARI’A, was born of a noble family at 
Alicata in Sicily, in 1649, and entered the congregation of the Teatini 
at Palermo in 1664. He was sent to finish his studies at Rome, where 
he became acquainted with Cardinal Francesco Barberini, who, per- 
ceiving in him a particular disposition for the study of ecclesiastical 
history and antiquities, encouraged him in this pursuit, and obtained 
for him access to the archives of the Vatican and other repositories of 
church history. In 1680 Tommasi published the collection ‘ Codices 
Sacramentorum nongentis Annis Vetustiores,’ which he illustrated 
with introductory notices, In 1683 he published an edition of the 
‘ Psalterium,’ and in 1686 a collection of ‘ Antiphonaries’ and 
*Responsoriales’ of the Roman Church, illustrated with learned com- 
ments and valuable documents. He afterwards edited the ancient 
mass-books, a Latin version of the Greek ritual for Good-Friday, a new 
edition of the ‘ Psalterium,’ a collection of minor works of the fathers 
in three volumes, to serve as an introduction to theological studies, 
and another book also to assist the students of divinity, entitled 
‘ Indiculus Institutionum Theologicarum.’ Tommasi and his contem- 
porary Cardinal Bona of Mondovi, author of Rerum Liturgicarum 
Libri duo,’ and ‘De Divina Psalmodia,’ are among the principal illus- 
trators and expounders of the liturgy and ceremonies of the Church 
of Rome. In 1712 Tommasi was made a cardinal, a dignity which 
he at first declined, until the pope expressly commanded him to accept 
it. He died in the beginning of the following year. 


TONSTALL, or TUNSTALL, CUTHBERT, was born at Hatch- 
ford, in Yorkshire, in 1474 or 1475. It has been commonly stated 
that he was a natural son of a gentleman of ancient family, who, 
according to one account, was Sir Richard Tonstall. His mother is 
said to have been a lady of the Conyers family. It has been doubted 
however whether there be any foundation for this story. About 1491 


he was sent to the University of Oxford, where, according to some — 


authorities, he was entered a student of Balliol College; but the Bee 
soon drove him to Cambridge, where he is known to have eventually 
become a Fellow of King’s Hall (now incorporated with 
College). After this he went abroad and studied at Padua, an 
having taken the degree of Doctor of Laws, returned to England with 
the highest reputation for classical, legal, and scientific, as well as 
theological learning. His first patron was Warham, archbishop of 
Canterbury, who, in 1511, made him his vicar-general, collated him to 


the rectory of Harrow-on-the-Hill, and also introduced him at court. — 


In 1514 he was promoted to a prebend in the cathedral of Lincoln ; in 
1515 he was admitted archdeacon of Chester; and in May 1516, he 
was appointed master of the rolls, an office at this date often held by 
clergymen. 

Towards the close of this same year he was sent to Brussels as chief 
commissioner to Charles, the young king of Spain and the Low 


Countries (afterwards the Emperor Charles V.), with whom he con- 


cluded two treaties of alliance and commerce; and here he made the 
acquaintance of Erasmus, who describes him, in one of his letters, as 
not only the most eminent Greek and Latin scholar among his country- 
men, but also a person of the most comprehensive judgment and the 


nicest taste, and withal of remarkable modesty and the most agreeable 
and cheerful manners, yet without going beyond the bounds of a — 


becoming gravity. Erasmus adds that, much to his delight, he 
boarded at the same table with Tonstall. In 1517, within ten days 


after his return home, he was sent on a second em 


1521 to another in that of Salisbury, of which diocese he was also at 
the same time elected dean. The next year he was promoted to the 
bishopric of London : his consecration took place on the 9th of Octo- 
ber, his enthronization on the 22nd. He now resigned his office as 
master of the rolls; but in May 1523, he was introduced into the 
government by being made lord privy seal. After this he was em- 
ployed in various diplomatic missions: having been sent to Spain on 
an embassy to the emperor in 1525; having accompanied Cardinal 


Wolsey in his embassy to France in 1527; and having along with Sir 


Thomas More represented the English king at the negociation of the 
treaty of Cambray in 1529. At Antwerp, on his return from Cambray, 
Tonstall, as the story is related by the old chronicler Hall, purchased 
from an English merchant named Packington all the copies that 
remained unsold of Tyndal’s translation of the New Testament, and 
bringing them home with him, made a bonfire of them in Cheapside— 
the effect of which was to euable Tyndal to publish next year a 
second and more correct edition with the bishop’s money. 


to Charles, 
In 1519 he was collated to a prebend in the cathedral of York; and in — 


In 1530 Tonstall was translated to the bishopric of Durham; and ~ 


now, or soon after this, he appears to have resigned the privy seal. 


In the religious changes that now began to be enforced by the royal — 


authority, his mild and compliant temper carried him nearly as far as 
Henry himself went; he supported the divorce of Queen Catherine 
(although it has been supposed that he latterly somewhat changed his 
opinion on that question) ; he preached and wrote in favour of the 
king’s assumption of ecclesiastical supremacy ; and, along with Heath, 
bishop of Rochester, he revised the English translation of the Bible 
which was published by authority in 1541. But, from habit, con- 
scientious. belief, or love of quiet, he appears to have retained to the 


last an attachment to most of the doctrinal theology of the ancient — 


church, Yet, like the generality of the other bishops, he aequi 

in the additional innovations of all kinds that were made in religion 
on the accession of Edward VI, in 1547; and accordingly he not only 
preserved his seat in the privy council, but was also m 
of the king’s council in the north, In May 1551, however, he was 
accused before the council of being privy to the design of an insur- 


e€ a member — 


rection in the north; upon which he was in the first instance com- — 


manded to keep his house; and afterwards, on a letter in his hand- — 


writing, deemed to be confirmatory of the charge, being found among 
the papers of the Duke of Somerset, which were seized in December of 
that year, he was committed to the Tower, and a bill was brought into 
the House of Lords to deprive him of his bishopric. But, although 
the bill was passed by that House, all the influence of the new head of 
the 
satis 
with it. The precise nature of the charge is not known; and it seems 
highly improbable, from Tonstall’s character, that he should have 
involved himself in any insurrectionary or other treasonable scheme. 
In the Lords the bill was strongly opposed by Cranmer, who “ spoke 
so freely against it,” says Burnet, “ that the Duke of Northumber: 

and he were never after that in friendship together.” The duke how- 
ever was not to be cheated of his prey: the parliament was dissolved 
in April 1552; but on the 21st of September thereafter a commission 
was issued to the chief justice of the King’s Bench and seven others, 


overnment, the Duke of Northumberland, proved insufficient to — 
the objections of the Commons, and they refused to proceed — 


empowering them to call Tonstall before them, to examine him touch- — 
ing all manner of’ conspiracies, &c., and, if they found him guilty, to 


' deprive him of his bishopric; and by this tribunal he was 


117 TOOKE, JOHN HORNE. 


TOOKE, JOHN HORNE, 118 


deprived on the 14th of October. Agee 
e remained a prisoner in. the Tower for the remainder of King 
Edward’s reign; and the bishopric of Durham having been dissolved 
by act of parliament, in April 1553, Northumberland obtained a grant 
of the greater part of its jurisdiction and revenues, with the title and 
dignity of Count Palatine. In a few months however the accession of 
\ in changed everything; and Tonstall, released from prison, was 
reinstated in his bishopric, which the queen erected anew by letters- 
patent. His own sufferings had not given Tonstall any taste for perse- 
eution; and he principally distinguished himself throughout this reign 
the moderation of his conduct and the aversion he showed to the 
violent courses urged by the court and followed with little reluctance 
‘most of his right reverend brethren. No burning of heretics took 
in his diocese; and, suspected on this account to be half a Pro- 
testant at heart, he lived under a cloud in so far as regarded the 
your of the court. Nevertheless when Elizabeth came to the 
throne he refused to take the oath of supremacy ; and he was deprived 
on that account, in July 1559. Being committed ‘to the charge of his 


friend Parker, already nominated, though not admitted, archbishop of 


Canterbury, and in possession of Lambeth, Tonstall “lived there,” 
says Lloyd (in his ‘State Worthies’), “in sweet chambers, warm beds, 
by warm fires, with plentiful and wholesome diet, at the archbishop’s 
own table: differing nothing from his former grandeur, save that 
that was at his own charges, and this at another’s; and that he 


had not his former suite of superfluous servants—that long train, that 


doth not warm, but weary the wearer thereof.” Tonstall only enjoyed 
Parker’s hospitality for a few months: he died on the 18th of 
November 1559. 

The character of Tonstall may be collected from this sketch of his 
history. He will scarcely be allowed the credit of principle by the 
more severe class of moralists : but although not made to be a martyr, 
he had evidently many excellent moral qualities. Intellectually he 
was rated very high in his own day: Erasmus, More, Warham, Cran- 
mer, and Parker, were all among his admirers and attached friends. 
Besides various scattered letters, speeches, and other short composi- 
tions, some in print, some in manuscript, for a list of which we must 
refer to the ‘Biographia Britannica,’ Bishop Tonstall is the author of the 


following works, published by himself :—1, ‘In Laudem Matrimonii,’ 


&e. (a Latin Oration pronounced at the betrothment of the Princess 
Mary and Francis, eldest son of the king of France), 4to, London, 
1518; 2, ‘De Arte Supputandi Libri Quatuor’ (a treatise on Arithme- 
tic), 4to, London, 1522, and frequently reprinted at Paris, Strasburg, 
and elsewhere on the Continent, as well asin England. The writer of 
‘Notices of English Mathematical and Astronomical Writers between 
the Norman Conquest and the year 1600,’ in the ‘Companion to the 
Almanac for 1837,’ says, “In point of simplicity this work stands 
alone in its age, and is perfectly free from all the extraneous matter 
which was often introduced into the scientific works of the day.” 3, 
A Sermon preached on Palm-Sunday, 1538, before King Henry VIII. 
on Philippians, ii. 5-12 (in support of the royal supremacy), 4to, 
London, 1539, and again 1633; 4, ‘De Veritate Corporis et Sanguinis 
Domini Nostri Jesu Christi in Eucharistia* (in defence of Transubstan- 
tiation), 4to, Paris, 1554; 5, ‘Compendium et Synopsis,’ &c., an 
abridgment of Aristotle’s Ethics, 8vo, Paris, 1554; 6, ‘Contra Impios 
Blasphematores,’ &c., a defence of Predestination, 4to, Antwerp, 1555; 
7, ‘Godly and Devout Prayers in English and Latin,’ 8vo, 1558. 

TOOKE, JOHN HORNE, was the son of John Horne, a poulterer 
in Newport-street, Westminster, where he was born on the 25th of 
June, 1736, The name of Tooke he assumed afterwards for reasons 
mentioned below. He was educated at Westminster and Eton schools, 
at the former of which he remained two, and at the latter five years. 
In 1755 he went to St. John’s College, Cambridge, and took his degree 
of B.A. in 1758. After leaving Cambridge he officiated for a short 
time as usher in a school at Blackheath, and in 1760 took deacon’s 
orders, and obtained a curacy in Kent. He entered the church 
through the wishes of his father, but*against his own inclinations, 
He had wished himself to. study for the bar, and with this view 
had entered his name at the Inner Temple in 1756. In 1760 he 
received priest’s orders; and in the course of the same year was 
inducted to the chapelry of New Brentford, which his father had 
purchased for him. He was however never happy in discharging the 
duties of his profession, and gladly embraced the opportunity of 
leaving New Brentford for more than a year upon two different 
occasions, in order to travel on the Continent as tutor to the sons of 
gentlemen in his neighbourhood. What he thought of his profession 
may be seen from a letter of his to Wilkes, whose acquaintance he 
made in Paris in 1765, and to whom he thus writes: “ You are now 
entering into correspondence with a parson, and I am greatly appre- 
hensive lest that title should disgust : but give me leave to assure you, 
I am not ordained a hypocrite. It is true I have suffered the in- 
fectious hand of a bishop to be waved over me; whose imposition, 
like the sop given to Judas, is only a signal for the devil to enter. I 
hope I have escaped the contagion; and, if I have not, if you should 
at any time discover the black spot under the tongue, pray kindly 
assist me to conquer the prejudices of education and profession.” 
Yet he continued for eight years longer to hold the benefice he thus 
coarsely acknowledged himself utterly unjustified in holding. 


in fact 


On his second return from the continent in 1767, Horne took an 
active part in the political contests of the day, and it was greatly owing 
to his exertions that Wilkes was returned as member for the county 
of Middlesex in 1768. MHorne’s opposition to the ministry was un- 
ceasing, and he soon became one of the most popular men of the day. 
He was the founder of the ‘Society for supporting the Bill of Rights,’ 
in 1769, in which he was closely associated with Wilkes: but in the fol- 
lowing year a quarrel took place between them, which led to an angry 
paper war, in consequence of which Horne lost much of his popularity. 

In 1771 he took his degree of M.A., which was granted to him, 
notwithstanding the opposition of many of the members of the 
university, and among others of Dr. Paley. His quarrel with Wilkes 
drew upon him in the same year the attack of Junius, whom he 
answered with considerable success. 

His occupations were now so entirely opposed to the clerical pro- 
fession, and his dislike to it, as well as the gross inconsistency of 
remaining in it with his avowed principles, had become so great, that 
he resigned his living in 1773 with the view of studying for the bar. 
That he might not want the means of doing so, four of his friends 
presented him with joint bonds to the amount of 400/. a year, which 
were to continue in force till he was called to the bar. While pro- 
secuting his legal studies, he afforded great assistance to Mr. William 
Tooke, an old friend of his, in resisting an inclosure bill, which would 
have greatly deteriorated the value of some property which Tooke had 
purchased at Purley, near Godstone in Surrey. In return for his 
services Mr. William Tooke made him his heir; and it was upon this 
occasion or shortly afterwards that he assumed the name of Tooke, by 
which he is commonly known. 

On the breaking out of the American War, Tooke vehemently 
attacked the conduct of the ministry, and opened a. subscription for 
the widows and orphans of the Americans, ‘‘ murdered,” as he said, 
“by the king’s troops at Lexington and Coucord.” The ministry 
prosecuted him for a libel in 1777; he was found guilty, condemned 
to pay a fine of 200/., and to be imprisoned for twelve months, While 
in prison he published his letter to Mr. Dunning, which is occupied 
with a critical examination of the case of ‘The King and Lawley,’ 
which had been quoted as a precedent against him in his trial : this 
examination leads him to explain the conjunctions and prepositions of 
the English language. This letter formed the basis of a considerable 
part of the first volume of the ‘ Diversions of Purley.’ 

Shortly after his release from prison, he applied in 1779 to bo 
called to the bar, but he was rejected by the benchers on the ground 
of his being a clergyman, This blighted all his prospects in life, and 
he soon afterwards retired from London to a farm in Huntingdon- 
shire. He had however previously published, in conjunction with 
Dr. Price, a pamphlet against the American War, entitled ‘ Facts’ 
addressed to the landholders, stockholders, &e. of Great Britain. 
Tooke did not remain long in Huntingdonshire, and on his return to 
London he took an active part in advocating the cause of parlia- 
mentary reform, which Mr. Pitt then espoused. He published a letter 
in favour of itin 1782, addressed to his friend Mr. Dunning, then Lord 
Ashburton. He continued to advocate Mr. Pitt's party steadily for 
some years, and when Mr. Fox came into power by the coalition 
ministry, a8 it was called, he published his celebrated ‘ Two Pairs of 
Portraits,’ 1788, in which he contrasts the character and conduct of 
Lord Chatham and Lord Holland, and of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox 
respectively. Two years previously to this he published the first 
volume of his‘ Emea Ilrepoevra, or the ‘Diversions of Purley,’ in 
octavo, the latter of which names was given to the work in compli- 
ment to the residence of his friend Mr. William Tooke. 

In 1790 Tooke became a candidate to represent the city of West- 
minster in parliament; and though he spent nothing upon the 
contest, he polled nearly 1700 votes. In 1794 he was arrested on a 
charge of high treason, mainly as it appears on account of his con- 
nection with the ‘Constitutional Society.? Nothing however of a 
treasonable nature could be proved against him, and he was accord- 
ingly acquitted after a trial which lasted six days, during which he 
distinguished himself by his calmness, intrepidity, and presence of 
mind. His domestic affairs having become very much embarrassed, 
his friends came forward to his assistance and settled on him a pension 
of 600/. a year. In 1796 he again offered himself as a candidate for 
Westminster, and polled on this occasion upwards of 2800 votes, His 
desire of obtaining a seat in parliament was at length gratified, though 
not exactly in a way which best accorded with the principles of a 
person who had been such a strenuous advocate of parliamentary 
reform. He was returned in 1801 for the borough of Old Sarum by 
Lord Camelford. He retained his seat till the dissolution of parlia- 
ment in the following year, but was disqualified from sitting again in 
consequence of an act of parliament, which was passed while he was 
in the house, enacting that in future no one in priest’s orders should 
be a member of the House of Commons. 

Mr. Tooke now retired into private life, and passed the remainder of 
his life at Wimbledon, where he had already resided for many years. 
He had published a second edition of the ‘ Diversions of Purley’ in 
1798, in one volume, quarto, and this was now followed by the second 
volume in 1805. He died on the 18th of March, 1812, in the seventy- - 
seventh year of his age. He was never married, but had several 
illegitimate children, to one of whom he left his property. 


119 TOOKE, REV. WILLIAM, F.R.S. 


TORDENSKIOLD. 


120 


Mr. Tooke was a man of great powers and considerable attainments. 
He was well read in English, French, and Italian literature, possessed a 
tolerable knowledge of Latin and Greek, and had studied Anglo- 
Saxon with some diligence. In private he was much beloved, and his 
conversational powers are particularly celebrated by all who knew 
him. He is however principally known in the present day by the 
‘Diversions of Purley,’ a work which has exercised considerable 
influence upon the works on the English language published since its 
appearance. It is written in the form of a dialogue: the principal 
speakers in the first volume are Mr. Tooke himself, and his friend 
Dr. Beadon, the Master of Jesus College, Cambridge ; Mr. William 
Tooke is occasionally admitted to take part in the dialogue: in the 
second volume the only speakers are the author and Sir Francis 
Burdett. The first volume is divided into ten chapters:, the first 
treats ‘Of the Division and Distribution of Language ;' the second 
contains ‘Some Considerations of Mr. Locke’s Essay on the Human 
Understanding ;’ the third treats ‘Of the Parts of Speech,’ in which 
nll words necessary for the great purposes of speech are resolved into 
“words necessary for the communication of our thoughts,” and 
“abbreviations employed for the sake of despatch;” in respect to the 
former we are told that in English and in all languages there are only 
two sets of words necessary for the communication of our thoughts, 
and that these are nouns and verbs. The fourth chapter treats ‘Of 
the Noun,’ and the fifth ‘Of the Article and Interjection,’ The 
substance of the three next chapters, ‘On the word That,’ ‘Of Con- 
junctions,’ and ‘Etymology of English Conjunctions,’ had been pre- 
viously given in the letter to Mr. Dunning. ‘The tenth chapter speaks 
‘Of Adverbs.’ In the second volume, the first chapter treats ‘ Of the 
Rights of Man ;’ the second, third, fourth, and fifth, ‘ Of Abstraction ;’ 
and the sixth, seventh, and eighth, ‘Of Adjectives and Participles.’ 
It is impossible to read this work without deriving information from 
it. It contains many happy explanations and conjectures, but the 
young student cannot be cautioned too strongly against receiving all 
the conclusions of the author. The great fault of the book is the 
love of hypothesis, and the absence to a great extent of that historical 
mode of investigation without which etymological studies are worse 
than useless. A useful edition of the work has been published by 
Richard Taylor, with notes, London, 1840. 

TOOKE, REV. WILLIAM, F.R.S., was born on the 18th of January 
1744, and educated at a private academy at Islington, kept by Mr. 
Shield, where he had for school-fellows the indefatigable and amiable 
antiquarian Mr. John Nichols, and Dr. Ed. Gray, of the British 
Museum, Sec, R.S., with each of whom he kept up a cordial intimacy 
during their lives. He was ordained a clergyman of the Church of 
England in 1771, by the then Bishop of London, and shortly after- 
wards obtained the situation of minister of the English church at 
Cronstadt, the naval arsenal and commercial port of St. Petersburg. 
In 1774 he was appointed chaplain to the factory of the Russia 
Company at St. Petersburg, in which situation he remained for 
eighteen years. He often preached in the chapel of the French Pro- 
testants at St. Petersburg in the French language, of which he was 
a complete master; and after his return to London he preached on 
several occasions in that language on behalf of the French Protestant 
School and Workhouse in London. He returned to England in 1792, 
in consequence of succeeding to a considerable property by the death 
of his maternal uncle, which enabled him to dispense with all profes- 
sional exertion. He died in London, November 17, 1820, in his 
seventy-seventh year, much esteemed by a large circle of literary 
friends, By his wife Elizabeth, daugther of Thomas Eyton, Esq., of 
Liangynhavil in Denbighshire, he had a daughter and two sons, who 
survived him. 

Mr. Tooke was the author of several works, of which the moat 
important are those relating to Russia, namely, a ‘ Life of Catherine 
IL,’ 3 vols. 8vo; ‘A View of the Russian Empire,’ 3 vols.; and ‘A 
History of Russia, from the Foundation of the Empire to the Acces- 
sion of Catherine II.’ Mr. Tooke was also a joint editor with Arch- 
deacon Nares and Mr. Beloe, of the ‘ General Biographical Dictionary,’ 
in 15 vols. 8vo, 1798; his portion of the work was the first five 
volumes. Besides this he published, early in life, ‘ Othniel and 
Achsah,’ an Oriental tale from the Chaldee, in 2 vols., and long after- 
wards four volumes of miscellaneous essays under the title of 
‘Varieties of Literature,’ and ‘Selections from various Foreign Literary 
Journals. He translated Zollikofer’s sermons from the German, in 
10 vols. 8vo, and Lucian’s works, in 2 vols. 4to, with the notes of 
Wieland. The Lucian however is not a translation from the original 
Greek, but from Wieland’s version ; and where the latter did not give 
the meaning of the Greek, recourse was had to the original. 

(Nichols’s Literary Anecdotes ; and Gentleman’s Magazine for May, 
1816 ; November 1820; and December 1839.) - 

*Tooxkr, THomas, one of the two sons of the Rev. William Tooke, 
published in 1838 ‘ A History of Prices and of the State of the Cir- 
culation from 1793 to 1887, preceded by a brief Sketch of the State 
of the Corn-Trade in the last Two Centurigs,’ 2 vols, 8vo. The treatise 
comprised in these two volumes, though apparently an enlargement 
and continuation of one published about fifteen years previously under 
the title of ‘ Thoughts and Details on the High and Low Prices of the 
last Thirty Years, embracing, as it does, the same line of argument 
and establishing the same conclusions, is yet essentially different both 


in its arrangement and details, and is in fact, with slight exceptions, 
entirely new. It forms the first two volumes of the valuable work 
now well known to political economists as the ‘ History of Prices,’ 
perhaps the first really scientific attempt to elucidate by inferences 
legitimately deduced from actual experience the complicated facts of 
this branch of political economy. The first two volumes were followed 
in 1840 by another volume, in continuation of the two former, to which 
were added ‘Remarks on the Corn Laws and on some of the Alterations. 
proposed in our Banking System.’ The fourth volume was entitled 
‘A History of Prices and the State of the Circulation from 1839 to 
1847 inclusiye; with a General Review of the Currency Question, and 
Remarks on the Operation of the Act 7 & 8 Vict., c. 32,’ 8vo, 1848. 
Mr. Tooke afterwards published a tract, in which he was assisted by 
Mr. Newmarch, ‘On the Bank-Charter of 1844, its Principles and 
Operation, with Suggestions for an Improved Administration of the 
Bank of England,’ 8vo. ‘The last two volumes of his great work are 
entitled ‘A History of Prices and the State of the Circulation during 
the Nine Years 1848-1856, in Two Volumes, forming the Fifth and 
Sixth Volumes of the History of Prices from 1792 to the Present 
Time, by Thomas Tooke, F.R.S., Lorresponding Member of the Insti-_ 
tute of France, and William Newmarch,’ 8vo, 1857. The 5th and 
6th volumes, besides being a continuation and completion of the 


work, arranged under the heads Prices of Corn, Prices of Produce 


other than Corn, and the State of the Circulation, contains discussions 


on the connected topics of Railways and the Railway System, the : 


Origin and Progress of the Free-Trade Movement, the State of Finance 
and Banking in France, and the New Discoveries of Gold. __ Cyan 

*Tooxr, Witit14M, F.R.S., the younger son of the Rev, William 
Tooke, was born in 1777, at St. Petersburg. He was bred to the law, 
and continued many years in practice as a solicitor in London. He 
published in 1804 anonymously ‘The Poetical Works of Charles 
Churchill, with explanatory Notes and an authentic Account of his 
Life,” 2 vols. 8vo, which was republished in 1844, with his name, as 
one of the ‘Aldine Poets,’ under the title of ‘The Poetical Works 
of Charles Churchill, with copious Notes and a Life of the Author,’ 
3 vols, Mr. William Tooke was influential in the establishment of the 
Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, of which he became 
the Treasurer. He has since published ‘The Monarchy of France, | 
its Rise, Progress, and Fall,’ 8vo, 1855. 

TORDENSKIOLD, Vice-Admiral in the Danish navy. His name 
was Peter Wessel before he was ennobled by King Frederick IV. 
Born on the 28th of October 1691, at Trondheim in Norway, of 
obscure parents, he was at an early age bound apprentice to a barber, 
but his strong desire for a seafaring life induced him to leave his 
master and go to Copenhagen as cabin-boy, There he entered the 
service of the East India Company as a common sailor, and in his 
third voyage distinguished himself so much, that by the recommenda- 
tion of his captain he obtained au appointment as midshipman in the 
royal navy. In the year 1709, immediately after the battle of Pultawa, 
Denmark declared war against Sweden, and from that time Wessel’s 
brilliant career commenced. From 1709 to 1711 he commanded a 
small privateer, and made many prizes. He was promoted to the rank 
of lieutenant in 1712, and shortly afterwards had the command of a 
small frigate, in which he cruised against the Swedish traders with 
such effect, that it is said that the Gothenburg and Calmar merchants 
offered him a hundred thousand crowns if he would resign his com- 
mand, On the 5th of June 1712 he met a Swedish frigate of nearly 
double the size of his own, under English colours. Tordenskiold 


hoisted the Dutch flag, and by a skilful manceuvre laid alongside the 


enemy within hailing distance, and the Swedish captain, still believing 
him to be Dutch, hailed him. The answer was a destructive broad- 
side. A most obstinate engagement ensued, in which Tordenskiold 
had decidedly the advantage, when he unfortunately found that his 
ammunition was exhausted. Upon this he hailed the Swedish captain, 
telling him the roughness of the sea alone prevented him from board- 


ing the frigate and taking her; but that if he either would lend him ~ 


some powder or pledge his word to await his return within three days 
off the Drammen, he would promise to carry him as a prize to Copen- 
hagen. Both proposals were declined, but the Swedish captain express- 
ing alively wish to become personally acquainted with his gallant 


adversary, Tordenskiold went on board to him, and drank to the King : 


of Sweden’s health. Upon his return to Copenhagen he was tried 
by a court-martial, but honourably acquitted; and King Frederick, 
pleased with his chivalrous conduct, promoted him to the rank of © 
captain. During his stay in Copenhagen, he submitted to the king — 
personally a plan for attacking the Swedish coast, which the Admi- 
ralty however, being annoyed at the young man’s rapid promotion and 
increasing favour, rejected with great disdain. He left Copenhagen on 
the 24th of April 1715, his frigate being then attached to the fleet 
under Admiral Gabel, who despatched him for the purpose of recon- 
noitring the Swedish fleet, commanded by Admiral Wachtmeister, on — 
the coast of Norway. Here, by his extraordinary seamanship and 
boldness, he was principally instrumental in destroying four ships of 
the line and three frigates, besides a large frigate which he captured, 
and in which, as a due reward for his eminent services, he was sent to 
Copenhagen as bearer of the glorious tidings. For this exploit he 
was raised to the rank of commodore, and a short time afterwards he 


was appointed to the command of a squadron destined to cruise in 


121 TORELLI, GIUSEPPE, 


TORENO, DON JOSH, COUNT OF. 122° 


the Baltic for the purpose of intercepting transports wilh fr¢sh 
supplies of troops for Charles XIJ., then in Pomerania, r 
On the 7th of August 1716, off the island of Riigen, he came in 
sight of the Swedish fleet commanded by Wachtmeister. Charles XII. 
himself stood on an eminence on the island to see the victory of his 
flag, as to which there could scarcely be a doubt, as the Swedish fleet 
-amounted to more than double the number of ships of Tordenskiold’s 
squadron. But better acquainted with the bearings and the ground 
he was on, and much more skilful in seamanship, Tordenskiold soon 
gained the weather-side of the enemy, and then kept up his fire with 
_ guch precision and rapidity, that in an hour three of the Swedish 
ships of the line and two frigates had struck ; and the Swedish loss in 
; ed and wounded, besides one vice-admiral, amounted to more than 
three times that of the Danes. A gold medal was struck in comme- 
-moration of this victory, which the king permitted him to wear sus- 
_ pended by the blue ribbon of the Order of the Elephant, a distinction 
only twice grauted before. ; : 
In the battle of Dyneskiln, July 17, 1717, and in that of Stroem- 
staedt, he fought with the same gallantry and success. In December 
1717 the king raised him to noble rank by the name of ,Tordenskiold 
(shield against thunder). The immediate cause of this new honour 
was characteristic. On avery cold day Tordenskiold went on shore 
with a party of officers to dine with the king. By a sudden pitch of 
the boat he lost a golden snuff-box, with the king’s portrait set in 
diamonds, and presented to him by his majesty. He immediately ex- 
claimed, “ Rather die than lose that which my sovereign has given me!” 
and before his friends could prevent it, he threw himself overboard, 
and dived several times after it, till he at last was taken up senseless. 
On the 26th of July 1717 he took Marstrand, one of the most 
important Swedish fortifications in the Kattegat. The peace of 
Fredriksborg having been signed (July 23, 1720), Tordenskiold had a 
great desire to visit foreign countries. King Frederick gave his con- 
sent very reluctantly. At Hamburg, where he was received with 
princely honours, his travelling companion, a wealthy young man 
from Copenhagen, lost large sums at play to a Swedish colonel, De 
Stahl ; and after his ready cash was exhausted, gave drafts upon his 
father to the amount of 30,000 crowns. Tordenskiold, upon being 
informed of it, declared his intention to call the gambler to a strict 
account ; but the colonel having left Hamburg, Tordenskiold went to 
Hanover to be presented to George II. There, the “sy after his 
arrival, he met Colonel Stahl at a dinner-party with one of the 
ministers. He immediately expressed his indignation and reluctance 
to dine at the same table with him. A violent quarrel ensued, anda 
hostile meeting was appointed for the following day at a place some 
miles distant from the capital. Tordenskiold went without a second, 
- and only armed with a light dress-sword. Colonel Stahl used a heavy 
sword, with which he shivered his adversary’s blade at the first onset, 
and then ran him through the heart. Tordenskiold expired in a few 
_ minutes, recommending his soul to Heaven, and charging his faithful 
valet to take his body to Copenhagen, where it was deposited in a 
chapel of the navy church (Holmens Kirke): the king himself 
attended the funeral. The general impression in Denmark at the 
‘time was that foul play had been practised by instigation from a 
higher quarter. 
(Peter Tordenskiolds Liv, og Levnet, 3 vols. 4to, Kidbenhayn, 1747 ; 
Peter Subm’s Historie af Dannemark, Norge, &c., 1 vol. 8vo, Kidben- 
haven, 1787 ; Histoire de Dannemare, par M. P. H. Mallet, 9 vols. 8vo, 
Paris and Geneva, 1788.) ~ 
TORELLI, GIUSEPPE, an Italian mathematician, was born a 
Verona, in 1721. Having received the rudiments of education in that 
city, he was sent to the University of Padua, where he distinguished 
himself by his assiduity in cultivating both literature and science, and 
where he obtained a Doctor’s degree. Engaging in no profession, he 
prosecuted the study of the ancient and modern languages, and at the 
same time he applied himself particularly to the writings of the Greek 
geometers. He is chiefly distinguished by his edition in Greek and 
Latin of all the works of Archimedes, in the preparation of which he 
‘was engaged during the greater part of his life, and for which. his 
talents as a mathematician, as well as the extent of his classical attain- 
‘ments, particularly qualified him: he had not however the satisfaction 
of enjoying the fruits of his labours, for he died in 1781, almost at 
the moment of the completion of the work. The manuscript was 
sold after his death to the University of Oxford, and, under the 
superintendence of Dr. Abram Robertson, the work was published in 
_ 1792 by the curators of the Clarendon Press. This splendid edition 
contains the notes of the ancient commentators, and the observations 
of Torelli himself on the tract ‘De Conoidibus et Spheroidibus ;’ and 
| to these are added the various readings which occur in the manuscript 
copies of Archimedes in Paris and Florence, together with a commen- 
tary by the Oxford editor on the tract relating to floating bodies. 
~ TORELLI, LAELIO, was born at Fano, on the 28th of October 
1489. His family was noble, and had settled in that town about the 
beginning of the 14th century. While yet a mere boy he was 
entrusted to the care of his maternal uncle, Jacopo Costanzi, a pro- 
fessor in the University of Ferrara, under whom he made a respectable 
progress in the Greek and Latin languages. He subsequently studied 
law in the University of Perugia, and obtained the degree of Doctor in 
his twenty-second year. 


', From 1511 to 1531 Torelli remained in the civil service of the Roman 


government. Soon after taking his degree he was appointed podest& 


of Fossombrone, and in a short time chief magistrate of his native 
town. Scanderbeg Comnena, who had lost his hereditary states by 
becoming a convert to the Romish faith, received from the pope by 
way of compensation the seignorage of Fano. By his insolent abuse of 
power he rendered himself odious to his new subjects, and was 
expelled by a conspiracy, of which Laelio Torelli was the chief. 
Clement VIII. was at first much irritated, regarding the rebellion as 
directed against the papal government; but Laelio, by explaining its 
real object, succeeded in pacifying him, and was soon after appointed 
governor of Benevento. This post he occupied for eighteen months, 
at the end of which, returning to Fano, he became involved in the con- 
test between that town and the Malatesti family ; and about 1527 or 
1528, found it advisable to seek an asylum in Florence, 

In 1531 he was appointed one of the five auditors of the Rota of 
Florence, and he continued from that time till his death in the service 
of the Medici family. During far the greater part of this time he was 
attached to Cosmo, the first grand-duke of Tuscany, who became Duke 
of Florence six years after the first appointment of Torelli, and died 
only two years before him (in 1574). From being a member of the 
Rota, Torelli rose to be podesta of Florence; he was subsequently 
appointed chancellor by the grand-duke, and in 1546 his principal 
secretary. His official duties did not entirely withdraw him from 
literary pursuits. He was an active member of the Florentine Aca- 
demy, and in 1557 was elected into its council. His reputation as a 
statesman and man of letters procured him the honour of being 
elected a senator: his name was inscribed in the register of the 
patricians: of Florence in 1576. He died in the same year, in the 
month of March, having survived all his children. 

Torelli published, in 1545, three legal tracts, entitled ‘ Laelii Taurelli 
Jurisconsulti Fanensis, ad Gallum et Legem Velleam, ad Catonem et 
Paulum Enarrationes; ejusdem de Militiis ex casu, ad Ant. Augus- 
tinum epistola,’ dedicated to his son Francesco. They were printed 
at Lyon; the Antonius Augustinus (bishop of Tarragona), to whom 
the third is addressed, printed it in 1544 as an appendix to his 
‘ Emendationes ;’ and Zilettus included them in his great collection, 
‘Tractatus Tractatuum’ (1633-42). A Latin eulogium of Duke 
Alexander de’ Medici, delivered by Laelio in 1536, and a panegyric of 
Count Ugo, the founder of an abbey at Florence, in Italian, are said to 
have been printed. But the work which has preserved the name of 
Laelio Torelli is his edition of the Florentine manuscript of the Pan- 
dects. It was printed at Florence by Lorenzo Torrentino, printer to 
the grand-duke, in 1553. From the dedication to Cosnio I., which is 
written by Francesco Torelli, we learn that the preparation of the 
transcript and the supervision of the press had occupied all his own 
and his father’s leisure hours for the ten preceding years. Francesco 
claims for his father the honour of projecting the edition, and gives 
Cosmo the credit of defraying the expense of the sumptuous pub- 
lication. The orthography and all the little peculiarities of the 
manuscript are said to have been strictly adhered to. The Greek 
passages were revised by Peter Victor. The translations of these 
passages are taken from Antonius Augustus Haloander, and Her- 
vagius. This edition is a fine specimen of typography, and worthy 
of the important monument it was the means of rendering more 
accessible to the public. The pope, the emperor, and the king of 
France gave the printer letters of protection against any piracy of the 
work for ten years, and Edward VI., the king of England, for seven. 
With regard to the Florentine (or Pisan) manuscript, the inquiries of 
Savigny, Blume, and others have established this to be the oldest 
copy of the entire Pandects of Justinian that exists. Leaving out of 
view-the story of its discovery at Amalfi, the assertion of Odofredus 
that it was transmitted to Pisa by Justinian, and the statement of 
Bartolus that it was “always” at Pisa (semper enim fuit totum volu- 
men Pandectarum Pisis et adhuc est), established for this manuscript 
of the Pandects an antiquity beyond what can be claimed for any 
other. Borgo dal Borgo has produced evidence to the extraordinary 
care taken for its preservation by the government of Pisa; and the 
government of Florence has watched no less anxiously for its safety 
since it was transferred to that city in 1406, after the capture of Pisa 
by the Florentines under Gino Caponi. The Florentine manuscript 
must always remain one of the most important authorities for the 
text of this portion of the Corpus Juris, and Torelli appears to have 
discharged the office of editor with a full sense of the importance 
of his task. 

The contemporaries of Laclio Torelli are unanimous in their testi- 
mony to the integrity and disinterestedness of his character. 

(Manni, Vita di L. Torelli; Savigny, Geschichte des Rimischen Rechts 
im Mittelalter; Laelii Taurelli’Jurisconsultt .Fanensis, ad Gallum et 
Legem Velleam, ad Catonem et Paulum Enarrationes ; ejusdem de 
Militiis ex casu, Lugduni, 1545; Digestorum, sew Pandectarum Libri 
Quinguaginta ex Pandectis Florentinis representati: Florentie in 
oficina Lawrentit Torrentini Ducalis Typographi, 1553.) 

TORENO, DON JOSE MARIA QUEIPO DE LLANO, Count or, 
a Spanish statesman and writer, was born at Oviedo on the 26th of 
November 1786, of one of the first families of the Asturias. In 1797 
his parents, of whom he was the only son, fixed their residence at 
Madrid, where he received an excellent education of a character very 


123 TORENO, DON JOSh, COUNT OF. 


TORFAEUS. 


uncommon at that time in Spain; as it included the study of English 
and even German as well as French and Italian, After the national 
insurrection of the 2nd of May 1808, in which he took a part, he 
returned to Oviedo where, as Viscount of Matarrosa, he held an heredi- 
tary seat in the Junta, and when the city rose against Napoleon he 
was selected, from his knowledge of English, to make his way to 
London: to ask the assistance of England, In company with Don 
Angel de la Vega he got on board of a Jersey privateer, and was 
received at London with open arms by Canning. After spending 
some months in England, where he made the acquaintance of Wilber- 
force, Windham, and Sheridan, he returned to Spain in December, 
and, having lost his father in the interval, he succeeded to the title of 
Count of Toreno. He was sent to the Cortes as a member for the 
Asturias when a year too young to be able legally to take his seat, 
but by a vote of the Cortes on the 11th February 1811 he enjoyed 
the distinction of being specially exempted from the operation of the 
law. Young as he was he took a prominent part in the discussions on 
the constitution of 1812, and advocated with success two of the 
measures which most contributed to its subsequent downfall—one, 
that the Cortes should consist of a single chamber instead of two, 
and the other that the power of the king should be so restricted that 
all legislation should depend on the decision of the Cortes only. On 
the return of Ferdinand he was a marked man; when the celebrated 
decree of Valencia came forth, by which the Cortes was dissolved and 
many of its members thrown into prison, he was fortunately on his 
estates in the country and had time to escape to Portugal. As he 
found there was no hope of resistance in Spain, he came to London 
where he was the first emigrant from the tyranny of Ferdinand, as he 
had been the herald of resistance to Napoleon I. He received in 
London the intelligence that his estates had been confiscated and him- 
self condemned to death. His brother-in-law Porlier, who had married 
one of his four sisters, made an ineffectual attempt at insurrection, 
and was taken and executed. Toreno, who in 1816 was living in 
France, was thrown into prison for a time on suspicion by the Decazes 
ministry, who interrogated him if he was not in habits of intercourse 
with the Duke of Wellington and General Alava, two persons whom 
it appears that the king of Spain then regarded as enemies, The 
Spanish revolution of 1820 recalled Toreno to Madrid, but he was 
now older and cooler than he had been, and saw with disapprobation 
many of the measures of the liberal party. His life was in con- 
sequence threatened in the Cortes, his house in which his sister, the 
widow of Porlier, resided, was attacked and, says Cueto his biographer, 
“levelled to the ground.” The king, on the other hand, pressed him 
to become prime-minister, and when he declined named his friend 
Martinez de la Rosa whom Toreno had recommended. Finally, when 
the second French invasion had re-established the absolute king, 
Toreno found himself again a banished man, in favour with neither 
party, and this time his exile lasted nearly ten years. Most of it was 
passed in France and England, some in Germany and Switzerland, in 
the execution of a plan he had conceived of writing the history of 
the war of independence, for which he had begun collecting materials 
during his first emigration. He commenced the composition in 1827 
at Paris, and finished the tenth book in the same city on the night of 
the A of July 1830, in the midst of the insurrection which raged 
around. 

The amnesty of 1832 restored him to Spain, but he was not per- 
mitted to reside in Madrid till after the death of King Ferdinand. In 
1834, on the promulgation of the ‘ Estatute Real’ by Queen Christina, 
on the recommendation of his friend Martinez de la Rosa, he was 
named minister of finance. The measures he proposed for liquidating 
the foreign debt occupied his attention almost exclusively for some 
time, and prevented his sharing the unpopularity of his chief, so that, 
when in 1835 Martinez de la Rosa was compelled to retire, Toreno 
succeeded to his place as minister of foreign affairs and president of 
the council. Unfortunately for himself he admitted to his own post 
of minister of finance Mendizabal, who, with his dazzling schemes, 
soon threw him into the shade. Toreno, who was now decidedly a 
“ Moderado,” grew more and more unpopular; insurrections burst 
forth, which he wished to repress by forcible means, but his colleague 
thwarted him, and the country was not with him, In September 
1835 he was driven to resign, and Mendizabal succeeded as head of 
the cabinet. On a dissolution of.the Cortes, Mendizabal was returned 
by the electors of seven different places, and Toreno and Martinez de 
la Rosa were left without a seat. The disgraceful revolution of La 
Granja followed, the constitution of 1812 was proclaimed, and Toreno, 
now its declared opponent, found it expedient to resume his historical 
studies in Paris and London, where he brought bis history to a con- 
clusion, at the time that in Madrid he was sentenced to forfeit all his 
honours and estates. In a few months however he was again allowed 
to return to Spain, and in the Cortes of subsequent years he vindicated 
his character against an accusation of corruption: brought against him 
by General Seoane. The revolution of Barcelona drove him into 
banishment yet another time, and it was the last, Toreno, after a 
tour in Germany and Italy, was in Paris, on his return, it is said, to 
Spain, when seized with a cerebral disease which carried him off in a 
few days. He died at Paris on the 16th of September 1843; but his 
remains were conveyed to his country and deposited in the church of 
St. Isidro at Madrid, 


Toreno’s ‘ History of the Insurrection, War, and Revolution of Spain’ 


(‘Historia del Levyantamiento Guerra y Revolucion de Espaiia’), is 
the great Spanish work on that interesting subject. That it is a model 
of Spanish composition is affirmed by the best critics of that country, 
Its merits as a narrative are more liable to question, for there ap we 
a languor and general want of spirit in its details, which surprise the 
reader who is aware that its author was not only an eye-witness of 
many of the events he describes, but also an actor in some of them. 
The editor of the edition of 1848, published after the author's death, 
speaks of the “ carefulness and preciseness” of the history “in which, 
he remarks, “‘the most insignificant French detachment is never men- 
tiqned without specifying the name of the chief who commanded it.” ~ 
A merit of more importance which Toreno’s history possesses is that 
of a calm judicial tone, which favourably contrasts with the arrogant 
impetuosity of some English historians of that memorable contest. On | 
the whole, it can only be considered like Southey’s ‘ History of the 
Peninsular War,’ as a temporary substitute and a collection of mate- 
rials for the great work on the subject, with which it may be h 
that some future historian will enrich the literature of his country, 
The ‘Historia del Levantamiento’ has been translated into he 
and German, and a Spanish edition of it was printed by Baudry of - 
Paris in his collection of the Spanish classics. The best edition of it — 
is that published in four octavo volumes at Madrid in 1848, after the - 
author’s death, with his additions and corrections, 
TORFAEUS, or TORMO’DUS, the assumed literary names after 
having been introduced to the learned world as a Latin autho: , 
THoRMoD THorvesoN, Little or nothing is known about his early life. 
He was born at Engoe, a small island on the southern coast of Iceland, 
of poor parents, who however were in sufficiently good circumstances — 
to give him an outfit (for the institution, like all public schools in 
Iceland, was a free-school) for the, Latin school at Skalholdt, where 
according to Iceland custom, he became a good classical scholar; - 
much so, that upon his arrival in: Copenhagen, his choice and dient | 
Latin surprised the professors there. In 1654 he was entered as a 
free student at the university of Copenhagen, where he remained till — 
1657. In 1659 he was captured and made prisoner by a Swedish 
privateer on his return from Christiansand in Norway. This cireum- 
stance appears to have given him some notoriety, for immediately after 
his release and return to Copenhagen, king Frederick III. appointed — 
him interpreter of Icelandic manuscripts, and a short time a rds 
sent him to Iceland for the purpose of collecting manuscripts, which — 
with the assistance of his warm friend and patron, Brynhjulf Swend- 
son, bishop of Skalholdt, he accomplished so well, that the collection © 
which he brought back, and which is still preserved in the Royal 
Library in Copenhagen, is considered the best in the world for ancient — 
Scandinavian history and literature. The king gave him, shortly — 
after his return, as a reward for his zeal, and to enable him to pursue 
his studies, a small appointment at Stawanger in Norway. This 
office however he resigned in 1667, upon being appointed keeper of — 
the king’s collection of antiquities. He made scon afterwards another — 
voyage to Iceland, for the purpose of taking possession of some little 
property, to which he had succeeded after the deatb of his father and 
of his elder brother; and after his return the same year, he went to 
Amsterdam for some literary purpose. During his voyage back he — 


was shipwrecked at Skagen; and on his journey by land to Copen- — 


hagen, he was insulted and attacked in a small town in Sealand by one © 
of his countrymen, whom, in defending himself, he accidentally killed. — 
This circumstance caused great excitement. He surrendered himself 

immediately, was tried, and sentenced to death. However by an — 


appeal to a superior court, and an “appellatio ad tronum,” or appeal — 


to the throne, as it is termed in Danish jurisprudence, his sentence 

was commuted into a fine, which he paid, and was released ; but as it 

was impossible for the king to retain a man in his service with a 
blemish on his reputation, he was dismissed, and lost his salary. He 

then retired to a small farm in Norway, the property of his wife, — 
where he lived without any official employment till the year 1682, — 
when Christian V., having succeeded to the Danish throne, recalled 
him, and appointed him royal historiographer, and an assessor in the 
consistory, or board of education, with a salary sufficient to enable 
him to live independently and to pursue his studies. This appoint- 
ment he kept till his death. He commenced his most important work — 
the ‘ History of Norway,’ and finished it as far as the Union of Calmar, — 
when, unfortunately, ill health compelled him to surrender his favourite 
task to his friend Professor Reitzer, He was married twice: his first 
wife died in 1695: he married again in 1709; and in 1719 he died, 
very far advanced in years, without issue. His works, printed, as — 
well as in manuscript, are very numerous, and exhibit deep know- — 
ledge and indefatigable research into ancient Scandinavian history. — 
The manuscripts he left are preservéd at the Royal Library in Copen- 

hagen : as to his published works, it will be sufficient to mention the 
most important, which are :—‘ Historia Rerum Oreadensium, libriiii.,” — 
fol., Hafniew, 1715; ‘Series Dynastarum et Reguin Danie d Skialdo 

ad Gormum Grandovem,’ 4to, Hafnia, 1712; ‘ Historia Rerum Norve- 

gicarum ad Annum 1387,’ 4 vols. fol., Hafnie, 1711. A very accurate 


account of his later works, together with a collection of private letters, 


} 


which show at least that he wrote elegant Latin, is to be foundina — 


work published by the celebrated Danish historian Peter Suhm, under — 
the title, ‘In Kffigiem Thormodi Torfaei, una cum Torfaeanis, &e., — 


Se ns 


ee SS 


_ 


125 TORINUS, ALBANUS. 


TORRENTIUS, LASVINDS. 


126 


4to, Hafnie, 1777. (Peter Suhm, Smaae Skrifter og Afhandlinger, 
Kidbenhavn, 1788; Eber, Bibliographisches Lexicon, Leipzig, 1819; 
Aligemeines Historisches Lexicon, Leipzig, 1747.) 

TORUNUS, ALBA’NUS, the Latinised name of ALBAN THORER, a 
Swiss physician, who was born in 1489 at Winterthur, in the canton of 
Ziirich. He studied polite literature at Basel with zeal and assiduity, 
and, after teaching rhetoric for some years, he at last determined on 
taking the degree of Doctor of Medicine at Montpellier. Upon his 
return to Basel, in 1537, he was appointed professor of practical 

‘icine, and soon acquired an extensive practice. He died February 

, 1550, at the age of sixty-one. Like several of his contemporaries, 

e employed himself in translating the works of the Greek medical 


_ writers into Latin, of which he published the following :—‘ Polybi 
 Opuseula aliquot nune primum e Greco in Latinum conversa nempe 
de Tuenda Valetudine, sive de Ratione Victus Sanorum lib. i., De 


minis Humani Natura lib. i, De Morbis, sive Affectibus Corporis 


-“Tibri ii,’ 4to, Basil., 1544. Alexander Trallianus, Lat., folio, Basil., 
1588. The first Latin translation of Paulus A%gineta, folio, Basil., 
_ 1532, which was afterwards improved and several times reprinted, 


his translation was severely criticised by Winther of Andernach 


( Guinterus Andernacus’), which drew from Thorer a very angry and 


somewhat abusive answer entitled ‘ Epistola Apologetica, qua Calom- 


 hias Impudentissimas refellit, 8vo, Basil., 1539. The first Latin trans- 
lation of two works of Theophilus Protospatharius, with the title, 


*Philareti de Pulsuum Scientia Libellus, item Theophili de Exacta 
Retrimentorum Vesice Cognitione Commentariolus,’ &c., 8vo, Basil., 
1553. In his translation of Theophilus ‘De Urinis,’ he is charged by 
Guidot (Not. in Theoph. ‘ De Urin.,’ p. 234; et ‘ Alloq. ad Leet’.) with 
having altogether omitted the pious epilogue to the work, and with 
having altered two other passages (in the Preface, and in cap. 8) so as 
to destroy the acknowledgment of our Lord’s Divinity contained in 
them. Fabricius mentions also (‘ Biblioth. Graca,’ vol. xiii, p. 44, ed. 
Vet.) a translation of Theophilus’s ‘Commentary on the Aphorisms of 
Hippocrates,’ but this is probably a mistake. (See Fabric., ‘ Biblioth. 
Greea, vol. xii., p. 649, ed. Vet.; Choulant, ‘Handbuch der Biicher- 
kunde fiir die Aeltere Medicin.’) He also retouched the old Latin 
translation of Yahia Ibn Serapion Ben Ibrahim [Szrapion], and pub- 
lished it with the title ‘Jani Damasceni Therapeutic: Methodi libri 


 vii., partim Albano Torino, partim Gerardo Cremonensi Metaphraste,’ 


\t 


7 folio, Basil., 1543. He published a Greek edition, in one volume, of 


several of Hippocrates’s works, viz., ‘ Prognost.,’ ‘De Nat. Hom.,’ 
*De Loc. in Hom.,’ ‘Jusjur.,’ 8vo, Basil., 1536, and prefixed a Life of 
the author. He inserted a Latin translation of the Letter of Diocles 
Carystius to King Antiochus, De Secunda Valetudine Tuenda,’ in the 
second edition of his translation of Alexander Trallianus, folio, Basil., 
1541. Healso edited a collection of medical works with the following 
title :—‘ De Re Medica huic Volumini insunt, Sorani-Ephesii Peripate- 
tici in Artem Medendi Isagoge hactenus non visa. Oribasii Sardiani 
Fragmentum de Victus Ratione, quolibet Anni Tempore Utili, antea 
nunquam editum. C. Plinii Secundi de Re Medica libri v. accuratius 
Recogniti, et Nothis ac Pseudepigraphis Semotis, ab Innumeris Men- 
darum Millibus Fide Vetustissimi Codicis Repurgati. Le. Apuleji 
Madaurensis, Philosophi Platonici, de Herbarum Virtutibus Historia. 
Accessit his Libellus Utilissimus de Betonica, quem quidam Antonio 
Muse, nonnulli Le. Apulejo adscribendum autumant, nuper Excusus,’ 
folio, Basil., 1525. Besides these medical works he edited also Apicius, 
*De Re Culinaria,’ 4to, Basil, 1541; 8. Epiphanius, ‘De Prophetarum 
Vitis’ 4to, Basil, 1529; Agapeti ‘Scheda Regia,’ Lat., 8vo, Basil. 
1541, at the end of Onosandri ‘ Strategicus ;? and Emmanuel Chryso- 
lore, ‘Epitome Grammatices Greece.’ (See Fabric., Bibliotheca Greca, 
vol. xiii., p. 44, ed vet.; Biogr. Méd. ; Choulant, Handb. der Biicher- 
kunde fiir die Aeltere Medicin.) 

- TORPORLEY, NATHANIEL, was born about 1573, was entered at 
Christchurch, Oxford, and after taking his degree was in France for 
several years. Wood says it is notorious that during that time he 
was amanuensis to the celebrated mathematician Francis Vieta. This 
fact has been mentioned by the French historians, in speaking of 


‘Harriot, when hard pressed to defend Des Cartes from the imputation 


of being Harriot’s plagiarist; and the idea seems to be that as 'T'or- 
Sided was afterwards under the patronage and in the house of Henry 

ercy, earl of Northumberland, as also were Harriot and others, he 
must have been in habits of intimate communication with Harriot, to 
whom he might have taught what he learnt from Vieta. With regard 
to the fact itself, it is almost certain, for not only does Wood mention 
it as notorious, but Sherburne, in the list at the end of his ‘ Manilius’ 


(1675), published before Wood wrote, says that Torporley was “ some- 


time amanuensis to the famous Vieta.” Nothing is more likely than 
that Harriot learnt from Torporley many ideas of Vieta; but Harriot’s 
discoveries in algebra most distinctly bear the mark of a new mind. 
Torporley afterwards wrote his ‘Diclides Coelometrice, seu Valve 
Universales, &c., London, 1602, and other works which we have never 
seen. Wood also says he wrote something against Vieta, under the 
name of Poulterey, a transposition (not, perfect however) of his own 
name, but which he (Wood) had never seen. In looking through the 
* Diclides,’ &¢., which is mostly on spherical trigonometry, we only 


_ found two very slight notices of Vieta’s name, which looks as if there 


had been a coolness between them; but we found, to our surprise, 
that Torporley had preceded Napier by twelve years in the publication 


of the greater part of the rule of Circular Parts, not indeed in Napier’s 
convenient form, but with a complete reduction of the six cases to 
two, and rules, such as they were, by which to assimilate the con- 
nected cases. For more account of Torporley’s process, which is the 
greatest burlesque on mnemonics we ever saw, we refer to the 
‘Philosophical Magazine’ for May, 1843. We have only to add that 
Torporley obtained church preferment, was a member of Sion College 
(to which he left his books and manuscripts), and died in April, 
1632. In the Catalogue of Sion Library it is said he was a chemist 
who left a large number of chemical and other books; but we cannot 
find one of his works in the second catalogue, and we have not had the 
opportunity of examining the first. The fire of London occurred 
between the publication of the two, and the books which were then 
consumed are not mentioned in the second. 

TORRE, FILIPPO DEL, born at Cividale in the Friuli, in 1657, 
studied at Padua, and afterwards went to Rome in 1687, where he 
was employed in several offices, and at last was appointed bishop of 
Adria by Clement XI., in 1702. He died in 1717. While at Rome he 
published a work of great research on the antiquities of Antium, 
‘ Monumenta veteris Antii,’ which was much esteemed by the learned, 
He wrote some other works in illustration of ancient medals, and 
also upon subjects of natural history. Girolamo Lioni wrote a 
biography of Filippo del Torre. 

TORRE, FILOMARI'NO, DUKE DELLA, a Neapolitan noble- 
man who lived in the second half of the 18th century, and applied 
himself strenuously to the study of physics. His name is known in 
history chiefly for his melancholy end. In the first insurrection of 
the populace of Naples, who, being forsaken by the king and court 
and all the principal authorities on the advance of the French invad- 
ing army, rose tumultuously in January 1799 to defend the town 
and at the same time to destroy those whom they suspected of being 
favourably inclined towards the French, the Duke della Torre, who 
lived in great retirement and does not appear to have meddled with 
politics, was denounced to the popular committee by a menial who 
had seen a letter written to the duke by a noble relative of his at 
Rome, informing him that he had recommended him to the French 
general for protection in the event of Naples being stormed by the 
French army. This was sufficient to persuade the ignorant lazzaroni 
that the duke was a secret Jacobin, and his doom was fixed at once, 
The mob went to his palace, pillaged it, destroyed his library, his 
collection of natural history, and his cabinet of physics, threw the 
furniture out of the window, seized the duke and’ his brother the 
Cavaliere Clemente Filomarino, known for his poetical talent, and 
dragged them to the Marina of the Carmine, where they killed both of 
them. At the same time it must be observed that the leaders of the 
mob showed some regard for the women and children; they ordered 
one of the duke’s carriages out, put the duke’s wife and her children in 
it, and told them to drive to some friend’s or relative’s, after which 
they set fire to the palace. The two brothers Filomarino were the 
most distinguished victims of the first or Lazzaroni insurrection of 
1799. (Colletta, Storia del Reame di Napoli; Cuoco, Saggio Storico 
sulla Rivoluzione di Napoli; Sketches of Popular Tumulis, 1837.) 

TORRE, GIAMMARI’A DELLA, was born at Rome of a Genoese 
family, at the beginning of the 18th century. After studying in the 
college Nazareno, he entered the order of the Somaschi, and having 
shown great aptitude for physical and mathematical studies, was suc- 
cessively professor in several colleges at Rome, Venice, and Naples. 
At Naples he became known to King Charles V. of Naples (afterwards 
Charles III. of Spain), who employed him in several scientific experi- 
ments, and made him his head librarian and keeper of the Museum of 
Capo di Monte. He published a history of Vesuvius, ‘Storia e Feno- 
meni del Vesuvio esposti dal P. Gio. Maria della Torre, Somasco,’ fol., 
Naples, 1755. He also wrote a ‘Course of Physics,’ in Italian and 
Latin, which has gone through several editions; a volume of micro- 
scopical observations, and numerous memoirs on scientific subjects. 
He applied himself particularly to improve the microscope. He also 
contributed to illustrate the newly discovered towns of Herculaneum 
and Pompeii. He was one of the most distinguished members of the 
Academy of Sciences of Naples, and was also corresponding member 
of the Academies of Sciences of Paris and Berlin, and of the Royal 
Society of London. Father della Torre died at a very advanced age, 
in March 1782. (Lombardi, Storia della Letteratura Italiana nel 
Secolo X VIII.) 

TORRE’/NTIUS, LAAVI'NUS, whose original name was VAN DER 
BEKEN, was born at Ghent in 1525. He studied at Louvain, and was 
in the town when it was besieged by the celebrated Martin van 
Rossem. ‘To commemorate the successful defence of the inhabitants, 
Torrentius composed a Latin poem, which was highly thought of at 
the time. He subsequently travelled to Italy, and spent some time at 
Bologna; at Rome however he remained many years, and studied 
Roman antiquities there with great diligence. He enjoyed the friend- 
ship of the Cardinal Baronius, Antonius Augustinus, Fulvius Ursinus, 
and other celebrated scholars during his residence at Rome; and he 
also made there a fine collection of ancient coins and works of art. 
On his return to the Netherlands, Torrentius filled successively 
various ecclesiastical dignities, and was at length appointed to the 
bishopric of Antwerp, where he laboured with great zeal in discharging 
the duties of his office, He is said to have been also e mployed in 


127 


TORRICELLI, EVANGELISTA, 


TORRIGIANO, PIETRO, 


various embassies and political negociations. In 1595 he wasappointed 
Archbishop of Mechlin, but before the documents arrived from Rome 
which were necessary to enable him to enter upon his new dignity, he 
died at Brussels in the seventieth year of his age. He was buried in 
the cathedral-church of Antwerp. He left his library and collection 
of antiquities to the college of Jesuits at Louvain. 

Torrentius was an accurate scholar, and well acquainted with 
Roman antiquities, but he did not write much. The only work of 
his which was published in his lifetime is a Commentary on Suetonius, 
which originally appeared at Antwerp in 1578, and was reprinted in 
1592: it is also contained in Grevius’s edition, published in 1672, 
This Commentary is also interesting from the many wood-cuts it con- 
tains, representing coins of the Roman emperors and their families. 
Torrentius’s Commentary on Horace was not published till after his 
death: it appeared at Antwerp in 1608, 4to, together with a small 
treatise of his entitled ‘Commentariolus ad Legem Juliam et Papiam 
de Matrimoniis Ordinandis.’ Besides these Commentaries, Torrentius 
also published in his lifetime several Latin poems, of which a collec- 
tion appeared at Antwerp in 1576, 8vo, under the title of ‘Poemata 
Sacra.’ Torrentius was called by his contemporaries the Christian 
Horace; and his poems are distinguished by great ease of versifica- 
tion. He also edited the posthumous works of J. Goropius Becanus, 
Antwerp, 1580, with an apology for Becanus, who had been attacked 
by Scaliger. (Foppens, Bibliotheca Belgica ; Saxii, Onomasticon.) 

TORRICELLI, EVANGELISTA, a learned Italian mathematician 
and philosopher, was born October 15, 1608, at Piancaldoli in 
Romagna, and being, probably at an early age, an orphan, he was 
supported by an uncle who resided at Faenza. At this place, and ina 
school of the Jesuits, the youth received a mathematical education, 
and he speedily distinguished himself by the progress which he made 
in acquiring a knowledge of the sciences. 

At twenty years of age his uncle sent him to Rome where he 
became intimately acquainted with Benedict Castelli, who was then 
professor of mathematics in that city, and by whom his studies were 
directed. The Dialogues of Galileo appear to have particularly 
engaged Torricelli’s attention, and he composed two tracts, one on the 
subject of mechanics, and the other on the motion of fluids, which 
were published with the rest of his mathematical works in 1643. 
Torricelli seems to have been the first who established the principle, 
that when two weights are so connected together, that being placed in 
any position their common centre of gravity neither ascends nor 
descends, those weights are in equilibrio; and on this principle he 
investigated the ratio between two weights when they are in equilibrio 
on a double inclined plane. He also investigated the motions of 
falling bodies and projectiles ; and among the results of his researches 
is the remarkable fact, that the paths of any number of projectiles 
(in a non-resisting medium) when discharged from the same point 
with equal velocities, but at different angles of elevation, are parabolas 
situated within one curve which is a tangent to all of them, and is 
itself a parabola. In the tract on the motion of fluids he assumes 
that water will flow through an orifice at the bottom of a vessel with 
a velocity equal to that which would be acquired by a body falling 
through the height of the fluid in the vessel, and he endeavours to 
establish the principle by the supposed fact that water so flowing 
ascends in a vertical tube connected with the vessel at the orifice (the 
resistance of the air being abstracted) to the level of the upper 
surface of that which is in the vessel; he hence concludes that the 
velocities of effluent water must vary with the square-roots of the 
pressures, 

Galileo, having received copies of the tracts above mentioned, was 
desirous of becoming acquainted with the author, and he pressed the 
latter to join him at Florence, Torricelli, having formed connections 
at Rome, at first hesitated, but at length decided to accept the invita- 
tion : he was kindly received by Galileo, and it is said that his society 
and conversation contributed to soothe the last days of the venerable 
philosopher, who was then infirm and blind, and who died at the end 
of three months from his arrival. Having been honoured by the 
grand-duke with the appointment of professor of mathematics in the 
Accademia, Torricelli became the successor of Galileo in the institution, 
and he resided at Florence till his death, which happened in 1647, 
when he was thirty-nine years of age. 

About the year 1637 Roberval, in France, discovered a method of 
determining the area of a cycloid, and seven years later Torricelli 
published a solution of the problem in an appendix to the collection 
of his works. As the Italian mathematician appeared to consider 
himself to be the discoverer of the rule, Roberval’s jealousy was 
excited, and he accused Torricelli of plagiarism ; asserting that the 
latter had taken the solution from some papers which had been sent 
to Galileo, and which had fallen into his hands on the death of that 
philosopher : Torricelli however, in a letter to Roberval, denies that 
assertion, and there seems no reason to doubt that he made the 
discovery without any knowledge of what had already been done in 
France. He subsequently gave rules for finding the volumes of the 
solids formed by the revolution of a cycloid about its base and about 
its axis; that which is applicable to the first case is correct, but the 
other is only approximate, so that it may be doubted whether or not 
Torricelli was in possession of an accurate solution of the problem. 

But the discovery which has immortalised the name of Torricelli is 


that of the barometer. 


Galileo had occasion, some time previously, to 
observe that a column of water exceeding 18 cubits (about 33 feet, — 
English) in height could not be raised in a pump ; and, though he had — 
already made the discovery of the pressure of the atmosphere, the 
reason why that limit could not be exceeded remained unknown to 
him. Torricelli, in 1643, wishing to find, in a more convenient 
manner, the weight of the quantity of fluid which could be supported 
above its general level, performed an experiment similar to that which 
is exhibited when a pump is in action; and, instead of water, he used 
mercury, which is about fourteen times as heavy. He filled with 
mercury a glass tube which at one end was hermetically closed, —- 
having inverted it, he brought its open extremity under the surface of © 
mercury in a vessel; when he observed that the top of the column © 
descended till it stood at a height equal to between 29 and 30 inches 
(English) above the level of the mercury in the vessel, leaving what is” 
considered as a perfect vacuum between the upper extremity of the — 
column and that of the tube. The specific gravity of mereury being 
known, the weight of the supported column could, of course, be found, - 

By this experiment the opinion that a vacuum was contrary to a 
law of nature was immediately proved to be unfounded, but it is 
uncertain whether or not Torricelli was aware of the true cause of the 
column of mercury being so supported, and the honour of having been 
the first to prove decisively that it was the pressure of the atmosphere 
on the surface of the mercury in the vessel, is ascribed to Pascal, who, 
in 1648, on conveying a tube so filled to stations at different heights 
above the level of the plains, found that the column of mereury dimi- 
nished in length as the station was more elevated; that is, as the 
weight of the column of atmosphere above the vessel diminished, 1, 

It may be easily conceived that Torricelli would communicate his — 
ideas to his friends before he actually made the experiment above men- 
tioned ; and such a circumstance may account for the pretensions of 
Valerianus Magnus, Honoratus Fabri, and others, to priority in the dis- 
covery of what is called the Torricellian vacuum. It ought to be 
observed however that in one of the letters of Descartes, dated 1631, 
that is, twelve years before the experiment of Torricelli was @, 
this philosopher mentions the support of a column of mercury in a 
tube, and expressly ascribes the cause to the weight of a column of 
air extending upwards beyond the clouds. 

Torricelli published at Florence, in 1644, a volume in 4to, entitled 
‘Opera Geometrica.’ A paper which he wrote on the course of the 
Chiana is in the collection of writings on the movement of fluids 
(Florence, 1768). His discovery of the barometer is given in his own 
work on mathematical and physical subjects, entitled ‘ Lézione Acca-— 
demiche’ (Florence, 1715). And his letter to Roberval on the eycloid — 
is in the third volume of the ‘Mémoires’ of the Academy of Sciences at 
Paris. He is said to have been the inventor of the small simple micro- 
scopes of short focus, which consist of a globule of glass melted in the 
flame of a lamp. His manuscripts are preserved in the Medicean 
Palace, and in the same edifice there are some object-glacses for 
telescopes, of considerable dimensions, which bear his name. ) 

TORRIGIA‘/NO, PIE’TRO, an Italian sculptor, whose name is con- 
nected with the history of art in this country, he being one of the ~ 
foreign artists employed by Henry VIII., was hardly less remarkable 
for the ferociousnhess of his temper, the singularity of his conduct, and — 
the strangeness of his fate, than for bis ability in his profession. He was 
a native of Florence, and though the time of his birth is not mentioned, — 
it was probably about the same as that of Michel Angelo (1474), as they — 
studied together from the antiquities in the gardens of Lorenzo de’ — 
Medici, il Magnifico ; a circumstance which Michel had good cause to 
remember, for such was Torrigiano’s jealousy of and spite towards 
that he one day assaulted him, and inflicted so severe a blow upon his — 
nose as to crush and disfigure it for ever. Being obliged to leave 
Florence in consequence of this affair, Torrigiano went to Rome, where — 
he was employed by Pope Alexander VLI., and afterwards enlisted and — 
served as a soldier, first under the Duke Valentino in Romagna, next — 
under Vitelli and Piero de’ Medici. Strangeas this change was, he was 
well suited to his new profession, and that to him ; for,as described both 
by Vasari and Cellini, he was a large, handsome, and powerful man 
was gifted with great “audacity, and had more the air of a ro q 
soldier than of an artist.” But though he distinguished himself by his — 
prowess, and obtained the rank of ensign, he saw no chance of speedily - 
advancing higher, and therefore returned to his former profession, 
which he practised for awhile, but only, it would seem, in 
bronze figures, executed for some Florentine merchants, whom he 
afterwards accompanied to England. His talents, and perhaps his 
personal qualities also, recommended him to the favour of Henry VIIL, — 
for whom he executed a variety of things, but his chief work was the 
tomb of Henry VII. in Westminster Abbey, which he completed in 
1519, and for which he received the sum of 10007 The tomb of — 
Margaret, countess of Richmond, in Henry VII.’s chapel, is also 
supposed to have been by him. 

While engaged upon Henry’s tomb he returned to Italy, in order to 
earry back with him other assistants, and endeavoured to persuade 
Benvenuto Cellini, then only eighteen, to accompany him; but the — 
latter tells us he was so disgusted with Torrigiano, on learning from 
him how brutally he had treated Michel Angelo, that so far from 
associating with him in any way, he could not even endure the sight 
of him, © 


TORRIJOS, JOSH MARIA. 


129 


TOTT, BARON DE. 


130 


After finally quitting England in 1519, Torrigiano visited Spain, 
where he executed several pieces of sculpture for convents, &c., and 
among others a Virgin and Child, so beautiful that the Duke d’Arcos 
commissioned him to make a copy of it. The payment promised for 
it seemed such an immense sum, that the artist fancied he was about 
to be rendered wealthy for the rest of his days; so great therefore 
was his indignation on discovering that the vast heap of maravedis 
sent home to him amounted to no. more in value than thirty ducats, 
that he went and broke the statue to pieces. On this, the duke 
caused him to be imprisoned in the Inquisition as a sacrilegious 
heretic who had impiously destroyed a figure of the Holy Virgin. He 
was accordingly condemned by that tribunal, but avoided the execu- 
tion of his sentence by refusing to take any food; preferring starving 
himself to death to the more ignominious end which else awaited him. 
Thus perished, in 1522, an artist of more than ordinary talent: a 
victim partly to his own violence and imprudence, and partly to the 
mercilessness of a most odious and sanguinary tribunal. 

TORRIJOS, JOSE MARIA, a Spanish general and patriot, was 
born at Madrid on the 20th of May 1791, and at the age of ten was 
made one of the pages of King Charles IV., a position which brought 
him into familiar contact with the young prince, who afterwards 
became King Ferdinand VII. It was the custom for the royal pages 
to receive early rank in the army, and Torrijos at the age of sixteen 
was a captain in the regiment of Ultonia or Ulster in the Irish brigade 
in the service of Spain. On the great outbreak of the 2nd of May 
1808, and in the subsequent war of independence, Torrijos distin- 
guished himself by his bravery; in 1811 he was already colonel of a 
regiment, he took part in the battle of Vittoria, and at the conclusion 
of the war he was general of brigade. His early acquaintance with 
the court had strengthened his aspirations for liberty, he declined the 
command of a force under Morilla against the South-American insur- 
gents, and in 1817 was thrown into the prison of the Inquisition on a 
charge of conspiracy against: the government. The constitutional 
outbreak of 1820 liberated him, and as Captain General of Valencia 
he was ardent in his services to the the constitutional cause. After the 
French invasion of 1823 he took refuge in England, for which country 
he always manifested a strong partiality. He partly employed him- 
self in translating books into Spanish for the South-American market, 
among others the ‘Memoirs of General Miller,’ an Englishman who 
had -been in the. Peruvian service. The French revolution of 1830 
awakened his hopes for a speedy change in Spain and he set off for 
Gibraltar to take the lead. Moreno, the governor of Malaga, treacher- 
ously enticed him to a landing by false intelligence and promises of 
support, and he left Gibraltar, at the head of a party of fifty, on the 
30th November 1831, with full confidence of success. On the 5th of 
December the whole of the party were taken prisoners by Moreno, 
who sent to Madrid for orders how to act. It was till then believed 
that King Ferdinand had a special kindness for Torrijos, whom he had 
known so long, but the only reply received was in the laconic form 
“Que los fusilen. Yo el Rey,” (‘Let them be shot. I the King.”) 
Torrijos and his companions, fifty-one in number, were accordingly 
shot at Malaga on the llth of December. The subsequent death of 
Ferdinand changed the whole face of affairs, a little more patience 
would have brought Torrijos peaceably back to Spain, with his friends 
in power, and the infamous treachery of Moreno ruined his own 
career. Queen Christina, the widow of Ferdinand, ennobled the 
widow of Torrijos with the title of countess, and his bust was erected 
at Madrid at the house in which he was born in the Calle de 
Preciados. 

TORTI, FRANCIS, an eminent Italian physician, was born at 
Modena, December Ist 1658. Having finished his preliminary studies 
in 1675, he was originally intended for the legal profession; this 
however he soon abandoned, and embraced that of medicine, which 
he studied under Antonio Frassoni. He took the degree of Doctor 
of Medicine at Bologna in 1678, and upon his return to Modena, at 
the early age of twenty-three, he obtained one of the medical pro- 
fessorships founded by the Duke Francis II. Soon afterwards he was 
chosen to be one of the physicians in ordinary to the duke, an appoint- 
ment which he owed partly to his accomplishments in music and 
literature, as he was the composer of several oratorios, and also wrote 
a Latin letter under the assumed name of L. A. Cotta, in defence of 
Tasso against Bouhours. Upon the death of Francis in 1694, his suc- 
cessor continued Torti in his place of physician in ordinary; he was 
also prevailed upon by his representations to found an anatomical 
amphitheatre at Modena, in which Torti was entrusted with the office 
of demonstrator in 1698. He had previously joined with Ramazzini 
in carrying on some researches concerning the barometer, the results 
of which were published by the latter under the title ‘Ephemerides 
Barometric Mutinenses,’ Modena, 1694; and again ‘ Dissertatio altera 


_ Triceps circh Mercurii Motiones in Barometro,’ Modena, 1698. But 


Torti’s most important and celebrated work did not appear till 1709, 
under the title ‘ Therapeutice Specialis ad Febres quasdam Perniciosas, 
inopinato ac repente Lethales, una verd China China Peculiari Methodo 
ministrata,’ 8vo, Modena. This work placed him at once in the first 
rank among practical physicians, and still continues to be highly 
esteemed. It has been several times reprinted. The publication of 
this work gained him the friendship and applause of various learned 
men, and also the title of corresponding member of the Royal Society 
BOG, DIV. VOL. VI. 


of London, and of the Academy of Valentia in Spain. It also drew 
forth some criticisms from Manget and Ramazzini, to whose remarks 
he replied with some degree of bitterness and warmth. In 1717 he 
was offered the professorship of Practical Medicine at Turin, and in 
1720 he had a similar offer at Padua, but he refused them both, and 
preferred living at Modena, where he had honours and emoluments 
heaped upon him by the duke. An incurable trembling of the hands 
having rendered him unable to feel the pulse of his patients with 
sufficient accuracy, he gave up practice some years before his death, 
and passed the remainder of his life in honourable repose, often con- 
sulted by patients from all parts, and spending much of his leisure 
time in the pleasures of the chase, to which he had always been much 
addicted. Having been summoned by the Prince of Parma, in 1731, 
to attend Henrietta d’ Este, he was, upon his return to Modena, seized 
while in a church with a sudden attack of hemiplegia, brought on 
probably by heat and over-exertion. For some time afterwards he 
lost the use of his right side, but gradually recovered, and lived for 
ten years after the attack. He latterly became dropsical, and died in 
March 1741, at the age of eighty-two. He was twice married, but 
having no children, he left part of his fortune to found another 
medical professorship at Modena, and directed the rest to be given 
away in charity, 

TOTT, FRANCOIS BARON DE, the son ofan Hungarian nobleman, 
who, obliged to leave his country in consequence of his connections 
with Prince Rogotzky, had entered the French service, was born at 
Ferté-sous-Jouarre, on the 17th of August 1733. Young De Tott 
obtained at an early age a commission in the hussar regiment of 
Berchiny, which his father had been instrumental in raising and 
disciplining. In 1755 the senior De Tott, who spoke the Turkish and 
Polish languages fluently, and had been more than once employed in 
missions to the Crimea, was appointed to accompany M. de Vergennes 
to Constantinople. He took his son with him, intending that he 
should study the language and render himself familiar with the 
manners of the Turks. The father died of a fever in September of 
the year 1757, but M. de Vergennes conferred upon the son an 
appointment in the embassy, which he continued to hold along with 
his commission in the regiment of Berchiny. De Tott remained at 
Constantinople till 1763, when he returned to France. 

In 1766 the Baron de Tott presented a memorial to the Duc de 
Choiseul, pointing out the means of concluding a treaty of commerce 
with the Khan of the Crimea, and extending the commerce of France 
in the Black Sea. The French consul in the Crimea dying about the 
same time, the Duc de Choiseul appointed the memorialist his suc- 
cessor. De Tott repaired to his post by the way of Poland. He does 
not appear to have done anything towards realising his projects for 
placing the commercial intercourse of France with the Crimea on a 
better footing; but he contrived to involve himself so deeply in the 
intrigues of the court, that the vizir sought and obtained his removal 
by the French government in 1769. 

The Baron de Tott returned to Constantinople, entered the service 
of the Ottoman Porte, and continued in it till the year 1776. If his 
own account may be believed, he was during that period one of the 
moving spirits of the Ottoman empire. He presented the sultan with 
a map of the theatre of war between the Turks and Russians imme- 
diately after his arrival at Constantinople; and suggested the advance 
of the Pasha of Bender into the Ukrain. He proposed an entire reform 
in the Turkish artillery, and was appointed to carry it into effect. In 
1770 he was charged with the defence of the Dardanelles, menaced by 
the Russian fleet. In 1771 he devised a plan of defence for the 
Turkish frontiers towards Oczakow; taught the Turkish artillerists 
to make bombs, and brought them to an unprecedented dexterity in 
working their guns. In 1772 he organised a new cannon-foundry. In 
1773 he gave directions for the fortification of the Black Sea mouth 
of the Bosporus. In 1773, 1774, and 1775 he was busy improving 
the fortifications and artillery of the Turks. All these statements 
have some foundation in fact; but the tone of exaggeration which 
pervades all the baron’s account of his own exploits renders it im- 
possible to decide how much of them is to be believed. It is evident 
that he did not think his services sufficiently appreciated, for in 1776 
he tendered his resignation in disgust; and it is equally evident that 
they were not so highly esteemed by the Turks as by himself, for the 
resignation was readily accepted, and the baron dismissed with some 
cold compliments. 

He was despatched by the French government in 1777 on a tour 
of inspection of the consular establishments in the ports of the Medi- 
terranean from the Archipelago to the Barbary States. At the request 
of Buffon, Sonnini was allowed to accompany the expedition. 

With this mission the diplomatic services of the Baron de Tott 
terminated. On his return to France he had two pensions settled 
upon him, one from the ministry of the marine, the other from that 
of foreign affairs, and, retiring from public life, occupied himself with 
preparing for the press the observations made during upwards of 
twenty years of active life. The work appeared in 1784 under the 
title ‘ Mémoires sur les Turcs et Tartares.’ It met with great success: 
the original French version was frequently reprinted, and translations 
of it into English, German, Dutch, and Swedish appeared in the 
course of a few years. ; 

De Tott was raised to the rank of Maréchal-de-Camp athe In 


TOULMIN, JOSHUA, D.D. 


TOUR, MAURICE QUENTIN DE LA. 


132 


1786 or 1787 he was appointed governor of Douai. He held that 
office till 1790, but opposing himself to the republican fervour of the 
garrison, was nearly murdered and obliged to fly.. He took refuge in 
Switzerland, where he resided for a year, and then proceeded to 
Vienna. He died in obscurity at Tatzmansdorf in Hungary, in 1793. 

TOULMIN, JOSHUA, D.D., was born in London, on the 11th 
of May 1740, and was educated at St. Paul’s school, whence he was 
removed to what was then called the Dissenting Academy, the classes 
constituting which were taught in Wellclose Square, in the house of 
his relation Dr. Samuel Morton Savage, who was the classical and 
mathematical tutor; the only other teacher being Dr. David Jen- 
nings, who was theological tutor or professor, and presided over the 
seminary. (‘History of Dissenters,’ by Bogue and Bennett, iv. 261, 
262.) On being licensed to preach, he was in the first instance settled 
as minister of a dissenting congregation at Colyton in Devonshire. At 
this time his principles appear to have been what are commonly called 
orthodox; but he soon became a convert to the opinions of the 
Baptists; upon which, in 1765, he transferred himself to Taunton, 
where, besides having the charge of a Baptist congregation, he taught 
aschool, and also, it is said, kept a bookseller’s shop. It was while 
resident here likewise that he wrote and published most of the literary 
works which have made his name known. He had not been long at 
Taunton before his theology underwent a further change; but, 
although he had previously received invitations from the Unitarians 
both of Gloucester and Yarmouth, he remained where he was till 1804, 
when he accepted the situation of one of the pastors of the Unitarian 
congregation at Birmingham, formerly presided over by Dr. Priestley, 
and then assembling in what was called the New Meeting-House. 
This appointment he continued to hold, discharging its duties with 
much acceptance, till his death at Birmingham, after a short illness, 
on the 23rd of July 1815, leaving five children, out of a family of 
twelve, by his wife Jane, youngest daughter of Mr. J. Smith, of 
Taunton, whom he married in 1764. 

Dr. Toulmin received his diploma of D.D, from Harvard University, 
in the United States, in 1794. His first publication appears to have 
been an octavo volume, entitled ‘ Sermons addressed to Youth, with a 
Translation of Isocrates’s Oration to Demonicus, which appeared in 
1770, and was reprinted in 1789: this was followed by ‘ Two Letters 
on the Address of the Dissenting Ministers on Subscription,’ 8vo, 
1774 ; ‘ Memoirs of Socinus,’ 8vo, 1777 ; ‘ Letters to Dr. John Sturges 
on the Church Establishment,’ 8vo, 1782; ‘Dissertations on~ the 
Internal Evidences of Christianity, 8vo, 1785; ‘Essay on Baptism,’ 
8vo, 1786; a new edition (the third) of ‘Mr. William Foot’s Account 
of the Ordinance of Baptism,’ 8vo, 1787; ‘Review of the Life, Cha- 
racter, and Writings of John Biddle, M.A.,’ 8vo, 1789; ‘ History of 
the Town of Taunton,’ 4to, 1791; a new edition of Neal’s ‘ History of 
the Puritans,’ with notes and additions, 5 vols. 8vo, 1794-97, reprinted 
in 8 vois. 8vo, 1837; ‘ Biographical Tribute to the Memory of Dr. 
Priestley,’ 8vo, 1804; ‘Address to Young Men, 12mo, 1804; 
‘Memoirs of the Rev. Samuel Bourne’ (his colleague at Birmingham), 
8vo, 1809; ‘Sermons on Devotional Subjects, 8vo, 1810; ‘ Historical 
View of the State of the Protestant Dissenters in England,’ 8vo, 
1814; besides a number of single sermons and other pamphlets: and 
he was also an occasional contributor to the ‘ Theological Repository,’ 
* The |Nonconformists’ Memorial,’ ‘The Monthly Magazine,’ and other 
periodical publications. Dr. Toulmin’s writings, without much either 
of learning or-power of thought, display generally an agreeable per- 
spicuity and neatness of style, rising sometimes to considerable energy 
and animation ; and although steady, and even eager, in the defence of 
his own opinions, he states what he has to say without any bitterness 
or discourtesy to his opponents. 

TOULONGEON, FRANCOIS E’MANUEL, VISCOUNT OF, a 
French historian of the last and present century, was born in 1748, at 
the castle of Champlitte, in La Franche Comté, and belonged to one 
of the oldest families in that provinee. He was destined by his 
parents for the church, and was sent at an early age to the Seminary 
of St. Sulpice at Paris ; but having evinced a decided repugnance to 
theological studies, he was permitted to follow his own inclination, 
and to enter thearmy. He was a great admirer of Voltaire, to whom, 
in 1776, he paid a visit at Ferney, and whose favour he gained, He 
was admitted a member of the Académie of Besancon, in 1779, having 
previously manifested a degree of poetical talent which gained for 
him some local celebrity. He rose to the rank of colonel of chasseurs, 
and his regiment was remarked for its discipline and good condition ; 
but he quitted the service previous to the wars which arose out of the 
French revolution. At the commencement of the revolution he 
embraced the popular side, and defended it against the majority of 
the nobles of La Franche Comté in the assembly of the states of that 
province, held at Quingey, in 1788. About this time he published a 
pamphlet, under the title of ‘Principes Naturels et Constitutifs des 
Assemblées Nationales,’ which appears to have been his first publica- 
tion. It gained him considerable popularity, and led to his appoint- 
ment as one of the deputies of the nobility of the province in the 
States-General of 1789. He was one of those nobles who separated 
themselves from their order to unite with the tiers-siat, or commons, 
in one chamber, which assumed the title of the National Assembly. 

* In the years 1790-91 he acted with the moderate revolutionists ; and 
at the close of the session, presaging the approaching troubles, he 


quitted public life, and retired to an estate which he possessed in Le 
Nivernais, the sole remain of his patrimonial inheritance, and which 
was considerably diminished in value by the loss of the feudal services 
which had been suppressed by the revolution. His early retirement 
preserved him from the perils of the reign of terror. His subsequent 
life was devoted to literary and to agricultural pursuits. He was 
elected a member of the Institute, in 1797, in the class of the moral 
sciences (a class suppressed at the reorganisation of the Institute, in 
1803); and, in the same year, brought owt a periodical, entitled 
‘Esprit Public,’ with the view of calming the violence of party spirit; 
but only six numbers of the work appeared. He was chosen, in 1802 
and 1809, deputy for the department of Niévre in the legislative body; 
and was subsequently made a commander of the Legion of Honour. 
He died suddenly, 28rd December 1812, and was buried in the ceme- 
tery of Montmartre, where his children have raised a monument to 
his memory. 

The principal works of Toulongeon are :—‘ Histoire de France 
depuis la Révolution de 1789;’ ‘Manuel du Muséum Frangais ;’ 

‘ Manuel Révolutionnaire, ou Pensées Morales sur |’Etat Politique des 
Peuples en Révolution;’ a poem, entitled ‘Recherches Hi 

et Philosophiques sur Amour et le Plaisir;’ and a translation of 
Ceesar’'s ‘Commentaries. He published some smaller works; and 
some of his papers read at the Institute were published either in the 
‘Mémoires de l'Institut, or separately, by himself. His ‘ Histoire 
de France’ never appears to have attained a high reputation, and has 
been superseded by later histories of the same period: but the exact- 
ness of its military details gives it some value. The first edition was 
without date, in 2 vols. 8vo; the second edition (1801-10) was pub- 
lished in 4 vols. 4to, or 7 vols. 8vo, with maps and plans of battles. 
The ‘ Manuel du Muséum’ is a catalogue raisonné of the paintings of — 
the ancient masters: it was published in ten thin volumes, 8vo, 1802+ 
1808: the first nine volumes have the initials of Toulongeon on the 
title-pages; the tenth volume is by another hand, The ‘Manuel 
Révolutionnaire’ (1795) went through two editions, and was trans- 
lated into German. The translation of Cesar was published after 
Toulongeon’s decease, 2 vols. 18mo, 1813, with plans and military 
notes on the text. A new edition, interpaged with the original text, 
was published in 1826: part of a collection (by M. A. Pommier) of 
the Latin classics, interpaged with French versions. 

TOUP, JONATHAN, was born at St. Ives in Cornwall, in December 
1713, and was partly eduéated at a grammar-school in that town. He 
was afterwards entered at Exeter College, Oxford, where he took his 
bachelor’s degree, but his master of arts degree he took at Camb 
Toup entered the Church, and obtained successively the rectory of 
St. Martin’s, Exeter, and a prebend’s stall in Exeter cathedral. He 
died on the 19th of January 1785, in his 72nd year, and was buried in 
St. Martin’s church. 

Toup was an accurate scholar, and one of the best English critics — 
in the middle of last century. The work by which he is known — 
is his ‘mendations of Suidas;’ the first volume of which was pub- 
lished in 1760, under the title of ‘ Emendationes in Suidam, in 
plurima loca veterum Grecorum, Sophoclis et Aristophanis imprimis, 
cum explicantur tum emendantur.’ This was followed by two volumes 
more in 1764 and 1766, and by a fourth in 1775, under the title of 
‘ Appendiculum Notarum in Suidam.’ This work gained for him the 
friendship of Bishop Warburton, to whose influence Toup was py | 
indebted for his church preferment. In 1767 Toup published 
‘Epistola Critica ad virum celeberrimum Gulielmum epi 
Glocestriensem,’ containing various corrections and explanations of 
many passages in the Greek authors. Toup was also a contri- 
butor to the Oxford edition of Theocritus edited by Wharton, which 
was published in 1770. A note of his upon the fourteenth Idyl was 
cancelled by the vice-chancellor on the ground of its indecency, prin- 
cipally, it is said, at the wish of Dr. Lowth. Toup however was 
highly displeased at this, and published the objectionable note in 1772 — 
in his ‘Cure Posteriores, sive Appendicula Notarum atque emenda- 
tionum in Theocritum, Oxonii nuperrime publicatum,’ in which he 
attacks the taste and the learning of those who had it omitted. 
Toup’s last work was an edition of Longinus, published at Oxford in _ 
1778, and reprinted in 1789, which is still one of the best editions we — 
have of this writer. (Nichols’s Bowyer.) 

TOUR, MAURICE QUENTIN DE LA, an eminent French portrait — 
painter, was born at St. Quentin in 1704. De la Tour was distin- 
guished for his portraits in crayons, which he executed the size of 
life; he painted very slowly and finished very highly, but gave his 
pictures the appearance of having been executed with great reeds 
adding a few bold and effective touches to the already finished ki 
He painted many portraits, and was much in fashion in the time of 
Louis XV., with whom he was a favourite, and whose portrait he 
painted. The following are among his best pictures :—a 7 
length of Madame de Pompadour ; the portrait of Louis, Dauphin 
France; one of Prince Charles, the Pretender; the portraits o 
Restout, the king’s painter, presented to the Academy of Arts 
Paris in 1746, when De la Tour was elected a member of the Academy; 
of Réné Fremin, the king's sculptor; of J. B. 8. Chardin, the painter ; 
of the Maréchal de Saxe, and others; and his own portrait, which 
was engraved by G, F.Schmidt in 1742, i. 

De la Tour was a man of very eccentric habits, and towards 


ay 


<8 


\ 


ate 


‘ 
4 
: 


ro 


+\ v an chetohes # 


_ present department of Bouches du Rhéne. 


botanical studies. 


observations of all kinds, 


133 TOURNEFORT, JOSEPH PITTON DE. 


TOURNEPORT, JOSEPH PITTON DE, 134 


end of his life he spoiled many of his works by painting out the 
beautiful accessories which he had originally introduced, upon the 
principle that in portrait everything should be sacrificed to the head— 
the portrait of Restout was one that suffered in this way; he turned 
his brilliant silk vest into one of simple brown stuff. He died in 
1788, aged eighty-four. He gave 10,000 francs to the Academy of 
Paris to found an annual prize of 500 francs for the best picture in 
en aérial and linear alternately; he gave also an equal sum 
the foundation of an annual prize for the most useful discovery for 
the arts, to be awarded by the Academy of Amiens; ahd he founded a 
uitous school of design in his native place, St. Quentin. 
- TOURNEFORT, JOSEPH PITTON DE, a celebrated botanist, was 
born June 5, 1656, of a noble family at Aix, in Provence, in the 
Having a great taste for 
observation, the study of nature soon disgusted him with scholastic 


; peorehy and theology, in which he was engaged, in order to please 


his relations, who wished him to enter holy orders. The death of his 


_ father, in 1677, enabled him to follow his own inclination; and having 


exhausted the fields of his own country and the garden of an 
apothecary, he went to the Alps, in order more fully to satisfy his 
curiosity. At Montpellier, whither he had gone to study medicine, 
and where he was received by Magnol, and became the friend of 
Chirac, he found fresh stores of information; and he collected still 
richer from the Cévennes, the Pyrenees, and from Catalonia, to which 
his zeal carried him. In these excursions he was twice robbed 

y the Spanish miquelets (or foot soldiers), who left him nothing but 


his plants; he was buried also for two hours under the ruins of a hut 


where he was passing the night; and thus he seemed to be inuring 
himself to the fatigues he was one day to undergo in longer travels, 
He was already possessed of rich collections and numerous observa- 
tions, when he repaired to Paris, where Fagon, chief physician to the 
queen, and curator of the Jardin du Roi, was the sole patron of 
Fagon knew how to appreciate both knowledge and 
merit; his character, as well as his rank, placed’ him above jealousy ; 
and Tournefort found in him a disinterested protector. In 1683 he 
was appointed assistant professor with Fagon at the Jardin du Roi, 
whose numerous other occupations allowed him but little time for 
teaching. The way in which Tournefort fulfilled this office soon 
made him known, and attracted from all parts a crowd of students to 
his lectures and herborising excursions. In 1688 he was commissioned 
to travel through Spain and Portugal, and shortly after through 
Holland and England, in order to enrich the Jardin du Roi with the 
plants of these countries. These travels made him acquainted with 
the most distinguished scientific men of the countries he visited, and 
gained him their friendship and esteem. Being made, in 1692, a 
member of the Académie des Sciences, he proved by his ‘Elémens de 
Botanique,’ which was published shortly afterwards, how well he 
deserved that honour. The title of Doctor of Medicine was conferred 
upon him by the Faculty of Paris in 1698. He again left France in 
1700, being sent by the king to the East to collect plants and make 
In company with the German botanist 
Gundelsheimer, and the celebrated artist Aubriet, he spent two years in 
travelling through the islands of Greece, the borders of the Black Sea, 
Georgia and the environs of Mount Caucasus, Asia Minor, and Arme- 
nia, He was preparing to go to Egypt, when, hearing that the plague 
was ravaging that country, and that his patron Fagon was dangerously 
ill, he hastened back to his own country, to which he was called both 
by gratitude and friendship. Having resumed his duties at the | 
Jardin du Roi, and being also appointed professor to the Faculty, he 
spent the little spare time he had in arranging his numerous collections 
and in drawing up different works, especially the account of his 
travels in the Levant. The fatigues of work and his travels had much 
weakened his originally robust constitution, and a violent blow which 
he received on the breast from the axletree of a carriage tended still 
more to impair it; so that after lingering some months, he ended his 


‘laborious life the 28th day of November 1708. By his will he left 


to the king the valuable zoological museum which he had formed, and 
his library to the Abbé Bignon, 


_ A judicious and lively mind, and a natural gaiety of disposition, 
_ rendered Tournefort equally fitted to succeed in scientific investiga- 
tions and to form the charm of his friends in society. His attach- 


ment to his own country made him refuse the solicitations of Paul 


Hermann, who wished to have him for his successor, and offered him, 


in the name of the states of Holland, the situation of professor of 
botany at Leyden, with a salary of 4000 franes (160/.) ; 
The system of Tournefort was an advance on those of Cesalpino, 


_ Morison, Hermann, Ray, and Rivinus, but has since been displaced by 


those of Jussieu, De Candolle, and others. Authors had previously 
only ethployed themselves in grouping plants into classes; the much 


' more important determination of the genera was still almost entirely 


wanting. It is this subdivision of the subject which Tournefort 
executed with such admirable acuteness, and which distinguishes his 
labours from all that had preceded him; and it is this, joined toa 
classification simple, easy, and almost always natural, which caused 


his method to be afterwards adopted by the botanists of all countries. 


Tournefort adopted the principle that genera should be constructed 


on characters derived from both the fructification and organs of 
_ vegetation. In seeking for order he had the good sense not tg pretend 


Land precision, and for a number of very just observations. 


to an absolute regularity, which nature nowhere presents; and felt 
(which has been too often forgotten in our day, and which has intro- 
duced into natural history so many useless genera, and so many 
parasitical denominations) that the generic characters must admit of 
exceptions which are commanded by nature itself. Linneus, when 
again reforming the science, adopted the greater part of the genera of 
Tournefort ; but having constructed his genera on characters derived 
from the fructification alone, he was obliged to reject many of Tourne- 
fort’s genera. The plates which Tournefort has given characteristic of 
the genera are, even to the present day, for the most part, among the 
best means of understanding them: they are well executed, and upon 
a plan at that time quite new, and are a proof of his taste, as well as 
of his spirit of order and observation. 

Although he did not think that the consideration of the natural 
relations of plants (of which the first glimpses were to be met with in 
the works of Lobel and Magnol) could serve as the basis of an easy 
classification, still he generally observes the most marked of these 
relations, and the greater part of his classes form one or more large 
families. The separation of the woody from the herbaceous plants, — 
which nature frequently offers together in the same genus, and which 
was admitted by the botanists of Tournefort’s time, is in his system a 
defect which an increased knowledge of the structure and functions of 
plants has long since caused botanists entirely to abandon in their 
systems of classification, however much advantage may be derived 
from it for practical purposes. 

Tournefort did not do for the species what he had so well accom- 
plished for the genera; as he left confounded with them simple 
varieties, even those which are evidently only the result of cultivation. 
Neither did he think of giving them names more convenient than 
those which were then in use, and which were commonly vague, and 
often very long and complicated. These inconveniences Linneus got 
rid of; and at the same time he arranged the vegetable kingdom 
according to his celebrated sexual system, in which plants were placed 
in classes and orders according to the number of their stamens and 
pistils. But the system of Tournefort was never abandoned in France, 
and the study of its principles resulted in the labours of Adanson, 
Jussieu, and De Candolle, to whom we are so greatly indebted for the 
present position of systematic botany. 

The ‘ Institutiones Rei Herbarix’ is distinguished for its clearness 
The 
historical part of this work, which is the most considerable, displays 
much solid learning, which has been of great use to those who have 
since his time written on the history of botanical science. The dif- 
ferent travels of Tournefort enriched botany with a great number of 
species, and even of genera. He brought back from his travels in 
the East, more than thirteen hundred plants, the greater part of 
which were in the Herbarium of Gundelsheimer, his companion ; and 
have been since examined by Willdenow, who has mentioned them in 
his ‘Species Plantarum.’ If the history of the plants in the environs of 
Paris, by Tournefort, divided into six herborisations, is of little 
importance as to thé number of species described (which is only four 
hundred and twenty-seven), still it is a very valuable work in other 
respects. By the exactness of the synonymes, and by the skill with 
which the plants are referred to the nomenclature and to the plates of 
the ancient botanists, whose errors Tournefort corrects, this work 
furnishes an excellent model of criticism. There is also to be found 
in it a faithful description of some rare plants, which are omitted in 
his other works, Haller however rather over-estimates its value, 
when he is inclined to regard it as the chief of Tournefort’s writings 
(‘preecipium forté Tournefortii opus’). One may judge of Tourne- 
fort's reputation, and of the value that was put upon whatever he 
wrote, from the fact of his lectures on Materia Medica having been 
collected by his pupils, and translated and published in English 
before they appeared in French, which was not till some years after 
his death. ‘The account of Tournefort’s travels was for a long time the 
source of our most accurate information about the countries which he 
visited. The simplicity of the style does not lessen the interest of the 
narrative, To the observation of nature he joins everywhere that of 
men, manners, and customs, and shows an extensive knowledge both 
of history and antiquity. 

Among the manuscripts left by Tournefort was a botanical topo- 
graphy of all the places which he had visited, and a large collection of 
critical and other observations, which has never been published, 
though it was entrusted to Rénéaulme to arrange for that purpose. 
The genus of American shrubs, to which Plumier, out of honour to his 
master’s memory, gave the name of ‘ Tournefortia,’ derives its chief 
interest from this celebrated name. 

The following is a list of Tournefort’s principal works :—‘* Elémens 
de Botanique, ou Méthode pour connaitre les Plantes, 3 vols. 8vo, 
with 451 plates, Paris, 1694. Some imperfections in this work were 
pointed out by Ray, to whom Tournefort replied in a Latin work, 
entitled ‘De Optima Methodo Instituend’ in Re Herbaria ad Sapientem 
Virum G. Sherardum Epistola, in qué respondetur Dissertationi D. 
Raii de variis Plantarum Methodis, 8vo, Paris, 1697. In 1700 he 
published a Latin version of his ‘Elements of Botany,’ with “many 
additions, and a learned preface, containing the history of the science ; 
it was entitled ‘Institutiones Rei Herbarie, ed. altera, Gallicd longd 
auctior, 3 vols. 4to, with 476 plates, Paris. After his expedition to 


135 TOURNEMINE, LE PERE. 


—- 


TOURNEUR, PIERRE LE. 136 


the East he published ‘ Corollarium Institutionum Rei Herbari, in 
quo Plante, 1356 . . ». in Regionibus Orientalibus observate, recen- 
sentur ....et ad sua Genera revocantur,’ 4to, with 13 plates, Paris, 
1703. This was afterwards added to Ant. de Jussieu’s edition of the 
‘Elements,’ in 1719, 8 vols. 8vo, Lyons. ‘Histoire des Plantes qui 
naissent aux Environs de Paris, avec leurs Usages dans la Médecine,’ 
12mo, Paris, 1698. An improved edition of it was given by Bernard 
de Jussieu, in 2 vols. 12mo, 1725; and an English translation was 
published by Martyn, 2 vols. 8vo, London, in 1732. ‘Relation d’un 
Voyage du Lévant, fait par Ordre du Roi, contenant I’ Histoire Ancienne 
et Moderne de plusieurs Iles de ]’Archipel, les Plans des Villes et des 
Lieux les plus considérables, et enrichie de Descriptions et de Figures 
de Plantes, d’Animaux, et d’Observations singuliéres touchant I’His- 
toire Naturelle.’ The first volume of this work was printed at the 
Louvre before his death; the second was completed from his manu- 
scripts; and both were published in 1717, in 2 vols. 4to, There have 
been several French editions, and it has been translated into English, 
$ vols. 8vo, London, 1741. ‘ Traité de la Matiére Médicale, ou I’ Histoire 
et l’Usage des Médicamens et leur Analyse Chimique, Ouvrage post- 
hume de M. Tournefort, mis au jour par M. Besnier,’ 2 vols. 12mo, 
Paris, 1717. This work, which was not published in French until 
after the death of the author, had been already translated and pub- 
lished in English, 8vo, London, 1708 and 1716. 

TOURNEMINE, LE PE'RE RENE’ JOSEPH, Jesuit, occupies a 
subordinate but useful and honourable position in the literary history 
of France. He belonged:to an ancient family in Bretagne, and was 
born at Rennes on the 26th of April 1661. In 1680, he entered the 
Society of the Jesuits, His superiors thought that his peculiar talents 
qualified him for a teacher, and his subsequent career showed the 
correctness of their opinion. For about twenty years he taught in 
different colleges of the Order, with eminent success, humanity, 
rhetoric, philosophy, and theology ; and while thus instructing others 
he was accumulating information in the belles-lettres,—physical, 
moral, and metaphysical science—theology, history, geography, and 
numismatics—that was to fit him for the employment of nearly 
twenty years of his matured intellect. 

In 1701 Tournemine was called to Paris to take the management of 
the ‘ Journal de Trevoux,’ a periodical publication, which, although at 
times disfigured by the narrow views and unamiable temper of secta- 
rianism, has rendered services to literature that entitle it to a better 
reputation than the equivocal one in which it is held by the mass of 
readers who know it only from the sarcasms of Voltaire. Tourne- 
mine was the principal editor of this work for nineteen years, from 
1701 to 1720. He contributed to the journal during this time a 
number of curious dissertations and analyses which procured for it a 
high reputation throughout Europe. Superior to the partisan spirit of 
many of his brethren, he was sufficiently impartial to combat the 
systems of Hardouin and Panel ; and free from bigotry, although sin- 
cerely religious, he praised highly the ‘ Merope’ of Voltaire, and even 
when engaged in controversy with its great author always treated him 
with respect. 

In 1720 he was freed from the laborious task of editorship, but still 
continued to contribute largely to the pages of the ‘Journal de Tre- 
voux.’ Indeed the variety of studies to which, as teacher, and editor 
of a critical journal, he had found it necessary to turn his attention, 
appears to have produced in him desultory habits of thought, and 
prevented the concentration of his powers upon any one topic, so as 
to enable him to exhaust it. The Order, regretting that his time and 
talents should be thus wasted, appointed him librarian to the residence 
of professed Jesuits (maison de professe) at Paris, and after the death 
of Bonami (1725) employed him to continue the literary history of 
the society from the period to which it had, been brought down by 
Southwell. Tournemine entered with enthusiasm upon his new task, 
He called upon all the provinces to supply him with memoirs, and 
instituted researches in the archives of the society at Rome. The 
habits of thought however which he had contracted led him to under- 
fake the work on a scale beyond what it was possible to accomplish, 
and unfitted him at the same time for persevering routine labour. 
The over-minute investigation of details, and the episodical inquiries 
into which he was continually seduced, diverted him from the com- 
pletion of the work he had undertaken, and he failed to perform his 
engagements. 

Tournemine died at Paris on the 16th of May 1739, in the seventy- 
ninth year of his age, regretted by all who knew him. He has left no 
work worthy of his talents and opportunities, yet he has not been 
without influence upon literature. Asa teacher and journalist, and in 
the conversation of private society, he prompted and encouraged many 
young writers, His knowledge was at the service of every one who 
asked it, and the information which he did not himself elaborate into 
any enduring work was yet of material service to others. He 
belonged to a class of minds which, although they leave little or no 
permanent trace of their individuality, are indispensable to the 
creation of a national literature—those who go to form a literary 
public, animating and instructing writers by its sympathy and subor- 
dinate co-operation. 

A list of Tournemine’s writings is given in the 42nd volume of the 
‘Mémoires de Niceron,’ and in the Dictionary of Chaufpié. They 
consist chiefly of his contributions to the ‘Journal de Trevoux,’ He 

a 


contributed the chronological tables to the edition of the Bible pub- 
lished by Duhamel in 1706. He published in 1719 an edition of 
Menochius’s ‘ Scriptural Commentaries,’ to which he appended a 
system.of chronology and twelve dissertations on different points of 
the chronology of the Bible. In 1726 he published an edition of 
Prideaux’s ‘ History of the Jews,’ and added to it a dissertation on 
the books of Scripture not recognised as canonical by Protestants, and 
some remarks upon the ruins of Nineveh and the destruction of the 
Assyrian empire. Tournemine’s ‘ Réflexions sur l'Athéisme’ were 
printed as an introduction to two editions of Fénélon’s ‘ Traité sur 
l’Existence de Dieu;’ and in reply to Voltaire, who had invited him 
to clear up his doubts, he published in the ‘Journal de Trevoux’ 
(October 1735) a letter on the immateriality of the soul, which does 
not appear to have convinced the philosopher. Sketches of the life of 
Tournemine are contained in the ‘Journal de Trevoux’ for September 
1739, and in Belingan’s ‘ Observations sur les Ecrivains Modernes,’ 
vol. xviii. There is also a well-executed memoir of him by M. Weiss 
in the ‘ Biographie Universelle.’ 

TOURNEUR, PIERRE LE, was born at Valognes in 1736. He 
studied in the college Des Grassins at Coutances, where he distin- 
guished himself, and appears to have repaired to Paris about the year 
1767 or 1768, with a view to earn his subsistence by literary labour, 
His history from that time till his death, in 1788, is little more than 
an account of his publications and the reception they met with. | 

He published in 1768 a thin octavo containing a few prize essays 
which had been crowned by the academies of Montauban and Besancon 
in the years 1766 and 1767; and an ‘Eloge de Charles V., Roi 
de France,’ which had been unsuccessful in the competition of the 
French Academy in the latter year. ‘This seems to have been his — 
only attempt at original publication, with the exception of a number 
of prefaces and some verses in two little volumes, entitled ‘ Jardins 
Anglais, ou Variétés tant originales que traduites,’ which appeared in 
Lee His original composition betrays an entirely common-place 
mind. 

In 1769 Le Tourneur published a collection of tales translated from 
the English, of no importance in itself, and which attracted little or 
no attention. Towards the close of the same year, or in the beginning 
of 1770, he brought out a translation of ‘ Young’s Night Thoughts’ 
and miscellaneous poems, which was more successful. He has taken 
great liberties with the ‘ Night Thoughts,’ omitting several 
and altering the whole arrangement of the poem, with a view to 
render it less startling to French taste. Grimm sneered at the work, 
but Diderot and Laharpe declared themselves warmly in its favour, 
The success of the translation of the ‘Night Thoughts’ appears to — 
have decided Le Tourneur to confine himself in future to that kind of 
employment. His first undertaking was a complete translation of 
the dramatic works of Shakspere. In this enterprise he was associated 
at first with the Comte de Catuelan and Fontaine Malherbe, both of — 
whose names are subscribed along with his in the dedication to the 
king, prefixed to the first volume. But his associates deserted him 
after the publication of the second volume, and the remainin 
eighteen were the unaided work of Le Tourneur. The first volume 
appeared in 1776 ; the last in 1782. It is difficult for an Englishman 
to do justice to the merits of a translation of Shakspere into any — 
foreign language. He feels the unavoidable defects too strongly, 
Thus much however may be said of Le Tourneur’s, that it honestly 
aims at giving Shakspere as he is, The translator has evidently bene- 
fited by his knowledge of the German translation by Eschenburg 
(Ziirich, 1775-87), and has prefixed the remarks of that critic to — 
several of the plays. The version is in prose, and by a prosaical 
mind, yet enough of Shakspere remains to impress minds which know _ 
him through no other medium with some sense of his greatness. It 
is still the best French translation of Shakspere, and as such was _ 
revised and republished by M. Guizot in 1824, Some expressions in — 
the prefatory discourse excited the anger of Voltaire, who thought he 
saw in it an attempt to decry the merits of the great French drama- 
tists. The controversy to which Voltaire’s denunciations gave rise 
was of advantage to the work by creating a public interest in it. Le 
Tourneur seems to have taken no part in the discussion: in an adyer- — 
tisement prefixed to the ninth volume, he quietly observes, “This _ 
work has triumphed over the absurd hostility declared against it at its — 
first appearance, and the extraordinary wrath of a great poet, the — 
most ardent panegyrist of Shakspere so long as he was unknown, his — 
unaccountable enemy since he has been translated.” Of the original 
subscribers to the quarto edition a large proportion were English: the — 
sale however increased as the work advanced ; a quarto and an octayo 
edition were published simultaneously ; and Le Tourneur, who seems _ 
to have become publisher as well as author, adventured on the specu- 
lation of publishing in numbers, by subscription, pictorial illustrations 
of Shakspere. ea 

The translation of Shakspere was far from being the only employ- 
ment of its author during the time he was engaged upon it. In 1770 
he published a translation of Hervey’s ‘Meditations among the 
Tombs ;’ in 1771 a translation of Johnson's ‘ Life of Savage,’ together 
with an abridgment of the same author's ‘ Life of Thomson ;’ in 1777 
he published a translation of Macpherson’s ‘ Ossian;’ in the same 
year a translation of Soame Jenyns’s ‘View of the Evidences of 
Christianity;’ in 1784-87, a translation of ‘Clarissa Harlowe;’ in 


™ 


TOURRETTE, MARC-ANTOINE. 


TOUSSAINT LOUVERTURE. 133 


1788, a translation of ‘ Interesting Memoirs of a Lady;’ and his trans- 
lation of Pennant’s ‘ Description of the Arctic Regions’ appeared the 
year after his death, He also revised the translation of the ‘ Universal 
History’ begun by Psalmanazar, which some young authors had under- 
taken at his suggestion. 

These are his most important publications, They deserve a place 
in the history of letters, inasmuch as they contributed to nourish that 
taste for English literature which was then growing in France, and 
which has contributed so much to modify not only the taste, but the 
character of the nation. Diderot, the first to recognise the merits of 
Le Tourneur as a translator, was the first eminent author of France 
who really felt the merits of English imaginative writing ; his sanction 
encouraged others to feel, or affect to feel, its beauties. Le Tourneur 


had the principal share in enabling merely French readers to judge in 


some measure for themselves. The literary taste of France has not 
become assimilated to England since the time of Diderot and Le 
Tourneur, but it has been since their publications entirely revolu- 
tionised. Gdthe, in his ‘Dichtung und Wahrheit,’ and in his 
*Rameau’s Neffe,’ has explained the influence which Diderot exercised 
over the modern literature of Germany, both by his own writings and 
by directing attention to English authors. It was in part through 
the medium of French literature that the English literature was 
made to exercise so strong an influence over that of Germany. ‘The 

t which Le Tourneur played in this intellectual revolution was an 

umble but still an important one. 

It has been intimated above that Le Tourneur in translating Shak- 
spere was indebted to Eschenburg, and this of itself would imply that 
he was acquainted with the German as well as with the English lan- 
guage. He published some translations from the German: in 1787 
one of Sparmann’s ‘Journey to the Cape of Good Hope;’ in 1788, 
one of the ‘Memoirs of Baron Trenck.’ In 1785 he translated and 
published a selection from the elegies of Ariosto. 

The persevering industry displayed in this brief recapitulation of 
what was accomplished by Le Tourneur in the space of eighteen 
years, would lead to the inference that he must have secured an 
independence by his labours. In addition to this source of income, 
he held for a number of years the appointment of private secretary 
to Monsieur, afterwards Louis XVIII.; and for a short time before 
his death that of censeur-royal. An anonymous biography is prefixed 
to his ‘Jardins Anglais;’ and M. Weiss has contributed a correct 
outline of its leading incidents to the ‘ Biographie Universelle.’ Le 
Tourneur had not the slightest pretension to the character of a man 
of genius, but he was a respectable and useful labourer in the field 
of letters, 

TOURRETTE, MARC-ANTOINE-LOUIS CLARET DE LA, 
naturalist, was born in August 1729, at Lyon, where his father was 
commandant of the city, Prévét des Marchands, and Président 3 la 
Cour des Monnaies. He commenced his elementary studies at a 
college of Jesuits in Lyon, and was afterwards sent to the Collége de 
Harcourt at Paris. He was early admitted a member of the Academy 
of Sciences at Lyon, and during the last twenty-five years of his life 
acted as secretary to that body. On returning to his native city he 
was appointed a Conseiller & la Cour des Monnaies, but he pursued 
the study of the belles-lettres with great assiduity. Dissatisfied how- 
ever with the tendency of these studies, he engaged in that of natural 
history. He commenced with zoology and mineralogy, and soon 
formed a large collection of insects and minerals. The establishment 
of a school of veterinary medicine, by Bourgelat, at Lyon, directed his 
attention to botany. In conjunction with the Abbé Rozier, he was 
appointed to superintend the formation of a botanical garden, and 
the giving instruction to the pupils in botany. The result of these 
exertions was the publication, in 1766, of an elementary work on 
botany, entitled ‘Démonstrations élémentaires de Botanique,’ 8vo. 
This work, at first in two volumes, contained a general introduction 
to a knowledge of the structure of plants and their arrangement, 
with descriptions of the most useful and curious. In the first edition 
the introductory matter was entirely drawn up by Tourrette, the 
description of the plants by Rozier. In a second edition nearly the 
whole was rewritten by Tourette. This work has since gone through 
other editions. The fourth consists of four volumes of letter-press in 
8vo, and two volumes of engravings in 4to, containing notices of the 
lives of both Tourrette and Rozier. 

Tn 1770 Tourrette published a voyage to Mount Pilat, giving a geo- 
graphical account of the district, and a list of the plants which he 
discovered there. In 1795 he published the ‘Chloris Lugdunensis’ 
(8vo), in which he described the plants of the neighbourhood of Lyon, 
and paid especial attention to those belonging to the class Crypto- 
gamia. He published numerous papers on various departments of 
natural history, in the Transactions of Societies and Journals. Those 
most worthy of mention were on the origin of Belemnites, on vegetable 
monstrosities, and on the Helminthocorton, or Corsican moss. He made 
numerous excursions for the purpose of collecting plants in various 
partsof France and Italy. In some of these herborisings he was accom- 
panied by Jean Jacques Rousseau, with whom he was intimate; and 
in the published correspondence of that philosopher are several letters 
written to Tourrette. He took great pains in introducing foreign 
trees and shrubs, which he cultivated in his father’s park near Lyon, 
and at his own residence in the city he had a garden containing 3000 


species of plants. He was a correspondent of most of the great 
botanists of his day, as Linnwus, Adanson, Jussieu, and others, 
During the siege of Lyon he was exposed to fatigue, anxiety, and 
hardship, which brought on an attack of inflammation of the lungs 
that terminated his existence in 1793. Tourrette, like most of the 
botanists who adopted the system of Linnzeus, mistook its object, and 
made it assume a position and importance of which it was utterly 
unworthy. The consequence was that in his ‘Démonstrations’ and 
other works he sought more anxiously to add to our knowledge of 
existing species than to elucidate the structure and functions of the 
vegetable kingdom. 

(Notice sur la Vie de M. Tourrette, in the fourth edition of the 
Démonstrations Elémentaires de Botanique.) 

* TOUSSAINT, ANNA LUIZE GEERTRUIDE, the maiden name 
of the most popular living authoress of Holland, and that by which 
she is still most generally known, though she has since 1851 been 
married to Mr. Bosboom, a painter of some reputation at the Hague, 
since which she writes her name A. L. G. Bosboom Toussaint. She 
was born on the 16th of September 1812, at the town of Alkmaar, in 
North Holland, the daughter of an apothecary, who was descended, as 
his name suggests, from a family of French refugees. Always of a 
weakly constitution, she was nevertheless strongly attached to study, 
and though her compositions, exclusive of magazine articles, consist 
entirely of novels and romances, she is said to have expended on the 
details of one of them no less than two years’ research, an amount 
of investigation which would have qualified her for writing a 
history. She has always shown a strong predilection for English 
subjects. Her first romance in 1838 was ‘De Graaf van Devonshire,’ 
or ‘the Earl of Devonshire,’ founded on the adventures of that Courte- 
nay who was supposed to have engaged the affections of the two sister- 
queens, Mary and Elizabeth. ‘Engelschen te Rome,’ or ‘ The English 
at Rome,’ succeeded, in looking at which the English reader can hardly 
forbear a smile to find that the authoress’s Scotch highlander swears 
by St. Patrick, sings ballads beginning with ‘From mighty Odin’s 
airy hall, and bears the singular name of Hugh Mac-o-Daunt. A 
series of three romances from the time of Dudley earl of Leicester's 
inglorious career in the Netherlands, runs up to ten volumes in all, 
and at the conclusion of the last of them, ‘Gideon Florensz,’ the 
authoress in 1855 announced her intention of laying down the pen. 
Though all these works are very popular in the Netherlands, no 
translation or account of any of them has as yet appeared in English. 
The only notice of Madame Bosboom Toussaint that we are aware of 
is an article in the 40th volume of the ‘Westminster Review,’ on a 
tale entitled ‘Lauernesse House,’ in which the controversies of the 
Roman Catholic faith and the Protestant are embodied in the hero 
and-heroine, The historical romances of this popular authoress appear 
to be those of her works which are held in most esteem, but her novel 
of ‘Don Abbondio I.’ a delineation of modern Dutch manners, in 
which one of the characters is nick-named ‘ Abbondio,’ from the well- 
known curate of that name in Manzoni’s ‘ Betrothed,’ is written in a 
lively vein and would probably be more likely to secure in a trans- 
lated shape, the interest of the English reader. 
~ TOUSSAINT LOUVERTURE, one of the most extraordinary men 
known to have been born of the negro race, was born at Breda, a 
property which then belonged to the Count de Noé, near Cape Town 
in St. Domingo, in 1743. His father and mother were both African 
slaves. During the prosperity of Toussaint, a genealogy was compiled, 
it is insinuated with his privity, which made his father the younger son 
of an African king. This may be true or not; itis of little consequence. 

The first employment of Toussaint-Breda (so called from the place 
of his birth) was to take care of the cattle on the estate. He received 
the elements of education from anegro of the name of Pierre-Baptiste, 
As soon as he could read and write his name, he was promoted by M. 
Bayon de Libertat, manager of the estate, to be his coachman. He 
gained the confidence of his master, and was appointed to exercise a 
kind of superintendence over the other negroes. In this position the 
Revolution found him. He took no part in the first insurrections, and 
is said to have expressed himself violently against the perpetrators of 
the massacres of 1791. 

The negroes not unnaturally made attachment to the royal cause 
the pretext for rising in arms against masters who, with equality and 
the rights of men in their mouths, still sought to keep them slaves. 
Toussaint, from 1791 and till the appearance of the proclamation of 
the 4th of February 1794, which declared all slaves free, was alike 
conspicuous for his zeal in the cause of the Roman Catholic religion 
and of royalty. He held at first the title of ‘ Médecin des Armées du 
Roi,’ in the bands of Jean Frangais, but soon exchanged it for a military 
appointment. Though placed under arrest by the chief just named, 
and delivered by the other negro leader, Biassou, the ferocity of the 
latter determined Toussaint to ally himself most closely with Jean 
Francais. He became his aide-de-camp, At this time Toussaint was 
high in the confidence of the Spanish president, Don Joachim Garcia, 
and apparently entirely guided by his confessor, the curé of Laxabon. 
When the negroes rejected the first overtures of the French commis- 
sioners, Toussaint assigned as his reason, that they had always been 
governed by a king; could only be governed by a king; and having 
lost the king of France, had betaken themselves to the protection of 
the king of Spain. 


a 
a 
> sae 
7 sg 
; r 
’ 


139 TOUSSAINT LOUVERTURE. 


TOWERS, JOSEPH, LL.D. 40. 


The proclamation of the 4th of February 1794, emancipating the 
slaves, worked a change in his sentiments. He opened a communica- 
tion with General Laveaux; and receiving the assurance that he would 
be recognised as a general of brigade, occupied the Spanish posts in 
his neighbourhood, and repaired to the camp of the French general. 
His defection was followed by the surrender of Marmalade and other 
strong places, and threw confusion into the Spanish ranks, An 
exclamation of Laveaux on learning the consequences of Toussaint’s 
joining his standard (Comment, mais cet homme fait ‘ouverture’ 
_partout”’) is said to have been the origin of the name Toussaint sub- 
sequently adopted, Laveaux; left by the departure of the commis- 
sioners governor of the colony, treated him at first with coldness and 
distrust ; and Toussaint, now past his fiftieth year, reduced to inaction 
and jealously watched, had reached to all appearance the close of his 
political career. 

In 1795, in consequence of a conspiracy of three of the Mulatto 
generals, Layeaux was arrested at Cape Town. Toussaint Louverture 
assembled his negroes; soon found himself, by the support of the 
partisans of France, at the head of ten thousand men; marched upon 
the capital, and released the governor. Laveaux in the enthusiasm of 
his gratitude, proclaimed his deliverer the protector of the whites and 
the avenger of the constituted authorities. “ He is,” runs the governor's 
proclamation, “the black Spartacus, who, Raynal predicted, would 
arise to avenge his race.” Toussaint Louverture was created a 
general of division, and became in fact the supreme arbiter of the 
fortunes of the colony. When the peace between France and Spain 
was concluded, Jean Francais repaired to Madrid, leaving Toussaint 
the only powerful negro leader in St. Domingo. He reduced the 
whole of the northern part of the island to the dominion of France, 
with the exception of the Mole of St. Nicholas, of which the English 
retained possession. He was the first who succeeded in establishing 
discipline among the armed negroes. 

The arrival of the commissioners sent by the Directory to pro- 
claim the constitution of the year 3, confirmed the credit of Toussaint. 
In April 1796, Sonthonax appointed him commander-in-chief of the 
armies of St. Domingo. In the month of August Toussaint proceeded 
to the Cape at the head of a large body of cavalry on a visit to Sontho- 
nax. The day after his arrival he proposed, at a meeting of the civil 
and military chiefs, that the commissioners should be sent back to 
France. Raymond, a Mulatto, was the oly commissoner allowed to 
remain, The civil admivistration of the colony was confided to Ray- 
mond in the first instance, but he soon resigned the charge into the 
hands of Toussaint. Fully aware of the boldness of the step he had 
taken, Toussaint hastened to remove any suspicions that might arise 
in the minds of the Directory. He sent two of his children to receive 
their education at Paris; and along with them Vincent, a chef de bri- 
gade, charged with the task of explaining everything to the Directory’s 
satisfaction. The Directors professed to be perfectly satisfied, and 
appointed a new commission, at the head of which was placed General 
Hédouville. 

Hédouville, on his arrival at 8t. Domingo showed hissuspicions of the 
negro general by landing within the Spanish territory. Toussaint was 
at this time engaged in negociations with General Maitland for the 
surrender of the strong places held by the English. It was generally 
known that Hédouville’s staff spoke openly in the most hostile and 
insulting terms of Toussaint ; nevertheless he visited the commissioner 
with scarcely any attendants, and professed the utmost devotion to 
the French government. Hédouville asserted his right as agent of the 
republic to reserve the power of ratifying or refusing to ratify any 
_ convention between Toussaint and the British commanders. The 
negro chief nevertheless reccived the capitulation of Port-au-Prince, 
St. Mare, Jérémie, and the Mole of St. Nicholas without consulting 
Hédouville, On the day when the British troops marched out, a public 
exchange of civilities took place between Toussaint Louverture and 
General Maitland. All this increased the distrust of the commissioner, 
who showed it by seeking to thwart the St. Domingo chief in every- 
thing. Toussaint Louverture persuaded his countrymen to resume 
their agricultural occupations. Hédouville soon after issued a procla- 
mation denouncing the émigrés and professing to regulate the political 
relations of whites and negroes. Toussaint immediately issued another 
proclamation declaring that there were no émigrés among the natives 
of the island ; and that the negroes were de facto free, but that it was 
desirable they should continue during five years to labour for their 
old masters, receiving one-fourth of the produce. His partisans were 
in the mean time industriously spreading the opinion that Hédouville 
was an enemy to the negroes and to the tranquillity of the colony. 
An insurrection broke out at the Cape, which was suppressed by 
Toussaint ; but the commissioner with all his adherents, to the num- 
ber of twelve or fifteen hundred men, took refuge on board three 
French frigates which were lying off the island, and sailed for France. 

Their departure was the signal for the breaking out of the animosity 
between the mulattoes and the negroes into acts of open violence. 
Rigaud, the mulatto chief, sanctioned the massacres committed by his 
partisans; Toussaint did all in his power to repress the ferocity of his, 
One strong place was taken from the mulattoes by the negroes after 
another, until Rigaud was shut up in Cayes, the only hold that 
remained to him, This was towards the close of 1799, and Bonaparte 
had already assumed the reins of government in France. One of the 


first steps of the new ruler was to send a deputation to Toussaint, 
composed of his personal friends Raymond and Vincent, and General — 
Michel, They brought the intelligence that Toussaint was confirmed 
in his authority; and Rigaud, seeing himself abandoned even by his 
own partisans, embarked with a few of his retainers to seek an asylum 
in France. “a 
Toussaint Louverture was now at the summit of his prosperity. He 
assumed much state; affected to cast a shade of mystery s 
circumstances of his earlier career; and took pridein proclaiming himself 
the negro deliverer foretold by Raynal. He preserved great pre! aa 
in his own person, but surrounded himself with a brilliant In 
January 1801, he conquered the Spanish part of St. Domingo. He r 
presented to a central meeting of his partisans} a scheme of a colonial — 
constitution, by which he was appointed governor for life, authorised 
to name his successor, and to nominate to all offices under govern- — 
ment. He exercised this authority to the full extent. He quelled an — 
insurrection of the negroes, and did not hesitate to punish with death 
his own nephew, who was at the head of it. Under his strict but just — 
sway the agriculture and commerce of St. Domingo flourished. bere 
Bonaparte in the meantime preserved an ominous silence towards — 
all Toussaint’s overtures of friendship. The mind of the latter, dis- 
quieted by the coldness of the First Consul, was not tranquillised by — 
the proclamation issued immediately after the peace with England, 
declaring that slavery was to continue in Martinique and Cayenne, and 
St. Domingo to be restored to order. Toussaint met it by a counter- 
proclamation, issued on the 18th of December 1801, in which he pro- — 
fessed obedience to the republic, but at the same time appealed to the _ 
soldiers in language which left no doubt as to his resolution to repel _ 
force by force. Bonaparte despatched a squadron of fifty-four sail, 
under the command of General Le Clere, his brother-in-law, to reduce 
St. Domingo. ‘ Sa 
The first view of this foree discouraged Toussaint himself. Hesoon — 
rallied, but his followers were intimidated and divided. The flattery 
of the First Consul, and the solicitations of his own children, were — 
brought to bear on the negro chiefin vain. He retired to the Morne of — 
Chaos, and entombed his treasures where the enemy might seek for 
them in vain. On February 17th, 1802, he was proclaimed an outlaw, — 
The negroes who remained in arms were defeated in all parts of the — 
island; Toussaint continued nevertheless to defend himself, making a — 
desert around him to obstruct the progress of the enemy. At last the 
defection of Christophe and Dessalines obliged him to listen to terms. — 
The sentence of outlawry pronounced against him was reversed. He 
was received with military honours on paying a visit to Le Clerc, and 
General Brunet took his advice on the imposition of taxes, and the 
selection of cantonments. 5 ph 
Brunet invited Toussaint to a conference mid-way between Sanc 
and Gonaives, on the 1 0th of June; und when the generals retired to hold — 
a consultation, the negro guard was disarmed, and their chief arrested — 
and sent on board the Créole, which immediately set sail for Cape — 
Town, where he was transferred to the Heres, a vessel of the line. — 
After a voyage of twenty-five days he was landed at Brest,and without 
delay sent to Paris. He was for a short time lodged in the Temple, — 
but soon after conveyed to the castle of Joux, near Besancon, where — 
he was subjected to a close and severe confinement. His faithful 
attendant Mars Plaisir was removed from him. After ten months of 
rigorous imprisonment, he died on the 27th of April 1803. i. 
Toussaint, like all eminent and successful politicians, was marked — 
by a strong inclination and power to conceal his sentiments and inten- 
tions. There was a good deal of imagination or romance in his com- 
position. He had strong devotional feelings and a nice sense of domestic 
morality. His reserved and energetic nature commanded the respect of _ 
the negroes, enabled him to restrain them from excesses and keep _ 
them to steady labour, and he thus restored confidence to the whites. 
He loved splendour in his attendants, but was plain in his personal 
habits, St. Domingo was peaceable and prosperous under his govern- 
ment. These facts are proved by the concurring testimony of friends — 
and enemies; and they entitle him to be classed among great men. 
More it would be imprudent to say positively, considering how con-— 
flicting are the witnesses respecting him, and how biassed by passion — 
their evidence. Of the injustice and selfish meanness of Bonaparte’s — 
conduct towards him there can be scarcely two opinions, ‘= 
After the death of Toussaint Louverture, his family were confined at 
Brienne-en-Agen, where one of his sons died. The survivors were set 
at liberty after the restoration of the Bourbons. The widow died in — 
1816, in the arms of her sons Placide and Isaac, M. du Broias has 
published a sketch of the life of Toussaint Louverture, ae: 
TOWERS, JOSEPH, LL.D., was born in Southwark, on the 13th — 
of March 1737. His education was much neglected, but being fond o 
reading, he picked up a good deal of knowledge in a miscellaneous 
way. He was apprenticed to a printer at Sherborne in Dorsetshire, 
and returned to London in 1764, where at first he got his living as a 
journeyman printer, and afterwards set up a bookseller’s shop in Fore 
Street. During this time he was also actively engaged in writing for — 
the press, and, in addition to other publications, wrote the first seven — 
volumes of ‘British Biography,’ of which the first was published in 
1766. As his business did not answer,—a thing not ing, con- — 
sidering his literary engagements,—he relinquished it in 1774, an 
became the minister of a Dissenting chapel at Highgate. His theo! 


\ 


ae oe EP eer . ee 


— = ae 


> 


Ts} TOWNLEY, REV. JAMES. 


TOWNSHEND, VISCOUNT. 142 


gical opinions were Arian, though he was closely connected with the 
Unitarian body. In 1778 he was chosen forenoon preacher at a chapel 
in Newington Green. About this time he was engaged by the pro- 
prietors of the ‘ Biographia Britannica’ to write several lives for the 
new edition of the work edited by Dr. Kippis, of which however only 
five volumes appeared (1777-83, down to the letter F). Towers 
received the degree of LL.D. from the University of Edinburgh in 
_ 1779. ‘He died on the 20th of May 1799, in his sixty-third year. His 
_ pamphlets and smaller works were collected and published in 1796, in 
ea . 8vo. They are of a miscellaneous nature, but most of them 
on political subjects. (Lindsay’s Luneral Sermon.) 

TOWNLEY, REV. JAMES, the second son of a merchant, was 
_ born in London in 1715. He was educated at Merchant Tailors’ 
_ School, elected thence to St. John’s College, Oxford, and took orders. 
After having held two lectureships in London, he was appointed, 
_ through the interest of his wife’s family, to the living of St. Bennet, 
_ Gracechurch Street. Afterwards he was grammar-master in Christ’s 
_ Hospital, and in 1759 was appointed head master of Merchant Tailors’ 

School and held that office till his death in 1778, which happened soon 

after he had been presented to a living in Wales. He is said to have 
_ been admired as a preacher: and some single sermons of his are in 

print, But he is chiefly known on account of his intimacy with 

Hogarth and Garrick. To the former he and Morell gave material 
assistance in the composition of his ‘Analysis of Beauty;’ and he 
- got the credit of having much assisted the latter in his dramatic works. 

‘The popular farce of ‘High Life Below Stairs,’ first played in 1759, 

was at length owned by him. He was also the author of two other 
_ farees, which were unsuccessful; but one of them, ‘False Concord, 
contains both characters and dialogue which were borrowed in Garrick 
and Colman’s comedy of ‘The Clandestine Marriage.’ The closeness 
_ of Townley’s connection with Garrick is further evidenced by the 
fact that he received from Garrick, and held for some years, the living 
of Hendon. 
_ TOWNSHEND, CHARLES, VISCOUNT TOWNSHEND, an 
_ eminent statesman in the reigns of George I. and George II., was the 
_ second viscount of that name, and was born in the year 1676. The 
i family of the Townshends was a very ancient family in Norfolk, and 
" had been settled at Rainham from the middle of the 15th century. 
2 


soa | 


Sir Horatio Townshend, the father of the subject of this article, had 
been one of the leading members of the Presbyterian party previous 
x to the Restoration, and having zealously co-operated to bring about 
_ that event; was rewarded by Charles II. with the title of Baron 
_ ‘Townshend in 1661, and was, in 1682, raised to the rank of viscount, 
_ He died in 1686, when his son was only ten years old. On the latter's 
_ taking his seat in the House of Lords, when he became of age in 
1697, he first acted with the Tories, but very soon attached himself to 
_ the Whigs, and especially to Lord Somers. When William IIL, just 
before his death, in the beginning of 1702, was endeavouring to form 
a Whig administration, Lord Townshend had attained sufficient poli- 
tical consequence to be named for. the Lord Privy Seal. (Coxe’s 
_ ‘Memoirs of Sir Robert Walpole,’ vol. i. p. 113, 8vo ed.). During the 
_ reign of Anne, Lord Townshend was appointed, in 1705, one of the 
commissioners to treat for the union with Scotland; in 1707, captain 
_ of the yeomen of the queen’s guard; in 1709, joint plenipotentiary 
with the Duke of Marlborough in the negociation for peace at Gertruy- 
_ denberg, and in the same year ambassador extraordinary to the States- 
General of the United Provinces. In this last capacity he concluded 
the treaty known by the name of the Barrier treaty, which secured the 
_ assistance of the States-General for carrying out the Hanoverian suc- 
cession, and engaged the endeavours of England to procure in a treaty 
of peace the Spanish Low Countries as a barrier for the States-General 
against France. On the dismissal of the Whig and the formation of 
_ the Oxford ministry in 1710, Lord Townshend lost his appointment of 
captain of the yeomen of the queen’s guard. 
In the session of 1712 the Commons fell violently on the Barrier 
treaty, and voted that “the Lord Viscount Townshend, and all who 
_ hegociated and signed, and all who advised the ratifying of the said 
treaty, are enemies to the queen and kingdom.” This vote was 
_ followed up by the Representation to the queen, in which the treaty 
_ was discussed very severely and at length. The Representation may 
be read in the ‘Parliamentary History,’ vol. vi. p. 1095; or in Swift’s 
‘History of the Four last Years of the Queen,’ (‘ Works,’ Scott’s edition, 
vol. v. p. 269.) 
____ With the accession of George I., in 1714, there came a complete 
2 change of foreign policy ; and the persecuted negociator of the Barrier 
_ treaty was now,selected to be chief minister of the new king. Lord 
is ‘Townshend had been one of the Lords Justices named by George I., 


et ey ee 


i colleague General (afterwards Earl) Stanhope. [Srannorz, JAMES, 


ie, 


* 
B Elizabeth, the second daughter of Thomas, Lord Pelham, and half- 


sister of the subsequent Duke of Newcastle. After her death he 
married, in 1713, Dorothy, sister to Sir Robert Walpole. 

The administration formed under Lord Townshend was entirely 
Whig. Charles II. on the Restoration, and William and Anne, on 
their respective accessions to the throne, had pursued the plan of 
combining the leading members of opposite parties in the ministry : 
but during Anne’s reign party warfare assumed a more determined 
character, and her last ministry, that of Lord Oxford, had consisted 
exclusively of Tories. This monopolising precedent was now turned 
to the advantage of the Whigs. Lord Townshend was prime minister, 
though his name had not yet come to be established; and Walpole, 
who in a short time approached him in influence in the ministry, held 
at first only the subordinate post of paymaster of the forces, but after 
the death of Lord Halifax, in the next year, became chancellor of the 
exchequer and first lord of the treasury. [WaLPoLE, Sir Ropert.] 
The principal acts of Lord Townshend’s ministry were the impeach- 
ments of the principal members of that which had preceded, and the 
Septennial Bill. The latter measure is a standing reproach against 
its Whig authors; and though the objection, so often urged, to the 
power of parliament to prolong the existence of the then sitting 
House of Commons is on the face of it absurd, the reproach is in 
other respects deserved. Archdeacon Coxe states that Lord Towns- 
hend and Walpole were opposed to the impeachment of Lord Oxford 
for high treason, and strongly recommended the more judicious course 
of charging him with high crimes and misdemeanours. (‘ Memoirs of 
Sir Robert Walpole,’ yol. i. p. 126.) 

The Scotch rebellion took place at the latter end of 1715. When 
the participation of Sir William Wyndham in the preparatory intrigues 
was discovered, his relationship to the Duke of Somerset, an influential 
Whig nobleman, and a member of the cabinet, caused a difficulty 
about arresting him, which the firmness of Townshend surmounted. 
The scene in the council on this occasion is minutely described by 
Archdeacon Coxe. (Id., p. 128.) ‘As the king retired into his closet 
he took hold of Lord Townshend’s hand, and said, ‘You have done 
me a great service to-day.’” ; 

In the summer of 1716 George visited Hanover, and was accom- 
panied by Stanhope: Lord Townshend remained in England. He had 
strongly opposed the king’s wish of revisiting his native dominions ; 
and even after the repeal of the restraining clause in the Act of Settle- 
ment, had reiterated his objections to the king’s departure from 
England. While the king was in Hanover various causes combined to 
estrange him from the minister in whom hitherto his confidence had 
been unbounded, and the ultimate result was Lord Townshend's 
dismissal from office. The causes of this event have been considered 
at some length by Archdeacon Coxe, in his ‘Memoirs of Sir Robert 
Walpole ;’ and by Lord Mahon, in his ‘ History of England from the 
Peace of Utrecht to the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle’ (vol. i. ch. 7, 8). 
Lord Mahon has made it his object to vindicate the conduct of his 
ancestor Lord Stanhope in the transactions that led to Lord Towns- 
hend’s dismissal, and has succeeded in this object, and has also 
corrected some misstatements in Coxe’s account. 

Lord ‘Townshend had made himself obnoxious to the king’s German 
mistresses and favourites, whose schemes of avarice and ambition he 
resisted. His temper was impetuous, and his manner of speaking and 
writing frank and abrupt, so that if the king was predisposed to take 
offence, there would be no lack of opportunity. Lord Sunderland, 
who had aspired to be premier on George’s accession, and had deeply 
resented the precedence given to Townshend in the ministry, joined 
the king after a time in Hanover, and was too well disposed to join 
with the German clique in undérmining Lord Townshend’s influence. 
Subjects of difference between the king and Lord Townshend occurred 
after the former’s going to Hanover, The kiug, with Hanoverian 
objects, was eager to declare war against Peter the Great of Russia, a 
measure which Townshend vehemently resisted. A negociation was 
proceeding at the Hague between England, France, and the States- 
General, for a treaty to secure the successions to the English and 
French thrones, and for the expulsion of the Pretender from France, 
which the king and Lord Stanhope in Hanover were anxious to accele- 
rate; and some delays occurred through Lord Townshend, which were 
attributed to design, owing to disapproval of the way in which the 
treaty was to be concluded. The king was greatly offended at this, 
and ordered Stanhope to write a strong reproof to Townshend. He 
was however appeased by Townshend’s reply, in which he fully vindi- 
cated himself from the charge of wilful delay. But though this storm 
blew over, another soon succeeded. ‘The king, anxious to continue in 
Hanover during the whole winter, had directed Townshend to transmit 
to him the sentiments of the cabinet on what was to be done in the 
next session, and on the means of carrying on the business of the 
country without his own presence. ‘Townshend, to gratify the king’s 
inclination, did not press his return, but strongly urged that a discre- 
tionary power should ‘be given to the Prince of Wales. The king’s 
jealousy of his son took fright at this recommendation ; and it 
seemed ,to him to confirm stories which Sunderland had been 
assiduously spreading of intrigues carried on by Townshend with the 
Duke of Argyll and others for placing the Prince of Wales on the 
throne, The king immediately formed the determination of dismissing 
Townshend ; and it was with much difficulty that Stanhope prevailed 
upon him to offer the lord-lieutenancy of Ireland by way of breaking 


143 TOWNSHEND, VISCOUNT, 


TOWNSHEND, VISCOUNT. 144 


the fall. This offer, conveyed by Stanhope, together with the announce- 
ment of his dismissal from the secretaryship, was indignantly refused. 
“T am highly sensible,’ Lord Townshend wrote to the king, “ of the 
honour which your majesty confers on me by condescending to appoint 
me lord-lieutenant of Ireland; but as my domestic affairs do not permit 
me to reside out of England, I should hold myself to be totally 
unworthy of the choice which your majesty has been pleased to make, 
if I were capable of enjoying the large appointments annexed to that 
honourable office without doing the duty.” (Coxe’s ‘Memoirs of Sir 
R. Walpole,’ vol. i, p. 191.) This was irony aimed at Sunderland, 
who had been lord-lieutenant from George I.’s accession, and had never 
visited Ireland. Sir Robert Walpole wrote to Stanhope, who had 
urgently solicited his mediation with Townshend, to prevail on him 
to accept the lord-lieutenancy—“ When you desired me to prevail with 
my Lord Townshend to acquiesce in what is carved out for him, I 
cannot but say you desired an impossibility ; and ’tis fit you should 
know that there is not one of the cabinet council with whom you and 
Lord Sunderland have agreed in all things for so many years, but 
think that, considering all the circumstances and manner of doing 
this, nobody could advise him to accept of the lieutenancy of Ireland. 
.»..... And be assured that whosoever sent over the account of any 
intrigues or private correspondence betwixt us and the two brothers, 
or any management in the least tending to any view or purpose but 
the service, honour, and interest of the king—I must repeat it, be 
assured, they will be found, pardon the expression, confounded liars 
from the. beginning to the end.” (‘Id.,’ vol. i, p. 310.) And in 
another letter to Stanhope, whose conduct on this occasion was mis- 
apprehended, not perhaps unnaturally, by Townshend and Walpole, 
the latter made this pointed appeal :—“ What could prevail on you to 
enter into such a scheme as this, and appear to be the chief actor in 
it, and undertake to carry it through in all events, without which it 
would not have been undertaken, is unaccountable. I do swear to 
you that Lord Townshend has no way deserved it of you. . 
Believe me, Stanhope, he never thought you could enter into a combi- 
nation with his enemies.” (‘Id.,’ p. 310.) Stanhope had concurred in 
the king’s resentment against Townshend, when he was supposed to be 
purposely delaying the French treaty, and had showed his feeling by 
immediately tendering his resignation, which the king refused. But 
having been satisfied that his suspicions against Townshend on this 
occasion had been unjust, he now had borne no other part than to 
transmit the king’s commands, and to endeavour to conciliate him 
towards Townshend, and soften his determination. The king had 
conceived a disgust, Stanhope wrote in his first letter on the subject 
to Sir Robert Walpole, at Townshend’s temper. The falsehoods told 
him of Townshend’s intrigues with the prince, of which Stanhope 
naturally said nothing, but with which there is no evidence to connect 
him, drove the king intoa fury. And the determination which the 
king had come to under the influence of those violent personal feelings 
it was impossible to alter. Stanhope wrote to Methuen, who sided 
with Townshend and Walpole, though he had been destined to succeed 
Townshend :—“‘If you have any interest or credit with them, for God’s 
sake make use of it upon this occasion, They may possibly unking 
their master, or (which I do before God think very possible) make 
him abdicate England, but they will certainly not force him to make 
my Lord Townshend secretary.” (‘Id.’) The king’s desire to consult 
the interests of the Whig party had led him, though with some 
reluctance, to adopt Stanhope’s suggestion of offering Townshend the 
lord-lieutenancy ; and now, when he found the degree of resentment 
felt by Walpole and many of the leading Whigs, led him also to keep 
the appointment open till his return to England, in the hope that 
Townshend might yield. Stanhope saw a gleam of Townshend’s 
return to his former post if he would first accept the lord-lieutenancy, 
and he wrote to Walpole, January 16, 1717 :—“ Believe me, dear Wal- 
pole, when I swear it to you, that I do not think it possible for all the 
men in England to prevail upon the king to re-admit my Lord Towns- 
hend into his service, upon any other terms than of complying with 
the offer made of Ireland. The king will exact from him this mark 
of duty and obedience.” (‘Id., p. 319.) It was not unnatural that 
Townshend and Walpole, at a distance from the scene of the intrigues 
against them, indignant at the false charges of which they had heard, 
and astounded at the strong step to which the king had, without 
giving any notice, had recourse, should attribute to Stanhope a share 
in the cabal against them; and such was the opinion of the public. 
The effect of Lord Townshend’s dismissal, when it was made known, 
on the public mind and on the Whig party, was such, that the king 
took fright, and on his arrival in England sent Count Bernsdorf to 
Lord Townshend to tell him, that having taken away the seals, though 
perhaps on false reports and too hastily, he yet could not with due 
regard to his own character at once restore them to him, and to beg 
Townshend to accept the lord-lieutenancy as a temporary office, to be 
exchanged hereafter for. another more influential one, Townshend 
now yielded, and those who had sided with him in the ministry were 
satisfied. But the union thus effected did not last long. Stanhope 
and Sunderland had acquired an ascendancy with the king, from which 
they were not now to be deposed by Townshend and Walpole. These 
showed their mortification by cold support in parliament of the minis- 
terial measures. On the motions for granting a supply against 
Sweden, on the 9th of April 1717, almost all Townshend’s personal 


friends voted against the ministry, which narrowly escaped a defeat 
by a majority of four. The next day Townshend received a dismissal 
from his office of lord-lieutenant of Ireland. Walpole immediately 
tendered his resignation, which, it is said, the king received with so 
much surprise and sorrow, that he returned the seals to him ten times 
before he would finally accept them. [Watroie, Sin Ropert.] The 
example of Walpole was followed by Methuen, Pulteney, the secretary 
at war, Lord Orford, and the Duke of Devonshire. 

Lord Townshend now went into opposition, and, like Walpole, is 
open to the charge of having out of office opposed principles and 
measures which he had previously supported. In the di ces 
between the king and the Prince of Wales, he and Walpole were now 
the friends of the latter. A reconciliation having been brought about 
between the king and Prince of Wales, in April 1720, Lord Towns- 
hend was admitted a few days after, with the Duke of Devonshire, 
Lord Cowper, Walpole, Methuen, and Pulteney, to kiss the king's 
hands; and received more decided proofs of restoration to the king’s 
favour by being appointed in June one of the lords justices, on the 


king’s going to Hanover, and president of the council. Walpole was — 


appointed at the same time paymaster of the forces. The breaking 
up of the South Sea scheme and the deaths of Lords Stanhope and 
Sunderland, led in 1721 to a reconstruction of the ministry, in which 
Lord Townshend became again secretary of state, and Walpole also 
resumed his old posts of first lord of the treasury and chancellor of 
the exchequer. Walpole had now attained to a more influential 
position in the country, and was considered prime minister. 
Townshend and Walpole had now again complete influence with the 
king. Lord Carteret, who was the other secretary of state, begi 
together with Count Bernsdorf, to intrigue against Townshend, di 
not find success, as Lord Sunderland had done in former days. 
When the king went again to Hanover, Townshend now took care to 


accompany him, and Lord Carteret accompanied him also. “The 


superior influence of Townshend and Walpole,” says Archdeacon 


Coxe, “was not solely gained by court intrigues, or by the corruption — 


of German favourites, and was not prostituted by a preference of 


Hanoverian interests to those of England. In the midst of these © 


cabals, the conduct of the brother ministers was firm and manly, 
moving in direct opposition to the king’s prejudices and the wishes 


of the German junta. Townshend prevented the adoption of violent — 


measures against Russia, proposed by Bernsdorf and seconded by 
Carteret, which, if pursued, must have involved England with the 
ezar; aud he exultingly informed Walpole that the king continued 
true to his resolution of signing no paper relating to British affairs but 
in his presence.” (‘Memoirs of Sir R. Walpole, vol. ii, p. 166.) 
Lord Carteret was removed from the secretaryship of state in 1724, 
and made lord-lieutenant of Ireland. The Duke of Newcastle, the 
brother of Townshend's first wife, succeeded him; and eventually 
became, what Carteret had been, Townshend’s rival. There soon 
arose also a coolness between Townshend and his other brother-in- 
law, and old friend and colleague, Walpole, owing, it is supposed, to 
their altered positions and Townshend’s jealousy of Walpole’s growing 
superiority. It was not until 1730 that the breach between the two 
brother ministers, and Lord Townshend’s resignation, took place: 
but there were symptoms of a rising misunderstanding as early as 


1725, two years before the death of George I. Walpole does not — 


appear to have been to blame in the beginning. 

On George II.’s accession, in June 1727, Walpole’s pre-eminence 
was fully established. During this year Townshend had a dangerous 
illness, which was expected to be fatal; and when he was supposed 
to be dying, Walpole wrote, that he considered him “ the bulwark of 
the constitution,” and that he trusted “ Providence would interfere to 
save the man without whom all must fall to the ground.” (Coxe’s 


‘Memoirs of Sir R. Walpole,’ vol. ii, p. 382.) But Walpole’s generous — 


conduct was destined to be fruitless, 

In the year 1729 Walpole and Townshend had become determined 
opponents in the ministry, and Walpole, having the support of Queen 
Caroline, who was all-powerful with the king, had no difficulty in 
always gaining the victory over Townshend. Almost every question 
that arose became a subject of dispute. The Duke of Newcastle and 
Walpole endeavoured to bring Lord Harrington into the cabinet: 
Lord Townshend brought forward a rival candidate in Lord Stan- 


hend’s object was defeated. Dr. Maty has related the following 
time he’ (Lord Chesterfield) ‘‘appeared at court on his return to 


London, Sir Robert Walpole took him aside and told him, ‘I find you 
are come to be secretary of state.’ ‘ Not I,’ said his lordship, ‘I haye 


as yet no pretensions, and wish for a place of more ease. But I~ 


claim the garter. .... I ama man of pleasure, and the blue riband 
would add two inches to my size.’ ‘Then I see how it is,’ replied Sir 


Robert, ‘ it is Townshend's intrigue, in which you have no share; but — 


it will be fruitless, you cannot be secretary of state, nor shall you 
be beholden for the gratification of your wishes to anybody but 
myself.” Disputes arose also between Townshend and Newcastle on 
an important question of foreign policy. 


of the king to a despatch directing 


Townshend had advised — 
strong measures against the emperor, and had obtained the consent — 
ing an invasion of the Austrian — 
Netherlands. He went out of town to Norfolk for a short time, and — 


' 


hope, afterwards the celebrated Earl of Chesterfield. Lord Towns- . 
ts 
anecdote in his ‘Memoirs of Lord Chesterfield’ (p. 112): “ The first 


4 


Se ee eee eee 


aa 


145 TOWNSHEND, RIGHT HON. CHARLES. 


TOWNSHEND, RIGHT HON. CHARLES. 


in his absence Newcastle, with the aid of Walpole and the queen, had 
brought the king to approve of a contrary policy. Townshend now 
determined to resign. Angry words, and even blows, passed between 
him and Walpole before he did so. A particular account of their 
quarrel is given by Archdeacon Coxe, in his ‘Memoirs of Sir Robert 
Walpole.’ 

Lord Townshend's resignation took place on the 15th of May 1730. 
He retired immediately to his seat at Rainham, and, never again 
returning to London, devoted himself to agricultural pursuits for the 
remainder of his life. He introduced the cultivation of the turnip 
from Germany into this country. Lord Chesterfield visited him in 
his retirement, to press his coming to London to be present at an 
important debate, and Lord Townshend refused, saying that he 


remembered Lord Cowper, though a staunch Whig, had been 


* 


betrayed by personal pique into voting with the Tories, and he added, 
“J know I am extremely warm, and [ am apprehensive, if I should 
attend the House of Lords, I also may be hurried away by the impe- 
tuosity of my temper to adopt a line of conduct which, in my cooler 
moments, I may regret.” ‘ He left office,” says Lord Mahon, “ with 
a most unblemished character, and—what is still less common—a 
most patriotic moderation. Had he gone into opposition, or even 
steered a neutral course, he must have caused great embarrassment 
and difficulty to his triumphant rival. But he must thereby have 
thwarted a policy of which he approved, and hindered measures 
which he wished to see adopted. In spite of the most flattering 
advances from the opposition, who were prepared to receive him with 
open arms, he nobly resolved to retire altogether from public life. 
He withdrew to his paternal acres at Rainham, where he passed the 
eight remaining years of his life in well-earned leisure or in agricul- 
tural improvements.” (‘History of England from the Peace of 
Utrecht,’ &c., vol. ii, c. xv.) 

Lord Townshend died on the 21st of June 1738, in his sixty-third 
year. He was an able and honest minister, but his ability and honesty 
were unfortunately uncontrolled by temper or prudent tact. He 
was not conspicuous as an orator. Lord Chesterfield has left a 
description of his speaking which is not altogether flattering. ‘ The 


late Lord Townshend always spoke materially, with argument and 


knowledge, but never pleased. Why? His diction was not only 
inelegant, but frequently ungrammatical, and always vulgar; his 
cadences false, his voice unharmonious, and his action ungraceful. 
Nobody heard him with patience; and the young fellows used to 
joke oe him, and repeat his inaccuracies.” (‘ Letters,’ vol. ii, 
. 318. 
¥ TOWNSHEND, RIGHT HONOURABLE CHARLES, was the 
second son of the third Viscount Townshend, by Audrey, only child of 
Edward Harrison, Esq., governor of Madras, and grandson of the 
subject of the preceding article. He was born in 1725. He entered 
the House of Commons in 1747, and very soon gave earnest of his 
future distinction. He supported the Pelham administration, and was 
selected to move the address on the opening of the session in Novem- 


_ ber 1749, after the full establishment of peace by the treaty of Aix-la- 


Chapelle. The Marriage Bill, introduced in 1753, was opposed by 


_. Townshend in a speech of singular power and beauty, which, happily 


_ the rest are speakers.” 


combining humour, argument, and eloquence, fixed his reputation as 
a debater. An excellent report of the speech has been preserved, and 
is printed in the ‘ Parliamentary History,’ vol. xv., p. 58. Lord Hills- 
borough, who replied to Townshend, began his speech by remarking, 
“T am very sensible of the danger I am in, when I rise up to speak 
after the honourable gentleman who spoke last; his manner of speaking 
is so engaging, there is such a music in his voice, that it pleases the 
ear, though it does not inform the understanding ; at the same time 
he expresses his sentiments in such beautiful terms, is so ingenious in 
finding out arguments for supporting his opinion, and states those 
arguments in so strong a light, that he is always most deservedly heard 
with attention, and even with a sort of prejudice in favour of every- 
thing he says.” (Id., p. 62.) This is a clear and decisive testimony to 
the position which Townshend had now taken in the house, and to that 
eloquence, of which Flood, comparing Townshend with Barré, Conway, 
and others, towards the end of his career, observed, “ He is the orator; 
(‘Charlemont Correspondence,’ p. 27.) 
Townshend's speech on the Marriage Bill has been commemorated 
by another contemporary, Horace Walpole, earl of Orford. “A second 
adversary appeared against the bill, This was Charles Townshend, 
second son of my lord Townshend, a young man of unbounded ambi- 
tion, of exceeding application, and, as it now appeared, of abilities 
capable of satisfying that ambition, and of not wanting that applica- 
tion; yet to such parts and such industry he was fond of associating 
all the little arts and falschoods that always depreciate, though so 
often thought necessary by a genius. He had been an early favourite 
of Lord Halifax, and had already distinguished himself on affairs of 
trade, and in drawing plans and papers for that province; but not 
rising in proportion to his ambition, he comforted himself with 
employing as many stratagems as had ever been imputed to the most 
successful statesman. His figure was tall and advantageous, his action 
vehement, his voice loud, his laugh louder, He had art enough to 
disguise anything but his vanity. He spoke long, and with much wit, 
and drew a picture with much humour at least, if not with much 
humility, of himself and his own situation, as the younger son of a 
BIOG, DIV, VOL, VIL 


capricious father, who had already debarred him from an advantageous 
match. ‘ Were new shackles to be forged to keep young men of abili- 
ties from mounting to a level with their elder brothers?’” Lord 
Orford proceeds to draw a comparison between Townshend and Con- 
way, who also distinguished himself on the same side in this debate, 
and to speculate on their future careers. “ What will be their fates 
I know not, but this Mr. Townshend and Mr. Conway seemed marked 
by nature for leaders, perhaps for rivals, in the government of their . 
country. The quickness of genius is eminently with the first, and a 
superiority of application ; the propriety and amiableness of character 
with the latter. One grasps at fortune; the other only seems pleased 
to accept fortune when it advances to him. The one foresees himself 
equal to everything; the other finds himself so whenever he essays. 
Charles Townshend seems to have no passion but ambition; Harry 
Conway not even to have that, The one is impetuous and unsteady ; 
the other cool and determined. Conway is indolent, but can be 
assiduous ; Charles Townshend can only be indefatigable. The latter 
would govern mankind for his own sake; the former, for theirs.” 
(‘ Last Ten Years of the Reign of George IIL,’ vol. i, p. 296.) 

In the changes in the administration which followed the Duke of 
Newcastle’s death in 1754, Townshend received the appointment of a 
lord of the Admiralty. On the Duke of Newcastle’s resignation in 
November 1756, and the formation of a ministry by the Duke of 
Devonshire, with Mr. Pitt as secretary of state, Townshend was 
appointed to the lucrative post of treasurer of the chamber. There 
are some letters in the ‘Correspondence of Lord Chatham’ which 
show the importance that was attached at this time to Charles Town- 
shend’s support, and the trouble taken to secure him (vol. i., pp. 181, 
seq.). ‘Townshend demanded the place of cofferer, a lucrative post in 
the household. This was already engaged. ‘The treasurership of the 
chamber was then offered, and represented as “in every respect exactly 
equal to the cofferer.” Lord Bute went to Townshend, and, not finding 
him, to Townshend’s brother, afterwards Marquis of Townshend, to 
press his acceptance of this office, and with the aid of the Prince of 
Wales’s name, succeeded in satisfying him. This ministry was but 
short-lived, Pitt resigned in the spring of next year, in consequence 
of the dismissal of Lord Temple, and Townshend resigned also. 
Townshend refused offers to join the new ministry, which Lord Walde- 
grave had been commissioned to form. After some months of fruitless 
negociations the king was obliged to return to Pitt, and in the ministry 
formed by him as premier in June 1757, Townshend resumed his post 
of treasurer of the chamber. 

In March 1761, Townshend was appointed secretary-at-war. The 
next year, Lord Bute’s ascendancy having led to the resignations of 
Pitt and Lord Temple in the first instance, and shortly after of the 
Dukes of Neweastle and Devonshire, an offer was made to Townshend 
of the secretarysbip of the plantations, which he refused. Mr. Nuthall 
writes to Lady Chatham, October 14, 1762 :—‘“ My countryman the 
right honourable Charles Townshend was yesterday sent for by the 
Earl of Bute, who opened to him this new system, and offered him 
the secretaryship of the plantations and board of trade, which he not 
only refused, but refused all connection and intercourse whatsoever 
with the new counsellor, and spoke out freely. He was afterwards 
three times with the king, to whom he was more explicit, and said _ 
things that did not a little alarm. On his coming out of the closet, 
Mr. Fox met him and gave him joy: he asked, ‘ For what?’ Mr. Fox 
replied, ‘Of your being secretary of state for the plantations.’ Mr, 
T. answered, ‘ Don't believe that, sir, till you hear it from me.’ Mr. Fox 
was struck, and said he was greatly astonished, for he had understood 
that this had been settled.” (‘Correspondence of the Earl of Chatham,’ 
vol. iii., p. 183.) Townshend however supported in parliament the 
preliminaries for the peace, but soon after was among the opposition 
to Lord Bute’s ministry. On Lord Bute’s resignation, in 1763, it was 
rumoured that Townshend was to be offered the place of first lord of 
the Admiralty. He was afterwards appointed first lord of trade and 
the plantations. In the fruitless negociations which took place with 
Mr. Pitt towards the close of the year, Townshend was one of those 
named by Pitt to the king. (‘ Chatham Correspondence,’ vol. iii, 
p- 265.) 

Mr. Grenville’s Stamp Act, introduced early in 1765, was zealously 
supported by Charles Townshend in a speech which elicited from 
Colonel Barré, in reply, one of his most successful parliamentary 
efforts. Townshend had concluded with the words, “And these 
Americans, children planted by our care, nourished by our indulgence, 
protected by our arms until they are grown to a good degree of 
strength and opulence, will they grudge to contribute their mite to 
relieve us from the heavy load of national expense which we lie 
under?” ‘They planted by your care !’’ cried Colonel Barré : “No, 
your oppressions planted them in America;’’ and so he went on, over- 
throwing each clause of the peroration. Under Lord Rockingham’s 
administration, formed in July 1765, Townshend held the place of 
paymaster of the forces. It appears from a letter of Mr. Conway's, 
who was secretary of state and leader of the House of Commons in 
this administration, that the posts held by him had been offered 
to Townshend, and refused by him. Afterwards, with a vacillation 
characteristic of him, and by which he acquired the name of the 
weathercock, he repented his refusal, and was willing to sacrifice the 
superior profits of paymaster for the greater honour of eg and 


147 TOWNSHEND, RIGHT HON. CHARLES, 


TOWNSON, THOMAS, D.D. 1s 


leader. “C. T., with all his cordiality, fixes conditions to his good 
will: ‘confidence and the cabinet’ were the words a little while ago; 
now he wishes to be useful, and the way in which he can be so most is 
as leader of the House. I closed at once, with the addition that he 
should then be secretary of state too,. . . . To-day I have privately 
heard that he has said in a letter that things were changed since he 
refused.” (‘The Companion to the Newspaper,’ 1835, p. 365, where 
there are several extracts from Conway's unpublished letters.) Towns- 
hend, who carried his vacillation into his public conduct, and the 
effect of whose brilliant talents has been lessened, both for his time 
and for posterity, by the versatility of his politics, now supported the 
repeal of the Stamp Act, which he had helped the previous session to 
introduce. Shortly after the formation of the Rockingham adminis- 
tration, he had been detained in the country by illness, which many 
supposed to be a cloak for dissatisfaction with the new arrangements, 
and with the position in which he found himself, A pleasant news- 
paper skit upon this circumstance has been preserved by Lord 
Chesterfield (‘ Letters,’ vol. iv., p, 263):—‘ We hear that the Right 
Honourable Charles Townshend is indisposed, at his house, in Oxford- 
shire, of a pain in his side; but it is not said in which side.” 

The Rockingham administration died in July 1766, “ having lasted,” 
as Burke has chronicled it, in his ‘Short Account of a late Short 
Administration,’ “just one year and twenty days.” In the new admi- 
nistration formed by Pitt, now created Lord Chatham, Townshend 
was chancellor of the exchequer and leader of the House of Commons, 
There had been difficulty, as before, in prevailing upon him to give up 
his lucrative post of paymaster: he first said he would do so, and then 
said he would not; but the firmness of Lord Chatham kept him to his 
first statement. The letters which passed on the subject between 
Lord Chatham, the Duke of Grafton, the king, and Townshend, may 
be seen in the ‘Chatham Correspondence,’ vol. iii., pp, 458-63. 

The course of this Chatham administration is well known. Lord 
Chatham was soon too ill to transact any business or exercise any con- 
trol over his colleagues, who quarrelled with one another, and among 
whom Townshend was looked upon as presuming and contumacious. 
Townshend insisted, as chancellor of the exchequer, on a tax being 
laid on the American ports. If this were not done, he declared, the 
Duke of Grafton wrote to Lord Chatham, March 18, 1767, “he would 
not remain chancellor of the exchequer.” “ His behaviour on the 
whole,” adds the duke, ‘was such as no cabinet will, I am confident, 
submit to.” (‘Chatham Correspondence,’ vol. iii, p. 232.) And on the 
same day Lord Shelburne writes to Lord Chatham,—“I was surprised 
at Mr. Townshend's conduct, which really continues excessive on every 
occasion, till I afterwards understood in conversation that he declared 
he knew of Lord North’s refusal, and from himself. . .. . It appears 
to me quite impossible that Mr. T’. can mean to go on in the king’s 
service.” (Id., p. 235.) The policy of Townshend prevailed, and on 
the 2nd of June he introduced into the House of Commons those 
unfortunate resolutions imposing duties upon glass, paper, tea, and 
certain other articles imported into America, which rekindled rebel- 
lion in the colonies, and eventually led to their separation from the 
mother-country. This was done under the nominal premiership of 
Lord Chatham, the determined opponent of American taxation, but 
who was now kept by illness aloof from business, and had not been 
consulted. Soon the necessity of constructing a new administration 
with an efficient head was perceived, and a negociation between the 
Marquis of Rockingham, the Duke of Bedford, and the Duke of New- 
castle having failed, it was understood that Charles Townshend was 
to be entrusted with the formation of a ministry. When the highest 
_ power in the state was then just within his grasp, he was suddenly 

carried away by a putrid fever, on the 4th of September 1767. 

The talents and character of Charles Townshend have been embalmed 
in a splendid passage in Mr. Burke's celebrated speech on American 
taxation. The orator had already passed in review Mr. Grenville and 
his Stamp Act, and the repeal of that act during Lord Rockingham’s 
ministry, and having come to Lord Chatham’s administration, and the 
policy of Charles Townshend, go abhorrent to the tenor of Lord Chat- 
ham’s principles, he proceeds :—“ For even then, sir, even before this 
splendid orb was entirely set, and while the western horizon was in a 
blaze with his descending glory, on the opposite quarter of the 
heavens arose another luminary, and for his hour became lord of the 
ascendant, This light too is passed and set for ever. You understand, 
to be sure, that I speak of Charles Townshend, officially the repro- 
ducer of the fatal scheme, whom I cannot even now remember without 
some degree of sensibility. In truth, sir, he was the delight and orna- 
ment of this House, and the charm of every private society which he 
honoured with his presence, Perhaps there never arose in this 
country, nor in any country, a man of a more pointed and finished 
wit, and (where his passions were not concerned) of a more refined, 
exquisite, and penetrating judgment. If he had not so great a stock 
as some have had, who flourished formerly, of knowledge long 
treasured up, he knew better by far than avy man I ever was 
acquainted with how to bring together within a short time all that 
was necessary to establish, to illustrate, and to decorate that side of the 
question he supported. He stated his matter skilfully and powerfully. 
He particularly excelled in a most luminous explanation and display 
of his subject. His style of argument was neither trite and vulgar nor 
subtle and abstruse. He hit the House just between wind and water; 


and not being troubled with too anxious a zeal for any matter in 
question, he was never more tedious or more earnest than the precon- 
ceived opinions and present temper of his hearers required, to whom 
he was always in perfect unison. He conformed exactly to the 
temper of the House; and he seemed to guide, because he was always 
sure to followit..... There are many young members in the House 
(such of late has been the rapid succession of public men) who never 
saw that prodigy Charles Townshend, nor of course know what a 
ferment he was able to excite in everything by the violent ebullition of 
his mixed virtues and failings,—for failings he had undoubtedly; many 
of us remember them ; we are this day considering the effect of them, 
But he had no failings which -were not owing to a noble cause; to an - 
ardent, generous, perhaps an immoderate passion for fame; a 

which is the instinct of all great souls. He worshipped that goddess 
wheresoever she appeared ; but he paid his particular devotions to her 
in her favourite habitation, in her chosen temple, the House of Com- 
mons. . ... He was truly the child of the House. He never though 
did, or said anything, but with a view to you. He every day sdomead 


himself to your disposition, and adjusted himself before it as at a 


looking-glass.” : 

Townshend had married Caroline, the daughter and heiress of John, 
second Duke of Argyll and Greenwich, and widow of the Earl of Dal- 
keith, eldest son of the Duke of Buccleuch. Just before his 
while his influence was in the ascendant, he obtained for his wife the 
title of Baroness Greenwich. Townshend selected Adam Smith as 
tutor and travelling companion for his step-son the young Duke of 
Buccleuch [Smtru, ADAM], having been first led to this choice, we 
are informed by a letter of Mr. Hume's, by his admiration of the 
‘Theory of Moral Sentiments,’ 

TOWNSON, THOMAS, D.D., was the eldest son of the Rey, John 
Townson, rector of Much Lees, in Essex, where he was born in 1715. 
After the usual preparatory education, conducted per? at home, 
partly at school, he was sent to the University of Oxford, where he 
was entered a commoner of Christchurch in March 1733. In Jul 
17385 he was elected a demy (or scholar) of Magdalen College; in 173 
he was admitted to the degree of B.A.; in 1737 he was elected a 


Fellow of Magdalen; and in June 1739 he commenced M.A. In~ 


December 1741 he was ordained deacon, and in September 1742, 
priest, by Dr. Secker, bishop of Oxford. Immediately after this he 
set out, accompanied by Mr. Dawkins, Mr. Drake, and Mr. Houlds- 
worth, on a tour through Italy, Germany, and Holland, from which he 
did not return till 1745. Having resumed his residence at the uni- 
versity, he was in 1746 presented by his college to the living of 
Hatfield Peverell, in Essex, which he retained till 1749, when he 
resigned it on being presented by Sir Walter Wagstaffe Bagot, Bart., 
to the rectory of Blithfield in Staffordshire. This year he was senior 
proctor of the university ; soon after his quitting which office he was 
admitted to the degree of B.D. He resigned his fellowship in January 
1751, on being instituted to the living of the lower mediety of 


in Cheshire, to which he was presented by his friend Mr. Drake, but _ 


which he did not accept without some reluctance, arising principally 
from his unwillingness to leave Oxford. ke 

In 1758, having received, under the will of the Rev. William Bar- 
croft, rector of Fairsted and vicar of Kelvedon in Essex, a bequest of 
above 80002, together with his library, he resigned Blithfield, and 
having now more leisure, he began to apply himself with greater assi- 
duity to literary pursuits in connection with his profession. The first 
work which he finished was an Exposition of the Apocalypse, which 
however was never printed, His first publication was an anonymous 
pamphlet, entitled ‘Doubts concerning the Authenticity of the last 
Publication of the Confessional, addressed to [Dr. Blackburne] the 
author of that learned Work,’ 8vo, 1767. This was followed in 1768 
by ‘A Defence’ of the ‘Doubts,’ and by another pamphlet entitled 


‘‘A Dialogue between Izaac Walton and Homologistes; in which the 


Character of Bishop Sanderson is defended against the Author of the 
Confessional.’ 
In 1768 he made a second tour to the Continent with Mr. Drake’s 


merit of which the University of Oxford conferred upon the author in 
February 1779 the degree of D.D, by diploma. A German translation 


of this work appeared at Leipzig, in 2 vols, 8vo, in 1783. In 1780 _ 


* 


{ 


eldest son, Mr. William Drake, of Brasenose College. In 1778 he pub- 
lished his principal work, his ‘ Discourses on the Four Gospels,’ 4to, — 
which immediately attracted great attention ; and in testimony of the 


Dr. Porteus, then bishop of Chester, bestowed upon Dr. Townson the — 
archdeaconry of Richmond, In 1783 the divinity chair at Oxford was — 


offered to him by Lord North, the chancellor, but his advanced time 
of life induced him to decline accepting it. He died April 15, 1792. 
Dr. Townson’s collected works were published in 2 vols. 8vo in 
1810, under the care of Mr. (afterwards Archdeacon) Chevton, together 
with a Memoir of the author, from which the above facts are ex ; 


Bf 


In addition to the productions that have been mentioned above, this _ 
collection contains some single sermons, and a portion of a treatise on 
the Resurrection, entitled ‘A Discourse on the Evangelical Histories — 
of the Resurrection and First Appearance of our Lord and Saviour — 


Jesus Christ,’ a few copies of which, in 4to, had been printed by the 
author in 1784, and distributed among his friends. 
as highly distinguished by the virtues of his private character as for 


his professional learning and ability, 


Dr. Townson was — 


TRADESCANT, JOHN, 


149 


TRAJANUS, MARCUS ULPIUS NERVA. 150 


TRADESCANT, JOHN, the name of two naturalists, father and son, 
who lived in England during the seventeenth century. John Tradescant, 
the elder, is generally supposed to have been a Dutchman, but no record 
occurs of the time of his birth or of his arrival in England. He does 
not appear to have been known to Gerarde, who wrote his Herbal in 
1597; but in Johnson’s edition of this work, published in 16338, he is 
frequently alluded to: hence Pulteney concludes that he arrived in 


’ England between these periods, but various minute circumstances that 


have come to light render it probable that. he was really an English- 
man. A note in that invaluable storehouse of out-of-the-way in- 
formation, ‘ Notes and Queries’ (in several of the earlier volumes of 
which a great deal of new matter concerning the Tradescants is 
collected), shows that he was certainly resident at Meopham in Kent, 


in 1608, there being in the parish register under August 8, an entry of 


the baptism of his son John (‘ Notes and Queries,’ vol. v. 266), and the 
will of the younger Tradescant mentions the Tradescants of Walbers- 
wick in Suffolk, in a way that would imply that they were his kinsmen 
as wellas namesakes. LHarly in life he had travelled in Europe and Asia, 
and he occupied some position in the suite of Sir Dudley Diggs, am- 
bassador to Russia in 1618. During a voyage up the Mediterranean, he 
made collections of plants in Barbary and on the coasts of the Mediterra- 


mean. In 1629 he was appointed gardener to Charles I., having pre- 


viously been gardener to the lord-treasurer Salisbury, the Duke of Buck- 
ingham, and other noblemen. He died in 1638. He left behind him a 
large collection of specimens of natural history, coins, medals, and 
‘rarities, the first of the kind it is believed formed in this country, 
and a garden well-stored with rare and curious plants. In the Ash- 
molean Library at Oxford is preserved a folio manuscript, entitled 
*Tradeseant’s Orchard, illustrated in sixty-five coloured drawings of 
fruits, exhibiting various kinds of the apple, cherry, damson, date, 
gooseberry, pears, peaches, plums, nectarines, grape, hasell-nut, quince, 
strawberry, with the times of their ripening,’ which is supposed to be in 
the elder Tradescant’s handwriting. 

Joun TRADESCANT, the Younger, son of the above, was born in 
August 1608, and inherited his fathers’s taste for natural history. In 
the early part of his life he made a voyage to Virginia, and brought 
from that country a collection of dried plants and seeds. In 1656 he 
published in 12mo a little work entitled ‘Museum Tradescantium,’ or 
‘A Collection of Rarities preserved at South Lambeth near London,’ 
It contains a descriptive catalogue of his father's museum, which he 
had by his own exertions greatly augmented. This museum contained 
not only stuffed animals and dried plants, but also minerals, instru- 
ments of war and domestic use of various nations, also a collection of 
coins and medals. This museum is remarkable as containing one of 
the few specimens ever known of the Dodo, a bird now supposed to 
be extinct. The catalogue of the museum is accompanied with good 
engravings of the two Tradescants, and is sought after by print- 
collectors on this account. The younger Tradescant was intimate 
with most of the celebrated men of his time, and his collection of 
natural objects was visited and aided by the most distinguished 
persons of the day. In 1650 he became acquainted with Mr. Elias 
Ashmole, who, with his wife, lived in his house during the summer of 
1652. The result of this was so close a friendship, that Tradescant, 
by a deed of gift, dated December 15, 1657, made over his museum of 
natural history to Ashmole, the gift to take effect after his death. He 
died April 22, 1662; leaving a will in which his museum was be- 
queathed to his wife Hester T'radescant during her life, ‘‘ and after her 
decease to the Universities of Oxford or Cambridge, to which of them 
she shall think fit.” No mention is made of Ashmole in this will, but 
that zealous antiquary was little disposed to forego his claim to the 
“closet of rarities.” Accordingly we find this entry in his ‘Diary,’ 
about a month after Tradescant’s death: “May 30, 1662. This 
Easter term I preferred a bill in Chancery against Mrs. Tradescant, for 
the rarities her husband had settled on me.” From the documents of 
this Chancery suit (which Dr. Hamel of St. Petersburg, who had 
become interested in the history of the Tradescants, and with rare 
patience investigated the obscurer portions of it, has in a visit to 
Hngland succeeded in examining), it appears that Ashmole was unable 
to produce the deed of gift, which he avers Mrs. Tradescant, to whom 
he entrusted it, had “burned or otherwise destroyed ;” and Mrs, 
Tradescant on the other hand, without apparently denying that such 
a deed had been executed, pleaded that by her husband's will, dated 
May 4, 1661, all previous dispositions of his property were annulled, 
aud the museum left expressly to her alone, with the stipulation 
already-mentioned, which she intended to fulfil by bequeathing it to 
the University of Oxford. The Lord Chancellor (Clarendon) in his 
judgment set aside the bequest, and gave effect to the asserted terms 
of the deed of gift, adjudging Ashmole to “have and enjoy” the 
entire contents of the museum, “subject to the trust for the de- 
fendant during her life.” Mrs. Tradescant was found drowned in the 
pond in her husband’s garden, April 3, 1678. Ashmole considerably 
increased the museum and added to it his library, and having after- 
wards bequeathed it to the university of Oxford, it unjustly bears the 
name of the Ashmolean Museum. [Asumoue, Evras.] The remains 
of the garden of the Tradescants were still at Lambeth in 1749, when 
it was visited by Sir W. Watson and described by him in the 46th 
volume of the ‘ Philosophical Transactions.’ The widow of the younger 
Tradescant erected a singular and handsome tomb, to the memory of 


father and son, which is still to be seen in the churchyard at Lambeth : 
it was restored by subscription two or three years back. The Tra- 
descants introduced a great number of new plants into Great Britain. 
Amongst others a species of spider-wort thus brought over was called 
Tradescant’s Spider-wort. It has since been formed into the type 
of a genus with the name Tradescantia, and has a large number of 
species. 

TRAGUS HIERO’NYMUS (whose German name was Bock, and 
whom the French call Le Boucq), a German botanist of the sixteenth 
century. He was born at Heidesbach in 1498. In early life he 
received a good education, and became well acquainted with the 
ancient languages. He was appointed master of a school at Zwei- 
briicken ; after this he studied medicine, but having embraced the 
reformed religion, he became a preacher, and was till his death 
minister at Hornbach. His medical studies directed his attention to 
the subject of botany, which he pursued with great ardour throughout 
his life. Up to his time no advances had been made in the science of 
botany from the times of Pliny and Dioscorides. The Arabian 
writers had satisfied themselves with copying Greek and Roman 
writers, and making comments upon them without adding any new 
observations. ‘T'ragus was born at a time when the human mind was 
beginning to emancipate itself from the thraldom of authority both in 
science and religion. Instead of taking for granted all that had been 
written about plants, he commenced observing for himself. The same 
spirit also manifested itself in his contemporaries, Brunfels, Fuchs, and 
Gessner; with these great naturalists he was on terms of intimacy, 
and the first result of his labours in botany was published in 1531, in 
a work entitled ‘Herbarium,’ by Brunfels, with the name ‘ Disserta- 
tiones de Herbarium Nomenclaturis ad Brunfelsiam.’ 

In 1539 Tragus published his great work on which his reputation 
depends. It was written in German, and entitled ‘ Neu-Kreiiter- 
buch vom Unterschiede, Wurkung und Nahmen der Kreiiter, so in 
Deutschland wachsen,’ folio, Strasburg. In all previous modern works 
on botany the plants had been arranged alphabetically, but in this 
work Tragus adopted a natural classification, which, whatever may be 
its defects, has the merit of being the first modern attempt at the 
classification of plants. He divided the vegetable kingdom into three 
classes :—1, wild plants with odoriferous flowers; 2, trefoils, grains, 
potherbs, and creeping plants ; 3, trees and shrubs, This classification 
is of course exceedingly imperfect; it however served to open the 
way to better systems. He commences his work with a description of 
the nettle, and for this two reasons are assigned :—1, That he wished 
to teach persons engaged in the practice of medicine not to despise 
the meanest plants; and 2, that the nettle was his family badge. The 
first edition of this work was published without illustrations, but in 
1546 an edition was published containing upwards of 300 wood-cuts. 
To Tragus, Fuchs, and Brunfels belongs the merit of having com- 
menced the illustration of works of natural history with wood- 
engravings. Haller says that he was ‘homo jocularis, and in his 
representation of plants this is made evident by the addition of 
figures illustrative of their medicinal effects. Thus Pyramus and 
Thisbe are stationed at the foot of the mulberry-tree; sop is 
demonstrating his innocence under a fig-tree; and Noah surrounded 
by his three sons is chosen as an illustration of the effects of the vine, 
Many of the wood-cuts were good, and most of them were copied 
into the various herbals that were published in the 16th and 17th 
centuries. The descriptions of the plants are short and some- 
what obscure ; they were however original, and the structure of plants 
was but very imperfectly understood in the time of Tragus. He has 
given the Hebrew and Arabic names of the plants, as well as the 
Greek and Latin, but in these synonyms he exerted too little care in 
the identification of the German plants with those of ancient writers. 
Two editions of the engravings of this work with the names of the 
plants were published at Strasburg by Trew, in 1550 and 1553, under 
the title, ‘ Vive atque ad Vivum Expresse Imagines omnium Herba- 
rum in Bock Herbario depictarum Icones sol,’ 4to. 

A Latin edition of the Kreiiterbuch was published by Kyber in 
1552. This edition has a learned preface written by Conrad Gessner. 
It is sometimes spoken of as a separate work of Tragus, It has for 
its title, ‘Hieronymi Tragi de Stirpium maxime earum que in Ger- 
manunia nostra nascuntur, &e. libri tres in Latinam linguam conversi, 
interprete David Kyber Argentinensi, Argent.,’ 4to, Several editions 
of the German book have been published ; the best of these is that of 
1695, which was edited by Melchior Sebitz and Nicolas Agerius. 
Tragus died at Hornbach in 1554, 

TRAJA‘NUS, MA’RCUS U’LPIUS NE/RVA, was most probably 
born in 52 or 58 a.D., at Italica, the present Alcala del Rio, on the 
Guadalquivir, not far from Seville in Spain. He was the son of one 
Trajan, who was descended from an old Spanish or Iberian family, and 
who is said to have been a consul (Eutropius, viii. ¢. 2); but his name 
is not found in the Fasti Consulares. Hutropius gives to Ulpius 
Trajanus the surname of ‘Crinitus,’ perhaps because he wore his hair 
long, as did his countrymen the Iberians. Trajan the elder having 
obtained a command in Asia Minor, went there, accompanied by his 
son, who distinguished himself at an early age in the wars against the 
Parthians and the Jews. He became consul in s.p. 91, together with 
Acilius Glabrio. After he had discharged his function he went to 
Spain, and he afterwards commanded the legions on the Lower Rhine, 


151 TRAJANUS, MARCUS ULPIUS NERVA. 


TRAPP, JOSEPH, D.D. 152 


His military talents and his amiable character made him popular with 
the troops: and though we know very little about his early life, we 
must suppose that his merits were great. This we may conclude from 
the circumstance that the Emperor Nerva, an old man without issue, 
adopted him in A.p. 97, and chose him for his successor, although 
there were several relations of Nerva who had perhaps more claims 
to the throne than Trajan. But, says Dion Cassius (Ixviii. c, 4), Nerva 
was exclusively led in his choice by his care for the welfare of the 
empire; and he considered Trajan’s Iberian origin as a matter of 
indifference. Yet Trajan’s nomination as Ceasar was a new thing in 
Roman history, the imperial throne having hitherto been exclusively 
occupied by members of the old Roman aristocracy, so that Trajan 
was the first emperor who was born beyond the limits of Italy. 
Trajan received the news of his nomination in Cologne, and three 
months later (Aurelius Victor, ‘ Epitome,’ c. 12) the death of Nerva, 
which took place on the 27th of January, 98, made him master of the 
Roman empire. On his arrival at Rome the people received him with 
great demonstrations of joy, and Trajan soon proved that he deserved 
his high station. He appointed distinguished and honest men as 
public functionaries; he curbed the turbulent body of the Preetorians; 
he issued an edict against false accusers, and banished those who were 
convicted of this crime to the barren islands of the Mediterranean. 
Corn being dear in Rome, he allowed its entrance duty-free, and he 
thus won the hearts of the people, while those whom he honoured 


with his intercourse were delighted by his affability. Yet the emperor. 


never forgot his dignity. . His virtues and eminent qualities became 
conspicuous in the first years of his reign, as we may see from the 
panegyric of Trajan, which Pliny the younger read in the senate as 
early as 100, after he had been made consul. In 103 Pliny, who was 
a personal friend of the emperor, was appointed proconsul of Bithynia 
and Pontus; and having inquired into the state of the Christians, he 
recommended them to the emperor, and thus mitigated the persecu- 
tions to which they had hitherto been exposed by Pliny himself. The 
letters that passed between Pliny and Trajan are the best sources with 
regard to the private character of this emperor. 

As early as 100 Trajan was engaged in a war with Decebalus, king of 
the Dacians; at the head of a numerous army Trajan crossed the 
Danube, defeated the enemy, and in 101 took their capital, Zermize- 
gethusa (Dion Cassius, lxviii. c. 9), which was most probably situated 
on the site of the present village of Varhely, not far from the pass of 
the ‘Iron Porte,’ in Transylvania. In 102 Decebalus was compelled 
- to purchase peace by the cession of a part of his territory; and on his 
return to Rome Trajan celebrated his first triumph, and was saluted 
with the name Dacicus. Lucius Quintus and Hadrianus, afterwards 
emperor, distinguished themselves in this war. Annoyed by his de- 
pendence on Rome, Decebalus violated the peace as early as 104, and 
Trajan hastened to the Danube, resolved to finish the war by the 
conquest of Dacia, He ordered a bridge to be constructed over the 
Danube, which was the largest work of this kind mentioned by the 
ancients. According to Dion Cassius it consisted of twenty piers, 
150 feet high, 60 wide, and 170 feet apart; the piers were united by 
wooden arches, (Dion Cass., Ixviii. c. 13. ed. Reimar, and the note.) 
The whole length of it has been calculated at 4770 Roman feet. If 
the statement of Dion Cassius is true, this bridge seems not only to 
have served for the passage of the river, but the immense height of 
the pillars, of which scarcely more than seventy feet can have been 
under water, leads to the supposition that it was at the same time a 
strong fortification destined to command the navigation. At a height 
of eighty feet above the water, soldiers were protected against the 
_ missiles of the Dacian ships, while the fleet of the enemy in passing 
that bridge ran the risk of destruction. This bridge was either at 
Szernecz in Hungary, or five leagues above the junction of the Alt 
with the Danube, in Wallachia, not far from Nicopolis, where ruins of 
the Roman colonies of Romula and Castra Nova, and a Roman road, 
which is pretty well preserved, still exist. The war proved fatal to 
Decebalus. Defeated wherever he encountered the Romans, he 
killed himself in despair (105); and in 106 all Dacia was conquered 
and made a Roman province by Trajan, who sent there numerous 
colonists.. Trajan returned to Rome in the same year, and celebrated 
his second Dacian triumph. In memory of his victories over the 
Dacians a column was erected, in-114, by the architect Apollodorus, 
on the Forum Trajani, which, having been preserved from ruin, is still 
admired as one of the finest remnants of ancient art. The column 
was 144 Roman feet high, according to Eutropius (viii. c. 2). Another 
column, which is likewise extant, was erected in honour of Trajan by 
the inhabitants of Beneventum after his victories over the Parthians. 

After the conquest of Dacia, eight years of peace elapsed, which 
Trajan employed in a careful administration, and in adorning Rome 
with beautiful buildings; he also founded a library, the Bibliotheca 
Ulpia, and an institution for the education of poor children of Italian 
parents. (Fr. A. Wolf, ‘Von einer milden Stiftung Trajan’s,’ Berlin, 
4to, 1808.) In 114 Trajan left Rome to lead his armies against the 
Parthians. 

In the Asiatic part of the empire peace had already several times 
been disturbed, principally by the Arabs, who however were subdued 
by Cornelius Palma, the proconsul of Syria, who, in 105, conquered 
Avabia Petrzea, and made it a Roman province, Some years later 
Cosrhoes, or Khosrew, king of the Parthians, deprived Exedares, king 


of Armenia, of his dominions, and created his brother Parthamaspes, 
or Parthamasiris, king of Armenia. The Romans having always been 
anxious to maintain their influence in Armenia—the independence, or 
rather dependence of this country on Rome was necessary for the 
security of the East—Trajan declared war against Khosrew. The 
Parthians were defeated, and in one campaign Trajan conquered 


Mesopotamia and delivered Armenia. He took up his winter-quarters 
at Antioch, relieved the Syrians, who were suffering from the conse- 


quences of a violent earthquake, and in the following year, 115, opened 
anew campaign. He crossed the Tigris, in the province of Adiabene, 
and the Parthians having again been defeated, he took the towns of 
Nisibis, Edessa, Ctesiphon, and Seleucia ; Babylonia, Assyria, i 


and Mesopotamia became Roman provinces; a rebellion of the Jews — 


in Egypt and Cyrenaica was quelled; Khosrew was deposed, and his 
brother Parthamasiris was put by Trajan on the throne of Parthia. 
After the conquest of these extensive provinces Trajan sailed with his 
fleet on the Tigris to the Persian Gulf, and took up his winter-quarters 
in the town of Spasinus. When he had reached the sea, the e 


of Alexander suggested to him the idea of conquering India, but q 


remembering his advanced age, he renounced that scheme. (Dion 
Cassius, Ixviii. c. 29.) In 117 Trajan made an incursion into Arabia, 


and ordered a fleet to be kept on the Red Sea. Suffering from rn , 


he set out for Rome, but he died on his way at Selinus, a town 
Cilicia, in the month of August 117, at the age of sixty-three years 
nine months and four days, according to Eutropius (viii. c. 2). 

Trajan was one of the greatest emperors of Rome. He issaid to 


have been addicted to women and wine; but his public character was 
without reproach, except his passion for warfare and conquest. How- 


ever he undertook no war for frivolous motives. He deserved the 
title of ‘Optimus,’ which the senate conferred on him. The memory 


of his name lasted for centuries, and two hundred years later the — 


senators used to receive the emperors with the acclamation, “Be 
happier than Augustus, and better than Trajan!” 


The body of Trajan was transported to Rome, where it was deposited 4 


under the Columna Trajani. His successor was Hadrian, 

(Aurelius Victor, De Ccsaribus, c. 13; ZLpitome, c. 18; Sextus 
Rufus, Breviariwm, ¢. 8, 14, 20; H. Francke, Zur Geschichte Trajans 
und seiner Zeitgenossen, 1837, is a very valuable book.) 


Coin of Trajan, with Reverse. 
British Museum, Actual Size, Bronze. 


~) 


Reverse of Coin of Trajan. - 
British Museum, Actual Size. Bronze, 


TRAPP, JOSEPH, D.D., was born at Cherrington in Gloucester- — 
shire, in November 1679. He was entered at Wadham College, — 


Oxford, in 1695, took his degree of Master of Arts in 1702, and was — 


chosen a Fellow of his college in 1704. In 1708 he was appointed 
the first professor of poetry at Oxford, and at the expiration of his 


term of office published the lectures he had delivered on the subject, 
under the title of ‘Prelectiones Poetice,’ in 3 vols. 8vo, 1718. Dr. — 
Trapp was warmly attached to the Tory party in the government, and 


took an active part in the political disputes of the time. He acted as 
manager for Dr. Sacheverell on his trial in 1710, and upon the Tories — 
coming into power in the autumn of the same year he was appointed — 


chaplain to Sir Constantine Phipps, lord chancellor of Ireland. He 


was afterwards appointed chaplain to Lord Bolingbroke, and wrote 

several papers in the ‘Examiner’ in defence of his administration. — 
He obtained the living of Dauntsey in Wiltshire in 1720, but — 
resigned it in the following year upon obtaining the vicarage of the — 


united parishes of Christ Church, Newgate-street, and St. Leonard's, — 


153 


Re ae FE 


- TRAVERS, JOHN. 


TREDIAKOYVSKY, VASSILI KIRILOVICH. 154 


Forster-lane, London. In 1733 he was presented to the living of 
Harlington in Middlesex hy Lord Bolingbroke, and in the following 
year was elected one of the joint lecturers of St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields. 
He died November 22, 1747, at the age of sixty-eight, and was buried 
in Harlington church. 

Dr. Trapp was a hard student, and published numerous works, 
which acquired for him considerable reputation in his own day, but 
would now scarcely repay the trouble of reading. One of his best 
works is said to be ‘ Notes upon the Gospels,’ first published in 1747. 
He published several sermons, which he preached upon various occa- 
sions, and also numerous pamphlets against the Whigs, but these 
eeelly appeared without bis name. His translation of Virgil into 
dlank verse, published in 1717, in 2 Vols. 4to, generally succeeds in 


{ giving the meaning of the original, but is a complete failure as a 


work of art. His Latin poetry is said to be better than his English ; he 
published a Latin translation of ‘ Anacreon’ and of Milton’s ‘ Paradise 


TRAVERS, JOHN. The author of musical compositions so popu- 
lar, elegant, and charming as ‘ Haste, my Nanette,’ ‘I, my dear, was born 
to-day,’ ‘ When Bibo thought fit,’ ‘Soft Cupid, is fairly entitled toa 
few lines in our biographical department, though his life was void of 
any remarkable incident. He was educated first in St. George's 
Chapel, Windsor, afterwards under the celebrated Dr. Greene 
Greznz]. About the year 1725 he followed Kelway as organist of 

Paul's, Covent Garden, and subsequently filled the same situation 
also at Fulham. In 1737 he was appointed organist to the Chapels 


_ Royal. He died in 1758, and was succeeded ‘in the latter office by 


Dr. Boyce. 

Travers composed much cathedral music, but except an anthem, 
*Ascribe unto the Lord,’ and a‘ Te Deum,’ his productions for the 
church have fallen into disuse. We will only add that Dr. Burney’s 
notice of him is neither discriminating nor just. 

TRAVERSA’RI, AMBRO/GIO, called also Ambrosius Camaldu- 
lensis, a great scholar and public character of the 15th century, was 
born in the village of Patico near Forli, in 1386. Some assert that his 
family was a branch of the Traversari who once ruled over Ravenna, At 
fourteen years of age Ambrogio entered the order of the Camaldulenses 
at Florence. He is said to have studied Greek under Chrysoloras, 
and afterwards under Demetrius Scarani of Constantinople, who 
became a Camaldulensian monk at Florence about 1417. Traversari 
became a good Greek and Latin scholar, and applied himself entirely to 
classical studies till 1431, when he was made general of his order. He 


_ was intimate with Cosmo des’ Medici, Niccolo Niccoli, Francesco 


Barbaro, Leonardo Giustiniani, and other learned men and patrons 
of learning of that age. When Cosmo and his brother Lorenzo the 
elder were in banishment at Venice, in 1433, Traversari, who was in 
that town, often visited them, and he speaks of them iu his letters with 
esteem and affection. He instructed several pupils, and among others 
Giannozzo Manetti, who became a distinguished scholar. ‘Traversari 


‘travelled much for the affairs of his order, and he collected in his 


travels materials for his ‘ Hodeporicon, which is a description of 
what he had seen, containing many particulars concerning the literary 
history of that time, and the various libraries then existing in Italy. 
The ‘ Hodzeporicon’ was first edited at Lucca by Bartolini, in 1681. 
He also collected valuable manuscripts which helped Cosmo to form 
the public library in the convent of St. Marco, together with the 
collection of Niccolo Niccoli and those of Peruzzi and Salutati. In 
1485 Pope Eugenius IV. sent Traversari to the stormy council of 
Basel, where he exerted himself with much ability in favour of Euge- 
nius, and was instrumental in wivning over to the pope’s party the 
learned Cardinal Cesarini, the president of the council, who suddenly 
left Basel and repaired to Ferrara, whither the pope had transferred 
the council in January 1438. Traversari was sent from Basel into 
Germany on a mission from the pope to the Emperor Sigismund, and 
on returning to Italy he was deputed to Venice to receive the 
Emperor Palzologus and the patriarch of Constantinople, and to con- 
duct them to Ferrara, from whence the council was soon after 
removed to Florence. Traversari acted in that assemblyjas interpreter 
between the Greeks and the Latins, and he had the satisfaction of 
seeing the reunion of the two churches. He soon after died at 
Florence, in October 1439. He left Latin translations of many Greek 
works, especially of ecclesiastical writers, such as Chrysostom, Basi- 
lius, Athanasius, Ephrem Syrus, Johannes Climachus, and others, of 
which, as well as of other inedited works of Traversari, his biographers 
Mehus, Cateni, Ginanni, and Zeno have given catalogues, His trans- 
lation of the Lives of Diogenes Laertius, dedicated by him to his 
friend Cosmo de’ Medici, was printed at Venice in 1475. Some of his 
Orations delivered in the council of Basel are also printed. His nume- 
rous letters were collected by Father Canneti, and published, with 
the addition of learned notes and a biography of Traversari, by 
Lorenzo Mehus: ‘ Traversarii Ambrosii Epistole Latine et aliorum 
ad ipsum, curante P. Canneto, cum Ambrosii Vita, studio L, Mehus,’ 
2 vols. fol., Florence, 1759, an important work for the literary history 
of Italy during the 14th and 15th centuries. 

TREDGOLD, THOMAS, was born in the little village of Brandon, 
about three miles west of the city of Durham, on the 22nd of August 
1788. At an early age he was sent to a small school in his native 
village, where he received what must bave been a very limited edu- 


cation, as he says in the préface to his first publication that he had 
written that work “without the advantage of any other education 
than that of which my own industry had made me master.” At the 
age of fourteen he was apprenticed to a cabinet-maker at Durham for 
six years, during which period he was particularly noticed for his 
attention to business and his devoting all his leisure hours to books 
and mathematical or architectural studies. He informed the writer 
of this notice that, instead of going to see the races, as apprentices 
were then allowed to do in the afternoons of the race-days, he taught 
himself perspective. 

Soon after the expiration of his apprenticeship, in 1808, he went to 
work as a journeyman carpenter and joiner in Scotland, where he 
remained for five years, in no way distinguished from his fellow-work- 
men except by his continued life of study. It was during these years 
that, by depriving himself of the necessary hours of repose, and not 
taking that relaxation which the human frame requires, he impaired 
his naturally weak constitution. He rose early, hastily took his meals, 
and sat up late, in order that every spare moment might be given to 
the acquirement of knowledge, while the chief hours of the day were 
spent in laborious manual employment. On leaving Scotland he 
repaired to London, where he entered the office of his relative William 
Atkinson, Esq., architect to the Ordnance, in whose house he lived for 
six years, and remained in his service some years after quitting his 
house. At this time it may be said that his studies combined all the 
Sciences connected in any degree with architecture and engineering; 
and in order that he might be able to read the best scientific works on 
the latter subject, he taught himself the French language. He also 
paid great attention to chemistry, mineralogy,:and geology, and per- 
fected his knowledge of the higher branches of mathematics. Before 
the publication of his first work he had occasionally contributed 
articles to several periodical publications, and he continued to do so for 
some time afterwards. . These contributions extend over a wide range 
of subjects, comprising papers on the elasticity of air; the velocity of 
sound ; the causes, laws, &c., of heat; gases; the nature of curves; the 
flexure of astronomical instruments ; and the principles of beauty in 
colouring. They are chiefly to be found in Tilloch’s ‘ Philosophical 
Magazine,’ Thomson’s ‘ Annals of Philosophy,’ &¢., and besides these 
he was the author of several articles in the ‘ Encyclopedia Britannica,’ 
In the year 1820 he published his valuable work ‘The Elementary 
Principles of Carpentry, a treatise on the pressure of beams and 
timber frames, the resistance of timber, the construction of floors, 
roofs, centres, and bridges.’ This work contains many practical rules 
and useful tables, and is illustrated by 22 plates. It was printed in 
quarto, and went through a second edition in 1828. His essay on the 
‘Strength of Cast Iron,’ published in 1821, reached a second edition 
in 1824, and a third in 1831. 

Before the appearance of his next work, owing to the great increase of 
his private business and literary labours, he resigned his situation in Mr. 
Atkinson’s office, and in 1823 commenced practice as a civil engineer 
on his own account. In 1824 he published his ‘ Principles of Warming 
and Ventilating Public Buildings, Dwelling-Houses, Manufactories, 
Hospitals, Hothouses, Conservatories, &c.,’ which was so favourably 
received that a second edition was very soon required. In the course 
of the following year appeared his ‘Practical Treatise on Railroads 
and Carriages,’ which was immediately followed by a pamphlet 
addressed to Mr. Huskisson, then president of the Board of Trade, 
and entitled ‘Remarks on Steam Navigation,*and its Protection, 
Regulation, and Encouragement.’ This letter, which contained many 
valuable suggestions for the prevention of accidents, has been for 
some time out of print. The last important work published by Tred- 
gold was a thin quarto volume, with numerous illustrations, entitled 
‘The Steam-Engine,’ containing an account of its invention and pro- 
gressive improvement, with an investigation of its principles and the 
proportion of its parts for efficiency, strength, &c. The first edition 
came out in 1827, and so highly was it appreciated that when it was 
nearly sold out the copyright was purchased by its present possessor 
at a very much higher price than the author originally received for it. 
A posthumous edition, greatly extended by the contributions of 
several scientific men, especially in the department of steam-navi- 
gation, was published in 1838. This beautiful edition is in two large 
4to volumes, illustrated by 125 plates and numerous wood-cuts. It 
was edited by W. 8S. B. Woolhouse, and a portrait of Tredgold is pre- 
fixed to the first volume. Mr. Tredgold died on the 28th of January 
1829, in his forty-first year, completely worn out by his devotion to 
study. He left, besides a widow, three daughters (of whom only one 
survives) and a son, who was brought up to his own profession, and 
inherited his father’s abilities, as well as, unfortunately, his delicate 
constitution. He was engineer in the Office of Stamps of the East 
India Company at Calcutta, where he died in April 1853. 

TREDIAKOVSKY, VASSILI KIRILOVICH, a Russian poet of 
great but unfortunate celebrity, was born February 22nd, 1703. The 
place of his birth is not stated, but he is said to have received his first 
education in a school kept by a foreigner at Archangel, where he 
attracted the notice of Peter the Great, who, visiting the school, and 
ordering the boys to be drawn up for his inspection, after attentively 
looking at Trediakovsky, exclaimed, “He will prove a most capital 
journeyman in his profession, but no master in it!” in allusion to 
which incident the poet remarks—*The emperor was exceedingly 


155 TREMBECKI, STANISLAW. 


TRENCHARD, JOHN. 


156 


shrewd, but was greatly mistaken in his opinion of myself.’ On leaving 
the school at Archangel he studied at Moscow; and then, by the 
liberality of Prince Alexander Kurakin, was enabled to visit France, 
England, and Holland, for the purpose of completing his education. 
While at: Paris he attended Rollin’s lectures, and made himself master 
of some of the modern languages. In 1730 he returned to Russia, in 
1733 was appointed secretary to the St. Petersburg Academy of 
Sciences, and in 1745 was made professor of eloquence on that office 
being first created. He died August 6th, 1769. Without talent for 
any one department of literature, Trediakovsky attempted all, from 
idyls and fable to tragedy and epic or heroic poetry. Of the last- 
mentioned kind is his ‘ Telemachida,’ which is a versified paraphrase 
of Fénélon’s ‘ Telemachus,’ a production so dull that Catherine II. 
used to inflict the task of getting a hundred lines of it by heart as a 
penalty upon those who infringed the rules established for her private 
parties in the Hermitage. Numerous as they were, his own poetical 
productions were but the smaller portion of his literary labours; for 
he translated several historical works, and among others Rollin’s 
‘Ancient History,’ in 26 volumes, twice over, the manuscript of the 
first translation haying been destroyed by fire ; than which there is not 
perhaps a more singular instance of literary industry and perseverance 
upon record. 

(Bantiesh-Kamensky, Slovar Dostopamiatnikh Liudei.) 

TREMBECKI, STANISLAW, one of the best Polish poets of the 
age of Stanislaus Augustus, was born about 1724, in the district of 
Cracow. Notwithstanding his eminence as a writer, and that during 
the greater part of his long life he moved in the higher circles of 
society, very few particulars have been preserved or collected respecting 
him. In his youth he spent many years in visiting various parts of 
Europe, and resided for a considerable time at the court of Louis XV. 
Afterwards he was for a long time at the court of Stanislaus, where he 
held the post of chamberlain. Later in life he withdrew almost 
entirely from society, rarely seeing any strangers, although he resided 
in the family of Felix Potocki at Tulczyn. At one time he had been 
remarkably abstemious, never touching either animal food or wine for 
thirty years, on which account Stanislaus used to call him his Pythago- 
ras. Latterly he abandoned that rigorous system, which however does 
not seem to have had much influence upon his temperament, for he is 
said to have been engaged in no fewer than thirty duels, all of them 
arising out of some affair of gallantry, and in every one of which he 
came off conqueror. He died Dec. 12, 1812, after very little previous 
indisposition, at nearly ninety years of age. Among his poetical 
works, all of which exhibit great mastery of style and beauty of lan- 
guage, that entitled ‘ Zofijowka’ is considered his chef-d’wuvre. This 
production belongs to a species of poetry now in little esteem, it being 
a description of the gardens at Zofijowka, an estate in the Ukraine 
belonging to the Potocki family ; but though the subject itself is not 
of the highest order, it is treated with great ability, and the whole 
abounds with striking beauties; nor is the reader’s admiration at all 
lessened by its having been written when its author was between the 
age of seventy and eighty. The work however which would probably 
have most of all contributed to his reputation, namely, his ‘ History of 
Poland,’ has never seen the light. The manuscript, consisting of two 
hundred sheets, was given in trust by him to a friend, that it should 
not be published until after his death; but what became of it has not 
been ascertained. There is a portrait of Trembecki prefixed to the 
two volumes of his poems, forming a part of Bobrowicz’s ‘ Biblioteka 
Klassykow Polskich, from which work the account here given is 
derived. 

* TRENCH, REV. RICHARD CHENEVIX, Dean of Westminster, 
is the son of Richard, brother of the first Lord Ashtown,’ by Melesina, 
grand-daughter of Dr, Richard Chenevix, formerly Bishop of Waterford. 
He was born September 9, 1807, and graduated at Trinity College, 
Cambridge, in 1829, without obtaining honours however either in 
classics or mathematics. Having taken orders, he served a country 
curacy. His name first became known as a poet in 1838, whilst 
holding the incumbency of Curdridge, a chapelry in the parish of 
Bishop's Waltham in Hants, by the publication of two volumes of poems, 
written in something of the simple style of Wordsworth. They were 
respectively entitled ‘Sabbation, Honor Neale, and other Poems,’ and 
‘The story of Justin Martyr.’ Attracting the favourable notice of the 
press, these volumes were shortly afterwards followed by his ‘ Geno- 
veva,’ ‘ Elegiac Poems,’ and ‘ Poems from Eastern Sources.’ In 1841 
Mr. Trench resigned the charge of Curdridge, and became curate to 
Archdeacon (now Bishop) Wilberforce at Alverstoke, near Gosport; in 
1845 he was presented by Lord Ashburton to the rectory of Itchen- 
Stoke near Alresford ; and on Archdeacon Wilberforce’s promotion to 
the see of Oxford, he became his examining chaplain. In 1845 and 
1846 he was Hulsean lecturer at Cambridge, and for a short time 
also one of the select preachers of the University. His chief publica- 
tions during the last few years are :—‘ Notes on the Miracles ;’ ‘ Notes 
on the Parables ;’ ‘Lessons in Proverbs ;’ all of which have been 
more than once reprinted; ‘The Sermon on the Mount, illustrated 
from St. Augustine ;’ ‘ Sacred Latin Poetry ;’ ‘Synonyms of the New 
Testament ;’ ‘St. Augustine as an Interpreter of Seripture ;’ and a 
remarkably useful treatise on the ‘Study of Words, being the 
substance of some lectures delivered to the Diocesan Training College 
at Winchester. 


In 1847 Mr. Trench was appointed theological professor and 
examiner at King’s College, London, and more recently one of the 
examiners for engineer and artillery appointments at Woolwich, In 
1852, he was an unsuccessful candidate for the representation of the — 
archdeaconry of Winchester in convocation, the revival of whose 
active powers he is understood to advocate. In 1856, on the death of — 
the late Rev. Dr. Buckland [BuckLanp, Rev. Witt1AM], he was nomi- — 
nated by Lord Palmerston to the deanery of Westminster, as a token 
of the general appreciation of his services to the cause of religion, 
education, and literature. ¢ @ 

TRENCHARD, SIR JOHN, Knight, a secretary of state in the 
reign of William III., was born in 1650, and was the second son of — 
Thomas Trenchard, Esq., of Wolverton in Dorsetshire, the then head 
of the ancient and wealthy family of the Trenchards. Anthony & 
Wood gives the following account of Sir John Trenchard’s birth and — 
education: “was borne of puritanical parents in Dorsetshire, became © 
probationary fellow of New College in a civilian’s place an. 1665, aged — 
fifteen years or more, entered in the public library as a student in the 
civil law, 22nd October, 1668, went to the Temple before he took a — 
degree, became barrister and councillour.” (‘Athene Oxonienses, — 
vol, iv., p. 405, Bliss’s edition.) The account characteristically pro- — 
ceeds, “busy to promote Oates his plot, busy against papists, the 
prerogative, and all that way.” Trenchard was elected member for — 
Taunton in Charles IL’s third parliament, which met on the 6th — 
March, 1679, and was dissolved on the 12th of July in the same year. — 
Anthony i Wood erroneously states that he was first elected in the 
succeeding parliament, which, having been called on the 1st October, — 
1679, was not allowed to assemble until the same day and month in 1680. _ 
In this last-mentioned parliament Trenchard took a prominent part in — 


a 


support of the Exclusion Bill, and was generally a zealous member of 
the opposition party. He was among those apprehended in 1683, on 
the suspicion of the Protestant plot, of which Lord Russell and ~ 
Sydney were made the victims. It was told against him that he had — 
engaged to raise a body of men from Taunton. He denied this fee 
examination, and Lord Russell also denied all knowledge of it; but 
he was committed to prison. “One part of his guilt,” says Burnet, — 
“was well known: he was the first man who had moved the exclusion — 
in the House of Commons : so he was reckoned a lost man” (‘ History 
of His Own Time,’ vol. ii., p. 857, 8vo, ed. 1823). He was afterwards — 
however discharged from prison for want of a second witness against 
him. (Evelyn’s ‘ Diary,’ vol. iii, p. 106.) s 
After the accession of James II., Trenchard engaged to support the 
duke of Monmouth in his foolish invasion, and on the almost im- 
mediate failure of the duke’s attempt he fled into France. ple’s 
‘Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland, vol. i, p. 173.) He is said to 
have been dining with his relative, Mr. W. Speke, at Ilminster, when 
he received intelligence of the defeat of the duke of Monmouth’s army ~ 
at Sedgemoor ; he immediately mounted his horse and advised Mr, 
Speke to do the same ; he succeeded in making his way to Weymouth, — 
where he took ship for France; and the story goes on to say, that at 
the moment he was embarking, his friend Mr. Speke was hanging — 
before his own door at Ilminster (Burke’s ‘History of the Com- 
moners,’ vol. iv., p. 78). He remained abroad till things had ripened — 
for the Revolution of 1688. : 
T'renchard was member for Dorchester in the convention parliament — 
which placed William and Mary on the throne, His services to 
William were rewarded by his being made first, serjeant, then chief 
justice of Chester and a knight, and lastly, in the spring of 1693, — 
secretary of state. He received this last appointment at the same 
time that Somers was elevated from the attorney-generalship to be- 
lord keeper; and these two appointments were held of great im-— 
portance, as being signs of William’s desire to return to the Whigs, 
from whom he'‘had for a time alienated himself. In the spring of the 
next year Lord Shrewsbury returned to the other secretaryship of — 
state, and the {government was made completely Whig. Sir John 
Trenchard died on the 20th of April, 1695. a4 
Opposite characters have been drawn of him by Anthony & Wood 
and Bishop Burnet. The former calls him “a man of turbulent ar ds 
aspiring spirit.” Burnet’s character of him is as follows: “He had — 
been engaged far with the Duke of Monmouth, as was told formerly. — 
He got out of England, and lived some years beyond sea, and had a 
right understanding of affairs abroad. He was a calm and sedate — 
man, and was much more moderate than could have been expected, — 
since he was a leading man in a party. He had too great a to 
the stars and too little to religion.” The last feature in the ¢ ir 
which Burnet has drawn is illustrated by a story of Wood’s. “An 
astrologer told him formerly that he should such a year be ims 
prisoned, sucha year like to be hanged, such a year be promoted to a 
great place in the law, such a year higher, and such a year die, which 
all came to pass, as he told Dr. Gibbons on his death-bed.” “a 
TRENCHARD, JOHN, a political writer of some celebrity in his 
day, was born in 1662, He wasa member of a junior branch of the - 
same family as the subject of the preceding article, and was the eldest _ 
son of William Trenchard, Esq., of Cutteridge in Dorsetshire, Bee 5 
daughter of Sir George Norton, of Abbots Leigh in Somersets On 
Sir George Norton’s death in 1715, Mr. Trenchard, his grandson, — 
inherited his property. + 
The writer of the life of Trenchard, in the ‘Biographia Britannica — 


a +6 


157 TRENCK, BARON FRANZ VON. 


TRENCK, BARON FREDERIC VON DER. 158 


has fallen into the error of making him the son of Sir John Tren- 
chard, to whom he was but distantly related. The actual degree of 
relationship may be seen in Burke’s ‘ History of the Commoners,’ vol. 
iv., pp. 78, 79. This error has led to others. For instance, the 
writer represents him as having been born in 1669, instead of 
1662, Sir John Trenchard himself having been born in 1650. These 
mistakes have been copied in Chalmers’s ‘ Biographical Dictionary ’ and 
the ‘ Biographie Universelle.” 

Mr. Trenchard was educated for the law, and was called to the bar, 
But his fortune not requiring that he should follow: a profession, he 
left the bar for what was to him the more congenial pursuit of 
Pelitics. The author of the Life in the ‘Biographia Britannica’ says, 

* By the decease of an uncle, and a marriage to a gentlewoman with a 
considerable fortune, he came into the possession of a good estate, and 
the prospect of a much better, which also fell into his hands on the 
Datclec of his father in 1695, whom hé succeeded likewise in the 
House of Commons, being elected a burgess for Taunton in 1695.” A 

t deal of this is incorrect. Sir John Trenchard died in 1695, but 

. Trenchard’s father did not die till 1710. Mr. Trenchard was 

elected for the parliament that met in 1695, but sat, not for Taunton, 

but for Wareham. And it is probable that the account of the fortune 

acquired by marriage, and by the death of an uncle, is a mistake 

arising out of Mr. Trenchard’s inheriting, after his father’s death, 
from his maternal grandfather, Sir George Norton. 

In 1698 Mr. Trenchard published, in conjunction with Mr. Moyle, a 


4 ore entitled ‘An Argument showing that a Standing Army is 


consistent with a Free Government, and absolutely destructive to 
the Constitution of the English Monarchy.’ The question of a standing 
army being at that time seriously agitated, this pamphlet is said to 
have produced a considerable effect. It was followed almost im- 
mediately by ‘A Short History of Standing Armies in England,’ In 
1692 Mr, Trenchard was chosen by the House of Commons one of 
seven commissioners for taking an account of the forfeited estates in 
Treland; and he was one of the four who signed the report including 
the private estate, or that which had belonged to James II. in right 
of the crown, which William had granted to his mistress, Lady 
Orkney. A warm debate arose out of this report in the House of 
Commons, which is to be read in the ‘ Parliamentary History,’ The 


] report was approved of by the House, but gave great offence to the 


g 
In 1709 Mr. Trenchard published ‘A Natural History of Supersti- 
tion ;’ ‘Considerations on the Public Debts ;’ and ‘A Comparison of 


: the Proposals of the Bank and South Sea Company.’ He published, 


in 1719, two additional pamphlets entitled ‘ Thoughts on the Peerage 
Bill,’ aad ‘Reflections on the Old Whig.’ In 1720 he began, in con- 
junction with Mr. Thomas Gordon, a Scotchman, whom he had taken 
some time before into his house, and employed as an amanuensis, a 
series of letters on political questions, under the signatures of Cato 
and Diogenes, which appcared first in the London, and then in the 
British, Journal; and in the same year; in conjunction with the same 
gentleman, he began a paper called the ‘ Independent Whig,’ which 
was devoted to the subjects of religion and church government. 
[Gorpon, THomas,] These two series of letters went on till 1723, on 
the 17th of December in which year, Mr. Trenchard died. 

After Mr. Trenchard’s death, Mr, Gordon collected Cato’s letters, 
and published them in 4 vols. 12mo. In the preface to the work, he 
has sketched the character of his friend and benefactor, justifying his 
eulogy by saying “that he has set him no higher than his own great 


- abilities and many virtues set him; that his failings were small, his 


talents extraordinary, his probity equal to his talents, and that he was 
one of the ablest and one of the most useful men that ever any country 
was blessed withal.” Mr. Gordon also published, after Mr, Tren- 
chard’s death, the papers which had appeared of the ‘Independent 
Whig,’ in 2 vols. 12mo; and at the end of the second volume is 


printed a long Latin inscription on Mr. Trenchard’s tomb, which had 


] 
i 
‘) 


' 


_ proceeded from Mr. Gordon’s pen, This inscription is printed also in 
the notes to the life in the ‘ Biographia Britannica.’ Mr. Gordon con- 
tinued the ‘ Independent Whig’ after the death of his coadjutor, and 


: 
_ made two additional volumes. The four volumes of the ‘Independent 


_ Whig,’ and ‘Cato’s Letters,’ have both passed through several editions, 
_ They both excited much interest when they were first published and 


os for some time after; but are now little read or known. 


Mr. Trenchard had married a daughter of Sir William Blackett, of 
Northumberland, but had no children. Of his widow we are told, 
that, “finding Mr. Gordon very useful in managing her affairs, she 


continued him in her service, was much pleased with his company, 
_ and, having paid a decent tribute of tears to the memory of her 


_ deceased. husband, entered some time after into a second marriage 


with this ingenious friend and companion, who had several children 


by her.” (Biographia Britannica.) 
TRENCK, BARON FRANZ VON, was born at Reggio in Calabria, 


- ~on the Ist of January 1711. His father was a general in the Austrian 


_ Service, and took him when only eleven years old to serve in the war 
_ against Spain. At this tender age he was present and actually fought 
_ at the battle of Melazio. He was afterwards sent to the military 
academy at Vienna, 


5 and having passed his examination with great 
- distinction, he was appointed cornet in the regiment, Palfy. His extra- 
; ordinary physical strength, united with an uncommon degree of ferocity, 


* 
i 


manifested itself very early, and brought him into many difficulties. 
When only seventeen, his father having refused to supply him with more 
money for his extravagances, he applied to a farmer in the neighbour- 
hood, and upon receiving a refusal there also, he cut the man’s head 
off. This affair was hushed up with great difficulty, and he was sent 
to Russia, where by his military talents and dauntless courage he soon 
gained the friendship of Marshal Miinnich, and was made captain of 
hussars. <A short time after he had received his commission, he 
attacked a whole Turkish regiment near Bucharest, contrary to the 
express orders of his colonel, with his small troop, and gained a 
decided victory. Upon his return the colonel reprimanded him for 
his disobedience; he answered by a blow, which felled his superior 
officer to the ground. For this offence he was sentenced by a court- 
martial to be whipped out of the regiment, a punishment at that 
period still inflicted in Russia upon commissioned officers. While he 
was awaiting the execution of this sentence in his tent, he heard that 
a brisk engagement with the Turks was taking place, and Marshal 
Miinnich being near, he called out to the marsha), and asked him if 
he would pardon him, provided he brought back within an hour three 
Turks’ heads. The marshal-assented, and Trenck immediately leaped 
upon the first horse he saw, galloped into the midst of the enemy, and 
returned to the camp within half an hour with four Turks’ heads 
suspended from the pommel of his saddle. But shortly after he was 
sentenced to death for a still greater violation of discipline, and it was 
only through Miinnich’s influence that his sentence was commuted 
first into banishment to{Siberia, and at last to six months’ hard labour, 
This punishment he had to undergo at Kiew, and immediately after 
he retired to his estates in Croatia. The Austrian provinces on the 
Turkish frontiers being, after the war, infested with numerous and 
well-organised bands of robbers, Trenck voluntarily levied a force of 
a thousand men among his own tenants, and succeeded in a very short 
time in clearing the country of these dangerous enemies, <A short 
time afterwards disturbances breaking out in Hungary on the occasion 
of Maria Theresa’s succession to the throne, Trenck offered his own 
and the services of his men, his regiment of Pandours, as he called 
them, to the‘young empress. This offer was accepted, and Trenck 
went to Vienna. ‘I'he disturbances were however soon pacified by 
Maria Theresa’s heroic conduct at Presburg, and he was sent to the 
army on the Rhine and in the Netherlands under the command of 
Prince Charles. Here he again distinguished himself by his bravery 
and military skill, but at the same time by his rapacity and brutal 
ferocity. It was principally Trenck who covered Prince Charles's 
celebrated retreat into Bohemia, and on his march through Bavaria 
he took five fortified places in less than three weeks. It would lead 
too far here to relate the well-authenticated acts of plunder and 
cruelty which he committed, but he and his Pandours were as much 
dreaded over the whole empire, as Tilly and his men in the Thirty 
Years’ War. In the following year he joined the army against 
Frederic the Great, and after the battle of Sorau (September 14, 
1745) he undertook to take the king by surprise at Collin, and to 
carry him off prisoner, In this he failed with great loss of men; but 
he got a large booty, as he captured Frederic’s tent and all that it 
contained, Upon his return to Vienna a court-martial was held over 
him, some of his own officers accusing him of having received bribes 
from the enemy, besides unexampled cruelty and avarice. At his first 
examination one of the judges used some disrespectful expressions 
towards Prince Charles; ‘'renck, with the fury and strength of a tiger, 
jumped at him, nearly throttled him, and would have thrown him out 
of a high window if the guard had not hastened to interfere. He was 
confined at Vienna for upwards of a year, when Baroness Lestock, a 
lady to whom he was betrothed, effected his escape by large bribes to 
his jailers, who connived at his feigning to be dead. He was carried 
in a coffin to be buried, but as soon as the funeral procession had got 
outside the town gates, he jumped out of it, covered himself with a 
cloak, mounted a horse which stood prepared, and made his way to 
Bruges in the Netherlands, where he was however soon arrested again, 
and was taken, heavily loaded with chains, to Graetz. Here in a fit of 
despondency he took poison, and died October 4, 1747, leaving his 
great wealth to his cousin Frederic, who however did not derive much 
benefit from the bequest, , , 

(Mémoires du Baron Franz de Trenck, écrits par F. de Trenck, 1 
vol, 8vo, Paris, 1787; Leben und Thaten der Trencke, von Watermann, 
2 vols. 8vo, Leipzig, 1887; Mémoires du Prince de Ligne, 2 vols. 8vo, 
Vienne, 1816.) 

TRENCK, BARON FREDERIC VON DER, born at Kénigsberg, 
February 16, 1726, His mother was a von Dershau, and both parents 
belonged to the most ancient and wealthy houses in East Prussia, 
His father had served with distinction as major-general in the Prussian 
army. The young baron distinguished himself very early by extra- 
ordinary precocity ; in his thirteenth year he was entered as a student 
of law and belles lettres at the university of his native place, and 
passed the usual examination with great distinction. One year later he 
fought a duel with one of the most celebrated swordsmen at Konigs- 
berg, whom he wounded and disarmed. In his sixteenth year Count 
Lottum, one of his relations, and adjutant-general to Frederic (after- 
wards the Great), took him to Berlin, where the king immediately 
appointed him cadet, and soon afterwards, having himself upon one 
occasion been surprised at the young man’s talents, he promoted him 


159 TRENCK, BARON FREDERIC VON DER. 


TRENTOWSKI, BRONISLAW FERDY NAND. 


160 


toa cornetcy in his body-guard, at that time considered the most 
splendid and gallant regiment in Europe, in which the rank of every 
officer was three degrees higher than in other regiments, The king’s 
favour and his own amiable manners procured him many friends at 
court, but at the same time excited envy and malice. The foundation 
of his cruel fate is said to have been laid about two years afterwards at 
a ball given at the royal castle at Stettin, in celebration of the marriage 
of the Princess Ulrike, the king’s eldest sister, with the king of 
Sweden. The youngest sister, the Princess Amalie, is said to have 
noticed him, to have invited him to see her at her private apartments, 
and to have cherished a violent passion for him ever afterwards. In 
an unguarded moment he is said to have boasted of the favours shown 
him by his royal mistress. This was reported to the king, who, 
although he did not think proper to punish his indiscretion, took a 
decided dislike to him, and watched every opportunity of visiting him 
most severely for trifling faults in military discipline. This story, 
embellished with many romantic incidents, originates principally with 
French writers, who in many instances contradict themselves as to 
dates and other matters. That an imprudent attachment between 
Trenck and the princess existed cannot be doubted; but that Frederic, 
violent and passionate as he was in all his private concerns, should 
have pretended blindness in so important a matter, and should even 
have continued to bestow favours upon the man who had dishonoured 
his sister’s name, is difficult to credit, 

During the war between Prussia and Austria he was placed on the 
king’s staff, and distinguished himself on several occasions, particularly 
when his cousin, Franz Trenck, attempted to take the king prisoner 
by surprise at Collin. A short time afterwards his cousin addressed 
him a letter, returning him some of his horses which his Pandours had 
taken upon one of their foraging expeditions. This circumstance he 
mentioned in presence of a Colonel Jaschinsky, who owed him a 
considerable sum of money, and who at Berlin was known to be his 
secret enemy. This man artfully persuaded him to a correspondence 
with his cousin, he himself undertaking to forward the letters by 
means of his mistress, the wife of the Saxon resident, Madame de 
Brossat. Several letters passed in this way open through Jaschinsky’s 
hands, until he got possession of one in which some highly imprudent 
expressions were found, which he immediately caused to be laid 
before the king. The result was, that Trenck was cashiered and sent 
prisoner to the fortification of Glatz, not by a formal sentence, but by 
an order from the king, who expressed his intention at the same time 
to keep him there for one year; evidence enough it would seem, that 
he only meant to punish his correspondence with the enemy, and no 
other or greater crime. At first he was treated according to his 
rank, and with all possible indulgence; but when it was discovered 
that he had several times, by bribes, attempted and nearly effected his 
escape, he was placed in close confinement. On the 24th of December 
1746, he nevertheless succeeded in making his escape, by the assistance 
of and together with Major Schell. With great fatigue and danger he 
reached his mother’s residence in Brandenburg, whence he proceeded 
to Vienna, amply furnished with money. A strict investigation was 
ordered by the king, for the purpose of finding out how he had 
effected his escape; the result of which was the discovery that large 
sums had been remitted to him by the Princess Amalie. It is highly 
probable that this was the first time that Frederic knew of his sister’s 
attachment; and from this period must be dated his intense and obdu- 
rate hatred of-Trenck. In the mean time Trenck had got into fresh 
troublesat Vienna, which he himself principally attributes to the intri- 
gues of his cousin Franz, notwithstanding he was in prison at the time 
on a criminal charge. He left Vienna in disgust, and went to Russia, 
where, through the recommendation of the English ambassador (to 
whom Frederic himself had introduced him at Berlin, under the 
flattering title of ‘Matador de ma jeunesse’), he was well received, and 
appointed captain of a troop of hussars. Here he might have lived 
peaceably and content, being in high favour with the empress, and 
having acquired considerable wealth through a legacy of a Russian 
princess; but the Prussian ambassador, Count Goltz, left nothing 
undone to injure him, pretending that he acted thus in accordance 
with instructions from the king his master. His cousin at Vienna, 
who was now dead, had made him his heir. Upon this he determined 
to leave Russia; and aftér having visited Sweden, Denmark, and Hol- 
land, he returned to Vienna to take possession of hisinheritance. Fresh 
difficulties awaited him there. His cousin’s estates were under seques- 
tration, and after expensive and vexatious suits, he agreed to a com- 
promise, by which he received 75,000 florins, and the appointment of 
a captaincy in a regiment of bussars. In 1748 he went to Prussia to 
visit his family ; and at Dantzig, when on the point of embarking for 
Sweden, owing to some hints of impending danger which he had 
received, he was arrested by a party of hussars, and taken prisoner to 
Berlin. He was at first treated well, but his intemperate language, 
and even threats against the king, hurried on his fate. He was taken 
to Magdeburg, and confined in a cell under-ground, and almost with- 
out light. His sufferings, and his bold, desperate, and almost success- 
ful attempts to escape, may be read in his own Memoirs. After two 
soldiers had suffered death for conniving at his attempts to regain his 
liberty, and several other plots had been discovered, a prison was, at 
last built on purpose for him, in which he was chained to the walls 
with fetters of sixty-seven pounds weight. Here he remained above four 


years more, till at last his relations succeeded in softening Frederic’s 
obduracy; and on the 24th December 1763, he was released upon con- — 
dition of leaving the kingdom. He went first to Vienna, where he — 
was again arrested on account of his violent language against Frederic, — 
The emperor however having couVinced himself by a personal inter- 
view that his words were the mere outbreak of unmeaning rage after 
his dreadful sufferings, set him free, paid him the arrears of his 
as a captain, and advised him to retire in order to recover his health — 
and his spirits. He settled at Aix-la-Chapelle, married a daughter of © 
the burgomaster De Broe, and commenced business as a mer- 
chant. He went several times to England upon commercial affai 
but notwithstanding all his exertions his affairs did not prosper, and 
he became a bankrupt. After this new misfortune he wrote articles — 
of rather a democratic tendency for several periodical publications; 
and in 1787, after the death of Frederic the Great, he published his — 
Memoirs, for the copyright of which he received a very largesum. From — 
that time he became for a time a distinguished person in the world, 
His book was translated into almost all European languages; the 
ladies at Paris, Berlin, and Vienna wore rings, necklaces, bonnets, and — 
gowns } la Trenck, and not less than seven different theatrical pieces 
in which he was the hero were brought out on the French stage. The 
year following he once more visited Berlin; but although he - 
kindly received by the king, it seems that he was disappointed in his 7 
expectations, and he returned to Aix-la-Chapelle, where he commenced — 
the publication of a weekly paper, under the title of ‘L’Ami des — 
Horames,’ in which he proclaimed himself a champion of the new 
French doctrines. Meeting with little encouragement, he went to 
Paris in 1792, joined a Jacobin club, and was afterwards a zealous adhe- — 
rent to the Mountain party, which nevertheless betrayed, accused 
him, and brought him to the guillotine on the 25th July 1794. Yet 
on the scaffold, and in his sixty-eighth year, he gave proof of his 
ungovernable passions. He harangued the surrounding multitude, 
and when his head was on the block he once more attempted to give 
utterance to his vehemence, and the executioner had to hold him by — 
his silver locks to meet the fatal stroke. £1 
(Friedrich Trenk’s Merkwiirdige Lebensgeschichle von thm selbst” 
beschrieben, 2 vols. 8vo, Berlin, 1787 ; Meditations du Baron de Trenck 
dans sa Prison & Magdebourg, avec un précis historique de ses mal- 


hewrs, 1 vol. 8vo, Paris, 1788; Denkwiirdigkeiten von Freyherrn von 
Dohm, Berlin, 1812; D. Thiébault, Frédéric le Grand, ou Souvenirs 
vingt ans de séjour & Berlin, 2 vols, 8vo, Paris, 1801; Leben 
Thaeten der Trenke von Watermann, 2 vols, 8vo, Leipzig, 1837.) \g 

TRENTO, ANTONIO DA, supposed to be the same person as 
Antonio Fantuzzi. He was born at Trente about the commencement 
of the 16th century; and was, according to Vasari, the pupil of Par- 
migiano at Parma, Parmigiano employed Antonio to engrave his 
works in wood, and he was one of the first and most eminent of the 
Italian wood-engravers; he appears to have imitated the cuts of Hugo — 
da Carpi. Antonio Fantuzzi lived with Parmigiano, but apparently 
unwillingly, for about 1530 he decamped from his master, taking with 
him many of his drawings, plates, and wood-cuts, and went, it is 
supposed, to France, where he appeared again under the name of 
Antonio da Trento. He attached himself in France to Primaticcio, 
who employed lim to engrave or etch some of his works in copper: 
he executed also etchings after some other masters while in France. 
Batsch describes thirty-seven etchings by him, but he is more cele- 
brated for his wood-cuts which he engraved in chiaroscuro. The time 
of his death is not known, but it happened probably about 1550: the 
dates on his prints reach to 1545. Some of the wood-cuts of Antonio 
are printed with three, others with two blocks; they are chiefly after 
Parmigiano, as The Twelve Apostles ; St. John in the Wilderness; th 
Mattyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul; St. Cecilia; the Tiburtine Siby 
and others. Among his etchings is one of Regulus in the Cask, after 
Giulio Romano. P if 

(Vasari, Vite de’ Pittori, &c.; Bartsch, Peintre-Graveur; Nagler, 
Allgemeines Kiinstler Lexicon.) im 

*TRENTOWSKI, BRONISLAW FERDYNAND, a Polish philoso- 
phical writer of high reputation, was born, in 1808, near Warsaw, 
received his education at the Piarist College of Lukow and at he 
University of Warsaw, and was appointed in 1829 teacher of the 
Latin language, of history, and of Polish literature, at the college, or 
grammar-school, of Szczuczyn. Having taken part in the insurrection 
of 1830, he was in consequence obliged to leave Poland, and fixed 
himself after one or two changes of residence at Freiburg in the 
Breisgau, where he, in 1836, published an academical disserta 
‘De vita hominis eterna’ (On human immortality), and after 
wrote two works in German, ‘Grundlage der universellen Philosop. 
Carlsruhe, 1837 (Basis of universal Philosophy), and ‘ Vorstudien 
Wissenschaft der Natur,’ 2 vols, Leipzig, 1840 (Preliminary Studies 
the Science of Nature). In the preface to the ‘ Grundlage’ he 
tions that “five years before he understood hardly any German, 
he could not even dream that ever in his life he should be compelled 
to speak and to write in German.” “But thou, my beloved, 
unspeakably beloved country,” he continues, ‘‘thou the Para 
from which I am banished, be not indignant with thy son that he 
writes not in thy language. Unhappy, oppressed, and weeping 
orphan, I could be of more use to thee than to this foreign land, so 
rich in genius—but who is master of his destiny?” Some Poles who 

+ 


a 


B 
¥ 


ee 


161 TRESCHOW, NIELS. 


TREVOR, SIR JOHN. 


162 


were aroused by this appeal, provided Trentowski with means to 
follow out his wishes, and he wrote a series of works in Polish, which 
__ were published in Posen, and produced a considerable sensation. The 
first, ‘Chowanna czyli System Pedagogiki,’ 2 vols., 1842 (Education on 
a System of Pedagogics), reached a second edition in 1846, but was to 
have been completed by a third volume which does not seem to have 
yet appeared. ‘Myslini czyli Logika,’ 2 vols, 1844 (Logic), and 
___*Stosunek filozofii do Cybernitiki,’ 1843 (The Relation of Philosophy 
___ to the Science of Government), are two of the most important of the 
remainder. ‘ Demonomania,’ Posen, 1844, is a collection of narratives 
of supernatural appearances, with an attempt at explanation connected 
with a theory of the supernatural. Many essays by Trentowski 
g red in the Polish periodicals ‘Rok’ and ‘Oredownik naukowy,’ 
_ published at Posen. In 1848 Trentowski took advantage of the state 
- of affairs in general to return to Cracow, where he gave public lectures, 
but he afterwards returned to Freiburg, where he lives in retirement 
married to a German lady. As a philosopher, he seeks, while still a 
disciple of Kant, to unite empiricism with speculation, and to introduce 
a sort of Polish practicality into a philosophy fundamentally German ; 
and as an author, either in German or Polish, he is brilliant and 
attractive in style, and shows a desire to accompany every step of 
_ speculation with illustrations of an intelligible character. 
_  TRESCHOW, NIELS, a Danish philosophical and _ theological 
writer, was the son of a shopkeeper or tradesman at Drammen in 
_ Norway, where he was born September 5th, 1751. From his parents, 
who were serious and religious persons, he received a careful education, 
which, seconded by his natural abilities and love of reading, sufficiently 
prepared him for the university in his fifteenth year, when he was sent 
to Copenhagen to study theology. Though he did not neglect divinity, 
{ he showed a preference for philosophy, history, mathematics, and the 
physical sciences, in which studies he found companions ia Edward 
; Storm (Storm] and Nordal Brun, who were also natives of Norway. 
¢ 
7 
1 


After spending five years at Copenhagen, he became corrector or sub- 
master of the classical school at Drontheim ; and it was there that he 
first took up his pen as an author. In 1780 he was appointed to suc- 
q ceed the celebrated Jacob Baden as rector of the academy of Helsingér, 
at which time he studied Kant’s writings, and explained his philosophy 
in a series of able papers in the ‘ Minerva.’ Not many years afterwards 
(1789) he obtained the appointment to the head-mastership of the 
_ cathedral school at Christiania, which, besides being valuable for its 
emoluments, brought him into intercourse with many individuals dis- 
tinguished not only by their wealth and station, but by their patriotism 
_ and philanthropy, and their zeal in promoting the spread of intelli- 
_ gence. Encouraged by them, he turned his attention to the improve- 
ment of the system of education in Denmark, but, owing to the oppo- 
sition they met with in other quarters, his plans were only very 
partially carried into effect. In 1796 his dissertation ‘De Anthropo- 
morphismo’ obtained for him the degree of doctor of theology from 
the university of Copenhagen, at which he was afterwards (1803) 
_ appointed professor in ordinary of philosophy, an office filled by him 
_ with honour to himself and satisfaction and advantage to the students. 
_ In 1813 he quitted Copenhagen for Christiania, in order to accept the 
chair of philosophy in the new Frederick’s University, an institution 
which he had been mainly instrumental in founding. On the union 
of Norway with Sweden, he was made by the new king superintendent 
of public instruction and church affairs, which office he held for twelve 
_ years, when he retired to a small estate in the neighbourhood of 
+ Christiania, and resided there till his death, September 22, 1833. 
_ Among his chief works are—‘ Morality in Connection with the State,’ 
&c. ; ‘ Principles of Legislation ;’ ‘Spirit of Christianity ;’ ‘ Transla- 
tion of the Gospel of St. John;’ and the ‘ Philosophical Testament, 
or God, Nature, and Revelation ;’ all of which were the productions 

of his studious retirement after relinquishing public duties in 1826. 
TREVI’GI, or TREVI’SI, GIRO’LAMO DA, was born at Trevigi in 
1508. He was apparently the son of the painter Piermaria Pennacchi, 
who was doubtless his instructor in painting. Girolamo however, not 


_ wholly satisfied with the accuracy of the Venetian painters, became 
_ animitator of the style of Raffaelle, and combined to a considerable 
‘ extent the qualities of both schools. He lived some time in Bologna, 
_ where he painted some excellent works, especially from the story. of 
- Sant’ Antonio of Padua, in oil, in the cathedral. He left Bologna in 
- consequence of the superior fame of Perino del Vaga, then at Bologna. 
_ After painting several works in fresco at Venice, Trent, and some 
Po other places, he came to England and entered the service of Henry VIIL., 
_ who employed him as architect and engineer, with a fixed salary of 
nearly 100/. per annum. He was engaged in the capacity of engineer 
-. in the year 1544 before Boulogne, and was there killed by a cannon- 
shot, in his thirty-sixth year. 
a There are some excellent portraits by Girolamo; they are well 
~ coloured and in an elaborate but broad manner, much in the style of 


the portraits by Raffaelle. There is a fine specimen in the Colonna 

palace at Rome; it is a half-length of a man in the picturesque cos- 
___ tume of the period, holding a ring or signet in his hand. There are, 
‘or were, other pictures by Girolamo in this palace. A picture of the 
__ Madonna with various saints, which, according to Vasari, was Giro- 
_ lamo’s masterpiece, is now in the collection of Lord Northwick, at 
_ hirlstane House, Cheltenham ; it was formerly in the church of San 
Domenico, at Bologna, 
__—«BIOG. DIV, VOL, VI. 


| 


There was an earlier painter called Girolamo da Trevigi, by whom 
there are still works bearing dates from 1470 to 1492: his surname, 
according to Federici, was Aviano, 

TREVISA’NI, A'NGELO, of Venice, was an excellent portrait- 
painter, and painted also some good historical pieces: he excelled in 
chiar’oscuro. There is a fine altar-piece by him in the church Della 
Caritt at Venice. Neither the date of his birth nor death is known; 
accounts differ, but he was living in 1753. There are portraits of both 
the Trevisani in the painters’ portrait gallery at Florence, 

TREVISA/NI, FRANCESCO, CAVALIERE, an eminent Italian 
painter, was born at Capo d’Istria near Trieste, in 1656. He is called 
by the Venetians, Roman Trevisani, to distinguish him from Angelo 
Trevisani of Venice. Francesco acquired the first principles of design 
from his father Antonio Trevisani, an architect, and learnt painting of 
a Fleming, whose name is not mentioned, who was remarkable for his 
pictures of spectres, incantations, and such subjects; and young Tre- 
visani executed a very good picture in the same style in his eleventh 
year. He afterwards became the scholar of Antonio Zanchi at Venice, 
and painted in his style for some time: he then studied the works of 
the great Venetian masters, and distinguished himself by several fine 
pictures in the Venetian manner, which he painted at Venice whilst 
still young. Being a man of striking personal appearance, and very 
accomplished in several polite arts, he went much into society, and he 
won the affections of a noble young Venetian lady, with whom he 
eloped and married, and he went with her to Rome, to avoid the con- 
sequences of the resentment of her family. At Rome, Trevisani was 
fortunate enough to find a valuable patron in the Cardinal Flavio 
Chigi, nephew of Pope Alexander VIL, for whom he executed several ° 
works, and who procured him the title of Cavaliere from the pope. 
He was much employed also by the Duke of Modena, then Spanish 
ambassador at the court of Rome, for whom he made several copies 
after celebrated pictures by Correggio, Parmegiano, and Paul Veronese. 
After the death of Cardinal Chigi he was much patronised by Cardinal 
Ottobuoni, for whom he painted an excellent picture of the Slaughter 
of the Innocents. Trevizsanis works are numerous in Rome; he 
painted also for many other cities, and for foreign countries; he exe- 
cuted some pictures for Peter the Great of Russia. He died in 1746, 
aged ninety. y 

After his arrival in Rome he forsook the Venetian manner of 
painting, and adopted that which prevailed in Rome at that period, 
which consisted chiefly in the imitation of Guido, Domenichino, and 
others of the Carracci school. But Trevisani painted in many styles, 
and in almost every line—history in large and small figures, portraits, 
animals, sea pieces, landscapes, architecture, and flowers; he could 
imitate well a picture by any master. His best pictures are a good 
deal in the style of Guido; his composition is grand, and his chiar’- 
oscuro forcible, his execution free and bold, and his drawing generally 
correct and graceful; but his chief excellence consisted in a purity 
and brillianey of colouring. His best pictures are, a Crucifixion, in 
the church of San Silvestro in Capite; a San Francesco, in the church 
of San Francesco delle Sagre Stimate; Saint Joseph dying, in the 
church of the Collegio Reale; and a Prophet, in the church of San 
Giovanni Laterano ; and the cupola of the cathedral of Urbino, 
painted for Clement XI. The Albicini family at Forli possessed in 
the time of Lanzi various specimens of his different styles, amongst 
them a Crucifixion, in which the figures were very small but elaborately 
painted, which Trevisani is said to have considered his best picture, 
and to have offered a large sum fer its re-purchase. 

TREVOR, SIR JOHN, Knight, a secretary of state in the reign of 
Charles II., was born in 1626, and was the eldest son of Sir John 
Trevor, Knight, of Trevallin in Denbighshire, and descended from an 
ancient Welsh family. Anthony Wood, in recording his appointment 
as secretary of state, says of him and his father that they were both 
“halters in the rebellion, and adherers to the usurper.” (‘Athens 
Oxonienses,’ vol. iii., col. 1089.) The father had been a member of 
the Long Parliament, but supported the measures which led to the 
Restoration. After this event the son became a gentleman ‘of the 
bedchamber in Charles II.’s court, and in February 1668 was sent as 
special envoy to France, to carry out the object of the treaty called 
the Triple Alliance, namely, a peace between France and Spain. 
(Dalrymple’s ‘Memoirs,’ Appendix, p. 6.) He negociated the provi- 
sional treaty, which was signed at St. Germain-en-Laye, on the 15th of 
April 1668, and which received its full confirmation and development 
in the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, on the 2nd of May 1668. After his 
return to England he was knighted, and in September appointed 
secretary of state in the room of Sir W. Morrice. He obtained this 
appointment through the influence of the Duke of Buckingham, who 
had then attained to the chief favour with the king. (Pepys’s ‘ Diary,’ 
vol, iv., p. 166.) : 

Two different stories have been transmitted as to the mode in which 
Trevor's appointment was brought about; but both equally illustrate 
the custom of the time. Sir William Temple writes to Lord Arling- 
ton, “ They will have it that the king lays down eight thousand pounds 
to bring this about, which is a good bargain both for him that comes 
in and him that goes off.” (‘Temple's Letters to the Earl of Arling- 
ton and Sir John Trevor, &c.,’ published by D. Jones, Gent., 1669, 
p- 10.) Pepys however had an informant, “ who for news tells me for 


certain that Trevor do come to be secretary at Michaelmas and that 
M 


163 TREVOR, SIR JOHN, 


TREW, CHRISTOPHER JAMES. 164 


Morrice goes out, and he believes without any compensation.” (Pepys’s 
£ Diary.’) 

Sir John Trevor continued secretary of state until his death in 1672. 
Tt was his merit, during the time that he held office, to oppose the 
French policy which Charles was then pursuing at the instigation of 
the Duke of York, and with the zealous co-operation of Lord Arling- 
ton, the other secretary of state; and to endeavour to moderate the 
persecution of Protestant nonconformists, which was carried on during 
that period, under the same advisers, by means of the Conventicle 
Acts. Having been originally one of the cabinet, he was put out of it 
in consequence of his opposition to the Duke of York’s policy in 1670. 
“Tt was remarked,” says Hume, “that the committee of council 
established for foreign affairs was entirely changed; and that Prince 
Rupert, the Duke of Ormond, secretary Trevor, and lord keeper 
Bridgeman, men in whose honour the nation had great confidence, 
were never called to any deliberations.” (‘History of England,’ 
vol. vii, p. 458, ed. 1791.) Sir William Temple, who returned to 
England from the Hague in 1670, and grieved to see the rapid progress 
of a policy directly contrary to that of the Triple Alliance which he 
had achieved, found Trevor of the same opinion with himself, but 
unable to do anything, as he was, in Sir W. Temple's phrase, “ merely 
in the skirts of business.” (‘Temple’s Works,’ vol. ii. p. 170.) 

Sir John Trevor died, after a short illness, on the 28th of May 1672. 
He died a year before his father, who, when he died, was succeeded in 
his estates by Sir John Trevor's eldest son. Sir John Trevor had 
married Ruth, one of the daughters of the celebrated John Hampden, 
by whom he left a numerous family. THomas Trevor, his second 
son, was bred to the law, and having pursued it with great suc- 
cess, attained to political as well as legal eminence. He was in 
William III.’s reign successively solicitor and attorney-general, and in 
1701 was appointed chief-justice of the Common Pleas. He was 
created a peer by Queen Anne in 1711, by the title of Lord Trevor of 
Bromham, in Bedfordshire. In 1726 he was made lord privy seal by 
George I., and in 1730, but a month before his death, received from 
George II. the post of president of the council. He died on the 19th 
of June 1730. His character is briefly sketched by Speaker Onslow in 
a note on Burnet (vol. iv., p. 334, ed. 1823), where he is described as 
having the general esteem of all political parties, though, beginning as 
a Whig, he after a time left the party, and then again rejoined it, and 
as an able and upright, but reserved, grave, and austere judge. 

The third son of this Lord Trevor ultimately inherited his title, 
being the fourth Lord Trevor. He was a distinguished diplomatist, 
and having published a volume of poems, is enrolled in Horace Wal- 
pole’s list of ‘Royal and Noble Authors, Having had the Hampden 
estates left to him by his cousin, John Hampden, Esq., who was, like 
himself, great grandson to the patriot Hampden, and who died 
unmarried, he took the name and arms of Hampden, and was in 1766 
created Vinge Hampden, (Collins's ‘ Peerage,’ by Brydges, vol vi., 
pp. 291-304. 

TREVOR, SIR JOHN, Kyron, a lawyer of eminence, and speaker 
of the House of Commons in the reigns of James II., and William 
and Mary, was a member of the same Welsh family as the subject of 
the previous article, and the second son, but ultimately heir, of John 
Trevor, Esq., of Brynkinalt, in Denbighshire. By his mother, he was 
first cousin to the notorious Judge Jefferies. He was born in 1633, 

The history of this Sir John Trevor has been sketched by the 
strong pen of Roger North, in a well-known passage in his ‘Life of 
the Lord Keeper Guildford’ (vol. ii, p. 27): “He was a countryman 
of the lord chief justice Jefferies, and his favourite..... He was 
bred a sort of clerk in old Arthur Trevor’s chamber, an eminent and 
worthy professor of the law in the Inner Temple. A gentleman that 
visited Mr. Arthur Trevor, at his going out, observed a strange-looking 
boy in his clerk’s seat (for no person ever had a worse sort of squint 
than he had), and asked who that youth was? ‘A kinsman of mine,’ 
said Arthur Trevor, ‘that I have allowed to sit here, to learn the 
knavish part of the law. This John Trevor grew up, and took in 
with the gamesters, among whom he was a great proficient ; and being 
well grounded in the law, proved a critic in resolving gambling cases, 
and doubts, and had the authority of a judge among them; and his 
sentence for the most part carried the cause. From this exercise he 
was recommended by Jefferies to be of the king’s council, and then 
master of the rolls and, like a true gamester, he fell to the good work 
of supplanting his patron and friend; and had certainly done it if 
King James's affairs had stood right up much longer; for he was 
advanced so far with him as to vilify and scold with him publicly in 
Whitehall.” Having been solicitor-general in the reign of Charles II., 
Sir John Trevor was appointed master of the rolls by James II, in 
1685, and on the meeting of parliament in May of that year he was 
elected speaker of the House of Commons. In the beginning of 1688 
he was made a privy councillor. After the Revolution Trevor obtained 
the confidence of William III., and was much consulted by him. 
There is a paper of his addressed to William, published by Sir John 
Dalrymple (‘ Appendix,’ part ii, p. 80), in which he counselled the 
dissolution of the Convention parliament, This parliament having 
been dissolved, and a new one assembled on the 20th of March 
1690, Sir John Trevor was a second time elected speaker. He was 
also appointed one of the commissioners of the t seal. “The 
speaker of the House of Commons, Sir John Trevor,” says Burnet, 


“was a bold and dexterous man, and know the most effectual ways — 
of recommending himself to every government: he had been in great 
favour in King James's time, and was made master of the rolls by 
him; and if Lord Jefferies had stuck at anything, he was looked on as 
the man likeliest to have the great seal. He now got himself to be ~ 
chosen speaker, and was made first commissioner of the great seal; — 
being a Tory in principle, he undertook to manage that party, pro- 
vided he was furnished with such sums of money as might purchase — 
some votes; and by him began the practice of buying off men, in 
which hitherto the king had kept to stricter rules.” (‘ History of his 
Own Time,’ vol. iv., p. 74, ed. 1823.) 

In the session of 1695 the corrupter of others was discovered to 
have been himself corrupted, and was expelled from the s . 
and from the house. It was proved that he had received a bribe of — 
a thousand guineas from the city of London for his support of a bill” 
in which the city was greatly interested. (Burnet, vol. iv., p. 254.) — 
Being speaker, he had to put the question for his own ion. 
“ He sat above six hours,” says North, “as prolocutor in an assembly 
that passed that time with calling him all to nought to his face; and — 
at length he was forced, or yielded, to put the question upon himself, — 
as in the form, ‘As many as are of opinion that Sir John Trevor is — 
guilty of corrupt bribery by receiving, &c. ;’ and in declaring the — 
sense of the house declared himself guilty. The house rose, and he ~ 
went his way, and came there no more,” (‘Life of the Lord Keeper — 
Guildford,’ vol. ii, p. 28.) 

Sir John Trevor, though thus expelled from the House of Commons, — 
retained the mastership of the rolls, “to the great encou 
as North remarks, “of prudent bribery for ever after.” He had the — 
character of being a man of great talents, though of no principle. ~ 
There are some anecdotes of him in Noble’s ‘ Continuation of G: rs 
Biographical History’ (vol. i., p. 172), which show him to have been — 
extremely mean and avaricious. He died on the 20th of May 1717, in 
London, at his house in Clement’s Lane, and was buried in the Rolls’ 
chapel. . 

His only daughter married Michael Hill, Esq.,a privy councillor — 
and member of parliament, and had two sons, The eldest son was 
created Viscount Hillsborough, and his son Marquis of Downshire. — 
The second son, succeeding to his grandfather Sir John Trevor's 
estates, took the name and arms of Trevor, and was created, in 1766, 
Viscount Dungannon. 

TREW, CHRISTOPHER JAMES, a celebrated anatomist and — 
botanist, was born at Lauffen, a small town in Franconia, near Nirn- — 
berg, on the 26th of April 1695. His father, who was an apothecary, — 
took charge of his education and taught him the principles of botany — 
and pharmacy. Trew went in 1611 to Altdorf in order to attend the — 
lectures of the faculty of medicine, and was admitted to the degree of 
doctor in 1716, after five years’ study. On his return to his own — 
country he immediately began to practise, and obtained sufficient — 
support to encourage him to continue. He however soon formed the — 
resolution of travelling ; and accordingly he went through Germany, — 
Switzerland, France, and Holland, and stayed for a year at é 
In 1720 he returned to Lauffen, and became a member of the College — 
of Physicians at Niirnberg. The extensive practice that he soon suc- 
ceeded in obtaining made him so well known to the world, that the — 
Margrave of Anspach granted him the title of physician-in-ordinary 
and counsellor to the court (Hofrath). He was admitted in 1742 as _ 
a member of the * Académie des Curieux de la Nature,’ and was raised 
in 1746 to the dignity of president, which at this time included the 
titles of count palatine, aulic counsellor, aad physician to the emperor, — 
He died on the 18th of June 1769, at the age of seventy-four, without — 
ever having been persuaded to leave Niirnberg, notwithstanding the 
attractive offers that were made to draw him to Altdorf and claowintll re. 
Assisted by the excellent painter Ehret, he published the oa 
of a magnificent work on botany, which was continued after his death — 
by Vogel. With regard to anatomy he conjectured that the mesaraic — 
veins possessed the faculty of absorption; he proved that the pre- 
tended salivary ducts of Coschwitz are simple veins; and he cam 
well demonstrated the differences which are observed in the human 
body both before and after birth with regard to the organs of cireula- _ 
tion, Besides one hundred and thirty-three observations which are 
to be met with in the ‘Commercium Litterarium,’ of Niirnberg, and — 
one hundred and thirty-seven which have been inserted in the ‘Acta — 
Curiosum Naturz,’ the following are his principal works in anatomy — 
and botany. In the former science he published ‘ Dissertatio Epis-_ 
tolica, de Differentiis quibusdam inter Hominem natum et naseendum — 
intercedentibus deque Vestigiis Divini Numinis inde colligendis,’ 
4to, Niirnberg, 1736, with a great number of plates representing 
peculiarities of the fotus; ‘Epistola ad Alb, Hallerum de Vasis_ 
Lingue salivalibus atque sanguiferis,’ 4to, Niirnberg, 1734 ; ‘Tabula 
Osteologices Corporis Humani,’ folio, max., fine coloured plates, Niirm- 
berg, 1767. In botany his first publication was the description of a 
flowering American aloe, 4to, Niirnberg, 1727. In 1750 he began to— 
publish one of the most splendid botanical works that has ever 
appeared, under the title of ‘Plants selectee quarum Imagines ad 
Exemplaria Naturalia manu pinxit G. Dionysius Ehret, Nomimibus 
Propriis et Notis illustravit, C. J. Trew,’ folio, Niirnberg. To the 
incomparable designs of Ehret, Trew added descriptions and remarks 
and the work appeared in decades, of which seven were completed, 


‘ 


« 


<j 


| 


165 TRIBOLO, NICOLO DI. 


TRIEWALD, MARTIN, 166 


In the same year he commenced a similar publication of garden- 
flowers, entitled ‘ Amoonissimze Florum Imagines,’ which was carried 
on to six decades. In 1757 he published ‘Cedrorum Libani Historia 
et Character Botanicus, cum illo Laricis, Abietis, Pinique comparatus,’ 
Ato, Niirnberg, with plates by Ehret; the second part appeared ten 
ears afterwards. He also published a much improved edition of 
ll’s ‘Herbal,’ in English and German, with an appendix of 
‘new plants. Having made the acquisition of the wooden plates left 
by Gesner, he gave an impression of two hundred and sixteen figures 
of plants from them, under the title of ‘Icones posthume Gesne- 
rianz,’ 1748. 
TRI’BOLO, NICOLO DI, an able sculptor, born at Florence in 
_ 1500, was originally brought up to the trade of a carpenter, but 
g acquainted with Sansovino [Sansovino], he studied under 
him. The first work on which he was employed after quitting that mas- 
ter was two statues of sibyls for the front of San Petronio at Bologna, 
which figures (represented in Cicognara’s work) at once stamped 
his reputation. For the doors of the same church he also executed 
_, 80me bas-reliefs of great merit. The ‘pestilence at Bologna in 1525 
caused him to leave that city, but he soon returned to it, and remained 
till the death of his patron, Bartolommeo Barbazzi, induced him to 
remove from it, and to go to Pisa, where he was employed by the 
sculptor Pietrosanta. While at Pisa he was commissioned by Gio. 
Batt. della Palla, who was collecting works of art for Francis I., to 
execute a statue of Nature, which on being sent to Fontainebleau, was 
admired as a choice production of art. He employed his talents less 
honourably when, on Florence being besieged by Clement VIL, in 
1529, he treacherously furnished that pope with plans and models of 
the city and its outworks. His services on that occasion obtained him 
Clement’s patronage, who among other things employed him to assist 
Michel Angelo in the sculptures intended for the chapel of San 
Lorenzo ; and he had begun two figures intended for the tomb of 
Giuliano de’ Medici, one representing Earth, the other Heaven, when 
he was disabled from proceeding with them by an attack of ague; and 
hardly was he recovered when the pope’s death put a stop to the work. 
He was afterwards employed by the grand-duke Cosmo I. in laying 
out the gardens and designing the fountains and statues of the Villa 
di Castello, near Florence, of which extensive scheme of embellish- 
ment a very mihute account is given by his friend and biographer 
Vasari. But although commenced, it was prosecuted but slowly; 
which Vasari imputes in some measure to Tribolo’s own remissness ; 
nor was it ever completed. On purchasing the Palazzo Pitti, Cosmo 
: engaged Tribolo to improve the gardens and decorate them with 
statues, &c.; but hardly had he commenced his labours when he was 
seized with an illness that carried him off on the 7th of September 
1550. (Vasari, Vite ; Cicognara, Storia de Scoltura.) 
if TRIBONIANUS, a Roman jurist, mainly instrumental in the com- 
a pilation of the code of Justinian, was a native of Pamphylia, and his 
. father was from Macedonia. His learning was most extensive: he 
wrote upon a great variety of subjects, was well versed both in Latin 
and Greek literature, and had deeply studied the Roman civilians, of 
_ which he had a valuable collection in his library: “his genius,’ says 
; Gibbon, “like that of Bacon, embraced, as his own, all the business 
arid the knowledge of the age.” He practised first at the bar of the 
» 


prectorian prefects at Constantinople, became afterwards questor, 
master of the imperial household, and consul, and possessed for above 
twenty years the favour and confidence of Justinian. Owing to a 
popular tumult, he was disgraced in a.p. 531, but he was shortly 
restored, and continued in office till his death. Tribonianus was 
appointed by Justinian; with nine other commissioners, to form the 
first code named after that emperor; and in 531 he was commissioned 
with sixteen others to compile the Digest of the decisions of the 
Roman civilians. The Digest, which by an imperial edict was to 
_ stpersede all previous text-books, and to have the force of law 
throughout the empire, was promulgated in December 533. [Jusri- 
NIANUS, Fravivus.} The revised edition of the Code, published in 
December 534, was prepared by Tribonianus. Tribonianus died in 545, 
His manners are said to have been remarkably mild and conciliating ; 
he was a courtier, and fond of money, but in other respects he appears 
ito have been calumniated by his enemies. He was a superior man, 
and most valuable to Justinian. 

TRIBU’NUS (Tp:Bodvos), a celebrated physician, who was born in 
Palestine, and lived in the 6th century after Christ. He is said by 
Procopius (‘De Bello Goth.,’ lib. iv. cap. 10) and Suidas (in voce 
‘TpiBotvos) to have been one of the most skilful of his profession, and 
is also described as being wise, temperate, and pious. Chosroes, king 
of Persia, held him in such estimation, that when he was treating 
about a peace with the emperor Justinian, in 546, he would not so 
much as make a truce with him, except on the condition that Tribu- 
nus, whose skill in physic he wanted and was acquainted with, should 
be sent to him for one year; and the historian remarks that as soon 
as this was done a truce was concluded for five years. (‘De Bello Pers,’ 
lib. ii, cap. 28.) Tribunus had formerly cured Chosroes of an illness, 
for which he was rewarded with great presents, and returned to his 
own country. After the truce just mentioned he stayed a whole year 

A with Chosroes, who offered to give him whatever he demanded; instead 
=4 however of asking for money, he désired that some of the Romans 
i who were captives in Persia might be set at liberty. The king at his 


Me et IT eM 


ee: 


ate 


ae 
¥ 


request not only released those whom he had particularly named, but 

three thousand others besides, which made the name of Tribunus 

ee the whole extent of the empire, (Freind, Hist. of 
ysic. 

*TRICOUPI, or TRIKUPIS, SPIRIDION, the leading Greek 
historian of the Greek War of Independence. When the unexpected 
death of Lord Byron at Missolonghi in April 1814 produced a sensa- 
tion throughout Europe, the name of Tricoupi became at once known 
as that of the author of a funeral oration on the poet, which was 
composed and delivered at Missolonghi within two days after his 
decease, and which was printed by order of the Greek government. 
It was reported at the time that Tricoupi was connected with England 
by having received his education at Eton. He has since been three 
times ambassador extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary from 
Greece to this country, at first in 1888 and 1839, the second time from 
1842 to 1844, and the third from 1852 to the present time (August 
1857). His great work the ‘‘Ioropu rns ‘EAAnvucns *’Exavacracews,’ 
or ‘History of the Greek Insurrection, is still in the course of publi- 
cation from a London press, the first volume having appeared in 1853, 
and the third in 1856, bringing the history up to 1826, when the war 
was approaching the decisive blow struck at the battle of Navarino. In 
the ‘Prolegomena’ the author informs us that he was encouraged to 
publish the work by a liberal subscription of the Greeks in England. 
He justifies the value to be attached to contemporary history, and the 
confidence that may sometimes be placed in the impartiality even of 
one who has been an actor in its scenes, by a reference to the illus- 
trious example of Thucydides. The language in which the work is . 
composed may be described as composed entirely of ancient Greek 
words, but the author has not carried his imitation of ancient Greek 
so far as to introduce ancient inflections and forms of syntax remote 
from those of the modern language. The tone of the narrative is 
dignified and impartial with perhaps a deficiency in warmth. On the 
whole the history must be regarded as a work of great value, which, 
if it does not become the standard authority on the subject, will at 
all events be one of the main sources of the future historian. It is to 
be regretted however that M. Tricoupi’s references to the sources of 
his own statements are extremely scanty. 

TRIEWALD, MARTIN, an eminent Swedish engineer and mathe- 
matician, was born at Stockholm in 1691, and educated in the German 
school of that city. Being intended for a commercial life, he visited 
England on the completion of his studies, to improve himself in such 
branches of knowledge as might prove useful in his future career ; but 
having met with some disappointments, and seeing little prospect of 
success, he determined to embark for some distant part of the world. 
He was deterred from so doing by forming an intimacy with Baron 
Fabricius, the Holstein minister, who took him into his service as a 
secretary, an engagement which led to his becoming better known, 
and gave him an opportunity of acquiring the friendship of several 
eminent persons, among whom was Sir Isaac Newton. ‘Triewald was 
subsequently engaged by the proprietor of some coal-pits near New- 
castle to superintend the management of the colliery-works, a situation 
for which he was qualified by his studies while in London, where he 
had attended the-lectures of Dr. Desaguliers on natural philosophy. 
In this situation Triewald devoted his attention principally to mecha- 
nics, and studied diligently those branches of the mathematics which 
are most useful to an engineer. He had never before seen a steam- 
engine; but he very soon made himself acquainted with the con- 
struction of that machine, and introduced some improvements in it. 

In 1726, after an absence of ten years, he returned to his native 
country, where he constructed a steam-engine, and read lectures on 
natural philosophy, which he illustrated by experiments, These 
lectures were well received, and recommended Triewald to the notice 
of the king and of the states, who conferred upon him an annual 
pension, with the title of director of machinery. He next turned his 
attention to the improvement of the iron and steel-works of Sweden, 
and endeavoured to introduce superior processes in the manufacture of 
iron. His zeal and diligence in this and other similar pursuits pro- 
cured him a commission as captain of engineers and inspector of 
fortifications ; and while acting in that capacity he invented various 
machines, which are still, or were not many years since, preserved in 
the Academy of Sciences at Stockholm. Several similar memorials of 
his talent were also deposited with the Academy of Lund. Among 
the machines to which he directed his attention with a view to the 
introduction of improvements was the diving-bell, on the use of which 
he wrote a treatise, which was published at Stockholm in 1741: an 
account of the diving-bell constructed by him and used for several 
years on the coasts of the Baltic was published in the ‘ Philosophical 
Transactions, vol. xxxix., p. 377. He invented a ventilator for the 
expulsion of foul air from ships, &c., for which he received honorary 
rewards from the King of Sweden and from the King of France; 
oo he attended to agriculture and the naturalisation of foreign 
plants, 

Triewald was ore of the earliest members and promoters of the 
Academy of Stockholm: in 1729 he was elected a member of the 
Scientific Society at Upsal, and he received similar honours from 
several other learned bodies, among which was the Royal Society of 
London. He wrote several papers in the ‘Memoirs of the Academy 
of Stockholm’ for 1739, 1740, and 1747; and also made several com- 


167 TRILLER, DANIEL WILLIAM. 


TRINCAVELLIUS, VICTOR. 163 _ 


munications to the English ‘Philosophical Transactions.’ Triewald 
died suddenly in 1741. 

TRILLER, DANIEL WILLIAM, a learned and laborious German 
physician, was born at Erfurt, the 10th of February 1695. He received 
his classical education at Zeitz and Leipzig, at which university he 
afterwards studied medicine. He took his doctor's degree at Halle in 
1718, after which he returned to Leipzig and there delivered lectures. 
In 1720 the town of Merseburg offered him the situation of public 
physician, which he accepted ; in 1730 he made several journeys into 
Switzerland in the suite of a German prince, Having obtained his 
dismission at the end of four years, he settled at Frankfurt-on-the- 
Main, which place he left in 1746, in order to settle at Dresden, with 
the title of physician to the king of Poland. At last the University 
of Wittenberg bestowed on him a professorship in 1749, which he 
filled with distinction until his death. He died at the age of eighty- 
seven, on the 22nd of May 1782. . 

Triller was a very learned physician, which makes one regret that 
he did not publish the edition of Hippocrates to which he devoted a 
great part of his life, and of which he published a specimen under 
the title ‘De nova Hippocratis Editione Adornand&’ Commentatio, 
. ... Speciminis Loco Libellum Hippocratis “De Anatome,”.... 
Commentario perpetuo Medico-critico illustravit, Lugd. Bat.,’ 4to, 
1728. Abraham Gronovius inserted his notes upon Aélian’s ‘ History 
of Animals,’ in his Greek and Latin edition of this author, published 
at London, 4to, 1744. The judgment passed upon him by M. Goulin, 
quoted in the ‘ Biographie Médicale,’ is rather severe, though substan- 
tially just. During forty years, says he, Triller filled four vols. 8vo 
with Latin poems on Medicine: he published dissertations, opuscula, 
and a mediocre treatise on pleurisy; he disfigured the excellent Phar- 
macopeeia of Wittenberg by overloading it with quotations and notes, 
in which he often quotes his own Latin poems, and shows, amidat 
many childish jeux de mots, that he was neither a druggist nora 
physician. The list of his works (which consist almost entirely of 
monographs and dissertations) occupies two pages in the ‘ Biographie 
Médicale ;’ of these perhaps the following, relating chiefly to medical 
antiquities, are some of the most interesting :—‘ De Moly Homerico 
detecto, cum Reliquis Argumentis ad Fabulam Graecam pertinentibus,’ 
Leipzig, 4to, 1716; ‘Apologia pro Hippocrate, Atheismi falso accu- 
sato,’ Rudolstadt, 4to, 1719; ‘Epistola Medico-Critica ad Jo. Freind 
supra I. et II, Hippocratis Epidemicorum, in qua simul agitur de variis 
ejus Editionibus,’ Rudolstadt, 4to, 1720 , ‘Conjecture et Emendationes 
in Areteeum, first published in the ‘Acta Erudit. Lipsiens.,’ 1728, p. 
101, sq., and afterwards inserted in Boerhaave’s edition of that author, 
Lugd. Bat., folio, 1731, Greek and Latin; ‘Succincta Commentatio de 
Pleuritide ejusque Curatione,’ Frankfurt, 8vo, 1740; ‘De Veterum 
Chirurgorum Arundinibus atque Habenis ad Artus male firmos con- 
firmandos adhibitos,’ Wittenberg, 4to, 1749; ‘De Fame Lethali ex 
Callosa Oris Ventriculi Angustia, Wittenberg, 4to, 1750; ‘De Clyste- 
rum Nutrientium Antiquitate et Usu, Wittenberg, 4to, 1750; ‘De 
Specificorum, sic dictorum, Remediorum Dubia Fide et Ambiguo 
Effectu,’ Wittenberg, 4to, 1751; ‘De Hippocratis Studio Anatomico 
Singulari, Wittenberg, 4to, 1754; ‘De Veritate Paradoxi Hippo- 
cratici, Nullam Medicinam interdum esse Optimam Medicinam,’ 


Wittenberg, 4to, 1754; ‘De Scarificationis Oculorum Historia, Anti-. 


quitate, et Origine,’ Wittenberg, 4to, 1754; ‘De Remediis Veterum 
Cosmeticis, eorumque Noxiis, Wittenberg, 4to, 1757; ‘In Locum 
Plinii de Morbo per Sapientiam Mori,’ Wittenberg, 4to, 1757; ‘ Dis- 
pensatorium Pharmaceuticum Universale,’ Frankfurt, 4to, 1764 ; ‘De 
Morbo Ceeliaco singulari 2 Celso descripto,’ Wittenberg, 4to, 1765; 
*Gepriifte Inokulation, ein Gedicht,’ Frankfurt, 4to, 1766: ‘Opuscula 
Medica ac Medico-Philologica, antea sparsim edita,’ Frankfurt, 3 vols. 
4to, 1766-72; ‘Gedicht von den Verinderungen in der Arzneykunst,’ 
Wittenberg, 4to, 1768; ‘De Senilibus Morbis, diverso Modo a Salo- 
mone et Hippocrate descriptis atque in se comparatis,’ Wittenberg, 
Ato, 1771; ‘De Variis Veterum Medicorum Oculariorum Collyriis,’ 
Wittenberg, 4to, 1772. . 

TRIMMER, SARAH, one of the most popular English writers for 
the instruction of youth, was born at Ipswich, January 6, 1741. Her 
father, Mr. Joshua Kirby, who is known as the author of ‘ Dr. Brooke 
Taylor’s Method of Perspective made Easy,’ and ‘The Perspective of 
Architecture,’ was a man of exemplary piety, and from him she 
imbibed, at a very early age, sentiments of religion and virtue. When 
she was about fourteen years old, her parents removed to London, 
where Mr. Kirby became tutor in perspective to George III, then 
prince of Wales, and subsequently to Queen Charlotte. Owing to this 
change of residence, Miss Kirby was introduced to the society of 
several eminent persons, among whom was Dr. Johnson, who was 
much pleased with her mental attainments, and presented her with a 
copy of his ‘Rambler.’ Being at this time separated from the society 
of her young associates, she devoted much time to reading and drawing, 
and obtained a prize from the Society of Arts. About the year 1759 Mr. 
Kirby removed with his family to Kew, upon occasion of his appoint- 
ment as clerk of the works at the palace at that place; and during his 
residence there, Miss Kirby became acquainted with Mr. Trimmer, to 
whom she was married at the age of twenty-one. From that time until 
the period when she became an author, Mrs. Trimmer was almost 
entirely oceupied with domestic duties and with the education of her 
numerous family. Her literary labours were commenced about 1780, 


.& work ‘designed to show the danger of too generalising a system of — 


and were suggested by some of the popular works for the young then 
recently published by Mrs, Barbauld. A small volume, entitled an 
‘Easy Introduction to the knowledge of Nature,’ was the first of the 
series of popular works published by Mrs. Trimmer. It was followed, 
in 1782 and the two following years, by six volumes, issued at various 
times, of ‘Sacred History, selected from the Scriptures, with Annota- 
tions and Reflections adapted to the Comprehension of Y: 

Persons. Among Mrs. Trimmer’s subsequent publications is a work 
entitled ‘The Economy of Charity,’ addressed to ladies, and intended ~ 
to assist them in the formation and management of Sunday-schools 

and other charitable institutions. The first edition appeared in 1786, 
and it was soon followed by two others. After it had remained out — 
of print for some years, the author revised and enlarged it, adapting 
it to the altered state of the institutions to which it refers, and re- 
published it in 1801. The ‘Family Magazine,’ a book of instruction — 
principally for cottagers and servants, was carried on fora time by — 
Mrs. Trimmer, about the period of the original publication of the 
‘Economy of Charity ;’ and after the magazine was out of print, the 
principal original papers were collected, and published as ‘Instructive 
Tales.’ The ‘ Adele et Theodore’ of Madame de Genlis suggested to — 
Mrs. Trimmer, about 1787, the idea of publishing prints representing _ 
events in history, accompanied by descriptions; and in this way she 
illustrated ancient history, the Old and New Testaments, and the © 
histories of Rome and England. The great imperfections of the old 
system of instruction in charity-schools led her to write superior — 
books for their use, to which she obtained the sanction of the Society 
for Promoting Christian Knowledge. The desire to open the eyes of 
the public to the mischievous character of various publications for 
the use of children led to the commencement of a periodical work, 
called the ‘Guardian of Education,’ containing essays on Christian 
education, and reviews of books for the young; but, after it had 
extended to five octavo volumes, the over-exertion of Mrs. Trimmer 
in this matter brought on an illness which compelled her to desist — 
from her labour. After her death, an ‘Essay upon Christian Educa- 
tion’ was published separately, extracted from this work. In 1806 
appeared ‘A Comparative View of the New Plan of Education, &c., — 


education for the poor, which led to much useful discussion. The last 
of Mrs. Trimmer’s publications was a volume of sermons, selected — 
from the most eminent divines, and adapted for domestic use, under — 
the title of ‘Family Sermons.’ On the 15th of December 1810, with- 
out any previous illness that could alarm her family, she bowed her 
head and died in the chair which she usually occupied in her study. 
In 1814 appeared, in two octavo volumes, an ‘Account of the Life 
and Writings of Mrs. Trimmer,’ from which work the materials of this 
notice are derived. 

TRINCAVE’LLIUS, VICTOR (TrincavetLa or TRINCAVELA), was — 
born of a noble family at Venice in 1496. After acareful general — 
education, he went to study at Padua, and thence proceeded to — 
Bologna, where he remained for seven years, and gained sucha know- 
ledge of Greek, that, even in his pupilage, his teachers used to consult 
him on questions of difficulty in interpretation. From Bologna he © 
returned to Padua, where he received the diploma of doctor of medi- — 
cine; and thence to Venice, where he was appointed to a professor- — 
ship of philosophy, and obtained the highest reputation, ,not only in — 
that capacity, but also in the practice of medicine. His fame was © 
greatly increased after his return from the island of Murano, whither — 
he had been sent by the Venetian government to take charge of the — 
sick during an epidemic, and where he showed such skill and co 4 
that when he came back to Venice he was received witha kind of _ 
triumph. In 1551, upon the death of Montanus, he was appointed 
professor of medicine at Padua, with an unusually large stipend,in __ 
consideration of the greater income from practice which he had 
resigned, He remained at Padua till 1568, when he was sent by the 
senate to attend a Venetian nobleman who was ill at Udina. His 
advice was followed by the recovery of his patient, but the fatigue he — 
suffered and the infirmities of age brought on an illness of which he 
died at Venice in the same year. 

The knowledge of Greek which Trincavellius acquired in Bologes ’ 
and by subsequent study, enabled him to contribute greatly by his — 
commentaries and lectures to the introduction of the works of the — 
writers in that language into the medical schools of Italy, in which — 
before his time, medicine had been taught almost exclusively from — 
the writings of the Arabian physicians.’ In his practice however he is — 
said to have followed the doctrines of the Arabian school. Allhis — 
medical works were published, with the title ‘Opera Omnia,’ in two 
volumes folio, at Lyon in 1586, and at Venice in 1599. The chief 
interest of his writings lies in the completeness of the view which they — 
afford of the medical practice of the time and of the principles on — 
which it was founded; for they contain many observations and letters — 
by others as well as by himself, and many cases and discussions upon — 
modes of treatment. The chief of them are: ‘Due Questiones — 
Medica, altera num in lienis adfectibus secanda sit vena, que est ad 
annularem digitum ~sinistree manus; altera, utrum in morborum — 
initiis, solum cum materies turget, purgantibus medicamentis uti — 
liceat,’ first published at Padua in 1567; and ‘Consilia medica post — 
editiones Venetam et Lugdunensem accessione exxviii. consiliorum — 
locupletata, etc.,’ Basel, 1587. In these editions of the ‘Opera Omnia” — 


t 


q 
L 
; 
4 
r 


OR Ee Pe NG 8 


nd 
ae 


169 


sli 


_ islands which bear his name. 


TRIPPEL, ALEXANDER. 


TRITHEN, FREDERICK HENRY. 170 


are also inserted Trincavellius’ commentaries on the ancient medical 
writers, viz.: ‘Explanationes in Galeni libros de Differentiis Febrium ;’ 
‘In priorem librum Galeni de Arte Curandi;’ ‘ Familiares Exercita- 
tiones in primam partem secundi libri Prognosticorum Hippocratis et 
Galeni;’ ‘Commentarii in Galeni libros de Compositione Medicamen- 
torum;’ ‘Explanationes in primam Fen quarti Canonis Avicenne,’ 
He also in 1534 edited the works of Themistius, translated into Latin 


‘by Hermolaus Barbarus, and wrote many notes to them, and trans- 


lated or edited the commentaries of John the Grammarian on Aris- 
totle, in 4 volumes, folio, in 1585; the ‘ History of the Expedition of 
Alexander, by Arrian,’ in 1535; the ‘Manual of Epictetus,’ with the 
‘Commentary of Arrian,’ and the ‘Sentences of Stobzus,’ in the same 
year, and the ‘ Poems of Hesiod’ in 1537. 


_ (Life, prefixed to the ‘Opera omnia,’ by Laurentius Marucinus ; 


tsi Universelle ; Haller, Bibliotheca Medicine Practice, t. ii., 
46. : 
TRIPPEL, ALEXANDER, a sculptor of considerable note, was 


- born at Schaffhausen in Switzerland, in 1747, and, at nine years of 


age, was sent to a relation in London, where he was put to the trade 
of a musical-instrument maker; but having a decided inclination for 
the fine arts, he afterwards accompanied one of his brothers to Copen- 
hagen, and there studied sculpture under Professor Wiedewelt, director 
of the Academy of Arts in that city. Having so employed eight years 
in Denmark, he went to Berlin; but being there disappointed in his 


expectations, returned to Copenhagen, and gained several prize medals. 


He then visited Paris, where he remained about three years, and dis- 
tinguished himself by a very fine allegorical group representing 
Switzerland. In 1777 he went to Rome, where he continued to reside 
till his death, in 1793, practising his art with great success, and with 
the reputation of being one of the ablest sculptors of his time, both 
on account of the noble simplicity displayed in his productions, and 
the beauty of their execution. He was more particularly successful 
in bas-reliefs and busts, among which last he executed one of Géthe 
for the prince of Waldeck, which is spoken of by the poet himself as 
being in an excellent style. Another of his works is Salomon Gesner’s 
monument at Ziirich.. A considerable number of his productions are 
in Russia. Trippel’s portrait is prefixed to the 54th volume of the 
‘ Neue Bibliothek der Schénen Wissenschaften.’ 

TRISS’YNO, GIOVANNI GIORGIO, was born at Vicenza, of a 
noble family, in 1478. He applied himself to classical literature, 
studied the Greek language under Chaicondylas, and became also an 
elegant Latin and Italian writer. At a mature age he proceeded to 
Rome, where Leo X. took him into his favour, and employed him 
in several diplomatic missions. He was afterwards employed by 
Clement VII., who sent him on a mission to Charles V., with whom 
also Trissino ingratiated himself. Trissino died at Rome in 1550. 
He wrote :—1, ‘Sofonisba,’ the first Italian regular tragedy, which 
however has little merit, and is now forgotten. It was much praised 
at the time as a novelty, and was performed at Rome with great 
splendour. 2, ‘L’Italia liberata dai Goti,’ an epic poem in blank 


verse relative to the re-conquest of Italy by Belisarius in the reign 


of Justinian. The poem is weak and dull, and was considered such 
from its first appearance. 3, ‘La Poetica,’ a treatise on the poetical 
art. This is considered as Trissino’s best and most elaborate work. 
4, ‘Ritratti delle bellissime Donne d'Italia.’ 5, a comedy, entitled 
‘TI Simillimi,’ in imitation of the ‘Menzchmi’ of Plautus; besides 
some minor compositions in Italian and Latin. He attempted to 
introduce new letters into the Italian alphabet, especially to distinguish 
the two sounds of the o and the ¢, and he wrote a letter on the subject 
to Pope Clement VII., which was published in 1524; but this inno- 
vation met with a great and successful opposition. Firenzuola wrote 
an invective against Trissino’s new alphabetical signs. Zeno however 
attributes to Trissino’s suggestion the custom which has since pre- 
vailed among the Italians of writing the v and the j different from 
the w and the 7, and of introducing the z in such words as ‘ Venezia,’ 
nye ‘locuzione,’ &c., which used to be formerly with a ¢, ‘ Vene- 
tia,’ &e. 

Trissino was a friend and adviser of his countryman Palladio the 
architect, to whom he imparted his own classical erudition concerning 
the works of art of the ancients. (Corniani, J Secoli della Letteratura 
Italiana.) 

TRISTAN DA CUNHA, a Portuguese naval commander. In 1505 
Emmanuel, king of Portugal, nominated Da Cunha viceroy of the 
Indies, a post which he was prevented by sickness from accepting. 
After his recovery he was appointed to the command of a fleet of 
fifteen vessels, of which Alfonso d’Albuquerque’s squadron of five, 
intended to cruise in the Red Sea, formeda part. Da Cunha sailed, in 
1506, with his armament from Lisbon, to which he returned in 1508 (°). 
On leaving Portugal he steered his course southwards till he reached 
a latitude so high that some of his men perished from the excessive 
cold. While steering this course he discovered, in lat. 87° 16’ S., the 
His fleet was dispersed by a violent 
tempest, and the scattered vessels reassembled at Mozambique. Before 
reaching this settlement Da Cunha had touched at Madagascar, and, 
attracted by reports which had been spread of great quantities of 
spices produced in that island, had examined considerable part of its 
coasts. Not finding the country answer his expectations, he rejoined 


f his fleet at Mozambique and wintered there, In the spring he under- 


took an expedition against the chief who held Melinda, and chastised 
the people of Brava for withholding the tribute they had promised to 
pay to Portugal. The fleet proceeded from the scene of these actions 
to the island of Socotra, of which he took possession in the name of 
Portugal. Here Da Cunha and Albuquerque separated: the latter 
proceeding to the Red Sea, the former to Cochin, where he concerted 
with Almeida an expedition against Calicut. The enterprise was 
successful, and Da Cunha returned to Portugal with five ships richly 
laden. Soon after his arrival he was made a member of the council of 
state. He does not however appear to have taken any prominent 
part in public affairs except when he was sent ambassador to Leo X. 
in 1515, 

In 1536 his son Nuno died at sea on his return from India, where 
he had been superseded in the chief command by Noronha. The new 
viceroy had refused his predecessor even a passage on board of a 
king’s vessel. Nuno sailed in a merchantman, but chagrin preyed on 
his spirits to such an extent that he died before reaching the Cape of 
Good Hope, and his body was, at his own request, committed to the 
sea. Tristan da Cunha expressed his keen sense of the indignities 
offered to his son by demanding an audience of the king; and on its 
being granted, appearing, followed by his grandchildren to offer pay- 
ment for the cannon-balls which had. been attached to his son’s body 
in order to sink it. This is the last we hear of him: he appears to 
have died soon after. An account of Tristan da Cunha’s expedition 
was compiled from his manuscripts by De Barros, and published by 
order of the king. A translation of this narrative was published at 
Leyden, by Pieter van der Aa in 1706. 

TRITHEN, FREDERICK HENRY, a distinguished Sanscrit and 
Slavonic scholar, was born in February 1820 in Switzerland, from 
whence he was removed when a few years old to Odessa, his father 
having accepted the situation of professor at a Russian college in that 
city. At Odessa he received an excellent education and had ample 
opportunities for making himself acquainted with the modern lan- 
guages, of which French, English, and German were as familiar to him 
as Russian. At the university of Berlin, where he continued his 
studies, and took his degree of doctor of philosophy, he was distin- 
guished for his knowledge of Greek, and he studied Sanscrit under | 
Bopp. After passing some time in Poland, where he made himself 
master of Polish, he came to England, where, in 1841, he was teacher 
of modern languages at Rugby, under Dr, Tait, the present bishop of 
London. He then began to contribute articles, chiefly on subjects 
connected with Sanscrit literature, to the ‘Penny Cyclopmdia’ and 
the ‘Biographical Dictionary’ of the Society for the Diffusion of 
Useful Knowledge. 

In 1844 he was appointed one of the assistants in the Printed Book 
department in the British Museum, and was partly employed in cata- 
loguing the Sanscrit and Arabic works, and those in the Slavonic lan- 
guages, of which a large stock had then recently been added to the 
Museum library. In coming to the Museum he had indulged in 
expectations that his talents and acquirements would probably attract 
the notice of the Trustees with the effect of bringing encouragement 
and promotion, and he was deeply disappointed to find that such 
expectations were futile. He accepted in 1845 the post of private 
tutor in the family of Prince Chernichev, the Russian minister of war, 
and left London for St. Petersburg. He returned to England after 
an absence of about two years, part of which he had passed at Con- 
stantinople and Cairo, and in 1848 published at London an edition of 
the ‘Maha Vira Charita,’ or History of Rama, a Sanscrit drama, by 
Bhavabhuti. His friends suggested to him to offer himself as a candi- 
date for the professorship of modern European languages in the 
Taylor Institution at Oxford, which was then on the point of being 
set in action, The professor, it was decided, was to be appointed at 
first for five years only, but with the capability of being re-elected ; 
his post was to be one of influence and authority, the rest of the 
officials of the institution being placed under his directions, and his 
salary was to be 400/.'a year. Dr. Trithen was elected to this post 
in 1848 in preference to some very able competitors, and contrary to 
his own expectations, and entered upon his duties with a lecture 
‘On the position occupied by the Slavonic dialects among the other 
languages of the Indo-European family,’ which he afterwards printed 
as an essay in the ‘ Proceedings of the Philological Society of London,’ 
of which he had been a member since 1843. The career of usefulness 
and honour which now seemed to lie before him was suddenly cut 
short about the middle of 1850 by an attack of mental aberration in 
so violent a form that his friends found it necessary to put him under 
restraint. It was reported at the time that’ the immediate cause of 
the disorder was, that a lady to whom he had paid his addresses 
had married a rival, but a tinge of eccentricity had on some previous 
occasions been remarked in his conduct.: His father came to England 
and in 1851 removed him to Odessa, where he remained in a hopeless 
state till April 1854, when the city was under apprehensions of bom- 
bardment from the English. Trithen was then removed to a village 
at afew miles distance, where an unexpected change in his disorder 
took place and he recovered his mental powers as suddenly as he had 
lost them, but this was only a “lightning before death.” After 
expressing a strong desire to return to England, it became evident 
that his bodily strength was failing and he expired on the 27th of 
April 1854. He left behind him no adequate monument of the extent 


171 TRIVET, NICOLAS. 


TROGUS POMPEIUS. 172 


of the powers which his friends knew him to possess, but his contri- 
butions to biographical literature in the Cyclopedia and Dictionary 
are of a sound and solid character, and his scholarship was not only 
accurate but remarkably ready. The power which he possessed of 
conversing with ease in more than one of the Teutonic, the Romanic, 
and the Slavonic languages qualified him in an eminent degree for 
the professorship to which he was chosen. 

TRIVET, NICOLAS, whose surname is otherwise found Tryvet, 
Trevet, Treveth, Trevech (a misprint or mistranscription), Triveth, 
Thriveth, and is latinised Trivetus, Trivettus, Trevetus, and, by 
Leland, Tripus (at least he has Tripodis in the genitive), was born in 
Norfolk about the year 1258, and was son of Sir Thomas Trivet, who 
is recorded to have twice ridden as one of the Justices in Eyre in the 
latter part of the reign of Henry III. Trivet mentions his father in 
his Annals, under the year 1272, by the name of Thomas Treveth. He 
himself was sent, when a boy, to be brought up in the Dominican 
convent at London, and in due time he became a monk of that order. 
Having completed his education at the universities of Oxford and 
Paris (his residence for some time at which latter place of study he 
notices in the beginning of his Annals), he was, on his return to 
England with the highest reputation in all the branches of learning 
then cultivated, elected head or prior of the religious house in which 
he had spent his earliest years. This office he appears to have held 
till his death in 1328. 

Leland, Bale, and Pits give long lists of the writings of Trivet, 
especially Pits, whose catalogue extends to between thirty and forty 
articles. Among them are annotations or commentaries on various 
parts of the Scriptures, on certain of the works of St. Augustin, on 
the ‘Problems’ of Aristotle, the ‘Metamorphoses’ of Ovid, the 
‘ Tragedies’ of Seneca, on Boethius, Livy, and Juvenal, some astro- 
nomical and other scientific treatises, and a number of tracts on 
religious and moral subjects, all in Latin. Many of these manuscripts 
still exist in the libraries at Oxford and Cambridge, and elsewhere. 
A. commentary on the treatise of St. Augustin entitled ‘De Civitate 
Dei,’ by Trivet and Thomas Valois, or Walleis, was printed by Schoffer, 
in the second volume of his edition of St. Augustin’s works, fol., 
Mainz, 1473, and again at Toulouse in 1488, at Venice in 1489, and at 
Friburg in 1494. But Trivet is now only remembered for his Chronicle 
or History, principally of English affairs, though it embraces a sketch 
of those of the other kingdoms of Europe, from a.D. 1136 to 1307, or 
from the beginning of the reign of Stephen to the end of that of 
Edward I. his work was first printed by Lucas Acherius (Father 
Luc d’Achérs), in the eighth volume of his ‘ Spicilegium Veterum 
aliquot Scriptorum,’ 4to, Paris, 1671: and it is also contained in the 
second edition of that collection, in 3 vols. fol., Paris, 1723. But the 
edition commonly used is that published by Antony Hall, under the 
title of ‘ Nicolai Triveti Dominicani Annales Sex Regum Angliz,’ at 
Oxford ‘in 2 vols. 8vo, in 1719, the second of which however (not 
published till 1721) is oceupied with the Chronicles of Adamus Muri- 
muthensis and his Continuator. ‘This edition is from a better manu- 
script than that which D’Achery used; but otherwise it has no great 
reputation, any more than Hall’s other publications. Trivet however 
deserves to be well edited; he is a clear, painstaking, and exact recorder 
of events, and he is the original authority, for many particulars re- 
lating to his own times, his accounts of which have sometimes been 
pillaged without acknowledgment by subsequent compilers. His 
Annals have different titles in the various manuscripts; and there is 
also in the library of Magdalen College, Oxford, the manuscript of 
another historical work of his in French, entitled ‘ Les Cronycles ke 
Frere Nichole Tryvet escrit 2 Dame Marie la file moun seygnour le 
roy Edward le fils Henry.’ Of this the first part is an abridgment of 
the history of the Old and New Testaments; the second part, entitled 
‘Les Gestes des Apostoiles (that is, the popes), Emperours, et Roys,’ 
appears to be, in the latter portion of it, nearly a translation of his 
Latin Annals. 

TRIVU’LZIO, a Milanese patrician family, several members of 
which figured in the history of their country in civil and military 
capacities under the Dukes Visconti and Sforza. After the death of 
Filippo Maria Visconti, in 1447, the Milanese having proclaimed a 
republic, Erasmo Trivulzio and several of his brothers were among 
the most strenuous supporters of the popular cause against Francesco 
Sforza, who aspired to the ducal throne. Sforza having succeeded in 
taking possession of Milan, not only forgave Erasmo, but appointed 
both him and his nephew Antonio Trivulzio to the rank of ducal 
councillors. Two sons of Antonio distinguished themselves in the 
next generation; one of them, Renato, commanded the troops of 
Ludovico Sforza against the Venetians and the Grisons, and defeated 
the latter in Valtellina, for which he was surnamed Helveticus. 
During the French invasion, he remaitied faithful fo his prince: he 
died at Pavia, 1498, 

Gian Giaccomo Trivuzio, his brother, who has been styled by 
some writers ‘il Magno,’ or ‘the Great,’ was born in 1441, «After 
serving in his youth under Francesco Sforza and his son Galeazzo Maria, 
he was appointed on the death of the latter member of the regency 
during the minority of the young Duke Giovanni Galeazzo. But 
Ludovico Sforza, the duke’s uncle, having assumed the supreme 
power in 1479, Trivulzio was employed by him in the army, and was 
sent to assist King Ferdinand of Naples against his revolted barons, 


Ferdinand out of gratitude made him count of Belcastro. Trivulzio 
was also employed by Pope Innocent VIII. to reduce the town of 
Osimo, in the March of Ancona, On his return to Milan he found 
himself slighted by Ludovico Sforza and his courtiers, who mistrusted — 
him on account of his firmness and pride; and from that time he — 
vowed revenge against Ludovico. He returned to Naples and entered — 
the service of Ferdinand. When Charles VIII. of France invaded — 
Naples and drove away the Aragonese dynasty, Trivulzio took service — 
with the French at the time when Ludovico Sforza, in concert with — 
the other Italian states, was fighting against them, He fought bravely 
for Charles VIII. at the battle of the Taro against the Italian allies. — 
He then followed Charles in his retreat to France. During thenego- 
ciations which were entered into about that time to settle amicably 
the affairs of Italy, Trivulzio supported at first the claims of the 
youthful Duke Giovanni Maria Sforza to the crown of Milan, but the — 
French insisting upon the rival claims of the Duke of Orleans, after- 
wards Louis XIL, Trivulzio gave way, and from that time he seemed 
to have renounced his country and to have become altogether French. 
He was made by Charles VIII. Count of Pezénas in and — 


decorated with the order of St. Michel, In 1499 Louis XIL ma 4 
the command of his army in Italy. Trivulzio defeated the troops of — 
Ludovico Sforza, and entered Milan at the head of the French invading — 

army, in September of the same year. Louis XII. then made him — 
marshal of France, marquis of Vigevano and Melza in Lombardy, and — 
captain-general of the duchy of Milan, When Ludovico Sforza again — 
advanced towards Milan, at the head of his Swiss auxiliaries, Trivulzio — 
being badly supported by the French officers, who were jealous of — 
him for being a foreigner, was obliged to leave the city, but he soon — 
after defeated Ludovico at the battle of Novara, in April, 1500. — 
Ludovico was seized in disguise and taken prisoner before Trivulzio, — 
who treated him ungenerously, and upbraided him with reproaches, 
Ludovico was sent prisoner to France, Trivulzio again posses- — 
sion of Milan, but he did not retain the command of the duchy, which — 
was given to Cardinal Rohan. In 1509, war having broken out again — 
in Italy, Trivulzio was again employed in the French armies, and 
commanded the advanced guard at the battle of Agnadello, in which 
the Venetians were defeated. In 1511 the French Marshal Chaumont — 
having died, Trivulzio succeeded him pro tempore as commander-in- 
chief of the French, and drove Pope Julius Il. from Bologna. Soon — 
after Gaston de Foix, duke of Némours, came to take the command of © 
the French in Italy, and Trivulzio served under him in the campaign — 

of 1512 against the pope, the Venetians, and the Spaniards. After the — 
battle of Ravenna and the death of Gaston de Foix, Trivulzio was 
obliged to evacute Milan, which was entered by Maximilian Sforza; 
and in the following year the loss of the battle of Novara again drove — 
the French and Trivulzio with them out of Italy. In 1515 Francis L, 

who had succeeded Louis XIL., put Marshal Trivulzio at the head of a 
French army for the conquest of Italy. Trivulzio made a brilli ¢ 
campaign. He crossed the Alps by a new pass, entered the marquisate 

of Saluzzo, defeated and took prisoner Prospero Colonna, won the 
battle of Marignano, called “the battle of the giants,’ against the — 
Swiss, and in a short time conquered the whole duchy of Milan. The 

Constable de Bourbon was appointed governor, but being recalled in — 
the following year he was succeeded by Marshal Lautrec, whilst the 
veteran Trivulzio was living in splendid repose in his own patrimonial 
house at Milan, and enjoyed great consideration. Lautrec was harsh — 
and suspicious: he oppressed the people of Milan; and Trivulzio © 
having shown some sympathy for his townsmen, Lautrec accused him — 
of secret practices against King Francis. Trivulzio, being informed of — 
this, set out for France in the depth of winter, although he was then ~ 
nearly seventy-eight years old, and repaired to the Court of Francis I. 
who refused him an audience. He then placed himself in the king’s 
passage, and as the king drew near he begged him to listen toa man — 
who had fought eighteen battles in his service and in the service of — 
his predecessors. Francis stared at him, and passed on without saying — 
aword. This was too much for the old man; he fell ill, and died at — 


inedite di A. Caro, the ‘Convito’ of Dante, and the ‘ Life of. 
Giacomo Trivulzio,’ already mentioned. The ‘baton, or French 
marshal's staff, of old Trivulzio is still preserved among the heir-looms — 
Of eripalda Tpiografia degli Italian’ Ilustré ; Voléry, Vi Italie) ; 
_ (Tipaldo, Bi t Italians ¥ » Voyages en Italie.) — 
BOGUS POMPEIUS, » Roman historian who lived about the time 
of Augustus, He was descended from a Gallic family of the Vocontii; 
and his grandfather, who likewise bore the name of Trogus Pompeius, 


173 TROLLOPE, FRANCES. 


TROMP, MARTEN HARPERTZOON., 174 


had served in the war ‘against Sertorius, and received the Roman 
franchise, probably together with the name Pompeius, through the 
influence of Cn. Pompeius. His father’s brother had been commander 
of a division of the Roman cavalry in the war against Mithridates, and 
his father had served under Julius Cesar, by whom he was afterwards 
employed as private secretary. Besides these general statements 
Seiekod by Justin (xliii.5: compare Justini ‘Prafatio’), we know 
nothing about Trogus Pompeius, except that he is called “a man of 
antique eloquence and a most grave author.” 
_ He was the author of a Universal History from the time of Ninus, 
_ king of Assyria, down to the year B.0. 5. It bore the title ‘ Historic 
Philippices et totius mundi origines et terre situs,’ and consisted of 44 
books. The original work is now lost, and the only means we have of 
_ judging of its merit is an abridgment made by Justinus, which is still 
extant; and from this it is clear that the author founded his work on 
the best historical authorities that then existed. The name ‘ Historiw 
oe was probably chosen because the great body of the work, 
from book 7 to book 41, contained the history of Macedonia and of 
the kingdoms that were formed out of the great Macedonian empire, 
as the founder of which Philip was regarded. The usefulness and con- 
_ venience of Justinus’s abridgment, although it is very unequal in exe- 
eution, has probably been the cause of the loss of the original work. 
The geography on which Trogus had treated at some length is entirely 
lost, as the epitomiser has excluded it from his work. Pliny (‘ Nat. 
Hist.’ vii. 3; xi. 94) and some other writers mention a work by Trogus 
on animals, which is entirely lost. 
oo” De Histor. Lat., p. 98, &c.; Biihr, Geschichte der Rim. Lit., 
pp. 409. 
, an TROLLOPE, FRANCES, English novelist, is the daughter of an 
English clergyman, and was born in 1790. In 1809 she married 
_ Anthony Trollope, Esq., barrister-at-law, by whose death at Bruges in 
1835, she was left a widow. <A considerable period of her married 
life was spent at Harrow, but in 1829 she went to America, where she 
_ resided three years. Her experiences of America were given to the- 
world in a work in two volumes, entitled ‘Domestic Life of the 
Americans,’ published in 1832, and which was much read, and caused 
much criticism both in Britain and in America. Having made her 
debut as an authoress in this work, Mrs. Trollope continued to write 
_ with such industry and rapidity, that she has become perhaps the 
most voluminous English authoress of the day. A novel in three 
_ volumes, entitled ‘The Abbess,’ and another, entitled ‘ The Refugee in 
America,’ appeared immediately after the first work ; and the follow- 
ing is a list, very nearly complete, of her subsequent writings :— 
‘Belgium and Western Germany in 1833,’ 2 vols. 1834; ‘ The Life 
and Adventures of Jonathan Jefferson Whitlaw, or Scenes on the Mis- 
__ 8issippi,’ 3 vols., 1836 ; ‘Paris and the Parisians in 1835,’ 2 vols., 1836 ; 
“The Vicar of Wrexhill,’ 3 vols.; ‘Tremordyn Cliff,’ 3 vols., 1838; 
- £ Vienna and the Austrians, with some account of a Journey through 
Swabia, Bavaria, the Tyrol, and the Saltzbourg, 2 vols., 1838; ‘ The 
Widow Barnaby,’ 3 vols., 1839; ‘Life and Adventures of Michael 
Armstrong, a Factory Boy,’ 3 vols., 1840; ‘ One fault: a novel,’ 3 vols., 
1840; ‘The Widow Married; a sequel to ‘The Widow Barnaby,’ 
3 vols., 1840; *Charles Chesterfield, or the Adventures of a Youth of 
Genius,’ 3 vols.,-1841; ‘A Visit to Italy,’ 2 vols, 1842; ‘The Blue 
_ Belles of England,’ 3 vols., 1842; ‘The Ward of Thorpe-Combe,’ 3 
yols., 1842; ‘The Barnabys in America, or Adventures of the Widow 
Married,’ 3 vols., 1843; ‘ Hargrave, or the Adventures of a Man of 
_ Fashion,’ 3 vols., 1843; ‘Jessie Phillips, a Tale of the present day,’ 
1844; ‘The Lauringtons, or Superior People,’ 3 vols, 1844; ‘The 
_ Attractive Man: a novel,’ 3 vols, 1846; ‘Travels and Travellers, a 
series of Sketches, 2 vols., 1846; ‘The Robertses on their Travels, 3 
vols., 1846; ‘The Three Cousins: a novel,’ 3 vols.., 1847; ‘ Father 
Eustace, a Tale of the Jesuits,’ 3 vols., 1847; ‘Town and Country,’ 
_ 8svols., 1848; ‘The Lottery of Marriage,’ 3 vols., 1849; ‘The Old 
World and the New: anovel,’ 3 vols., 1849; ‘ Petticoat-Government: 
 anovel,’ 3 vols., 1850; ‘Mrs. Matthews, or Family Mysteries,’ 3 vols., 
_ 1851; ‘Second Love, or Beauty and Intellect,’ 3 vols., 1851; ‘Uncle 
_ Walter, 3 vols., 1852; ‘The Young Heiress,’ 3 vols,, 1853; ‘The 
_ Life and Adventures of a Clever Woman,’ 3 vols., 1854; ‘ Gertrude, or 
_ Family Pride,’ 3 vols., 1855; ‘Fashionable Life, or Paris and London,’ 
8 -vols., 1856. The subjects in this immense list indicate the nature of 
_ Mrs Trollope’s talent and style, and also the fact that much of her life 
_ has been spent abroad and in travel; of late she has resided in Italy— 
where also chiefiy resides her son, Mr. T. ApoLteHus TROLLOPE, 
some of whose writings have maintained the literary reputation of the 
_ family. Among these are ‘A Summer in Brittany,’ in 2 vols., pub- 
lished in 1840 under the editorial care of his mother; ‘A Summer in 
_ Western France,’ 2 vols., published in 1841, also under his mother’s 
care; and more recently, and indicating his more matured literary 
_ talent, ‘Impressions of a wanderer in Italy, Switzerland, France, and 
Spain,’ 1850; and ‘ The Girlhood of Catherine de’ Medici,’ 1856. 
_ TROMP, MARTEN HARPERTZOON, the son of a Dutch naval 
officer, was born at the Briel in 1597. His father, who commanded a 
_ &ship in the fleet of Admiral Heemskerk, took the boy to sea with him 
in 1607; and thus young Tromp was present at the engagement 
__. between the Dutch and Spanish fleets under the cannon of Gibraltar 
_ on the 25th of April of that year, when the former gained a victory 
_ and lost their admiral, Not long after, his father, while cruising off 


the coast of Guinea, was killed in an engagement with an English 
cruiser, and his ship captured. Young Tromp was detained two years 
and a half by his captors, and, it is said, was obliged to serve during 
that time in the capacity of a cabin-boy. For some years after this 
adventure his career was obscure: he is said to have made several 
voyages on board fishing and merchant-vessels, but the accounts of 
this part of his life are vague and the dates confused. In 1622 we 
find him a lieutenant on board a ship of the line ; and two years later 
Prince Maurice gave him the command of a frigate. 

In 1629 the celebrated admiral Peit Hein hoisted his flag in the 
vessel commanded by Tromp, who was esteemed the ablest navigator 
in the fleet placed under the command of that. veteran to cruise 
against the Spaniards off the coast of Flanders. On the 20th of 
August the admiral fell by the side of Tromp in an engagement in 
which three Spanish ships were captured. About this time Tromp 
retired from active service in disgust : he imagiued himeelf ill-used in 
some misunderstanding regarding passes which arose between him and 
the civil powers. It does not clearly appear whether he had been 
before this incident an avowed partisan of the House of Orange, 
or whether irritation against the opposite party drove him into 
its arms. 

In 1637 the Stadtholder, Frederic Henry, created Tromp lieutenant- 
admiral, and placed a squadron of eleven ships under his command. 
With this fleet he in the course of 1637 and 1638 took so many ships 
from the Spaniards that the States presented him with a gold chain, 
and the king of France conferred upon him the order of St. Michel. 
In April, 1639, Tromp again set sail to cruise against the Spaniards off . 
the coasts of France and England. After some affairs with English 
vessels which had Spanish troops on board, on the 15th of September, 
with only twelve ships in company, he had sight of a large Spanish 
fleet off the coast of Sussex. On the 16th, Tromp, having been joined 
by five more ships under Cornelis Van Witt, resolved to attack the 
Spaniards, although they were still much superior to him in numbers. 
A good many of the Spanish vessels were not brought into action. 
About four in the afternoon the Spanish admiral made sail for the 
north, and it was resolved in a council held on board Tromp’s ship to 
endeavour to force him to renew the fight on the morrow. Next day 
a fog prevented this resolution being carried into effect. On the 18th, 
Tromp, having received in the meantime an accession to his force of 
fourteen vessels, again engaged the enemy, but without any decisive 
result. It was the 13th of October before he could again come up 
with the enemy, and by this time both parties were much strengthened. 
Tromp had been joined by some ships of war from Zeeland and the 
Maas and ten from Amsterdam, and the new comers brought with 
them a considerable number of fireships. The Spanish admiral had 
been joined by fleets from Portugal and Dunkirk. An English fleet, 
respecting the intentions of which the Dutch were very uncertain, 
was also in presence. Tromp, reinforced by Hartebeen and Denis, 
took up his station over against the Spanish fleet; Van Witt and 
Bakberts were appointed to keep watch over the motions of the 
English: Evertz was opposed to the Portuguese admiral; Catz to the 
admiral of Dunkirk. The action commenced on the 21st. After a 
sharp fight the ship of the Portuguese admiral was blown up, a 
number of other vessels sunk or driven on shore, and Don d’Ocquendo 
obliged to take refuge off Dunkirk with thirteen ships. Thirteen 
richly laden galleons fell into the hands of the Dutch. 

Tromp also rendered important services to his country in the wars 
of 1640 and 1641; but it was not till Cromwell had seized the helm of 
government in England that he was again called upon to put forth all 
his strength. Blake was appointed sole admiral of England for nine 
months on the 25th of March, 1652, on the prospect of a war with 
Holland. The first engagement between Blake and Tromp took place off 
Dover. War had not been declared between the countries at the time; 
Tromp had been despatched with a fleet of forty sail to be on the alert, 
and Blake was cruising in the narrow seas. The two commanders appear 
to have roused their own and each other's passions by a succession of 
bravadoes, until, losing all control over themselves, they set to fight in 
earnest. Each in his despatches represented the other as having first 
begun the action. Night separated the combatants; the English had 
their ships much cut up, and lost a good many men; but the Dutch 
lost two ships. It was galling to Tromp to be worsted by a com- 
mander new to the sea; and to add to his annoyance he was super- 
seded by Ruyter and Van Witt. The States however soon found it 
necessary to reinstate him in his command. 

On the 29th of November, 1652, he and Blake were again in 
presence. The Dutch ficet outnumbered the English, but Blake’s 
pride would not allow him to decline the contest: it was a war of 
passion between the two proud and stubborn nations, and the com- 
manders had made it a personal quarrel. The fight began about two 
in the morning and lasted till seven in the evening. The Garland and 
Bonadventure were taken by the Dutch, who also sunk three English 
frigates and burnt one. Blake, whose remaining ships were much 
disabled, retired into the Thames. The Dutch had one ship blown 
up, and the flag-ships of Tromp and Ruyter were rendered unfit for 
service till they had been repaired. After this success Tromp sailed 
up the Channel with a broom at his mast-head. Monk and Deanes 
were joined in commission with Blake. They sailed from Queens- 
‘borough with sixty men-of-war in February, 1653, and were joined by 


175 TROMP, CORNELIS VAN. 


TROUGHTON, EDWARD. 176 q 


twenty from Portsmouth. On the 18th they discovered Tromp in the 
English Channel, who, with a fleet of seventy men-of-war, was afford- 
ing convoy to three hundred merchantmen. Blake outsailed his 
comrades, and, attacking his old enemy, was on the point of being 
roughly handled by a superior force, when Lawson came up and 
relieved him. A running fight was kept up from off Portland to 
the sands of Calais. Tromp anchored his convoy there, in water too 
shallow for the English men-of-war to venture into, and the merchant- 
ships escaped by tiding it home. The Dutch lost more ships than the 
English, but the loss of men on both sides was about equal. 

The States exerted themselves to repair their ships, and Tromp was 
again appointed to the command, which he accepted with reluctance, 
not being satisfied with the manner in which the fleet was fitted out, 
In the beginning of June the English fleet was off the Dutch coast. 
_ An engagement took place on the 8rd, at which Blake was not present, 
and Deane fell. On the 4th Blake came up, and the action was 
renewed, but no decided advantage was obtained on either side. 
Blake’s impaired health obliged him to quit the fleet, and in Tromp’s 
last battle he was opposed by Monk. ‘The fleets engaged on the 29th 
of July. Both sides claimed the victory: but on the whole, the 
English had the advantage ; and the Dutch suffered an irreparable loss 
in the person of Tromp. He was entombed with great pomp and 
solemnity at Delft. 

Tromp was a thorough seaman; he had learned his profession in 
the obscure school of adversity. As a warrior it is sufficient praise for 
him to say that the struggle between him and his kindred spirit Blake 
was, in so far as they were personally concerned, a drawn battle. He 
was homely in his manners, and declined every offer to raise him into 
the ranks of the nobility. He had a large fund of personal benevo- 
lence; was proud of no title so much as that of grandfather of the 
sailors, He had three sons—Marten Harpertzoon, Cornelis (the subject 
of the following memoir), and Adrien; and a daughter, born soon 
after his great victory in 1639, and baptised in honour of it by the 
formidable name of Anna- Maria - Victoria - Harpensis - Trompensis- 
Dunensis. 

TROMP, CORNELIS VAN, second son of the great admiral 
Marten Harpertzoon Tromp, was born at Rotterdam on the 9th of 
September 1629. He was educated for the hereditary profession of 
his family ; and at the early age of twenty-one commanded a ship in 
the squadron despatched, under Dewildt, in 1650, against the emperor 
of Marocco. 

In 1652 and 1653 he served in Van Galen’s fleet in the Mediter- 
ranean, and distinguished himself in various engagements. After the 
action with the English fleet off Livorno, on the 13th March 1658, in 
which Van Galen fell, Cornelis Tromp was promoted to the rank of 
rear-admiral by the admiralty of Amsterdam. He took part in the 
short sea-campaign of 1656; but after its termination he retired from 
the service, and continued to lead a private life till 1662. In ,that 
year he was sent with ten ships to the Mediterranean to give convoy to 
a merchant fleet. While there he inflicted a severe punishment upon 
the Algerine cruisers. From the Mediterranean he was ordered by 
the States, who were doubtful of the permanence of the peace with 
England, and apprehensive for the safety of their merchant vessels, 
on account of the unceremonious manuer in which the English were 
apt to commence a war by capturing them, to supply convoy to a rich 
fleet expected from India. Tromp met with the merchantmen at sea, 
and succeeded in bringing them all safely into port. 

In 1665 the war actually broke out. Tromp with his squadron was 
attached to the fleet commanded by Wassenaer Van Opdam. On the 
13th of July they encountered the English fleet under the Duke of 
York. The Dutch were beat, but Tromp distinguished himself by 
the skill and courage with which he fought his ship, which suffered 
severely in the action. The scattered remains of the Dutch fleet 
sought refuge in the Texel. The States by gigantic efforts soon 
restored it to a condition to take the seaagain. Ruyter was absent 
on an expedition to the coast of Guinea, and Tromp was the only 
other commander of sufficient emiuvence to be trusted with the charge. 
But the party of the Van Witts, at that time in the ascendant, were 
jealous of Tromp, who had inherited his father’s attachment to the 
house of Orange. He was ultimately named to the command, but 
Van Witt, Huygens, and Boreel were appointed commissioners to 
watch and control him. Tromp had gone on board his vessel when 
Ruyter returned and was appointed to supersede him. Tromp 
naturally refused under such circumstances to serve in the fleet, 

In 1666 he accepted the command of the Hollandia of 82 guns, and 
joined the fleet with which Ruyter engaged the English ficet under 
Albemarle, on the 11th of June. After a severe contest, resumed on 
four successive days, victory declared for the Dutch. Another engage- 
ment took place on the 4th of August, and was renewed on the 5th. 
Tromp had the advantage over the Vice-admiral Smith who was 
opposed to him; but Ruyter was worsted and only able by the most 
daring and skilful mancouvres to bring off his shattered ships. Ruyter 
attributed his defeat to Tromp, who had affected to act an independent 
part and neglected to support him, and complained of his misconduct. 
Tromp recriminated, but the States, by the advice of Van Witt, 
deprived him of his commission, forbade him to hold any communica- 
tion with the fleet, and placed him under ‘provisory arrest at the 
Hague. He was soon after allowed to retire to a country-house he 


had built at Gravensand and called Trompenburg. It was a mansion — 
ridiculous enough, so constructed as to resemble a man-of-war. 
In 1672 he is accused of having manifested an indecent triumph on _ 
hearing of the murder of the brothers, Van Witt. In 1673 his com- 
mission was restored to him by the stadtholder, afterwards William IIL 
A formal reconciliation took place between Tromp and Ruyter. The 
chief command of the fleet was given to the latter. In the engage- — 
ments of the 7th and 14th of June with the allied fleets of France — 
and England, Tromp displayed the most reckless courage; but on 
both occasions he was indebted to Ruyter for bringing him off when — 
he had engaged himself too far. : 
A descent on the coast of France was projected by the States, and — 
Tromp was appointed to carry it into execution. He sailed on this 
expedition from the Texel on the 17th of May 1674: the land forces 
were commanded by Count Horn. They were disembarked at Belle. 
Isle, but returned on board without effecting anything, the fortress 
having been judged impregnable. They were afterwards landed at 
Noirmoutier, where they merely levied some contributions. Tromp 
then proceeded to Cadiz, where he took charge of a merchant fleet, — 
and convoyed it in safety to the Texel. a 
In 1675 Tromp visited England, and was created a baron by Charles 
II. In 1676 he was despatched with a fieet to assist the king of — 
Denmark in his war with Sweden. The king, for his services, con- 
ferred upon him the order of the Elephant, and the rank of count. — 
Count van Tromp, on his return to Holland, was appointed lieutenant 
admiral-general of the United Provinces, a post left vacant by thedeath 
of Ruyter. He accompanied the Prince of Orange in the expedition 
against St.Omer, After this he retired from public life, and continued — 
in retirement till 1691, He was induced in that year to accept the — 
command of a fleet destined to act against France, but died at Amster- 
dam on the 21st (some say the 29th) of May, before its equipments — 
were completed. He was interred at Delft. His professional eminence — 
was beyond question, though in that point of view he was pss 2 
equal to his father; while both as a man and citizen he was in w a 
far inferior to him. ; 
TRONCHIN, THEODORE, was born at Geneva in 1709. His — 
father was of noble family, but was ruined in 1721 by some financial — 
speculations, and in 1727 was obliged to send his son to England, — 
where he was placed under the care of his relative Lord Bolingbroke, — 
who sent him to study at Cambridge. Shortly afterwards, he went to — 
Leyden to study medicine under Boerhaave. In 1731, at the conclu- 
sion of his medical studies, he settled as a physician at Amsterdam, 
where he was appointed inspector of hospitals, and married a grand- 
niece of John de Witt. In 1750 he returned to Geneva, and was 
appointed honorary professor of medicine. In this office, though no 
duties were necessarily connected with it, he delivered lectures, which — 
were very numerously attended. But he obtained his chief renown — 
by his support of the practice of inoculation for the small-pox, the 
propriety of which was at that time much discussed. He became the ~ 
most celebated inoculator of his day. In 1756 he was called to Paris — 
to inoculate the children of the Duke of Orleans, and in 1765 to Italy — 
to perform the same operation on those of the Duke of Parma, who ~ 
conferred patrician rank upon him, and made him his first physician. — 
In the same year the Duke of Orleans appointed him his physician, — 
and he went to reside in Paris, where he soon obtained a very extensive — 
practice. He was a man of cultivated mind, and of very pleasing — 
appearance and address, qualities which probably, more than any — 
great amount of medical knowledge, gained for him a very high repute, — 
both during his life and for some. years after his death. He was — 
especially celebrated for his success in the medical management of 
women and children; and his practice, as far as it is recorded, seems 
to have been guided by good judgment and common sense. He was 
moreover, a kind-hearted and charitable man, devoting two hoursin — 
every day to giving advice and money to the poor. He was a member — 
of the chief learned societies of Europe. He died at Parisin 1781. 
The only published works which Tronchin has left are two theses— 
‘De Nympha,’ Leyden, 4to, 1736, and ‘ De Colicé Pictorum,’ Geneva, — 
8vo, 1757 ; some observations on Ophthalmia and Hernia, in the 5th 
volume of the ‘Mémoires de l'Académie de Chirurgie ;’ and an edition — 
of the works of Baillou. a 
(Condorcet, Eloge, in the Histoire de VAcadémie des Sciences de 
Paris, 1781.) 
TROUGHTON, EDWARD, the first astronomical instrument maker — 
of our day, was born October 1753, and died at his house in Fleet- 
street June 12, 1835, He came of a family of respectable yeomen, and — 
was placed in the firm of his uncle and brother, who carried on busi- © 
ness in London as mathematical instrument makers, In 1782 the 
Troughtons established themselves in Fleet-street ; in 1826 Edward 
Troughton, then the sole survivor, took Mr. W. Simms into partner-— 
ship. There is a full memoir of Troughton in the monthly notices of — 
the ‘ Astronomical Society,’ vol. iii, p. 149. A handsome subscription 
bust, by Chantrey, is in the Observatory at Greenwich. In the last 
years of his life Mr. Troughton was nearly deaf, only hearing by the 
help of a powerful trumpet; and he never could distinguish colours 
otherwise than by their brightness,—a ripe cherry and its leaf were to — 
him of the same colour. E 
The larger astronomical instruments are not thé facsimiles of one 
another, which the smaller and more usual ones are, any more than 


. 


a eR be ee ee Tm a ng Hy Py = 


—— 


—_ ie se 
es Oe ae 


io 
aa, Ny 


a ee 


* 


177 TROWBRIDGE, SIR THOMAS. 


TRUMAN, REV. JOSEPH, B.D. 178 


the great architectural displays of a large city are of the same resem- 
blance to one another which exist in the houses of one and the same 
street. Each one has its own difficulties, its own objects, and its own 
way of overcoming the first to meet the second. The great works of 
‘Troughton are as well known in the astronomical world as those of 
Wren in the architectural; but he algo applied himself to all the minor 
branches of his business, and “ of him it may be said with truth that 


-he improved and extended every instrument he touched, and that 


attention.” 


» 


every astronomical instrument was in its turn the subject of his 
* The instruments which facilitate navigation were pecu- 
liarly objects of interest to Mr. Troughton; and long after his infirmi- 
ties were an effectual bar to the application of his most esteemed 


_ friends, he exerted himself to supply the seamen with well-adjusted 
and accurate sextants.” 


The articles on astronomical instruments in 
this work contain frequent references to Troughton’s improvements. 
He wrote one or two articles in the ‘ Philosophical Transactions,’ and 
several in Brewster's ‘ Cyclopedia,’ &c., references to which will be 
found in the memoir cited. 

TROWBRIDGE, SIR THOMAS. ‘The date of the birth of this 
eminent commander is not stated in any account we have met with, 
but he is said to have been the son of Richard Trowbridge, Esq., of 
Cavyendish-street, or Cavendish-square, London. He was brought up 
in the naval service under Admira] Sir Edward Hughes, in the East 
Indies, was made a lieutenant in 1780, and a commander and post- 
captain in 1782. After serving with approbation against the French 
in India, Trowbridge returned to England in 1785 as captain of the 


-admiral’s ship; but he was soon afterwards sent with Commodore 


(afterwards Admiral) Blankett upon a particular service in the Indian 
seas. On his return from that expedition, in command of the Castor 
frigate, of 52 guns, with a convoy of merchantmen in charge, he was 
taken prisoner by the French; but while he and about fifty of his 
crew were being taken home in the Sanspareil, of 80 guns, they were 
recaptured, that vessel being taken by Lord Howe in his great victory 
of the Ist of June 1794. Lord Howe gave the command of the Sans- 
pareil to Trowbridge ; and soon afterwards the Admiralty appointed 
him to the Culloden, of 74 guns, which vessel he commanded in the 
victory of February 14, 1797, under Earl St. Vincent, Having con- 
tributed materially to the success of that day, he was sent with eight 
ships of the line to support Nelson in the Mediterranean. He was 
with the fleet which chased Bonaparte to Alexandria, but was pre- 
vented from taking an active part in the battle of the Nile, August 1, 
1798, by his ship running ona reef early in the afternoon, perhaps 
owing to the circumstance that he had no chart of the bay, although 
the other captains had. This accident observes Brenton, almost 
broke the heart of the gallant captain; but Nelson assured him that 
no man could better afford to lose the laurels of the day, and said, in 
a letter to Earl St. Vincent that his services merited the highest 
rewards. “I have experienced,” he says, “the ability and activity of 
his mind and body. It was Trowbridge who equipped the squadron 
so soon at Syracuse ; it was Trowbridge who exerted himself after the 


_ action; it was Trowbridge who saved the Culloden, when none that I 


know in the service would have attempted it; it is Trowbridge whom 


_Thave left as myself at Naples; he is, as a friend and as an officer, a non- 


pareil.” The circumstances being represented to the Admiralty, the 
officers of the Culloden were treated like those actually engaged in the 
battle. In 1799 Trowbridge resigned.the blockade of Alexandria, in 
which he had been engaged, to Sir Sidney Smith, and he was subse- 
quently engaged about the coast of Italy in co-operating with the Rus- 
sians and Austrians, and reducing fortresses on the sea-coast. Among 
his achievements in that year was the capture of the castle of St. Elmo, 
which the Russians had declared it would require three months to 
reduce, but which he, with his seamen and marines, and a few Russian 
and Portuguese troops, took in fourteen days. In November 1799 
Trowbridge was made a baronet as a reward for his services. He had 
for some time previously borne the rank of commodore, and on his 
return to England in 1801 he was selected by Earl St. Vincent to be 
his captain of the Channel fleet, and was subsequently made a lord of 
the Admiralty. In April 1804 he was made an admiral, and in 1805 
he was sent to the East Indies in the Blenheim, a 90-gun ship reduced 
to 74 guns, with a convoy of ten merchant vessels. In 1806 the 
Blenheim ran aground in the straits of Malacca, and was seriously 
injured; but after repairing her in a temporary manner at Pulo- 
Penang, Trowbridge sailed in her under jury-masts to Madras, where 
he was urged to leave her because of her dangerous condition. His 
characteristic love of coping with difficulties led him to disregard these 
warnings, and on the 12th of January 1807 he set sail for the Cape of 
Good Hope, The Blenheim was last seen on the 1st of February, near 
Madagascar, in a violent gale, and exhibiting signals of distress; and 
nothing was ever discovered respecting the fate of her crew. Trow- 
bridge left a son and a daughter, the former, Sir Edward Thomas 
Trowbridge, being also a distinguished naval officer. 

TROY, FRANCIS DE, was born in 1648, and was the son of 
Nicholas de Troy, under whom he commenced his studies, but at the 
age of nineteen became a disciple of Nicholas Loir at Paris. At the 
beginning of his career as an artist he painted historical subjects, which 
however he partly abandoned, being more inclined to portrait-painting ; 
but on being appointed: professor in the Academy, he had to paint, 


according to custom, an historical picture, and chose for his subject 


BIOG, DIV. VOL. VI. 


Mercury and Argus, which was so highly admired that he immediately - 
received commissions to_ paint several, both sacred and profane sub- 
jects, among which was a very fine picture for the church of St. Gené- 
viéve. He likewise painted for the Duke of Maine a grand pictare 
containing fifty figures the size of life, representing Aineas relating to 
Dido and her court the history of his adventures, 

Louis XIV. sent him to Miinich to paint the portrait of the Princess 
Anne Maria Christina, who was to be married to the dauphin. He 
received the greatest encomiums for the beautiful colouring and the 
delicate finishing of this portrait, and especially for preserving the 
lively and intelligent expression of the countenance, Both the Floren- 
tine and French writers agree in recommending the style and colouring 
of De Troy. He died in 1730, aged eighty-five years. 

TROY, JOHN FRANCIS DE, born at Paris in 1676, was instructed 
in his art by his father Francis. When he had made considerable 
progress he went to Italy, and having studied at Pisa and Rome, 
returned to Paris, where he acquired great reputation as an historical 
painter, so that Louis XIV. conferred on him the order of St, Michael, 
and afterwards appointed him director of the French Academy at 
Rome, a station which he filled with great honour, setting a bright 
example to the young students, not only by his own industry and 
devotedness to his profession, but by his private virtues, He died in 
1752, at the age of seventy-six years. 

The portraits of this artist and of his father, painted by themselves, 
are placed among those of celebrated painters in the Florence Gallery. 

TRUEBA Y COSIO, TELESFORO DE, a Spaniard by birth, but 
a novelist and dramatic writer in the English language, was born at 
Santander in the north of Spain in 1805. His mother, a widow in 
good circumstances, fixed her residence at Paris, and the son was 
educated at a Roman Catholic college in England. In 1828 he made 
his first appearance as an English author with the three-volume 
romance of ‘Gomez Arias, a tale of the wars of the Moors and 
Spaniards, which attracted considerable attention as the production 
of a foreigner, though the ‘Sandoval’ and ‘Don Estevan’ of Llanos, 
and‘ Doblado’s Letters from Spain,’ by Blanco White, had preceded 
it. It was followed in 1829 by ‘The Castilian,’ a story of the times 
of Don Pedro the Cruel, and in 1830 by the ‘Romance of History— 
Spain,’ forming part of a set of works in which it was intended to 
illustrate the history of the different countries of Europe by a series 
of fictitious narratives. In 1831 the author took fresh ground in a 
tale of modern life, ‘ The Incognito, or Sins and Peccadilloes,’ a delinea- 
tion of manners at Madrid, which was followed by another satirical 
novel, ‘Paris and London.’ A musical farce in one act, ‘Call again 
to-morrow,’ which met with some success at the Lyceum in 1832, is 
certainly remarkable as being written by a Spaniard, the whole tone 
being that of acockney. ‘The Exquisites,’ a more ambitious but less 
successful attempt at regular comedy followed, then ‘Mr. and Mrs. 
Pringle,’ ‘The Man of Pleasure, &c. As a historian Sefior de Trueba 
wrote for Constable’s Miscellany a ‘Life of Hernan Cortes,’ 1829, and 
a ‘History of the Conquest of Peru,’ 1830; but in both subjects he 
had the misfortune to be followed by Prescott, whose finished pic- 
tures have caused these sketches to be utterly forgotten. During the 
production of these works the author resided in England, the prefaces 
to most of his romances are dated from Richmond in Surrey. In 
1834, at the time of the ‘Estatuto Real,’ he returned to Spain, was 
chosen a member of the Cortes, and appointed by that body one of its 
secretaries. Two pieces which he wrote for the Spanish stage, ‘El 
Veleta,’ or the *‘ Weathercock,’ and ‘Casarse con 60;000 duros,’ which 
may bo rendered ‘The Marriage of Money,’ had considerable success. 
Being attacked by illness, he left Spain for Paris in search of advice, 
and died in that city on the 4th of October 1835. 

TRUMAN, REV, JOSEPH, B.D., an English theological writer of 
the 17th century, whose works have been long neglected and generally 
forgotten, and of whose personal history very little is known, was 


‘born in April 1631, probably at Gedling in Nottinghamshire, though 


another account says at Stoke in the same county. His family was 
of respectable station, and his father appears to have at one time filled 
some public office. He himself, after beginning his school education 
at Gedling, under the minister of the parish, Mr. Lawrence Palmer, 
who was a person of considerable learning, was removed to the free- 
school at Nottingham, and thence proceeded to Cambridge, whefe he 
was admitted a pensioner of Clare Hall. All that is known of him 
after this is, that having finished his studies at the university, he was 
inducted into the living of Cromwell, that he was ejected for refusing 
to read the Book of Common Prayer soon after the passing of the Act 
of Uniformity (in 1662), that he then resided for some years in Mans- 
field, and that he died after a short illness in the house of a friend at 
Sutton in Bedfordshire on the 29th of July 1671. 

Truman is the author of three small theological treatises: ‘The 
Great Propitiation,’ published in 1669; ‘An Endeavour to correct 
some prevailing opinions contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of 
England,’ in 1671; and ‘ A Discourse of Natural and Moral Impotency,’ 
the same year. All these performances afte held by his admirers to 
display extraordinary powers of ratiocination ; but the last is looked 
upon as his best work. A new edition of it, with a ‘ Biographical 
Introduction by Henry Rogers, was published at London, in small 
octavo, in 1834; and whatever may be thought of its right to the 
rank claimed for it by its modern editor, it cortainly deserved to be 

N 


179 TRUMBULL, JOHN, 


TRURO, LORD. 190 


rescued from oblivion, were it only as a contribution to the history 
of English metaphysical theology. It is described by Mr. Rogers as 
“being the first systematic and elaborate attempt, not so much to 
establish the doctrine of man’s moral inability (still less the doctrine 
of moral necessity generally), as to illustrate the wide distinction 
between that and natural inability, to reconcile the former with the 
idea of human accountability, and to vindicate it from the pernicious 
consequences which some of its advocates, and all its opponents, would 
fain attach to it.” 

Truman was a hard student, and was distinguished for his profound 
and varied learning. One of his favourite studies was English law: 
he is fond of introducing a legal illustration in his metaphysical expo- 
sitions and deductions. With all his sharpness of intellect however 
it is admitted that he had very little perception of anything out of 
the province of mere logic. His style is singularly rugged and inarti- 
ficial, to the extent of being sometimes nearly inexplicable upon any 
syntactical principle. Though puritanical in the general complexion 
of his theology, Truman is said to have regarded many of the points 
upon which his party took their stand in opposition to the established 
church as sufficiently insignificant; he evinced his conscientiousness 
by the sacrifice he made in giving up his living rather than comply 
with all the demands of the law; but after he thus became what was 
called a nonconformist, although when opportunity served he was 
always ready to preach to those of his own way of thinking, he con- 
tinued, we are told, usually to attend the services of the establish- 
ment; nor did he drop his intimacy with any of his old friends among 
the clergy. Among his particular associates are mentioned, besides 
Baxter, Stillingfleet and Tillotson, the latter of whom had been his 
fellow-student at Clare Hall. For these particulars we are indebted 
to the memoir of Truman by Mr. Rogers, who has collected all that 
is to be found respecting him in Calamy's ‘ Account of the Ejected 
Ministers ;’ Nelson’s ‘Life of Bishop Bull;’ and other sources of 
information. 

TRUMBULL, JOHN, an American painter, the son of the governor 
of Connecticut of that name, was born at Lebanon, Connecticut, on 
the 6th of June 1756, and educated at Harvard University, where he 
graduated in 1772. Heearly turned his attention to art, but the revo- 
lution occurring, he was led to take an active part in the war of inde- 
pendence, and he became adjutant of the first regiment raised in 
Connecticut, was afterwards aide-de-camp to Washington, and received 
the rank of colonel; but fancying his claims slighted, he threw up his 
commission and quitted the army. In 1780 he proceeded to England, 
with a view of perfecting himself as a painter under West, in order 
to carry into execution a favourite design of painting a series of pic- 
tures of the principal heroes and events of the revolutionary war. 
West received him kindly; but Trumbull fell under the suspicion of 
the government, was arrested, and only released on giving security 
that he would immediately leave the country. He returned to 
America in 1782. When peace was firmly established he came back 
to England (November 1783), and renewed his studies under West. 
He did not return to America till 1786. He completed many of his 
series of revolutionary pictures,-and several of them have been 
engraved. The first of this series painted by Trumbull was the 
so-called ‘Battle of Bunker’s Hill,’ in which General Warren was 
killed; it was engraved by the celebrated J. G. Miiller, at Stutt- 
gardt, in 1796. ‘The death of General Montgomery, another of the 
series, was engraved by the Danish engraver F. Clemens, in London, 
in 1798: it is considered Clemens’s finest plate. G. Ketterlinus, at 
St. Petersburg, commenced copies of both these plates, but their 
completion was interrupted by his death in 1803. Others of the 
series are the four large pictures now in the rotunda of the Capitol at 
Washington—‘ Signers of the Declaration of Independence,’ ‘Surren- 
der of Burgoyne, ‘Surrender of Cornwallis,’ and ‘ Washington 
surrendering his Commission.’ Valentine Green scraped in mezzotint 
a picture by Trumbull of Washington standing on the sea-shore, with 
a black in the background holding his horse; and likewise a portrait 
of Washington. A very fine standing half-length portrait of Washing- 
ton was engraved by J. Cheesman after Trumbull. There are other 
plates by other engravers after this painter. But Trumbull did not 
apply himself solely to painting. For awhile, after completing the 
studies for his revolutionary pictures (1792), he acted as private secre- 
tary to Mr. Jay. Afterwards he was engaged in commercial pursuits in 
Paris; and between 1796 and 1804 he was employed as a commissioner 
to the British government for carrying out the provisions of an article 
in Jay's treaty. He then re-commenced the practice of his profession 
in New York, but not meeting with the success he anticipated, he 
again came to England, where he remained till 1815. He then went 
to America to paint the four pictures for which he had received com- 
missions from the United States government, and on which he was 
engaged for some years. In 1817 he was. elected president of the 
American Academy of the Arts, an office he held for many years. 
Before his death he presented his pictures to Yale College, and a 
building has been erected for them at New Haven called the Trumbull 
Gallery. He died at New York, on the 10th of November 1843, aged 
eighty-seven. 

TRUMBULL, SIR WILLIAM, a diplomatist and statesman of some 
eminence, and during the reign of William III, for some time secre- 
tary of state, was born in 1636, at Easthampstead in Berkshire. He 


was the son of William Trumbull, Esq., of Easthampstead, who repre- 
sented Berkshire in parliament; and his grandfather, who had the 
same names, was one of the clerks of the privy council in the reign of 
James I., and envoy to the court of Brussels from that king and from 
Charles I, He was brought up at a school at Oakingham, and after- 
wards went to St. John’s College, Oxford, but subsequently became a 
fellow of All Souls’ College. He took the degree of LL.B. in 1659, 
and of LL.D. in 1667. In the interval between these two d he 
had travelled in France and Italy. After taking the degree of LL.D. 
he practised as an advocate in Doctors’ Commons, and enjoyed an 
extensive practice. In 1671 he was appointed chancellor and vicar- 
general of the diocese of Rochester, and in 1672 he obtained the 
reversion of the clerkship of the signet, then held by Sir Philip 
Warwick, which came to him on the death of the latter in 1682. In 
1683 he accompanied Lord Dartmouth to Tangier in the capacity of 
judge-advocate of the fleet; and on his return to England he was 
knighted, and in November 1685 sent as envoy extraordinary to the — 
court of France. : 

‘* He was sent envoy to Paris,” says Burnet, “on Lord Preston’s being 
recalled. He was there when the edict of Nantes was repealed, and 
saw the violence of the persecution, and acted a great and worthy part 
in harbouring many, in covering their effects, and in conveying over 
their jewels and plate to England, which disgusted the court of France, 
and was not very acceptable to the court of England, though it was 
not then thought fit to disown or recall him for it. He had orders to 
put in memorials complaining of the invasion of the principality of 
Orange, which he did in so high a strain, that the last of them was — 
like a denunciation of war.” ‘Trumbull was recalled from Paris in 
1686, when James II. had thrown off the mask from his designs to 
establish Popery in England with the aid of France; afd he was then 
sent by James II. as ambassador extraordinary to the Ottoman Porte. — 
He remained at Constantinople until 1691, the revolution having — 
occurred while he was there. On his return to England he was 
appointed a lord of the Treasury, and in May 1695 secretary of state. 
He was also governor of the Turkey Company. He resigned the 
secretaryship of state in December 1697, and retired to Easthampstead 
to pass the remainder of his days in quiet. At the time of his with- 


drawal from public life, he represented the University of Oxfordin 


parliament. Lord Hardwicke says, in a note to Burnet’s ‘ His of 
his Own Times’ (vol. iv., p. 366, ed. 1833), “Secretary Trumbull 
resigned about this time in disgust with the lords of the regency, who, 
he said, had used him more like a footman than a secretary,” 
similar account of the reason of his retirement is given in the ‘Shrews- 
bury Correspondence.’ 

Sir William Trumbull occupies a place in literary as well as political 
history, and has the distinction of having aided Dryden with his 
counsel while he was engaged in translating the ‘ Aineid,’ and of having 
been the first to recommend to Pope the translation of Homer. Dry- 
den thus gracefully mentions him in his ‘ Postscript to the Aineis :’-— 
“TI must also add, that if the last Aineid shine among its fellows, it is 
owing to the commands of Sir W. Trumbull, one of the principal 
secretaries of state, who recommended it as his favourite to my care, 
and for his sake particularly I have made it mine; for who could 
confess weariness when he enjoined a fresh labour ?” 

Pope’s father lived at Binfield in Windsor Forest, in the immediate 
neighbourhood of Sir William Trumbull’s place at Easthampstead ; 
and here, as is well known, Pope’s boyhood and commencing manhood 
were passed. The old retired statesman and the young poet were 
constant. companions: they read the Greek and Roman authors 
together, and were in the habit of riding with one another three or 
four times a week, and latterly every day. The first of Pope's pas- 
torals was addressed to Sir W. Trumbull. When Pope went to 
London in 1705 he corresponded with “ the amiable old statesman.” 
Some of the letters which passed between them are printed in Pope's 
works (Roscoe's edition, vol. viii). Pope in 1709 published some 
specimens of translations from Homer, which he had previously com- 
municated in manuscript to Sir William Trumbull. The latter wrote 
to him (April 9, 1708), “Iam confirmed in my former application to” 


you, and give me leave to renew it upon this occasion, that you would 


proceed in translating that incomparable poet, to make him speak 
good English, to dress his admirable characters in your proper, signifi- 
cant, and expressive conceptions, to make his works as useful and 
instructive to this degenerate age as he was to our friend Horace, when 
he read him at Preeneste : / 


* Qui quid sit pulchrum quid turpe, quid utile, quid non,’ ” 
(Pope’s ‘ Works,’ Roscoe’s edition, vol, viii., p. v.) 


When Pope visited Binfield to bid it adieu before taking up his 
residence at Twickenham, he found Sir William Trumbull dying, and 
parted from him, as he wrote to his friend Mr. Blount, “as from a 
venerable prophet, foretelling with lifted hands the miseries to come, 
from which he is just going to be removed himself.” Sir William 
Trumbull died on the 14th of December 1716, aged eighty years. 
Burnet says of him, that “he was the eminentest of all our civilians, 
and was by much the best pleader in those courts, and was a learned, 
a diligent, and a virtuous man.” Pope's laudatory character of him 
in his ‘ Epitaph on Sir William Trumbull’ is well known. q 

TRURO, THOMAS WILDE, rirst LORD, the son of a respectable _ 


Ot eS 


~ legal reasoning ever known.” 


131 TRYPHIODORUS. 


TSCHIRNHAUSEN, EHRENFRIED W. VON. 182 


solicitor in Warwick-square, London, and Saffron Walden, Essex, was 
born in 1782, and received his early education at St. Paul’s School. 
He was articled as a clerk in his father’s office, and having been 
admitted an attorney in 1805, practised for some years as partner in 
the firm of Wilde and Knight, in Castle-street, Falcon-square. In 
1817 he was called to the bar, and went the Western Circuit. Good 
fortune attended him: he. speedily rose to eminence as an advocate, 


‘and became leader of his circuit. In 1824 he was made a serjeant-at- 


law, and three years later a king’s serjeant, and a vast accession of 
business was the consequence. Under Lords Denman and Brougham 
he was engaged as a junior in the defence of Queen Caroline, which 
tended materially to increase his professional reputation, though it 
retarded his advancement during the reign of George IV. In 1831 
he was elected member for Newark, against the influence of the late 
Duke of Newcastle, and though thrown out in December 1832, he 

ined his seat in January 1835, and retained it, as colleague with 
Mr, W. E. Gladstone, until 1841, when he was elected for Worcester. 
In 1839 he succeeded Sir R. M. Rolfe, now Lord Cranworth, as 
solicitor-general, and became attorney-general in 1841. In 1846, on 
the return of the Liberal party to power under Lord John Russell, 
Sir Thomas Wilde was again nominated attorney-general, but within 
a week afterwards was raised to the bench as chief-justice of the 
Common Pleas on the death of Sir N. Tindal. In July 1850 he 
received the great seal, and was at the same time elevated to the 
peerage as Lord Truro. He resigned the chancellorship on the retire- 
ment of his party from office in February 1852. The most memorable 
causes in which he was professionally engaged before his elevation to 
the judicial bench were the trial of Queen Caroline, alluded to above, 
and the trial of the late Mr. O'Connell in 1844, to whom he gave his 
services without fee or retainer to obtain a reversal of the decision of 
the law courts of Dublin. In parliament his name is most perma- 
nently connected with the great case of Stockdale v. Hansard, which 
involved the constitutional question as to whether the House of 
Commons had the right of publishing its reports without rendering its 
officers thereby liable to proceedings in the courts of law. On this 
question Sir Thomas Wilde took the affirmative side, and supported it 
by a speech of more than three hours’ duration, which Dr. Lushington 
pronounced to be “the most consummate and masterly triumph of 
The matter at issue, as is well known, 
was eventually compromised by the introduction of a bill by Lord 
John Russell, formally conferring upon the House that power which 
it had hitherto claimed as a right. Asa judge, the reputation of Sir 
Thomas Wilde stood high : he was patient, painstaking, and impartial 
in the highest degree. As lord chancellor, his judgments were 
regarded with respect; and though most of the cases brought before 


him were appeals from the vice-chaneellors’ courts, whose decisions he 


frequently reversed, yet of his own deciSions as a judge only one was 
reversed on appeal. The chief fault laid to his charge as lord chan- 
cellor was an over-anxious and too elaborate dwelling on all the points 
in an argument, without due regard to their relative importance. 
Among other important public questions which were decided by him 
in this capacity was that of the Braintree Church-rates, Lord Truro 
was also eminent as a legal reformer. Whilst holding the chancellor- 
ship he appointed a commission to inquire into the jurisdiction, 
pleading, and practice of the court, the result of which was that a 
bill was introduced and carried for the abolition of the twelve master- 
ships, a step which reduced the annual fees of the court by 20,000/. 
By another act also, mainly promoted by Lord Truro, some other 
offices were consolidated or abolished, and the practice of receiv- 
ing fees by various individuals was suppressed to such an extent that 
the estimated saving to suitors is 60,000/.a year. Among the other 
legal reforms effected by Lord Truro was the appointment of the lords- 
justices to relieve the chancellor of some of his judicial labours, and so 
to enable him to give his attention to his duties in the House of Lords, 
and as a member of the Cabinet without interruption to the law courts, 
To him also the legal profession owes the reform of the Common Law 
procedure, the professed object of which is to sweep away the anti- 
quated technicalities upon which legal decisions were too frequently 
based, and to insure that they shall henceforth be given according to 
their own respective merits, “according to the very right and justice 
of each case,” as is more fully explained in Finlason’s ‘Summary of 
the Common Law Procedure Act,’ 1854. Lord Truro was twice 
married: his second wife, who survives him, was Mademoiselle 
Augusta Emma d’Este, daughter of H.R.H. the late Duke of Sussex. 
He died at his seat, Bowes Manor, Southgate, Middlesex, on the 11th 
of November 1855, and was buried by the side of the late Sir Augustus 
d’ Este, in the Old Minster church at Ramsgate. 

TRYPHIODO’RUS (Tpudiddwpos), a Greek grammarian and a poet, 
who was a native of Egypt, and appears to have lived in the 6th 
century, about the reign of the emperor Anastasius. Particulars 
about his life are not known. We possess by him an epic poem of 
681 verses on the destruction of Troy, which bears the title ’IAfov 
GAwois (Excidium Troje). The narrative of this poem is exceedingly 
dull, and so much like a mere chronicle of events, that some critics 
have thought the work to be only asketch or outline drawn up by the 
author with the intention of working it out into a longer poem. But 
there is no reason for thinking that the author was capable of doing 
much better things. This poem was first published, together with 


the works of Q. Smyrnzus and Coluthus, by Aldus, at Venice, without 
date. The best modern editions are those of J. Merrick, 8vo, Oxford, 
1741, which contains a Latin translation in verse, by N. Frischlinus, and 
notes by various commentators ; of Th. Northmore, 8vo, London, 1791; 
and lastly, that of F. A. Wernicke, 8vo, Leipzig, 1819: this is the best 
critical edition, and contains most of the notes of former editors. 

Besides this poem, which is the only work of Tryphiodorus now 
extant, he wrote various others, such as on the ‘ Battle of Marathon,’ 
on the ‘Story of Hippodameia,’ and on the ‘ Sufferings of Odysseus,’ 
This last poem, which is called *Odtcceia Acrroypduparos, is a strange 
specimen of the low state of poetical taste at that time. The author, 
according to Eustathius (‘Ad Odyss.,’ p. 1379), contrived to compose 
this poem without making use of the letter s. (Compare Suidas, 
8. v. Tpudiddmpos.) 

TRYPHONI’NUS, CLAUDIUS, a Roman jurist, who lived under 
Septimius Severus and his son Antoninus Caracalla. He wrote notes 
on the works of Cervidius Scswvola, and twenty-one books of Disputa- 
tiones, from which there are excerpts in the Digest. There is a reseript 
of Antoninus to him (Cod. 1, tit. 9, s. 1), but whether in his capacity 
of governor of Syria or as the agent of the Fiscus is uncertain. He is 
cited once by Paulus, 

TSCHIRNHAUSEN, EHRENFRIED WALTHER VON, a cele- 
brated German mathematician and philosopher of the 17th century, 
was descended from a noble family, and born at Kieslingswald in 
Upper Lusatia, April 13, 1651. Having received in his father’s house 
the elements of a scientific education, and evinced considerable 
inclination for mathematical pursuits, he was sent at seventeen years . 
of age to the University of Leyden in order to complete his studies. 
Here he became intimately acquainted with the Baron de Niewland, 
who, being appointed to the command of a regiment in the war which, 
in 1672, broke out between France and Holland, induced the young 
Tschirnhausen to accompany him as a volunteer. After serving 
eighteen months in the Dutch army, his father recommended him to 
travel, and he spent several years in visiting England, France, Sicily, 
and Italy, returning to Kieslingswald through Germany, where he 
passed some time at the court of the Emperor Leopold. During his 
absence from home he found means to collect much information 
respecting the subjects of natural philosophy, and it appears to have 
been then that he investigated the nature of the curves which are 
called caustics, and which have since borne his name, 

Dr. Barrow, in his optical lectures, had previously described the 
manner in which the rays of light cross each other near the focus of a 
reflecting mirror, but M. Tschirnhausen was the first who discovered 
the curve to which the reflected rays are tangents. In a paper which 
was read.before the Académie des Sciences at Paris in 1682, he showed 
that the caustic formed by parallel rays when reflected from the 
concave surface of a hemisphere is an epicycloid, but he fell into a 
mistake in determining the relation between its abscisse and ordinates. 
The properties of this curve were afterwards accurately investigated 
by MM. De la Hire and Bernoulli. 

On his return to his native place he formed the project of making 
burning lenses of great dimensions, but there being at that time in 
Saxony no establishment for executing works of magnitude in glass, 
Tschirnhausen obtained from the elector permission to form one, and, 
this succeeding, two others were soon afterwards founded. The first 
lens which he cast and ground was of the kind called double convex. 
It was more than one foot in diameter, and its focal length was 32 feet. 
He appears to have used it as a telescope, for he states that, without 
either a tube or an eye-glass, he had seen through it the whole of a 
town at the distance of about a mile and a half (about seven English 
miles), Nearly at the same time he made a double-convex burning- 
glass, 3 feet in diameter and 12 feet in focal length, which weighed 
160 pounds. The diameter of the sun’s image in its focus was about 
14 inch, and by means of a small lens placed between the former and 
the focus the diameter of that image was reduced to about two-thirds 
of aninch, The effects produced by this mirror are stated in the 
‘Mémoires de ]’Académie’ (1699), and from the account it appears 
that it was capable of burning wood when green, and even when wet; 
it melted thin plates of iron, and vitrified slate and earthenware. 
This mirror was purchased by the Duke of Orleans, then regent, and 
given to the academy. Tschirnhausen afterwards made a similar lens, 
which he presented to the Emperor Leopold, and this prince in 
return would have created him a baron of the empire. The philo- 
sopher however declined the honour, accepting only a portrait of the 
emperor and achain of gold. He also made a concave mirror of thin 
copper, about 44 feet in diameter and 12 feet in focal length, and the 
effects produced by it, which were similar to those produced by the 
glass lens, are described in the ‘Acta Eruditorum,’ Lips., 1687. It is 


stated that the rays of the moon, being concentrated by the lens or 


by the mirror, though they produced a brilliant image, gave no 
sensible degree of heat; and the like circumstance is related of the 
lunar rays when concentrated by the great lens which was executed 
in 1802 by Mr. Parker in London. 3 ‘ 

The principles of the infinitesimal calculus were, in the time of 
T'schirnhausen, not generally admitted among mathematicians, and 
the Saxon philosopher was one who gave the preference to the more 
elementary processes of the ancient geometry in researches relating to 
the properties of curves. Entertaining the opinion that the most 


183 TSCHUDI, GILLES. 


TUCKER, ABRAHAM. 


simple methods are the most correct, he concluded that the modern 
analysis might be dispensed with; and in 1701 he read in Paris, at a 
meeting of the Academy, a ‘Mémoire’ containing rules for finding 
the tangents to certain curves, together with investigations of their 
rectifications and quadratures, agreeably to the method followed by 
the ancients; that is, without the consideration of infinitesimal 
quantities. At the commencement of the following year he read a 
second ‘Mémoire’ on the like subjects, with relation to those curves 
which are called mechanical, and in this he affirms;that the process 
which he {used was applicable to curves of all kinds, The process 
excited some notice at the time, and the observations made on it by 
Bernoulli, L’H6pital, and other mathematicians will be found among 
the Mémoires which have been inserted in the volumes published by 
the academy, but it now possesses only an historical interest. 

In 1686 and 1687 Tschirnhausen published at Amsterdam two 
philosophical works, of which the first is entitled ‘ Medicina Corporis, 
and in this rules are delivered for preserving health. The other is 
called ‘Medicina Mentis.’ It contains a development of the per- 
ceptions of pleasure and pain in the mind, and of external objects by 
means of the senses, but it constitutes chiefly a course of logic for 
persons engaged in the study of the mathematical sciences. In this 
work Tschirnhausen mentions the properties of a curve line which 
has since borne his name. It is formed by dividing the quadrantal 
arc of a circle, and the radius passing through one of its extremities, 
into a like number of equal parts, and drawing lines through the 
points of division in each respectively, parallel to one another. The 
points of intersection are in the curve line. 

Tschirnhausen rendered considerable service to his country by the 
discovery of a method of making porcelain similar to that which is 
obtained from China. From this discovery arose the manufacture of 
the Saxon porcelain. 

He died in October 1708, and was buried with pomp at one of his 
own estates in Saxony, the king of Poland (Augustus), from respect to 
his memory, defraying the expenses of the funeral. 

TSCHUDI, GILLES (in Latin “gidius, Tschudus or Tschudius), is 
regarded as the father of Swiss history. He was born in 1505, in the 
town of Glarus, where his family, which ranked among the nobility 
of the canton, had been long established. One of his early instructors 
was Zwinglius, afterwards the eminent reformer; and at a later date 
he studied at Basel under Glareanus, the poet and scholar of Erasmus. 
Having accompanied Glareanus to Paris, he remained in that city till 
1530, when he returned home ; and the rest of his life, with the excep- 
tion of the space from 1541 to 1549, when he is stated to have been 
employed in the service of France (but in what capacity is not ex- 
plained), was spent in filling the successive offices of the magistracy in 
his native state, of which he rose to be Landammann, or governor, in 
1558. Tschudi employed the authority of his station and his personal 
influence in moderating the heats excited among his countrymen by 
the religious contentions of the time, but remained himself a member 
of the Roman Catholic Church till his death in 1572. Heis the author 
of numerous works, the greater part of which however still remain in 
manuscript. In 1538 (not 1530, as stated in the ‘ Biographie Uni- 
verselle’) appeared in a small quarto volume at Basel, a geographical 
account of Switzerland, in Latin, by Tschudi, under the title of 
‘ Aegidii Tschudi Claronensis, viri apud Helvetios clarissimi, de prisca 
ac vera Alpina Rhaetia, cum caetero Alpinarum gentium tractu, nobilis 
ac erudita ex optimis quibusque ac probatissimis autoribus Descriptio.’ 
But this is only a translation of Tschudi’s work, which was probably 
written in German, and which does not appear to have ever been 
printed. The translator was Sebastian Miinster, who dedicates his 
' performance to Tschudi himself in a very encomiastic address, at the 
end of which he seems to intimate that he was then a very young man 
(‘notius est hodie in orbe Munsteri nomen, quam ut ob meam infan- 
tiam & studiosis veniam petere anxie contendam’). Perhaps this was 
a son of Sebastian Miinster, the celebrated Hebraist, who himself was 
nearly fifty by this time. A second edition of the book appeared, also 
in quarto and at Basel, in 1560, in the title of which (otherwise some- 
what varied) we have a peculiar spelling of the author’s name—‘ autore 
Aegidio Schudo Claronense’ (sic). Appended to this edition is a table 
of latitudes and longitudes, by the learned Conrad Lycosthenes, of 
Ruffach (Rubeaquensis), Another work of Tschudi’s, which the 
‘ Biographie Universelle’ says was published in his lifetime, but not 
by himself, is described as ‘Cartes de la Suisse,’ 1560 and 1595;’ 
being, we suppose, an atlas of Switzerland, but where published, or in 
what form or language, does not appear. For an account or list of 
Tschudi’s numerous writings still remaining in manuscript, and dis- 
persed in the libraries of Ziirich, St. Gall, Glarus, &c., we must refer 
to his article, by Ustéri, in the ‘Biographie Universelle,’ which pro- 
fesses to be compiled from a German Memoir of Tschudi, by Ilde- 
phorse Fuchs, published at St. Gall, in 2 yols. 8vo, in 1805. It is 
however impossible to make out from that article in what language 
some of these writings are composed. The most important work of 
Tschudi'’s that has been printed is his Chronicle of Switzerland from 
A.D. 1000 to 1476, which was published at Basel, in 2 vols, folio, in 
1734 and 1736, by Dr. Johann Rudolff Iselin (not J. B. Dselin, as in 
‘Biog. Univ.’), under the title of ‘Aegidii T'schudii, gewesenen Lan- 
dammanns zu Glarus, Chronicon Helveticum,’ This work, which is in 
German, enjoys the highest reputation and authority as one of the 


main foundations of Swiss history. A sequel, coming down to 1564, is 
said to be extant in manuscript. Another treatise of Tschudi’s, which 
the ‘ Biographie Universelle’ calls his classic work, is said to have been 
published at Constance in 1758, by Jacques Gallati, under the title of 
‘ Description de l’ancienne Gallia Comata,’ but in what language it is 
written is not stated. We doubt if this be anything more than a 
French translation of his Description of Switzerland, already mentioned. 

TUCKER, ABRAHAM, a distinguished metaphysician, was descended 
from a Somersetshire family, and was born on the 2nd of September 
1705. His father was an eminent merchant in London, who amassed 
a large fortune, and died in his son’s infancy, leaving him to the 
guardianship of a maternal uncle, Sir Isaac Tillard. “ Of the memory 
of this relation,” says Sir Henry Mildmay, in his biographical sketch 
prefixed to his edition of the ‘Light of Nature Pursuéd, “ Mr, 
Tucker to the latest hour of his life never failed to speak with extreme 
affection and gratitude, frequently observing that he was indebted for 
every principle of honour, benevolence, and liberality which he pos- 
sessed to the indefatigable pains and bright example of his uncle.” 


Tucker was sent to a school at Bishop’s Stortford, and in 1721 entered 


as a gentleman commoner at Merton College, Oxford. During his stay 
at Oxford he devoted himself chiefly to metaphysical and mathematical 
studies, but found time also to make himself master of the French 
and Italian languages, and to cultivate a natural taste for music into 
very considerable skill. About 1724 he went to the Inner Temple, 
“where for some time,” Sir Henry Mildmay informs us, “he applied 
very closely to the law, in which he acquired such a degree of know- 
ledge as enabled him to conduct with advantage the management of 
his own affairs, and frequently to render very essential service to his 
friends and neighbours; but his fortune not requiring the aid of a 
profession, to the pursuit of which neither his constitution nor his 


ish 


4 
i? 


inclination was adapted, he was never called to the bar. While he — 


continued at the Temple, he commonly passed the vacations in tours 
through different parts of England or Scotland, and once made a 
summer excursion into France and Flanders.” ; 
In 1727 Mr. Tucker purchased Betchworth Castle, near Dorking, 
with an extensive estate attached. He immediately applied himself to 
the study of agriculture, and, ‘with his usual industry, he committed — 
to paper a great variety of remarks which he either had made himself, 


collected from his neighbours and tenants, or selected from different 


authors, both ancient and modern, who have treated on rural economy.” 
In 1736 he married Dorothy, daughter of Edward Barker, Esq., of 
East Betchworth, cursitor baron of the exchequer and receiver of the 
tenths. He had two daughters by this lady, who died in 1754. The 
eldest daughter, Judith, survived her father, and died unmarried in 
1795. Dorothea Maria, the younger, married, in 1763, Sir Henry 
Paulet St. John, Bart., and was the mother of Sir H. P. St. John Mild- 


may, Who assumed the name of Mildmay on a marriage with an 


heiress of that name, and who edited the ‘ Light of Nature Pursued,’ 


and wrote the sketch of his grandfather's life, from which we have — 


quoted, 


Tucker felt the loss of his wife very severely, and occupied himself 


for some time in twice transcribing all the letters he had ever received 
from her. He then applied himself to educate his daughters, and 
himself taught them French and Italian. In 1755 he put together and 
arranged some materials which a friend had sent to him for the pur- 
pose, and published them in a pamphlet, with the name ‘ The Country 


Gentleman’s Advice to his Son on the subject of Party Clubs.” Sir — 


Henry Mildmay says of this pamphlet, which is very scarce, and of 
which he had with difficulty procured a copy, that it was not a party 
production, but a general exhortation, addressed chiefly to young men, 
against strong political feeling. We learn on the same authority that 
Tucker kept quite aloof from politics, and having been often solicited 
to be a candidate for the representation of Surrey, invariably refused. 
“ He was once only prevailed on to attend a county meeting at Epsom, 
where party ran very high; and though he took no active part in the 
proceedings there, he was introduced into a ludicrous ballad, where he 


is described with several other gentlemen of respectability and talent, “4 
as confounded by the superior powers and eloquence of the Whigs of — 


that day, Sir Joseph Mawbey and Sir Humphrey Coates, This cireum- 
stance afforded to Mr. Tucker abundant matter for humorous animad- 
version, and whenever politics were the subject of conversation he 
seldom failed to advert to the ill success of his only essay iu public — 
life; and was so much amused with the figure he made in verse, that 
he set the ballad to music.” : : 

It was about the year 1756, according to Sir Henry Mildmay, that 


SO te 


Tucker began his great work ‘The Light of Nature Pursued;’ at least 


no papers relating to it were found of an earlier date. But the mate- — 
rials for that work must have been long in course of collection, and it _ 
probably contains the results of the observation and reflection of a — 
whole life. “My thoughts,” says Tucker of himself, “have taken a — 
turn from my earliest youth towards searching into the foundations — 
and measures of right and wrong; my love for retirement has furnished — 


me with continual leisure, and the exercise of my reason has been my _ 


daily employment.” ‘When he had determined upon composing his 
work, we are told by Sir Henry Mildmay that “he made several — 


sketches of the plan for his work (one of which he afterwards printed 
in the shape of a dialogue,) before he finally decided on the method 


he should pursue ; and after he had ultimately arranged and digested — 


sila 


Ta 


ekg eT ti me NE HD 


185 TUCKER, ABRAHAM. 


TUCKER, JOSIAH, D.D. 


186 


his materials, he twice transcribed the whole copy ia his own hand.” 
And he endeavoured to improve himself in composition by a study of 
the principal Greek and Latin authors, and by translating the most 
admired passages of Cicero, Demosthenes, and others. The first spe- 
cimen of his work was published in 1763 under the title ‘Free Will :’ 
this was a selection from the four octavo volumes of the ‘Light of 
Nature Pursued,’ which he. gave to the world in 1765. In the mean- 
time, a criticism in the ‘Monthly Review’ on the ‘ Free Will’ led him 
to publish a reply, under the title ‘Man in Quest of Himself; by 
Cuthbert Comment.’ He‘published the ‘Light of Nature Pursued’ 


under the fictitious name of Edward Search. The remaining volumes 
_ of the work, the composition of which, ‘together with magisterial 
duties and the superintendence of his estate, occupied the remainder 
_ of his life, were edited after his death by his daughter. 

Sir Henry Mildmay gives the following interesting account. of Mr. 
- Tucker's habits :—“ He always rose early in the morning to pursue 
_ his literary labours. During the winter months he commonly burnt a 
- lamp in his chamber for the purpose of lighting his own fire, -After 


breakfast he returned again to his studies for two or three hours, 
and passed the remainder of the morning in walking, or in some rural 
exercise. As he was remarkably abstemious, he lost but little time at 


the table, but usually spent the early part of the evening in summer 


in walking over his estate, collecting information on all agricultural 


_ subjects from his tenants, and committing the result of their practical 


experience to paper. In winter he completed the regular measure of 


his exercise by traversing his own apartinent, and, after accomplishing 

the distance he had allotted to himself, he employed the remainder of 
the afternoon in reading to his daughters.” 
_ took him, a fever having completed what incessant application had 


In 1771 blindness over- 


prepared the way for. ‘“ His favourite object however was not aban- 


_ doned in consequence of this calamity, his mechanical ingenuity 


enabling him to direct the construction of a machine, which guided 
his hand and helped him to write so legibly that his productions were 
easily transcribed by an amanuensis.” He also received invaluable aid 
from his elder daughter, whom Sir Henry Mildmay not unjustly com- 
pares to Milton’s daughter. ‘She transcribed the whole of his 
voluminous work for the .press; and so entirely did she devote her 
time, like Milton’s daughter, to those pursuits which would make her 


_ most useful to her father, that she applied herself to the study of the 
_ Greek language, in which she made such proficiency as to be enabled 


to preserve to her father, during the remainder of his life, an inter- 
course with his favourite authors, of which his misfortune must 
otherwise have deprived him.” Tucker died in 1774. 

Tucker's work is one which for various reasons, its length as well 
as the nature of the subject, is read by few; but many will know the 
praise bestowed on it by Paley in the preface to his ‘Moral and 
Political Philosophy :’—“ There is however one work to which I owe 
so much that it would be ungrateful not to confess the obligation: I 
mean the writings of the late Abraham Tucker, Esq., part of which 
were published by himself, and the remainder since his death, under 
the title of ‘The Light of Nature Pursued, by Edward Search, Esq.’ I 
have found in this writer more original thinking and observation 
upon the several subjects that he has taken in hand than in any other, 
not to say than in all others put together. His talent also for illus- 
tration is unrivalled. But his thoughts are diffused through a long, 
various, and irregular work. I shall account it no mean praise if I 
have been sometimes able to dispose into method, to collect into 
heads and articles, or to exhibit in more compact and tangible masses, 
what, in that otherwise excellent performance, is spread over too 
much surface.” 

The ‘Light of Nature Pursued’ is a desultory work, and not a 
systematic treatise, on mind and morals, and is of a practical rather 
than a theoretical character. The principles of mental and moral 
science are but cursorily treated, and with the view of being applied to 
the business and practical exigencies of man’s life. Tucker adopts 
Hartley’s theory of association, with its objectionable material ele- 
ments; but instead of ‘association’ he always uses the term ‘ trans- 
lation,’ a term which has nothing to recommend it in preference to 
that which he discards. The striking qualities of Tucker's work are 
ingenuity and fertility of illustration, a rich quiet vein of humour, 


_ which has procured for him the title of ‘the metaphysical Montaigne,’ 
and a lofty moral aim, which renders the work as useful to the 
_ student as its humour and variety of illustration render it generally 


entertaining. 

Tucker was a favourite author with Sir James Mackintosh, who has 
evidently bestowed great pains upon his sketch of him. “He had 
many of the qualities which might be expected in an affluent country 


_ gentleman, living in a privacy undisturbed by political zeal, and with 


a leisure unbroken by the calls of a profession, at a time when 


_ England had not entirely renounced her old taste for metaphysical 
“speculation. 


¢ He was naturally endowed, not indeed with more than 
ordinary acuteness or sensibility, nor with a high degree of reach and 


range of mind, but with a singular capacity for careful observation and 


q various and happy illustration. 
qualities appear to have been prudence and cheerfulness, good-nature 


original reflection, and with a fancy perhaps unmatched in producing 
The most observable of his moral 


and easy temper. The influence of his situation and character is 


_ visible in his writings, Indulging his own tastes and fancies, like most 


English squires of his time, he became, like many of them, a sort of 
humourist. Hence much of his originality and independence; hence 
the boldness with which he openly employs illustrations from homely 
subjects. He wrote to please himself more than the public. He had 
too little regard for readers, either to sacrifice his sincerity to them, 
or to curb his own prolixity, repetition, and egotism, from the fear of 
fatiguing them. . . . . He was by early education a believer in Christi- 
anity, if not by natural character religious. His calm good sense and 
accommodating temper led him rather to explain established doctrines 
in a manner agreeable to his philosophy than to assail them. Hence 
he was represented as a time-server by freethinkers, and as a heretic 
by the orthodox. . . . . Had he recast without changing his thoughts, 
—had he detached those ethical observations, for which he had so 
peculiar a vocation, from the disputes of his country and his day,— 
he might have thrown many of his chapters into their proper form of 
essays, which might have been compared, though not likened, to those 
of Hume.” (‘ Dissertation on the progress of Ethical Philosophy,’ 
Whewell’s edition, p. 268.) 

The best edition of the ‘Light of Nature Pursued’ is that of Sir 
Henry Mildmay, in 7 vols. 8vo. There is a reprint of this edition in 
2 vols. 8vo, 1837. An abridgment of the work has been published by 
Mr. Hazlitt, which is now out of print, but which is highly commended 
by competent judges. The tract in reply to the ‘Monthly Review,’ of 
which the full title is ‘Man in Quest of Himself, or a Defence of the 
Individuality of the Human Mind or Self, is printed in Parr’s ‘ Meta- 
physical Tracts,’ published by Lumley, 1837. 

TUCKER, JOSIAH, D.D., a learned divine and distinguished . 
political writer of the last century, was born at Laugharne in Car- 
marthenshire in 1711. Some time afterwards his father went to 
reside on a small estate near Aberystwith in Cardiganshire, which had 
become his property, and which he cultivated himself, having been 
brought up as a farmer. Although his means were very small, he 
contrived to send his son to Ruthin School in Denbighshire, where he 
pursued his studies with such success as to be enabled to obtain an 
exhibition at St. John’s College, Oxford. In those days it was a matter 
of some difficulty to perform the journey between Wales and Oxford, 
and it is said that young Tucker was obliged to go backwards and 
forwards on foot, with a stick over his shoulder and a bundle at the 
end of it. On one occasion his father mounted him upon his own 
horse, but the young man did not wish to sacrifice the convenience of 
his father to his own pride, and in future journeys he resumed his 
stick and his bundle. Shortly after leaving the university he entered 
into holy orders, and served the curacy of All Saints, Bristol. He 
next became curate of St. Stephen’s Church, Bristol, and was ap- 
pointed a minor canon in the cathedral of that city. Here he had the 
good fortune to engage the friendship and esteem of Dr. Batler, the 
bishop of his diocese, who appointed him as his domestic chaplain, 
and afterwards obtained for him a prebendal stall in the cathedral of 
Bristol. To the active friendship of his excellent patron he was also 
indebted for the rectory of St. Stephen’s, to which he succeeded in 
1749. To complete at once the history of his ecclesiastical prefer- 
ments, we will add that in 1758 he became dean of Gloucester, and 
about the same time took his degree of D.D. 

To his residence in the great commercial city of Bristol may, in 
great measure be ascribed the prevailing character of his political 
writings, the best of which are those which relate to the interests of 
trade and commerce. Passing over for the present such of his pub- 
lications upon other subjects as may intervene in point of time, we 
shall be the better able to give a connected view of his principal 
writings upon trade. In 1748 he published his first commercial 
work, entitled ‘A Brief Essay on the Advantages and Disadvantages 
which respectively attend France and Great Britain with regard to 
Trade, with some Proposals for removing the Principal Disadvantages 
of Great Britain, in a new method.’ In this essay he condemned the 
French system of taxation, especially the taille, the duties upon salt, 
and those laid upon provisions entering their great cities. He ob- 
jected also to their mode of farming the revenue, to their ‘ maitrises’ 
or guilds, and to their monopolies and exclusive charters. Nor did 
the taxes of this country escape his censure. “The taxes upon the 
necessaries of life are in fact so many taxes upon trade and industry ; 
and such must be accounted the duties upon soap, coal, candles, salt, 
and leather. Likewise the duties upon the importation of foreign raw 
materials, to be employed in our own manufactures, are so many 
fetters and chains to prevent the progress of labour and the circula- 
tion of wealth.” He denounced “ our monopolies, public companies, 
and corporate charters,” as being “ the bane and destruction of a free 
trade.” Amongst the most important of his proposals for improving 
the trade of Great Britain may be mentioned a union with Ireland in 
all respects, as to parliament, trade, and‘ taxes; an extension of our 
inland navigation ; and the adoption of a system of warehousing goods 
on importation, at the option of the merchant. At that time we had 
very few canals; a prejudice existed against them; and more than 
twenty years after the publication of this essay we find a canal bill 
opposed in parliament as tending to injure the coasting-trade, and as 
being “ greatly prejudicial to that most important object, the nursery 
and increase of seamen.” (Cavendish’s ‘ Debates,’ 15th Feb., 1769, vol. i, 
p- 337-9.) A system of warehousing, it is well known, had been pro- 
posed by Sir Robert Walpole in 1733, and abandoned on account of 


x 


197 TUCKER, JOSLAH, D.D, 


TUCKER, JOSIAH, D.D. 


the storm of opposition which it encountered, Nor did the ignorance 
and prejudices of the merchants allow this valuable measure to be 
carried into effect for more than half a century after the dean of 
Gloucester had most plainly pointed out its advantages. His argu- 
ments and illustrations upon this point are hardly susceptible of 
improvement after fifty years’ experience of the practical effects of this 
system. 

In 1774 he first published a tract which he had written sixteen 
years before, entitled ‘ A Solution of the Important Question, whether 
a Poor Country, where Raw Materials and Provisions are Cheap and 
Wages Low, can Supplant the Trade of a Rich Manufacturing Country, 
where Raw Materials and Provisions are Dear and the Price of Labour 
High.” The subject is very ably treated, and (as is usually the case 
with the dean) in a plain and practical manner. This tract is well 
worthy of attention, as the question is still one of great interest. 
‘The Case of going to War for the Sake of Trade, considered in a new 
Light,’ is another valuable tract, first published in 1763, and repub- 
lished with the last. It is an enlightened exposition of the evils of 
war in regard to trade, and of the folly of engaging in the one for the 
sake of promoting the other. M, Turgot thought so well of this tract 
that he translated it into the French language, and wrote a very com- 
plimentary letter to the author. Some years later he published a 
work upon a similar plan, namely, ‘Cui Bono? or an Enquiry what 
Benefits can arise either to the English or the Americans, the French, 
Spaniards, or Dutch, from the greatest Victories or Successes in the 
Present War; being a Series of Letters addressed to Monsieur Necker.’ 
It laboured by argument and by familiar illustrations to show the 
impolicy of war, and to discourage jealousy and exclusiveness in 
national commerce. 

But the most remarkable of all the commercial tracts of Dean 
Tucker was published in 1785, being ‘ Reflections on the Present 
Matters in Dispute between Great Britain and Ireland.’ The object of 
this tract was to point out the advantages that might be derived from 
the commercial freedom of Ireland, and to suggest to the English 
merchants a scheme for evading restrictions and monopolies by the 
use of the free Irish ports for their commercial adventures. The ends 
proposed to be accomplished by these means were—Ist, “ A free trade, 
for the benefit of both kingdoms, to all the countries beyond the Cape 
of Good Hope;” in other words, an escape from the commercial mono- 
poly of the East India Company: 2ndly, “ A free trade to Egypt and 
the Levant,” at that time restricted by the charter of the Turkey 
Company : 3rdly, “A free importation of sugars and of other products 
of the warmer climates, from the cheapest market, wherever it can be 
found:” 4thly, “A free navigation, exempted from those clogs and 
restrictions which are required by the famous Act of Navigation :” 
and 5thly, “The freé exportation and importation of grain.” It is 
interesting to observe that the first of these objects was not attained 
until 1833, nor the second until 1825; and that the third, fourth, and 
fifth have only been accomplished within the last ten years, and after 
the most protracted and active political discussion, 

Even this brief notice of Dr. Tucker’s commercial views will serve 
to rank him amongst the highest of the political writers of the last 
century, for it must be recollected that when he commenced his 
inquiries the genius of Adam Smith had not yet enlightened the 
world. The ‘ Wealth of Nations’ was not published until 1776, and 
the course of lectures from which were developed the foundations of 
that great work -did not begin sooner than 1752, or four years after 
the publication of Dr. Tucker’s ‘Essay on Trade;’ nor are we aware 
that any of Adam Smith’s lectures at Glasgow appeared in print 
before the publication of the ‘Wealth of Nations.’ The value of Dr. 
Tucker’s smaller tracts and essays upon trade makes it a subject of 
regret that he did not complete a more methodical and scientific work 
which he had undertaken. This work was commenced at the desire 
of Dr. Hayter, bishop of Norwich, and preceptor to the prince of 
Wales, afterwards George III. The circumstances connected with this 
work may be best explained in the words of the author :—“ His lord- 
ship’s design was to put into the hands of his royal pupil such a 
treatise as would convey both clear and comprehensive ideas on the 
subject of national commerce, freed from the narrow conceptions of 
ignorant or the sinister views of crafty and designing men.” “TI there- 
fore entered upon the work with all imaginable alacrity, and intended 
to entitule my performance the Elements of Commerce and Theory 
of Taxes; but I had not made a great progress before I discovered 
that such a work was by no means proper to be sheltered under the 
protection of a royal patronage, on account of the many jealousies to 
which it was liable, and the cavils which might be raised against it. 
In fact, I soon found that there was scarcely a step I could take but 
would bring to light some glaring absurdity which length of time had 
rendered sacred, and which the multitude would have been taught to 
contend for as if their all was at stake. Scarce a proposal could I 
recommend for introducing a free, generous and impartial system of 
national commerce, but it had such numbers of popular errors to com- 
bat with as would have excited loud clamours and fierce opposition.” 
For these reasons he laid the scheme aside, and, unfortunately for his 
own fame and for the interests of mankind, he never resumed it. 

While the concerns of trade were thus engaging his attention, other 
measures of public policy aroused his interest and exercised his pen, 
But we cannot fail to observe, in reading his various publications, that 


the principles of free trade and the improvement of our commercial 
laws were never absent from his mind. arf 
In 1751 a bill was brought into the House of Commons for the 
naturalisation of foreign Protestants, and after passing through its 
other stages was lost on the third reading. This circumstance gave 
rise to two very able pamphlets, in which the dean contended strongly 
for the measure, ‘Three years before, in his ‘ Essay on Trade,’ he 
proposed to encourage the settling of foreigners in this country as one 
of the means of increasing our wealth and advancing our trade and 
manufactures; and on the rejection of the bill he published ‘ Reflec- _ 
tions on the Expediency of a Law for the Naturalisation of Foreign — 
Protestants,’ in two parts. In these he gave a most lucidandcom- ~ 
plete historical review of the laws with regard to foreigners from the — 
earliest time ; and treated with severity and ridicule the jealous and 
illiberal conduct of the English with regard to other nations. His _ 
arguments in favour of inducing foreigners to give this country the 
benefit of their skill and capital, and his enlightened analysis of our 
history, in reference to their exclusion, are among the very bestof — 
his writings. He was soon called upon to exert himself again in the © 
same cause. In 1753 a bill was brought into the Lords to: be 
Jews to be naturalised by parliament, a privilege from ee 
had been excluded by an act of the 7th James I. (c. 2), chiefly di _. 
against the Papists, and which required all persons applying for natu- 
ralisation to have taken the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, This — 
bill was violently opposed in both houses of parliament, and through- — 
out the country, but being supported by the ministers, at length 
received the royal assent. No sooner had it become the law than the 
clamours with which it had been assailed were redoubled, and while 
they were at their height, Dr. Tucker boldly undertook the defence 
of the measure in two ‘ Letters toa Friend concerning Naturalisations.’ 
The act was nowhere more unpopular than at Bristol, and the popu-— 
lace were so enraged at his opposition to their prejudices, that they — 
burned him in effigy in full canonicals; and he is said to have wit- 
nessed the ceremony from his own garden. The violence of public — 
feeling upon the subject at that time may be judged of from the facts _ 
that on the last day of the winter session, in the same year, the Duke © 
of Newcastle was forced to move for the repeal of the act, and that — 
the obnoxious measure was actually repealed. a 
At the very commencement of the disturbances in the American 
colonies, the dean took a view of British interests at variance with 
all parties, and published several tracts from time to time as thecon- — 
test proceeded. He showed no sympathy with the Americans, nor — 
did he acknowledge the justice of their complaints. On the contrary — 
he vindicated the constitutional right of the mother country to tax 
her colonies, and accused the Americans of ingratitude in resisting — 
the mild and liberal sway of England. Thus far he agreed with the — 
court party; but while they urged coercion and punishment, and 
while the opposition were seeking to conciliate and make concessions, — 
Dr. Tucker proposed to abandon the colonies altogether. He did not — 
doubt the power of England to coerce the Americans, but he asked, — 
in ‘A Letter from a Merchant in London, to his Nephew in America, 
‘“‘How are we to be benefited by our victories? And what fruits — 
are to result from making you a conquered people? Not an increase — 
of trade; that is impossible: for a shopkeeper will never get the more — 
custom by beating his customer; and what is true of a shopkeeper is — 
true of a shopkeeping nation.” To these opinions he always adhered, — 
and took every occasion to enforce them, Writing so late as 1782, — 
he stated that he had held the opinion for upwards of five and twenty — 
years that colonies were detrimental to a country, and that he had 
been “ growing every day more and more convinced.” These views 
were consistent with his-uniform advocacy of perfect freedom of trade 
and navigation ; and were strengthened by his horror of the needless 
wars which had too often been caused by distant colonial possessions. _ 
The warmth of the controversy led him to speak with much acri- — 
mony of the American people, their leaders and advocates, and some 
of his statements brought him into collision with Mr. Burke, who — 
treated him with great disrespect. “This Dr. Tucker,” he said in his” 
celebrated speech on American taxation (April 19, 1774), “is i. 
a dean, and his earnest endeavours in this vineyard will, I suppose, 
raise him to a bishopric.” In consequence of this reference to 
the dean addressed his next pamphlet, in the form of a letter, to Mr, — 
Burke, and dissected the speeches of that statesman upon the American — 
question, and again enforced his own opinions. <7) 
His views of the American Fe ee glier led him frequently to oppose — 
the doctrines laid down by Mr. Locke, and relied upon by the © 
Americans—that the consent of the governed, given either by them- — 
selves or by their representatives chosen by them, is the only foundation 
of civil government and the only justification of taxes. In res i 
his pamphlets he combated these principles, and at length devoted an — 
elaborate work to their refutation. In 1781 his ‘Treatise concerning 
Civil Government’ appeared. It consists of three parts. In the first he 
examines the doctrines of Mr. Locke, and of his followers, Dr. Price, Dr. 
Priestley, and Mr. Molyneux, as to the principles of civil and political — 
liberty. In the second he offers a theory of his own as the true : 
of civil government, and suggests alterations in the British constitu- 
tion, In the last he describes the former Gothic or feudal constitu- — 
tion of England, chiefly in order to show the gradual inerease of 
popular power and the limitation of the influence of the crown. The 


Acs. 


189 TUCKER, JOSIAH, D.D. 


TULL, JETHRO. 190 


- work evinces much acuteness and learning, but is of a somewhat 
_ desultory character. His opinions were decidedly adverse to any 
extension of popular representation, and he even proposed to raise the 
qualification of electors and of the members of the House of Commons. 
He had printed the greater portion of this work some years before, 
for private circulation amongst his friends, and it was actually quoted 
and attacked before it was published, 
’ The dévotion of his talents with so much ardour to political and 
commercial inquiries ‘laid him open to many sarcastic imputations of 
j paige his spiritual duties. His bishop especially, Dr. Warburton, 
_ between whom and the dean there seems to have been much want of 
_ cordiality, was alleged to have said that “his trade was his religion, 
‘and his religion a trade.” The dean took many opportunities of 
refuting these calumnies, and exposing the injustice of the prejudice 
_ with which his labours were regarded. On one occasion he thus ex- 
a himself :—* The bishop affects to’ consider me with contempt : 
) which I say nothing. He has sometimes spoken coarsely of me: to 
which I replied nothing. He has said that religion is my trade, and 
_ trade is my religion. Commerce and its connections have, it is true, 
_ been favourite objects of my attention ; and where’is the crime? And 
as for religion, I have carefully attended to the duties of my parish, 
nor have I neglected my cathedral. The world knows something of 
_ me as a writer {on religious subjects; and I will add (which the world 
_ does not know), that I have written near three hundred sermons, and 
preached them all, again and again. My heart is at ease on that 
‘score; and my conscience, thank God! does not accuse me.” In the 
preface to ‘ Reflections on the Expediency of a Law for the Naturali- 
gation of Foreign Protestants,’ he complains that he had “ undergone 
some censures for engaging in inquiries seemingly beside his pro- 
fession ;” and “he begs leave to’ offer some reasons for his interfering 
in those matters, and at the same time to vindicate himself from the 
supposition of having deserved the ill-treatment he has met with.” He 
states that “in his parish, though large and populous, he performs 
all the offices of his function himself, according to the best of his 
abilities ;” and therefore “flatters himself that as long as he follows 
these studies without neglecting his other engagements, and delivers 
his opinions in an inoffensive manner, he shall be excused in the judg- 
ment of all candid persons, though the warmth of party zeal, or the 
resentment of those whose interest clashes with that of the public, 
may excite them to vilify and insylt him.” ‘Three years later, he 
writes, “Another bill brought against me is that I am extremely 
ignorant in my peculiar profession as a divine; and that having dedi- 
cated too much of my time to the study of commerce, I have shamefully 
neglected to cultivate those sciences which more immediately belong 
_ tomy clerical profession. ‘To these charges I stand mute; and as my 
_ Apology for the Church of England, my Six Sermons, and my Letters 
7 ‘to the Rev. Dr. Kippis, are now before the public, let the impartial 
_ judge as they please.” / 
_ It is not surprising that the political works of so able a writer 
| 


_ should have attracted more public notice than his ministrations in the 
_ church, or even his published sermons and religious treatises; but it 
would be doing gross injustice to his memory not to mention with 
i at the zeal and learning displayed by him in the cause of religion. 
n none of his political writings did he show more ability than in his 
_ * Apology for the present Church of England,’ and his ‘ Letters to Dr. 
_ Kippis.’ In these he maintained the right and duty of the church to 
regulate the behaviour of ,its own members in such things as relate to 
_ the ends of its own institution; and thus he supported the practice of 
enforcing subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles on the part of the 
clergy. But at the same time he claimed the fullest indulgence for 
dissenters, and showed the mistaken policy of penal laws against 
ecclesiastical nonconformity. He published another valuable tract 
_ upon the same subjectin 1774, entitled ‘Religious Intolerance no 
- Part of the General Plan either of the Mosaic or Christian Dispensa- 
_ tion, At about the same time he published ‘ Seventeen Sermons on 
_ some of the most important Points of Natural and Revealed Religion.’ 
_ He proposed also to revise the Book of Common Prayer, to retrench 
its redundancies and repetitions, and to reduce its length; but he 
does not appear to have proceeded with this design. 
Asa political writer Dr. Tucker proved himself a man of uncommon 
Sagacity, judgment, and foresight, with a mind little tainted by pre- 
_ judice, and very far in advance of hisage. As a divine he would 
unquestionably have enjoyed a higher reputation, if his religious 
writings had not been eclipsed by the greater celebrity and interest of 
his political works, His style is clear, simple, and forcible; and his 
mode of treating a question rather popular than scientific, His 
_ principles and maxims, indeed, are always expressed in a concise and 
logical form, and the arrangement of his subject is methodical ; but 
the freedom of his style and the familiarity of his illustrations impress 
his writings with a character essentially popular. 

His numerous publications have never been collected, and are now 
extremely scarce. Many of them passed through several editions, and 
attracted a large share of public interest, both in this country and on 
the Continent. Their celebrity would most probably have continued 
until this day with greater lustre, had not Adam Smith since raised a 
beacon to political economists in his ‘Wealth of Nations,’ by which all 
‘direct their course, and beyond which none care to explore, 

In private life Dr. Tucker was an amiable and pious man, In his 


own parish he was deservedly loved and respected. His income was 
never largé, but his wants were few, and he dispensed his charities with 
a liberal hand. An anecdote is related of him which reflects great 
credit upon his heart. His curate at St. Stephen's, Bristol, was much 
esteemed by Dr. Tucker, and had a large family to support with very 
limited means. The dean conceived the project of resigning the 
rectory in his favour, and after much solicitation and interest, he per- 
suaded the chancellor, in whose gift it was, to accept his resignation, 
and bestow the living upon his friend. He then resided almost 
entirely at the deanery in Gloucester. Late in life he married Mrs, 
Crowe, his housekeeper. He died on the 4th of November 1799, at 
the advanced age of eighty-eight, and was interred in the south tran- 
sept of the cathedral at Gloucester. (Gentleman's Magazine, 1799, 
vol. lxix.; Seward, Anecdotes; Tucker's various tracts and treatises.) 

TUDELA, BENJAMIN OF, [Bensamin or TUDELA.] 

TUDOR. [Henry VII.]} 

TUDWAY, THOMAS, Doctor in Music, a name well known in 
musical history, but more on account of his connection with the lord 
high treasurer Harley and of his conversational talents, than for any 
productions of his pen that have survived him. He was educated in 
the King’s Chapel, under Dr. Blow, and was a fellow-pupil of Purcell. 
In 1671 he became organist of King’s College, Cambridge, and in 1705 
was honoured by a Doctor's degree in that university, and also 
appointed the professor of music, after which Queen Anne named 
him as her organist and composer extraordinary. He was now much 
patronised by the Oxford family; and the valuabie scores of English 
church music, in many volumes, in the British Museum, were collected 
by him for Lord Oxford, and form part of the Harleian collection, 
No. 7337, et seg. There is a tradition that, with Prior, Sir James 
Thornbill, and other eminent persons, “ he formed a weekly society at 
the house of the lord high treasurer. Thornhill drew all their por- 
traits in pencil, and Prior wrote humorous verses under each. These 
passed into the possession of Mr. West, formerly president of the 
Royal Society.” A portrait of Dr. Tudway is in the music-school at 
Oxford. He composed anthems and a few other works; but except 
one of the former, published in Dr. Arnold’s ‘ Collection of Cathedral 
Music,’ we have not met with any one of his productions, 

TULL, JETHRO, was born about the year 1680. . A gentleman of 
moderate fortune, he zealously devoted a great part of his life 
to the improvement of agriculture. He possessed a small estate 
near Hungerford, on the borders of Oxfordshire and Berkshire, 
and has generally been considered as the father of the drill and horse- 
hoeing husbandry. Having observed the good effects of the cultiva- 
tion of many plants in regular rows, and of frequently stirring the 
intervals between them, as has been done from time immemorial by 
gardeners, he attempted to introduce this system into the field, and 
invented many ingenious implements for diminishing the labour of 
hand-drilling and hoeing. The success which attended his first expe- 
riments, on a good deep loam, confirmed his expectations, and led 
him to a theory, which was the cause of his own ultimate ruin, and 
threw discredit on the whole system, which in other respects was 
founded on sound principles. Observing that, by means of assiduous 
cultivation and stirring of the soil around the roots of growing plants, 
he produced a greater luxuriance of growth than by the common 
methods, without any addition of manure for several years, he con- 
cluded rashly that the earths very finely divided, together with 
moisture, constituted the whole of the food of plants, and that, con- 
sequently, stirring and pulverising the soil was a complete substitute 
for manuring. Having fully established this erroneous principle in 
his own mind, he exerted all his ingenuity to effect the most complete 
pulverisation of the soil. In the first place all the seeds were to be 
sown in rows at such a distance that a plough or other stirring-instru- 
ment drawn by a horse might conveniently be used in the intervals. 
From this circumstance his system was called the horse-hoeing 
husbandry. The immense advantage which would arise from the 
cultivation of waste lands in distant parts of the kingdom, if the 
increased labour of men and horses were a perfect substitute for 
manure, where it could not well be procured, made many clever men 
look upon Tull’s system as a most wonderful discovery; and the first 
trials appeared to be so successful, that the ‘new husbandry,’ as it was 
called, was strongly recommended for general adoption. 

The great reluctance with which any new system is adopted by the 
mass of pias farmers prevented the new husbandry from becoming 
universal ; and only some men of a theoretical turn fully adopted the 
notions of Jethro Tull. All those who persevered in the practice of 
it, neglecting to recruit their lands by a judicious addition of manure, 
found to their cost that, however good crops they might have for a 
time, by continually stirring and pulverising the soil, it became 
totally exhausted at last, so as to produce a barrenness, which required 
a long course of expensive manuring to remove, and was the cause of 
serious ultimate loss, Tull himself, who adhered to his principles to 
the last, like most original inventors, and expended large sums in 
experiments, and in the construction of a variety of new and inge- 
nious implements, became so embarrassed that he lost all his property, 
and, it is said, died in prison, where he had been put by some merci- 
less creditor. (‘British Husbandry,’ ‘Farmer's Series of the Library 
of Useful Knowledge, published by the Society for the Diffusion of 
Useful Knowledge.) He died in January 1740.. 


a 


191 TULLUS HOSTILIUS. 


TUPPER, MARTIN FARQUHAR, D.C.L. 


The unhappy fate of the author of the system, and the loss sus- 
tained by its principal abettors, threw such a discredit upon it, that 
for a long time not even the most useful part of it was retained. Had 
Tull introduced the row culture, as it is practised in Lombardy, from 
which he borrowed some of his principal operations, and joined 
judicious manuring with his horse-hoeing, he would have had the 
merit of originating in England, at least, the greatly-improved system 
of drill-husbandry which has since been generally adopted wherever it 
can be conveniently executed; and the sowing of seeds broad-caat 
would have long since been confined to artificial grasses, which, being 
intended for pasture, cannot grow too closely together, The cleaning 
of the soil from weeds, and the exposure of a great part of the surface 
to the influence of the atmosphere, would have entirely superseded 
fallows, and a proper application of manure would have kept up the 
fertility. 

Tull published a treatise on his new mode of cultivation in 1731, in 
which his principles were explained and calculations made, founded 
on his early experiments, of the immense profit which would accrue in 
the course of years by adopting his practice. Change of crop would 
be no longer necessary; rotations useless; the most profitable crops 
could be raised year after year without diminution ; and the soil be 
kept in a state of perpetual fertility. Such were the visions of a man 
of considerable abilities, led into error by his own sanguine imagina- 
tion. Had the soil of Tull’s farm been of a poor gravelly or sandy 
nature, he would soon have discovered his error by a few experi- 
ments; but working on a good deep loam, and continually keeping it 
stirred and pulverised, it required a much longer time to exhaust it; 
but at last it was completely exhausted, and the owner was ruined. 

Jethro Tull first published, in 1731, detached essays on his new 
mode of cultivation, which were afterwards, in 1751, collected into one 
volume, with copious notes by himself. 

In 1822 the late Mr. Cobbett edited a new edition of Tull’s works, 
with an introduction by himself, which, like everything written by 
that perspicuous writer, is full of useful remarks. Cobbett fully appre- 
ciated the value of the practical part of Tull’s system, and strongly re- 
commended it in his ‘ Cottage Economy.’ He showed there, by reference 
to actual experiments in a garden, how greatly the stirring of the soil 
around the roots of growing plants assisted their growth, and the 
advantage of allowing a certain space to every plant to admit of this 
stirring. Tull had cultivated roots with great success according to his 
system; and as long as the organic matter in the soil was not exhausted, 
the success fully proved the correctness of his practice. The greatest 
obstacle which Tull had to contend with was the obstinacy of his 
labourers, who thought him quite mad when he ordered them to sow 
only two rows ten inches apart on a stitch of land four feet six inches 
wide, leaving forty-four inches between each double row for the work- 
ing of the plough. He was forced indeed to put his hand to the 
plough himself. Whatever may have been the errors of Tull in 
hastily adopting an erroneous theory, he has many excuses in the 
received opinions of his time. 

TULLUS HOSTI’LIUS, the third king of Rome, reigned from 
B.0. 673 to 641. He is called a grandson of Hostus Hostilius, who fell 
in a battle against the Latins in the reign of Romulus. His reign is 
described as the very reverse of that of his predecessor, the pious and 
peaceable Numa, and he himself as even more warlike than Romulus. 
After the death of Numa the government was for a short time in the 
hands of interreges, until Tullus Hostilius was elected in the comitia 
of the Populus, and his election confirmed by the senate. The most 
memorable event of his reign is the war with Alba, which is celebrated 
in ancient story on account of the single combat between the Horatii 
and Curiatii, and which was followed by the destruction of Alba, and 
the establishment of the Roman plebs. The whole detail of the war 
cannot be regarded as historical, and has all the appearance of a 
poetical tradition. It is said to have arisen from predatory incursions 
which the Albans made into the territory of Rome, and the Romans 
into that of Alba, That there had existed a friendly relation between 
the two towns before is implied in the statement that the Horatii and 
Curiatii were related ; and even now war might have been avoided, if 
it had not been for the cunning and the warlike character of T'ullus, 
who forced the Albans to it. The Albans encamped four miles from 
Rome, and the trench which their king (dictator) Cluilius is said to 
have formed was the beginning of the Fossa Cluilia, He died during 
this invasion, and was succeeded by the dictator Mettus Fuffetius. 
The hostile armies had been arrayed against one another for a long 
time, when at last the Alban dictator proposed that the war should be 
decided by asingle combat. The fight of the Horatii and Curiatii 
accordingly brought the war to a close, and Alba recognised the 
supremacy of Rome, and promised to furnish its contingent to the 
Roman armies. The formulz of the Fetial law, and the trial of one 
of the Horatii for having slain his sister, contain some genuine and 
important documents of the olden time of Rome. (Livy, i. 24-26.) In 
the war of Tullus Hostilius against Fidenz, which was supported by 
Veii, Mettus Fuffetius, according to the treaty between the two states, 
joined the Roman army with his troops, but with the design of aban- 
doning his ally, and going over to the enemy at the critical moment. 
Tullus Hostilius discovered the treachery, and after the Fidenates and 
Veientines were vanquished, he punished the treacherous dictator by 
having him torn in pieces by two chariots to which he was fastened, 


‘nations of the story, see Niebuhr, ‘Hist. of Rome,’ i, 246, &e.; — 


192 


and at the same time he sent out his legions with orders to 
destroy the town of Alba, which, with the exception of its temples, 
was accordingly razed to the ground. The inhabitants of Alba were — 
transferred to Rome, where the Czlian hill was assigned tothemas — 
their habitation. Several of the noble Alban families were incor- — 
porated with the Roman patricians, and the number of Roman equites 
was likewise doubled, while the great mass of the Alban population — 
were treated as an inferior race, and formed the Roman plebs. When — 
Tullus Hostilius had thus strengthened his kingdom, a war arose — 
between the Romans and the Sabines, in which the Sabines were — 
defeated near the Silva Malitiosa, But after these successful under- 
takings the gods afflicted Rome with a pestilence, which was preceded — 
by several awful prodigies. The king however continued his warlike — 
pursuits, until at last he was seized with the disease. In order to — 
propitiate the gods, he consulted the Commentarii of Numa, which — 
contained rules about the manner in which the wrath of the gods was 
to be appeased. He found the formula with which Numa a q 
formed his solemn sacrifices to Jupiter Elicius, Tullus Hostilius 
attempted to do the same, and to call down the god, but he committed — 
a mistake in his use of the sacred formula, and the god in his anger — 
destroyed the king and his whole house by lightning, 7 hea 
This is the story of Tullus Hostilius as related by Livy (i. 22-32), 
which bears much more traces of a genuine tradition than the detailed 
and interpolated account in Dionysius (iii. 1, &c.) Respecting expls 
Malden, ‘ Hist. of Rome,’ p. 127, &e. add 
TUNSTALL, JAMES, D.D., was born about 1710, and educated at — 
St. John’s College, Cambridge, of which he afterwards became a 
Fellow and tutor. In 1739 he obtained the rectory of Sturmer in 
Essex, and two years later he was appointed chaplain to Potter, arch- 
bishop of Canterbury. In 1744 the University of Cambridge conferred — 
upon him the degree of D.D. After having held the office of chaplain — 
for several years, he received from the archbishop the rectory of Great 
Chart in Kent, and the vicarage of Minster in the Isle of Thanet, He 
resigned both places in 1757 for the more lucrative vi of Roch- — 
dale in Lancashire, which was given him by Archbishop Hutton, to 
whom he was related by marriage. He remained here until his death, 
on the 28th of March 1772, although he was from the first much dis- 
appointed in the expectations which he had entertained concerning his 
position at Rochdale. This disappointment, together with various 
troubles in his family, is believed to have hastened his death. ~ ee 
Dr. Tunstall was a man of a most amiable and humble character; 
when he left the place of chaplain to the Archbishop of Canterbury it 
was said of.,him, that of all the humble men that had ever held that — 
office, he was the only one that remained humble when he left it. 
He was a scholar of considerable ability, although he has not done — 
much. But there are some points which he has settled. The work 
to which we allude is his letter to Dr. Middleton, ‘ Epistola ad Virum ~ 
eruditem C. Middleton,’ 8vo, Cambridge, 1741. In this letter he © 
questions the genuineness of the collection of the epistles between 
Cicero and Brutus, entitled ‘Epistole ad Brutum,’ which Middle- 
ton had made use of without any doubts as to their genuine- 
ness, while, according to the opinion of Dr. Tunstall, he had not 
paid sufficient attention to Cicero’s letters addressed to his brother 
Quintus and to Atticus. His views respecting the doubtful character 
of the correspondence between Cicero and Brutus were further deve-— 
loped in an English essay, ‘Observations on the present Collection of 
Epistles between Cicero and Brutus,’ These two dissertations have - 
so far settled the question respecting the authenticity of those epistles, 
that all the subsequent editors of Cicero have regarded them at least 
as very doubtful. The other works of Dr. Tunstall are of a theologi 
or theologico-political character :—1, ‘A Sermon before the House of — 
Commons, May 29, 1746, 4to; 2, ‘A Vindication of the Power of the © 
State to prohibit Clandestine Marriages, 1755, 8vo; 3, ‘ i no 
Society stated, with some Considerations on Government;’ 4, ‘Aca- 
demica, Part the First, containing Discourses upon Natural and Re- 
vealed Religion, a Concio and a Thesis.’ The second part of this wor' 
did not appear during the author's lifetime; but it is gene 
believed that the ‘ Lectures on Natural and Revealed Religion,’ wh 
were edited after his death by his brother-in-law, the Rev. Mr, Do 
worth, were intended by the author to form part the second 
his ‘Academica.’ In the British Museum there exists a collecti 
of letters forming the correspondence between Tunstall and the E 
of Oxford, in the years 1738 and 1739, on the subject of Ducket 
atheistical letters. a 
* TUPPER, MARTIN FARQUHAR, D.C.L., F.R.S., is the eld 
son of the late Martin Tupper, Esq., surgeon, of New Burlingt 
street, London, where he was born in 1810. His family, which 
banished from Hesse Cassel in the persecution of the Protesta: 
under Charles V., had been settled for many generations in the isk 
of Guernsey; and his immediate ancestor caused the victory at La 
Hogue, by giving secret intelligence to the British admiral of the 
position of the French fleet at great personal risk and danger, 
afterwards led the marines at the affair of Bunker's Hill. The 
subject of this memoir received his education at the Charter House 
and at Christchurch, Oxford, where he graduated in 1831, and was 
shortly afterwards called to the bar. His first publication was a small 
volume of religious poems, given to the world anonymously in 1832, 


= 


——————— Cl 


TURENNE, VICOMTE DE, 


TURENNE, VICOMTE DE. 


194 


His name first became generally known by the publication in 1839 of 
*Proverbial Philosophy.’ In spite of the severest and most hostile 
criticism, this work soon became popular, mainly perhaps on account 
of its novel and almost Eastern style, and has now (1857) reached a 
30th edition in England alone, while upwards of half a million of 
copies have been sold in America. It was rapidly followed by ‘ The 
Crock of Gold ;' ‘A Modern Pyramid; ‘A Thousand Lines ;’ ‘ Heart,’ 
a social novel; ‘ The Twins,’ a domestic novel; and a large number of 
ballads, songs, and occasional poems, &c., among which, ‘The Dirge 
on Wellington ;’ ‘Ballads for the Times on White Slavery ;’ and 
* American Ballads,’ are the most generally known. He has also 
recently published a work on Christian evidences, entitled ‘ Proba- 
bilities, an aid to Faith,’ as well as ‘Paterfamilias’s Diary of Every- 


_ body’s Tour;’ and a translation from the Anglo-Saxon language of 


King Alfred’s poems, into similar English metres. 

TURENNE, HENRI, VICOMTE DBE, second son of Henri duc de 
Bouillon and of Elizabeth of Nassau, was born on the 11th of Septem- 
ber 1611. His constitution showed symptoms of weakness till he 
attained his twelfth year. His imagination however had been inflamed 
by the perusal of the lives of celebrated warriors, and perhaps by the 
conversation at his father’s court, before he was ten years of age; and 
it is possible that the opposition at first offered to his embracing arms 
as a profession on account of his indifferent health may have con- 
firmed his wish to become a soldier. The Duc de Bouillon was one 
of the ablest soldiers bred in the echool of Henri IV.; his bigh rank, 
love of letters, attachment to the Calvinistic faith, and abilities as a 
statesman, raised him to be the leader of the Huguenot party after the 
death of that prince; and his position as sovereign of the small state 
of Sedan opened a range to his ambitious views, and lent to his 
character a tone of independence which he could not have acquired as 
a mere peer of France. The spirit instilled into the young mind of 
Turenne in a court which took its character from such a prince was 
even from the first more the ambition of the statesman and scientific 
commander than the imaginative chivalry which inspired most boys. 
He learned slowly and with difficulty ; he rebelled against punishment 
and ‘constraint; but when his ambition was appealed to, he made 
dogged perseverance a substitute for quick apprehension. His moral 
character was developed under the control of Tilenus, a moderate 
Calvinist, by whom he was confirmed in a natural benevolence and 
sincerity of disposition, and accustomed to subject his naturally strong 
and excitable passions to the dictates of reason by his still more 
powerful wil]. He evinced a taste for athletic exercises, which con- 
tributed materially to strengthen his naturally weak constitution. 

The Due de Bouillon died in 1623; but the system of education he 
had adopted for the young Turenne was persevered in by his widow. 
Jealousy of the designs supposed to be entertained by Cardinal 
Richelieu to the prejudice of the Huguenots induced this lady to send 
Turenne, in 1625, to Holland, to the charge of his uncle Prince 
Maurice. This statesman and warrior soon detected a large fund of 
good sense beneath the nowise showy exterior of his nephew, and 
exerted himself to cultivate the lad’s natural-talents. He made him 
commence his apprenticeship to the art of war by carrying a musket 
as a volunteer, and rendering himself practically familiar with the 
duties of the private soldier and subaltern officer. Three months after 
the arrival of Turenne in Holland, Prince Maurice died; but his 
brother Henry Frederic, who succeeded to his high office, was equally 
attentive to their young relative. In 1626 Turenne obtained a com- 
pany of infantry; and continued to serve under his uncle till 1630. 
He distinguished himself by anxiety to learn the whole theory as well 
as the practice of war. His company was the best disciplined and 
accoutred in the army; his own routine duties were performed with 
unfailing regularity ; and his leisure time was spent in taking part in 
every enterprise where experience was to be acquired. He was natu- 
rally of a fearless disposition : in his anxiety to learn he appeared to 
forget the very existerice of danger. Eagerness to do his work 
thoroughly was apt, when an attack was ordered, to carry him beyond 
the bounds of prudence. Under Prince Frederic Henry, and opposed 
to Spinola, he acquired in the course of six years an intimate and 
extensive knowledge of the kind of war at that time carried on in 
Holland—a succession of sieges. 

In 1630 Richelieu contemplated placing a French garrison in the 
town of Sedan, and the only means by which the dowager duchess of 
Bouillon could avert so dangerous a step for the independent sove- 
reignty of the young duke, yet a minor, was by sending a hostage to 
the French court. For this purpose her younger son was sent to 
Paris. Turenne, whose reputation had preceded him, was received 
with open arms at court, and though only nineteen, appointed to the 
command of a regiment of infantry. His history for the next four 
years isa blank. The first opportunity he had of distinguishing him- 
self after entering the service of France was at the siege of La Motte 
in 1634: his conduct on that occasion procured for him, in his 
twenty-third year, the appointment of maréchal-du-camp, then the 
next in rank to that of maréchal de France. 

In 1635 the Cardinal de Richelieu sent four armies into the field to 
attack the Spaniards simultaneously on as many different points. 
One under ChAtillon and De Brézé marched into the Low Countries; 
the Maréchal de Créqui Jed another into the Milanese; the Duc de 
Rohan a third into the Valteline; the Cardinal de la Valette was 

BIOG, DIV. VOL. VI. 


placed at the head of the forces destined to co-operate with the 
Swedes in Germany, and Turenne was attached to him as maréchal- 
du-camp. La Valette joined the Duke of Weimar at Bingen on the 
Rhine in August, and the combined forces forced Mansfeld to raise 
the siege of Mayence. The Imperial general Galas contrived, by a 
movement from Worms, to cut off their communication with France, 
and the allied forces, stationed in a country exhausted by war, were 
thus exposed to famine. Turenne sold his plate to procure provisions 
for the soldiers under his immediate command. In the disastrous 
retreat that ensued, while discipline was almost entirely lost and the 
baggage thrown away by the rest of the army, he retained his troops 
in their accustomed order, abandoned only so much of the baggage as 
enabled him to procure waggons for those who were unable to march, 
and by mixing familiarly with the soldiers and sharing his provisions 
with them kept up their spirits. The duty of protecting the rear 
devolved mainly upon him, and in the discharge of this arduous task 
he had occasion to show how he had profited by his education in 
Holland, in the art of seizing upon defensible posts and maintaining 
them as long as might be necessary. The disasters of this campaign 
indisposed La Valette to undertake the command of that projected 
for the countries on the Upper Rhine in 1636, and Richelieu only 
overcame his reluctance by consenting that Turenne should again 
accompany him. The success which attended this division of the 
French forces, while those on the frontiers of the Netherlands were 
less fortunate, induced Richelieu in 1637 to give the command of the 
army against Flanders to La Valette, who again insisted upon having 
Turenne for one of his maréchaux-de-camp. This was a campaign of. 
sieges, and the conducting of them devolved almost exclusively upon 
Turenne. With infinite difficulty he took Landrécies; obliged Solre, 
with a garrison of two thousand men, to surrender at discretion in 
a few hours; defended Maubeuge successfully against the Cardinal 
Infant; and being intrusted with the pursuit of the retreating enemy, 
closed the campaign by driving the Spaniards across the Sambre. In 
1638 Richelieu sent two reinforcements to the Duke of Weimar on 
the Upper Rhine, under Turenne and Guébriant, who were designated 
lieutenants-general, the first of that title in France. After the death 
of the Duke of Weimar in 1639, Turenne returned to Paris. Richelieu 
wished to marry the viscount to one of his relations; but Turenne, 
who foresaw difficulties that might arise on the score of religion, 
frankly, but respectfully declined the alliance. He was soon after 
sent to Italy, second in command to the Comte d’Harcourt. In 1640 
the French commander adopted the advice of Turenne in opposition 
to all the rest of his generals, and formed the siege of Turin. He 
sat down before the city on the 10th of May, and it held out till the 
17th of September. The garrison amounted to twelve thousand men, 
and thg enemy were in force in the neighbourhood; but T'urenne 
calculated upon the moral effects of the surrender of the town. He 
was employed to cover the siege with a strong detachment from the 
army, a task which he discharged successfully, Still the attack would 
have been abandoned, but for the excellence of his arrangements for 
supplying the besieging camp with provisions. After the surrender 
of Turin, D'Harcourt returned to France, leaving the army under the 
command of Turenne. The relations in which his brother the Duc de 
Bouillon stood to the court rendered it unadvisable in the eyes of the 
minister to intrust Turenne with an army, and D’Harcourt was ordered 
in 1641 to resume the command. During the remainder of the reign 
of Louis XIII. the political conduct of the Duc de Bouillon kept 
Turenne in the background. One of the first acts of Anne of Austria 
as regent was to send him letters patent appointing him general of 
the armies of the king in Italy. 

Italy was not however destined to be the scene of his exploits as a 
commander-in-chief. The Duc de Bouillon, who had reconciled him- 
self to the new court, soon quarrelled with it, as with the old, and 
took refuge at Rome. Mazarin thought it unsafe to leave the brother 
of this disaffected prince in command of an army so near him, and 
ordered Turenne to repair to Germany and re-organise the army 
which, originally raised by the duke of Weimar, had again been left 
without a leader through the death of Guébriant and capture of 
Rantzau by the Imperialists. Turenne took the command of this 
collection of soldiers of fortune without a country, most of them 
Germans by birth, in December 1643, and retained it till after the 
conclusion of the peace of Westphalia in October 1648. During the 
winter 1643-44 he succeeded, by the most strenuous exertions, and by 
raising money on his own credit, in re-equipping his army and 
restoring its discipline. He gave an army to the king, instead of 
receiving the command of one from him. And in the last year pre- 
ceding the peace of Westphalia it was his judgment and decision that 
restored this same army to France, after it was on its march to join 
the enemy on the allegation that the French government had broke 
faith with it, at a time when he could only pay the mutinous soldiers 
one month owt of a six months’ arrear. Yet with such an army, so 
great was his power of conciliating the affections and keeping up the 
spirits of the soldiery, he struggled through five campaigns, agaiust 
leaders of no ordinary ability, to a complete triumph. In conjunction 
with Condé he kept head against the Imperialists, flushed with recent 
success in 1644. In 1645 he prevented the bad effects of the defeat 
at Mariendal, incurred through the misconduct of Rosen, by his 
splendid retreat; and concluded the campaign by reinstating the 

) 


195 TURENNE, VICOMTE DE. 


TURGENEV, ALEXANDER IVANOVICH, 198 


sf 


elector of Tréves in the possession of his territories. In 1647 he put 
an end to the mischievous custom of separate and independent action 
on the part of the allied armies of France and Sweden, and com- 
menced the system of combined operations. which led in the course 
of that and the succeeding campaign to the occupation of the Bavarian 
territory and the emperor’s consent to the treaty of Miinster. 

The peace of Westphalia, which released France from foreign wars, 
was the signal for the commencement of civil broils. In the com- 
mencement of 1649 the regent and cardinal left Paris with the king, 
and the Prince of Condé commenced a blockade of the city. The 
due de Bouillon embraced the party of the Fronde. Turenne was at 
this time stationed with his army on the frontiers of Germany. 
Wholly engrossed with his military duties, he had hitherto taken no 
part in politics. ‘The Huguenots, among whose party he had been 
bred and educated, were opposed to the court. He was not a subject 
of France; his allegiance to that crown could be dissolved at any 
time by resigning his commission. Thus situated he rejected the 
overtures of Mazarin, telling him that the blockade of Paris during a 
minority appeared to be an unwarrantable stretch of power, and he 
endeavoured to persuade his officers to take part against the cardinal. 
The court however had gained so many regiments that he soon saw 
the attempt was vain, and retired to Holland with some of his personal 
friends. A hollow truce was soon after arranged between the con- 
tending factions, and Turenne returned to France. A quarrel between 
Condé and Mazarin led, after numerous petty intrigues, to the arrest 
of the former. Condé had not long before reconciled himself with 
the Duc de Bouillon and his brother: Turenne was faithful to the 
prince in adversity. He threw himself into Stenai, and prevented its 
being taken by the royal troops. He alone rallied the dispirited 
friends of Condé, and, by calling the Spaniards across the frontiers, 
procured the release of the prince, the exile of Mazarin, and the con 
clusion of a peace with Spain. 

Turenne returned to Paris, in May 1651. The court offered him 
favours and advancement; the Prince of Condé sought to enlist him 
in his party. He intimated to the former that he desired no prefer- 
ment; to the latter, that having accomplished his release from prison, 
his duty towards him was fully discharged. A less penetrating mind 
than Turenne’s could have discovered that a Huguenot party existed 
only in name; that the Fronde was an incongruous association of 
unprincipled intriguers, each of whom sought only his personal aggran- 
disement ; that the ace of petty independent sovereignties such as ex- 
isted in his house had passed ; and that the only career of honourable 
ambition open to him must be sought by becoming a French subject, 
attaching himself to the only minister capable of organising a strong 
government in France. With characteristic absence of display or 
precipitation he declared for the regent and Mazarin, and accepted in 
1652 the command of the royalarmy. It was soon evident that the 
same mind which alone upheld the Prince of Condé’s cause when he 
was imprisoned, now struggled to uphold the royal authority, against 
apparently «8 fearful odds. The Cardinal Mazarin, the object of 
popular execration, was again with the court, and all Franee seemed to 
unite against the prince. The king had to oppose one army to the 
Spaniards in Catalonia and another in Flanders; and only 9000 or 
10,000 men could be mustered to oppose the rebel nobles, The 
favouritism of the court, even at so anxious a moment, offered to 
Turenne the insult of proposing to divide the command between him 
and Haecquecourt, an officer ten years his junior. Knowing that time 
must do him justice, he complied with the unreasonable request. But 
his genius maintained its ascendant, and the plan and execution of the 
campaign were really his. By the close of the year Condé was obliged 
to quit France: the king was crowned at Rheims, entered Paris, and 
consigned the Cardinal de Retz, the only remnant of the Fronde, toa 
dungeon, = 

From 1653 till the conclusion of 1659, Turenne’s genius for war 
found ample scope in the wars of the French and Austrian Nether- 
lands. During the whole of this protracted struggle he had to 
contend against the Prince of Condé, the most brilliant military genius 
of his age. It was on the part of Turenne intense but regulated 
evergy,sound judgment and sleepless observation, opposed to an almoat 
miraculous quickness of perception on the part of his adversary, and 
an impetuosity of execution, to which an ardent imagination would 
have lent irresistible force could the effort have been made con- 
tinuous, The treaty of the Pyrenees put an end to a struggle more 
persevering and destructive than any that Europe had previously 
witnessed, and yet indicative of that growing equality of European 
states, the full sense of which can alone guarantee permanent peace. 

The death of Mazarin in 1661, and the resolution of Louis XIV. to 
be thenceforth his own prime minister, though it did not rasie Turenne 
to office, gave him a powerful influence in state affairs. He had from 
the time he embraced the cause of the Prince of Condé necessarily had 
a political character, but so long as Mazarin lived he was contented to 
leave it to contribute indirectly to its promotion. Almost thé only 
occasion in which he appears to have laid aside this passive character 
was in the negociations he commenced with Monk after the death of 
Cromwell. But his advice was sought and valued by the monarch 
who boasted that he was his own prime minister. e first sensible 
effect of the influence of Turenne was the resolution of Louis to 
protect the independence of Portugal, which Mazarin had made up 


his mind to sacrifice to the Spaniards. Turenne’s credit with De 
Witt was mainly intrumental in opening the negociations with Holland 
which led to the treaty of commerce concluded with that power, The _ 
instructions of the Count d'Estrades, who negociated the treaty, were __ 
drawn up by Turenne. When, in 1665, England and Holland each 
endeavoured to induce Louis XIV. to assist in the war against the — 
other, it was by the advice of Turenne that the king endeavoured to — 
reconcile the belligerents, 7 
Turenne had married, in 1653, Charlotte, only daughter and heiress — 
of the Duc de la Force, a zealous Protestant. Regard for his’ wifes 
feelings appears to have kept him longer in the Protestant communion __ 
than his own inclinations. The French Protestants had allowed them- 
selves to be made the instruments of political factions; and this cir 
cumstance, which had made Sully withdraw from their councils, kept 
Turenne from entering them. He had been educated by a moderate © 
Calvinist, and, like most active men who seek not a religion of abstract — 
opinions, but of practical influence, he cared little for doctrinal points. 
The fierce controversies of the Calvinists and Arminians d 54 
him; and the numberless sects which sprung up in Holland and ~ 
France confused him. Perusing the controversies of the Jansenists — 
and Jesuits, he found the very same controversy that shook the — 
Reformed Church agitating the Roman Catholic, and thus learned to 
look upon the difference between the two churches as merely formal. 
The conversation of prelates like the bishop of Meaux, and the silent 
influence of the conventional tone of the circles in which he moved, 
all contributed to sap his Protestantism, And althouzh Turenne’s 
mind would have revolted (had revolted in earlier life) from the idea — 
of changing his religion to advance his fortune, the feeling that it ers 
him in some sort an alien in the court of which he was one of the © 
brightest ornaments could not fail insensibly to influence his mind — 
when he had brought himself to view the difference between the 
sects as not essential. The death of the viscountess in 1666 removed — 
the last tie that bound him to the Protestants; and he was received 
into the bosom of the Roman Catholic Church by the archbishop of 
Paris. This transaction was privately conducted; the change of his — 
creed could not raise Turenne higher in the state than he already — 
stood ; his confidential letters for years previous show that his mind — 
was in a state to be easily determined to such a step: his whole © 
subsequent conduct indicates sincerity in his adopted faith. 4 
Although circumstances had obliged France to join the side of the 
Dutch in their war against England, France took scarcely any active 
part in the contest, and promoted the peace concluded between the — 
belligerents in 1667. Louis availed himself of the peace to form a 
combination against Spain, with a view to make himself master of the 
Spanish Netherlands. The campaign in Flanders, in which Louis told — 
Turenne he wished to learn the art of war under him, was the conse- 
quence. The fears entertained by England, and the partisans of the 
House of Orange in Holland, of the consequences of French aggrandise- _ 
ment on this side led to the last war of Turenne. The narrative ofthis — 
war, which commenced in 1672, belongs to history rather than to bio- _ 
graphy, which confines itself to the illustration of individual character, _ 
at least in a sketch like the preseut, in which the subject is presented 
merely in outline.. The victories gained by Turenne from the year — 
1672 to the year 1675 serve only, so far as he is concerned, to place in — 
a more brilliant light the qualities which he had amply displayed on 
former oecasions.: These victories served to impress Louis XIV., who 
gained by them, with the vain idea that he was invincible; but they 
taught William of Orange, who suffered by them, to act in future — 
years as became one who really was the scholar of Turenne. In — 
Montecuculi Turenne found an opponent worthy of him, one who, like 
himself, had passed through every grade of service. The premature 
death of the vicomte prevented either from claiming a personal advan-— 
over the other. Henri, Vicomte de Turenne, fell near ch, 
on the 26th of July 1675, while preparing to lead his troops into © 
action. The French soldiers cried, “Our father is dead;” the hostile — 
general declared that a man had fallen who did honour te human — 
nature; and the surviving French leaders, although their troops were _ 
marshalled for battle, retired without hazarding an action. The 
letters of Madame de Sevigné present a lively picture of the effect pro-— 
duced on the public mind at Paris by the intelligence of Turenne’s — 
death. , “4 
Turenne’s victories, his state papers (published by Ramsay at the — 
end of his Memoirs), and his private letters, all bear the impress of a 
truly great mind. In him clear and comprehensive views were com-— 
bined with energy in action: both in politics and religion he was — 
superior to the harsh and narrow feelings of the partisan; and his 
domestic life was eminently pure. ni 
TURGENEV, ALEXANDER IVANOVICH, a Russian historical — 
inquirer, was born in 1784, entered the Russian civil service, held a— 
post in the Ministry of Public Worship under Prince Galitzin, was a— 
prominent supporter of the Russian Bible Society, of which he was — 
president, and when that society was suppressed by imperial ukase in 
1826, retired from public employment. This step was also probably — 
occasioned in some degree by the position of his brother, who had — 
become compromised in the conspiracy of 1825. Alexander Turgenev — 
afterwards travelled abroad in search of historical documents relating 
to the history of Russia, the fruits of which appeared in a work in two 
volumes quarto, ‘ Historica Russie Monimenta’ (Historical Monuments 


‘ fi 
7 


- 


197 TURGENEV, NIKOLAI IVANOVICH. 


q 


TURGOT, ANNE-ROBERT-JACQUES. 198 


of Russia), published at St. Petersburg in 1841-42 as part of the great 

series pane | by the Imperial Archeological Commission. The volumes 

were issued under the editorship of Vostokov, who states in the 
preface that to collect them Turgenev had travelled in Germany, Italy, 

England, Denmark, and Sweden; but if so, his researches had either 

been far from industrious or far from successful. The documents that 

he produces from England are only twenty-three in number, and all 
‘taken from the Cottonian and Harleian collections at the British 
Museum. His acquisitions from other countries are still more scanty, 
with the exception of the library of the Vatican, which supplied him 
_ with the greater part of the materials of his volumes, and in these he 
- had the benefit of the previous researches of the Polish historian 
Albertrandi. Turgenev died at Moscow on the 17th of December 
ess A supplementary volume to the ‘Monimenta’ was published 
in 1848, 
*TURGENEV, NIKOLAI IVANOVICH, the younger brother of 
_ the preceding, born in 1790, studied at Gottingen, and was associated 
as Russian Commissioner in 1813 with the Baron von Stein in the 
_ provisional government of the German provinces reconquered from 
ce, He returned to Russia deeply impressed with the vigorous 
line of action of Stein, and with those liberal views in general which 
were then encouraged by the Emperor Alexander. In 1818 he pub- 
_ lished the earliest work on political economy in the Russian language, 
_ *Opuit Teorii Nalagov,’ or ‘Attempt at a Theory of Taxation,’ which 
was so successful as to reach a second edition in the next year. The 
_ abolition of the Russian system of serfage afterwards became the 
_ leading object of his life; and when the Russian government, towards 
_ the close of Alexander’s reign, entered on a retrograde policy, he 
became associated with the secret societies which then sprung up in 
reat profusion. He was abroad on foreign travel at the time that 
‘ e great outbreak of these associations was suddenly caused by the 
accession of the Emperor Nicolas in 1825, and terminated in their 
total defeat and the destruction of the principal conspirators. Turge- 
nev was condemned to death in his absence, and he has since resided 
-abroad, chiefly at Paris, on remnants of property saved to him by his 
brother Alexander. In 1847 he published at Paris a work in three 
volumes, in French, entitled ‘ Russia and the Russians,’ and in 1848 a 
pamphlet entitled ‘ Russia at the present Crisis.’ These works, which 
are written with much eloquence and spirit, are directed against the 
line of policy adopted by the Emperor Nicolas, which the author 
considered as sacrificing the real interests of Russia to a Quixotic 
defence of legitimist and in particular of Austrian ideas. 

*TURGENEV, IVAN, a Russian author of rising reputation, first 
made himself known by some poems published in 1843 and 1845, and 
afterwards became a contributor to the ‘Sovremennik,’ or ‘ Contem- 
_ porary,’ a leading periodical of St. Petersburg, first established by 

Pushkin. A series of articles by Turgenev in 1852, entitled ‘ Zapiski 
Okhotnika,’ or ‘ Papers of a Sportsman,’ attracted so much attention 
that they were republished separately, have run through several 
editions, and have since been translated into French, German, and 
English, the latter however merely from the French version. They 
are entitled ‘Russian Life in the Interior, or the Experiences of a 
Sportsman, edited by J. D. Meiklejohn,’ Edinburgh, 1855, Turgenev’s 
4 sketches of the Russian serfs, like those of the English peasantry in 

Miss Mitford's ‘ Village,” though exceedingly pleasant in themselves, 
haye the defect of only giving the best side of the original. 

TURGOT, ANNE-ROBERT-JACQUES, was born in Paris on the 
10th of May 1727. He was descended from one of the most ancient 
_ families in Normandy: his father, Michel-Etienne Turgot, was Prési- 
dent aux Requétes du Palais, and afterwards Prevét des Marchands, 
councillor of state, and first president of the Great Council; and his 
q 
b 


= 


oo 


a ee 


_ great-great-grandfather, Jacques Turgot, was one of the presidents of 
the noblesse in Normandy in the States of 1614. Being the youngest 
of three sons, Turgot was destined by his parents for the ecclesiastical 
profession, for which his taste for study, the modesty and simplicity 
of his manners, and a sort of timidity which kept him aloof from 
dissipation, appeared to fit him. But he very early formed a resolu- 
tion not to be an ecclesiastic. With his passion for science, as well as 
literature and poetry, it might be supposed that, having obtained his 
father’s consent to his plan of not entering the church, he would have 
desired no other employment than that of a man of letters. But 
Turgot resolved, without discarding his favourite pursuits, to adopt a 
more active employment than that of a mere man of letters or science. 
Having determined to adopt the profession of the bar, or the robe, as 
it was called in France before the Revolution, he selected that branch 
or department, the members of which used to be called Masters of 
Requests (Maitres des Requétes). The maitres des requétes seem 
originally to have been magistrates who laid the written requests or 
petitions of parties before the king’s council presided over by the 
chancellor. The term afterwards also came to signify those members 
of the profession of the robe, or bar, whose business it was to make a 
verbal report of cases before the council of state. (‘Dictionnaire de 
_ LAcadémie Frangaise,’ art. ‘Requéte.’) It would appear indeed that the 
business of a maitre de requétes, as followed by Turgot, corresponded 
in some respects with that of a counsel in England practising before the 
privy council; with this difference however, that the maitres des 
requétes were not employed by parties or for them, but by and for 
the court: so that in some respects they resembled rather our masters 


1 


in Chancery ; with this difference again, that the Master in Chancery’s 
report is written ; and neither spoken nor yet read by himself, 

In 1761 Turgot was appointed intendant of Limoges. The office of 
intendant of a province in France, before the Revolution, was an 
administrative office. Turgot had, with a view of preparing himself 
for the duties of his new office, specially studied those branches of 
science which had most relation to them, particularly such of the 
physical and mathematical sciences as applied to agriculture, to manu- 
factures, to commerce, and the construction of public works. During 
the thirteen years that the province of the Limousin was under the 
administration of Turgot, the more equitable distribution of imposts, 
the making of roads, the militia, the providing of subsistence for the 
people, and the protection of commerce, were the principal objects of 
his labours, He also applied himself to give activity to the Society of 
Agriculture of Limoges, and to direct its labours towards a useful 
end; he caused the midwives, who were scattered over the country, 
to be properly instructed ; he secured to the people, during epidemics, 
the assistance of skilful physicians; and he introduced into his district 
the cultivation of potatoes, which the people at first looked down 
upon as a sort of food unfit for man; but Turgot overcame their pre- 
judices by using them at his own table. 

Turgot’s plans for the ‘repartition des impéts, and for the removal 
of the ‘corvées,’ the old contrivance for the repair of roads and 
bridges, deserve, on account of their importanee, a few words of 
explanation, 

The greater part of the lands of Turgot’s province of the Limousin 
was farmed by ‘metayers,’ whom the owner of the land furnished 
with the seed, cattle, implements of husbandry, and everything neces- 
sary for the cultivation of the farm. Under this form of cultivation, 
Condorcet says, it was very difficult to distinguish between that 
portion of the whole produce of the land which was to pay the 
expenses of cultivation, in other words, the interest, or rather profits, 
of the capital advanced in the shape of cattle and implements of hus- 
bandry, as well as’ the wages of labour, and that portion which 
remained after such payment in the shape or under the name of 
‘produit net, or rent. But it is evident that, according to the above 
account, the metayers bore only the character of labourers, without 
in any degree partaking of that of capitalists. Consequently, what- 
ever part of the produce went to them must be considered simply as 
the wages of labour; while what went to the proprietors consisted at 
once of the rent and the profits of capital. 

Instead of the impdts or land-tax being raised upon that part of the 
whole produce which could be justly considered as produit-net or rent, 
the only part which consistently with justice and with sound princi- 
ples of public economy can be subjected to taxation, the tax was 
imposed and levied without reference to that, and a part, probably the 
principal part of the tax, operated as a tax upon labour and capital. 
Turgot laboured long and ardently, but in vain, to obtain an adjust- 
ment of this matter—a measure which he considered of such para- 
mount importance, that he remarked, that no man who really believed 
the ‘impét territorial,’ or land-tax, properly apportioned, impracticable 
or unjust, could possess sound views on administration. Turgot seems 
to have considered that the best mode of levying the land-tax was to 
take a certain proportion of the rent. He seems also to have con- 
sidered that this tax, properly apportioned and levied, would super- 
sede the necessity of all other taxes. He says, “A fixed law might 
terminate for ever all disputes between the government and the 
people, and particularly by fixing one scale for war and another for 
peace. Arrangements would be made in consequence in purchases 
and sales, and the part of the rent that bears the tax would no longer 
be purchased, any more than the share of the curé. At the end of 
some time it is very true that nobody would pay taxes. But the king 
would be proprietor of a proportional part of the revenue of all the 
land. This revenue would iucrease with the riches of the nation; 
and if this increase of wealth increased wants there would be a suffi- 
ciency to supply them. The riches of the king would be the measure 
of the riches of the nation; and the administration, always affected 
by the reaction of its errors, would constantly be instructed by the 
simple calculation of the produce of the taxes.” (‘uvres de Turgot,’ 
tom. iv., p. 255.) 

Another great object of Turgot’s labours was to deliver the Limousin 
from the oppressive burden of the corveés; which consisted in the 
repair of the highroads by the compulsory labour of the poor 
inhabitants of the district. This impost pressed directly and exclu- 
sively on the poor man, the principle having been adopted of exacting 
it in kind. The hardship was extreme: men who had only their day's 
wages to live on were compelled to work without wages; the beasts 
necessary to the tillage of the ground were taken away from their 
work without regard to the inconveniences thereby occasioned. 
Besides this, the roads were made with ill-will. The workmen were 
ignorant of the art of road-making; so that the frequent repairs of 
the roads, either made badly or with bad materials, were necessary 
consequences. ‘T'urgot proposed to the ‘communautés’ adjoining the 
high-roads to have the work done by contract. By this means the 
original construction of the roads was at once more substantial and 
more economical, and they could be kept up afterwards at a less cost. 
Thus those features of the corvées that implied constraint and personal 
servitude disappeared. The unjust distribution of the impost for pay- 


199 ‘TURGOT, ANNE-ROBERT-JACQUES. 


- 


TURGOT, ANNE-ROBERT-JACQUES. 


ing the contractor still remained, for it was beyond the power of an 
intendant to alter it. 

On the death of Louis XV. a wider field was opened for the execution 
of Turgot’s enlarged and beneficent policy. The state of France, 
oppressed. and exhausted by an accumulation of abuses, demanded a 
reforming minister; and the public voice called Turgot to the highest 
offices, as a man who united to all the knowledge which is the result 
of study the experience acquired by habits of business. He was at 
first appointed minister of the marine; but after continuing only a 
month in this situation, in which he felt that he wanted much of the 
necessary knowledge, he received the appointment of comptroller- 
general of finance, an employment for which all the labours of his 
previous life had prepared him. The comptroller-general of finance 
was then prime minister of France. 

In his letter to the king of the 24th of August 1774, Turgot said, 
“T confine myself at present, Sire, to remind you of these three words 
—no bankruptcy, no augmentation of imposts, no loans. To fulfil 
these three conditions,” he says, “there is but one means: to reduce 
the expenditure below the receipt, and sufficiently below it to be able 
to economise every year twenty millions, in order to clear off the old 
debts. Without that the first cannon fired will force the state to a 
bankruptcy.” He then explained at some length the means which he 
considered the best for effecting the saving in question, and thus 
concluded :—“ These are the points which your majesty has permitted 
me to recall to you. Your majesty will not forget that in accepting 
the place of comptroller-general, I felt all the value of the confidence 
with which you honoured me. I felt that you intrusted to me the 
happiness of your people, and, if I may be allowed to say so, the care 
of rendering your person and your authority beloved ; but at the same 
time I felt all the danger to which I exposed myself. 1 foresaw that 
I should have to contend alone against abuses of every kind, against 
the efforts of those who gain by those abuses, against the mass of 
prejudices which are opposed to all reform, and which are so powerful 
a means in the hands of interested persons to eternalise disorders. 
I shall even have to struggle against the natural goodness, against the 
generosity of your majesty, and of the persons who are most dear to 
you. I shall be feared, even hated, by the greatest part of the court, 
by all who solicit favours; and they will impute to me all the refusals, 
they will represent me as a harsh man (dur), because I shall have 
represented to your majesty that you ought not to enrich even those 
whom you love at the expense of the substance of your people. That 
people to whom I shall have sacrificed myself are so easily deceived, 
that perhaps I shall incur their hatred by the very measures which I 
shall employ in their defence. I shall be calumniated, and perhaps 
with sufficient appearance of truth to deprive me of the confidence of 
your majesty. Ishould not regret the loss of a place to which I never 
raised my expectations. I am ready to give it up as soon as I can no 
longer hope to be useful in it; but your esteem, the reputation of 
integrity, the public good-will, which have determined your choice in 
my favour, are dearer to me than life. Your majesty will remember 
that it is on the faith of your promises that I undertake a burden 
perhaps above my strength; that it is to you personally, to the 
honest, the just, and good man, rather than to the king, that I give 
myself up.” 

One of the first measures of Turgot was the establishment of a free 
trade in corn in the interior of the kingdom. He threw down those 
artificial barriers, in the construction of which man had employed a 
perverted ingenuity, to prevent one province which might chance to 
labour under a temporary famine arising from a bad harvest from 
_ being relieved by the superabundance of a more fortunate district, and 
thus constantly retain some part of the kingdom in misery and distress, 
and at the same time cramp the energies and diminish the resources 
of the whole. He felt at the same time how much perfect freedom in 
the external trade in corn would add to the security of subsistence, 
but he knew that the time was not yet arrived when such a measure 
could be attempted with success. Besides the restrictions on the free 
passage of corn from one part of the kingdom to another, there were 
numerous local restrictions and exactions, most of which (such as the 
exclusive privilege of bakers, the ‘ banalité’ of mills, &c.) were 
removed during Turgot’s administration, He also passed a law 
abolishing the coryées throughout France, a law which, with the 
characteristic infatuation of the privileged classes, who would give up 
nothing till it was too late, was revoked immediately after Turgot’s 
removal from office. By these different laws, the servitude of the 
inhabitants of the rural districts was nearly destroyed. Turgot also 
abolished most of the restrictions and exclusive privileges under which 
the inhabitants of the towns suffered. Freedom of trade was granted 
to the glass-works of Normandy, which, being obliged to supply Paris 
and Rouen with a certain quantity of glass at a low price, would have 
derived no advantage from bringing their manufacture to perfection, 
and had remained in that state of mediocrity to which oppressive laws 
condemn all the manufactures which have the misfortune to be 
subjected to them. 

In regard to his financial operations, the characteristics of Turgot’s 
administration were exactness in payments, fidelity to engagements, 
a reduction of expenditure whenever it could be effected without 
hardship and injustice. Pensions were three years in arrear: Turgot 
caused two years to be paid at once of all those which did not exceed 


400 livres; that is, of all which were necessary for the subsistence of 
the parties to whom they had been granted. Ten millions due for 
advances made to the colonies had been payable for five years, and 
the payment of them had been suspended, Turgot paid at first 
1,500,000 livres, and secured a million yearly for the payment of the 
rest. The finance appointments had been multiplied with the sole 
object of procuring a temporary supply by the first sale of offices, 
Most of the offices were double. Turgot proposed to reduce the — 
double offices to a single one; to make the functionary whose office 
was retained reimburse him whose office was abolished; and when 
one person held two places, to suppress the salary of one of them, 
“Such,” observes Condorcet, “had been the operations, such were 


a 


the views of M. Turgot; and it was thus that, while they accused him 


of not knowing finance, apparently to console themselves for the 
superiority which they were obliged to acknowledge in all the impor- 
tant parts of the administration, he had augmented the public revenue 


without putting on a new impost, and after having suppressed or — 


diminished several; and that without phe recourse to new | 
he had made repayments and diminished the 


had been the work of twenty months; and two attacks of gout, an 


ebt. All these labours 4 


hereditary malady in the family of M. Turgot, had hindered him for 


several months from carrying on his plans. The forced labour to 
which his zeal for the public good had made him devote himself at 
the peril of his life had prolonged these attacks, and rendered them 
dangerous.” (‘Vie de M. Turgot,’ pp. 115, 116.) 

In short, those men of all ranks and every profession who subsisted 
at the expense of the nation without performing any service in return, 
who lived by abuses—nobles, courtiers, financiers, farmers of the 
reyenue—all united in a powerful confederacy against Turgot, and suc- 
ceeded in driving him from his office after he had held it not two years. 

After his retirement from office he occupied himself less than for- 


merly with political matters, particularly with such as had reference - 


to the government and the laws of France. The sciences to which he 
now chiefly devoted his attention were the physical and mathematical. 
He likewise continued to indulge his early taste for literature and 
poetry. He had never lost the habit of making verses—an amuse- 
ment very valuable to him in his journeys and during the sleepless 
nights caused by the gout. Bunt he seldom showed his verses: a few 
fragments were made public, and were attributed by the critics to 
Voltaire. 
was a single Latin verse, intended for the portrait of Franklin— 


** Eripuit ceelo fulmen, sceptrumque tyrannis.” 


Among the many points in which Turgot was in advance of the — 
statesmen of his age, there is none that will strike an English reader 
more than the view he took of the American war as compared with 
the views even of the most enlightened of the contemporary English 
statesmen on that subject. Even Burke, who saw farther than the — 
others; had not admitted into his calculation the consideration of the 
most remote possibility of the ultimate independence of the colonies. 
Turgot’s ‘Mémoire’ on the American war contains views on the nature 


of colonies that have been recognised since by the soundest thinkers — 
His work on the lawsagainst usury — 


on those subjects as correct ones, 
contains almost all that is valuable in Bentham’s Letters on the u 

laws, written many years later: not that Bentham copied Turgot; he 
probably did not know of his work; but the fact is as stated. His 
article ‘Fondation,’ also in the ‘ Encyclopédie, contains many ideas 


which were new at the time, and some, the soundness of which has — 


not yet been overthrown. 


The principal fault that was attributed to Turgot as a statesman — 
was want of address, a charge against which he warmly defends him- 
self in his letter to Dr, Price, who had sent him the new edition of 


his ¢ Observations on Civil Liberty,’ in which Price had “suppressed — 
the imputation of want of address, which he had inserted in his 
‘ Additional Observations.’” But as we are informed by his biographers — 
that Turgot could’ not dissemble his hatred for knaves, his contempt — 
for cowardice or baseness; that those sentiments involuntarily showed — 
themselves on his countenance; even when we take along with this 
what these friendly biographers add, that as they were only the con- 
sequence of his love for mankind, they neither inspired him with a — 
spirit of injustice nor of vengeance: yet when we consider of what — 
materials that portion of his countrymen were composed with whom ~ 
he must have come chiefly in contact as prime minister of France, we — 
need not be surprised that he made himself many enemies; and that — 
want of address was imputed to him even by those who were not his — 
enemies. But in whatever degree the charge may derogate from his 
claim to practical talent in statesmanship, it leaves untouched his — 
character as a statesman for reach of intellectual vision, for purity 
and benevolence of intention, for undeviating adherence to principle 
hitherto unrivalled. “1 
Turgot’s attacks of gout before his ministry had been painful, but 
not dangerous. The violent and incessant labour to which he devoted © 
himself in the midst of these attacks during his ministry changed the — 
nature of them; and when he was restored to leisure, it was too late — 
for repose to repair the mischief that had been done. The attacks — 
became more and more frequent, and at last he sank under them. 
His last attack, which was long and severe, did not impair his mind — 
nor even his temper. “He only displayed towards his friends,” says — 


a 


’ 


All that was known of his lucubrations in that department — 


- 201 


‘Lettre & M. VAbbé Terray sur la Marque des Fers ;’ 
de la Langue Frangaise et la Versification Métrique ;’ ‘2 M. de C. sur 


TURNEBUS, ADRIAN. 


202 


Condorcet, “a more lively sense of the attentions they showed him ; 
and his spirit beheld with tranquillity the approach of the moment 
when, according to the eternal laws of nature, it was about to fill in 
another sphere the place which those laws had marked out for it.” 
(‘ Vie de M. Turgot,’ p. 206.) He died on the 20th of March 1781. 
The following are the principal works of Turgot :—Articles in the 
Enclycopédie—‘ Etymologie,’ ‘ Existence,’ ‘ Expansibilité,’ ‘ Foires et 
Marchés, ‘Fondations ;’ ‘loge de M. de Gournay ;’ numerous official 
letters, memoirs, and projéts, lois, édits, &c. : ‘Réflexions sur la For- 
mation et la Distribution des Richesses;’ ‘ Lettres 2 M. le Contréleur- 
Général sur le Commerce des Grains ;’ ‘ Extension de la Liberté du 
Commerce des Colonies;’ ‘ Lettre & M. - , Maire de Rochefort ;’ 
‘Sur la Prosodie 


le Livre de l’Esprit ;’ a complimentary Letter to Dean Tucker on the 
occasion of M. Turgot’s translating into French Tucker’s work, entitled 
‘The Case of going to War for the Sake of Trade, considered in a 
New Light.’ [Tucxker, Jostau.] 

Condorcet, in his Life of Turgot, gives a good many opinions and 
speculations in metaphysics, morals, and legislation, which formed, he 
says, detached portions of a great work which Turgot had projected, 
but which he had not even begun to write, and were gathered by 
Condorcet from his conversation. 

(Vie de Monsieur Turgot (par Condorcet), Londres, 1786; Mémoires 
sur la Vie et les Ouvrages de M. Turgot, Ministre d Etat, par Dupont 
de Némours, Philadelphie, 1788 ; Oeuvres de M. Turgot, Ministre d' Etat, 
9 vols. 8vo, Paris, 1808.) 

TURNE’BUS, ADRIAN, one of the most celebrated French 
scholars of the 16th century. His French name was Tournebceuf, 
and some writers, as Dempster and Mackenzie, have maintained that 
this is only a French translation of the English name Turnbull, and 
that Turnebus was the son of a Scotchman who had settled in Nor- 
mandy. The common account however is that he was born in 1512, 
at Les Andelys in Normandy, and in his eleventh year he was sent 
to Paris to be educated. His uncommon talents, combined with his 
indefatigable diligence, soon raised him above all his fellow-students, 
and he is said on many occasions to have shown more knowledge than 
his masters. After the completion of his studies he was for some 
time engaged in teaching the ancient languages at Toulouse, until in 
1547 he was appointed professor of Greek at Paris, whither his name 
and that of A. Muretus attracted students from all parts of Europe. 
Tn 1552 he undertook in conjunction with William Morel the manage- 
ment of the Royal Printing Establishment of Paris for Greek books, 
but after the lapse of three years he resigned this office for that of 
Royal Professor. Notwithstanding the many brilliant offers that were 
mude to him in several foreign countries, he remained at Paris until 
his death, on the 12th of June 1565. 

Seldom had a scholar in his lifetime enjoyed such a universal and 
truly European reputation as Turnebus, He was a man of a diffident, 
modest, and very amiable character, and no one who knew him could 
help becoming attached to him. Henry Stephens is reported to have 
said: “Turnebus pleases everybody because he does not please him- 
self.” In his learned controversies however with Ramus and Bodi- 
nius, he is sometimes as severe as he was naturally gentle. As a 
scholar he was not inferior to any of his contemporaries: even on the 
day of his marriage he could not abstain from devoting a few hours 
to his studies. His works consist of philological dissertations, some 
of which are polemical, critical commentaries on various ancient 
authors, and translations of Greek writers into Latin. His criticisms 
are generally masterly, but, like most great critics, he was too fond 
of making conjectural emendations. His Latin translations are among 
the most elegant and correct that have been made. His Greek trans- 
lation of Cicero’s essay ‘De Fatc’ is a proof of his thorough know- 
ledge of the Greek language. Most of his works, all of which 
appeared separately and at different times, were collected and pub- 
lished after his death by his second son, Stephen Turnebus, under the 
title, ‘ Adriani Turnebi Opera,’ Strasburg, 3 vols. folio, 1600. Besides 
the works contained in this collection, he wrote several others, the 
best of which are his ‘ Adversaria,’ consisting of 3 vols. 4to, the third 
of which was edited after his death by his son Adrian Turnebus. 
The first edition of the first two volumes appeared at Paris in 
1564. It was several times reprinted, but the best edition is that of 
1599, folio. 

(Nicéran, Mémoires, vol. 39; Teissier, Hloges des Savans ; compare 
Mackenzie, Scotch Writers ; Saxius, Onomast.) 

*TURNER, DAWSON, a distinguished living botanist, was born in 
the latter part of the 18th century, and spent the greater portion of 
his life at Great Yarmouth, in Norfolk. Although he has attended to 
all departments of botany, he is especially distinguished for his 
knowledge of cryptogamic plants. His first work was ‘A Synopsis of 
the British Fuci,’ which was published in London, in two volumes in 
1802. In 1804 he published an account of the mosses of Ireland, 
under the title ‘Muscologia Hibernice Spicilegium.’ In 1808 he pub- 
lished a work in folio with illustrations, entitled ‘ Fuci, or coloured 
figures and descriptions of the Plants of the genus Fucus.’ This work 


_ was in three volumes. In 1809 appeared a smaller work in 4to, em- 


bracing a history of various forms of sea-weeds, with the title ‘ History 
of the Fuci’ He also published an account of ‘ A Tour in Normandy, 


TURNER, JOSEPH MALLORD WILLIAM. 


2 vols,, royal 8vo.; ‘ Treves, and its Architectural Remains ;’ ‘ Sepul- 
chral Reminiscences of Yarmouth;’ ‘ Historical Sketches of Caister 
Castle ;’ and ‘ Analyses of English, French, and Roman History.’ In 
many of his labours and travels he was associated with the late Mr. 
Lewis Weston Dillwyn, of Swansea, and-in conjunction with him, 
‘The Botanist’s Guide through England and Wales,’ was published in 
1816. This work was one of great interest to the botanist, giving the 
localities in which plants indigenous to England and Wales could be 
found, Mr. Turner was admitted a Fellow of the Royal Society in 
1802, he was also one of the early Fellows of the Linnmwan Society, 
and he has had conferred upon him many foreign honours. He has 
not now for many years contributed to the literature of botany. 

TURNER, EDWARD, a distinguished chemist, was born in Scot- 
land in 1798, and educated in Edinburgh for the medical profession. 
He took his degree of M.D., in the University of Edinburgh, but 
devoted himself to the study of chemistry. At the opening of 
University College, then the London University, in 1828, he was 
appointed to the chair of chemistry, a position he occupied till his 
death. He was chiefly known as a writer on the science of chemistry, 
by his ‘ Elements of Chemistry,’ a book which has gone through seven 
or eight editions, and is remarkable for the comprehensive and lucid 
manner in which the whole science of chemistry is treated. Although 
Dr, Turner did not contribute much to the periodical literature of 
the day, he embodied the results of his labours in the successive 
editions of his work; and he wrote some mineralogical articles for the 
‘Penny Cyclopedia.’ He chiefly worked at the department known as 
inorganic chemistry, and more especially employed himself in perfecting | 
the atomic theory, and the laws of combination of elements. It was 
through his labours that many of the equivalent numbers of the 
elements were established. He was not less successful as a lecturer 
than a writer, and few men have exhibited greater power of imparting 
the knowledge they possessed to others than was exhibited by Dr. 
Turner. In early life he was subject to disease of the lungs, and 
subsequently suffered from intense dyspepsia. In January 1839, he 
was seized with inflammation of the lungs, and died on the 13th of 
February following. He was much beloved by the students of his 
class at University College, and three hundred of them followed him 
to his grave. A marble bust of him was placed in the library of the 
college, the cost being defrayed by subscriptions from his pupils. 

TURNER, JOSEPH MALLORD WILLIAM, was born at No. 26, 
Maiden-lane, Covent Garden, where his father carried on business as 
a hair-dresser. The year, as well as the month of Turner's birth has 
been differently given ; all that is certainly known respecting either is 
that his baptism is entered on the register of the parish church of St. 
Paul’s, Covent Garden, as having taken place on the 14th of May, 
1775; and it is most probable that his baptism followed pretty close 
upon his birth, Of his boyhood and youth little is told. His father, 
a tradesman ina small way, did not attempt to make his son a scholar, 
and the great painter never advanced far beyond the rudiments of an 
ordinary English education. Of his primary training in art, or what 
led him to think of painting as a profession, we have no precise infor- 
mation. Probably his own strong inclination first stimulated him to 
overcome the initiatory difficulties of the study of drawing, and some 
casual occurrence or assoviation aroused or directed his ambition. It 
does not appear that the elder Turner thwarted his son’s inclination, 
though, perhaps from poverty, perhaps from indifference, he did not 
eer him the instruction which might have smoothed his early 
path. 

Turner was essentially a self-made painter. It is said in a brief 
notice of him published in 1805—when, though only in his thirtieth 
year, he was already recognised as the first of living landscape 
painters—‘“‘ Turner may be considered as a striking instance of how 
much may be gained by industry, if accompanied by perseverance, 
even without the assistance of a master. The way he acquired his 
professional powers was by borrowing when he could a drawing or 
picture to copy; or by making a sketch of any one in the Exhibition 
early in the morning, and finishing it up at home. By such practices, 
and by a patient perseverance, he has overcome all the difiiculties of 
the art.” (Daye’s ‘ Professional Sketches of Modern Artists,’ Works, 
p. 352.) This passage was written by one eminent in his day as an 
instructor of young landscape painters, and the teacher and friend of 
Girtin, Turner’s earliest and closest artistic associate, and it coincides 
with what other authorites, both written and traditionary, have always 
related of his career. But he was certainly still very young when he 
had opened to him the means of obtaining profesional instruction, he 
having been admitted as a student in the Royal Academy in 1789, when 
consequently he was only fourteen years old. It is hardly probable, 
however, that he received much direct instruction in the Academy 
schools, or that he followed their prescribed course. If he studied 
in the antique, or later in the life school, he certainly never acquired 
mastery over the human form, and no instruction was given the 
student in landscape drawing or painting. Still it is not likely that 
a young enthusiast, as he certainly was, would attend the schools and 
form acquaintance with professors and students, without acquiring 
from them much technical information, even if he received no syste- 
matic instruction. But his best academy, he was accustomed to say, was 
“the fields and Dr. Monro’s parlour.” Dr. Monro, who was a warm- 
hearted patron of young artists, had an excellent collection of water- 


203 TURNER, JOSEPH MALLORD WILLIAM. 


TURNER, JOSEPH MALLORD WILLIAM, 


colour drawings and engravings at his residence in the Adelphi, and 
he not only gave his two favourite protegés, Turner and Girtin, free 
access to his treasures, with permission to copy them, but directed 
their studies, and encouraged them to make coloured sketches of the 
scenery .around London, which he readily purchased at prices satis- 
factory to the modest ‘students. In these sketching rambles, ‘l'urner 
and Girtin were constant companions, and they formed for themselves 
a style of water-colour painting very different from that of any of 
' their predecessors—unless indeed it be Cozens, a man of some genius 
and a friend of Dr. Monro, from whose drawings and conversation 
much was probably learned by the two young painters. Girtin was 
Turner’s senior by a year or two, and as he was the more regularly 
educated artist, it is not unlikely that he was to some extent his 
companion’s tutor; certain it is that their drawings were very similar 
in style—the chief difference being that,Turner made out his details 
more carefully—and some have fancied that had Girtin lived he 
would have been as great a painter as his friend. He gave way, 
however, to intemperance, and died (Nov. 1802) at the early age of 
twenty-seven, Turner with more self-control and perseverance 
laboured steadily on and rose in good time to the undisputed supre- 
macy in his branch of art. 

Two years before he entered the academy as a student, in 1787, 
when only twelve years of age (supposing his baptismal year was the 
year of his birth), Turner made his bow to the public as an exhibitor 
at the Royal Academy (under the name of W. Turner) of two 
drawings, ‘Dover Castle’ and ‘Wanstead House;’ his next appear- 
ance being in 1790, the year following his admission as a student, 
when he sent a ‘ View of the Archbishop’s Palace, Lambeth.’ From 
this time till his death—a period of sixty years—he regularly con- 
tributed to every exhibition of the Royal Academy, with the exception 
of the years 1821, 1824, and 1848, sending in all 259 pictures, a very 
large proportion of them being paintings of considerable magnitude. 
But these alone would give a very inadequate notion of his remarkable 
facility and industry, as during that period he also sent to the 
British Institntion some twenty oil paintings which had not been 
exhibited at the Academy, and painted a large number, and some of 
them his chief works, which were never exhibited at all, besides many 
hundreds of water-colour drawings and designs for engraving. 

For some ten or twelve years he painted chiefly, if not exclusively, 
in water-colours, his pictures—with the exception of two or three 
fancy subjects, such as ‘The Battle of the Nile,’ 1799; ‘The Fifth 
Plague of Egypt,’ 1800—being confined to the representation of 
English and Welsh scenery. But already it was felt that there was a 
degree of brilliancy of execution united with close observation of 
nature which placed his works quite apart from those of any of his 
contemporaries, and justified the highest anticipations of his future 
success. The popular opinion received professional confirmation by 
his election in 1799 as an associate of the Royal Academy; in 1802 he 
became an academician. He now visited Scotland, France, Switzer- 
land, and the Rhine; launched boldly into oil painting on canvasses 
of large size, and began to look into the Greek and Roman poets— 
or their substitute Lempriere—for subjects for his pencil. This year, 
1802, the exhibition afforded a fair illustration of the wide and daring 
range his pencil was taking, his contributions being ‘The Falls of the 
Clyde ;’ ‘Kilchurn Castle;’ ‘Edinburgh from the Water of Leith ;’ 
*Ben Lomond Mountains—the Traveller;’ ‘Jason;’ ‘The Tenth 
Plague of Egypt;’ ‘Fishermen upon a Lee-Shore in Squally Weather;’ 
and ‘Ships bearing up for Anchorage, Heevidently felt his strength; 
yet year after year, while showing himself sufficiently conscious that 
he knew his proper walk, he kept on putting forth strange experi- 
ments in subjects and methods; thus one year (1803) saw his ‘ Holy 
Family,’ another (1807) ‘A Country Blacksmith disputing upon the 
price charged to the Butcher for shoeing his Pony,’ another (1808), 
‘The Unpaid Bill, or the Dentist reproving his Son’s Prodigality,’ and 
another (1809), ‘ The Gazetteer’s Petition ;? but even from these strange 
whims he seemed to gather new strength. At this time however he 
appears to have studied with most earnestness the stormy ocean, and 
never yet has the sea in its wildest fury been represented on canvas 
with such wondrous might and majesty as in his noble ‘Shipwreck: 
Fishing-boats endeavouring to rescue the Crew,’ now at Marlborough- 
House; the ‘Gale at Sea,’ belonging to the Earl of Ellesmere; and 
the ‘ Wreck of the Minotaur,’ the property of Lord Yarborough. But 
even alongside of these the poetic treatment of views of places, such 
as his ‘Edinburgh from Calton Hill,’ 1804; ‘Fall of the Rhine at 
Schaffhausen, 1805, and ‘Sun Rising through Vapour,’ 1806, not only 
enabled them to hold their place, but obtained for him perhaps even 
a wider popularity, while with the connoisseurs his ‘ Narcissus and 
Eebo,’ 1814, ‘ Mereury and Hersé,’ and § Apollo and Python,’ 1811, his 
‘Dido and Aineas,’ ‘ Apuleia,’ and a long list of other mythological 
themes, won him fame as a poetic painter, though now, despite their 
pictorial richness and daring, they are generally felt to be in truth the 
least poetical of his works, and infinitely inferior to his other and 
more purely imaginative productions of this period, ‘Snow-storm— 
Hannibal crossing the Alps,’ and the like, in which he almost for the 
first time pourtrayed with some approach to the vastness and sublimity 
of nature the fierce. encounter of the elements, the splendour of the 
rarer phenomena of the atmosphere, and the beauty and glory of the 
mountains. 


In 1807 Turner was elected professor in perspective to the Royal 
Academy, and for several years he continued to give courses of lectures — 
to the students, in which he spoke of the systems of pictorial compo- — 
sition adopted by the great landscape painters of earlier times, of — 
their principles of effect and of colour, and compared them though 
sparingly with the teaching of nature; but the lectures were never _ 
printed, and as far as we know no record of them is left. Reporthas — 
always spoken of them however as ill-arranged and ill-delivered, con- 
fused in style, and obscure in illustration. They never succeeded in 
securing the attention of the students, and for many years before he — 
resigned his professorship he had ceased to deliver any lectures.  —_— 

An important circumstance in the earlier career of Turner was the 
publication of his ‘Liber Studiorum,’ which was commenced in 1808, — 
This now famous work was undertaken in rivalry of the book of — 
sketches knowa as the ‘Liber Veritatis’ of Claude, in the possession — 
of the Duke of Devonshire, of which a series of fac-simile aq ta 
engravings was made by Earlom and others. Turner's series, engrave 
in a similar style, embraced examples of all the principal forms of — 
landscape composition, and displayed a fertility of resource and an 
intimate observance of nature such as the publication of no previous — 
landscape painter had approached. The work has long been extremely — 
rare, and when brought to sale commands a very high price: two ~ 
republications of it have been lately announced. From this time to 
his death Turner remained the most in request with publishers and — 
engravers of any English landscape-painter, both for the landscape 
illustration of books and for series of engravings; and even where his — 
‘eccentricities of colour,’ as they are called, repel, his engraved designs — 
are with few exceptions received with unmitigated delight. Among 
the most famous of these engraved works may be mentioned the — 
‘Scenery of the Southern Coast,’ ‘England and Wales,’ ‘ Rivers of 
England,’ ‘ Rivers of France,’ Rogers's ‘ Italy’ and ‘ Poems,’ of all his — 
vignette engravings the most exquisite, the poems of Byron, Scott, &c. — 
From his paintings likewise some very noble line-engravings of large — 
size have been made by Pye, Willmore, Miller, Prior, &e.; wh ile 
Turner’s grand engraving of ‘The Shipwreck’ is one of the richest 
specimens of mezzotinto. mm. 

We cannot in a sketch like this trace the progress of the painter by 
the only really important events recorded of his life—the productio: 
of his chief pictures. He made three visits to Italy in 1819, 1829, — 
and 1840, and after each his style underwent a remarkable change, — 
The usual division of his style, and on the whole it is the most conve- 
nient one, does not however exactly coincide with his Italian bps 
Turner's career, it is said, comprises three distinct periods; the first 
reaches to about his twenty-seventh year, when he was elected into 
the Academy, and during which he was chiefly noticeable as a water- — 
colour painter diligently occupied in drawing from nature, and at the — 
same time forming for himself a style, by carefully studying (and ~ 
imitating) the methods of his English predecessors, Wilson, Louther- © 
bourg, and, in a less degree, Gainsborough, the influence of who 
works is very apparent in his earliest oil-paintings : the second l 
ranges from 1802 to 1830, in which he is seen at first a follower of © 
Claude, and, in a less degree, of Gaspar Poussin, but rapidly disen- 
cumbering himself from the trammels of every kind of pupilage to 
great names, and striking out a style of landscape-painting entirely — 
original and wholly unrivalled for brilliancy of colouring and effect: — 
while the third period, dating from his second visit to Rome in 1830, 
is one in which everything else was sacrificed in the effort to attain the — 
utmost splendour of light and colour—to make (in the strange language _ 
of his own ‘MS. Fallacies of Hope’) “ the sun < 


Exhale earth’s humid bubbles, and, emulous of light, 
Reflect her forms, each in prismatic guise,” 


a 


se 
But while such a division is convenient, it must not be regarded as — 
anything more, Like every great artist, his conceptions were always 
advancing and expanding, and in each period were painted pictures — 
that would seem justly to belong to another. At which period he 
painted best it is difficult to say, and judges of art pronounce widely — 
different opinions. It is quite certain that up to some ten or twelve 
years before his death, his knowledge of the phenomena of nature and — 
of the resources of art continued to grow and expand, even when his — 
hand failed to express faithfully his intentions, or his impatience pre-_ 
vented him setting them forth with due elaboration. Any one who 
has carefully studied Turner’s works chronologically, and who has at 
the same time diligently studied nature, will sympathise if he cannot 
entirely concur in the strong statement of Turner's most ardent — 
admirer, Ruskin :—“ There has been marked and constant progress in — 
his mind; he has not been, like some few artists, without chi 
hood ; his course of study has been as evidently as it has been swiftly 
progressive, and in different stages of the struggle, sometimes one 
order of truth, sometimes another, has been aimed at or omitted, 
Ee ig it As he advanced, the previous knowledge or attainment was — 
absorbed in what succeeded, or abandoned only if incompatible, and 
never abandoned without a gain; and his latest works present the sum 
and perfection of his accumulated knowledge, delivered with the impa- 
tience and passion of one who feels too much and knows tov much, — 
and has too little time to say it in, to pause for expression, or to ponder — 
over his syllables.” (‘Modern Painters,’ i. 407.) a 
It would be easy to refer to examples illustrative of Turner’s — 
: Car 


“e, 


205 


TURNER, JOSEPH MALLORD WILLIAM. 


TURNER, THOMAS HUDSON. 206 


_ different periods, but so large a number of his best works—thanks to 
his munificence—are now public property, and through the care of 
_ Mr. Wornum have been so well arranged, dated, and catalogued, and 
rendered so easy of reference, that a special mention of any is needless. 
A cursory examination (with attention to the dates) of that collection, 
_ and of the other examples of Turner’s- pencil in the public galleries, 
_ will sufficiently illustrate what has been said of the progressive and, 
_ as it were, tentative character of his mind; and a studious considera- 
tion will convince the visitor that even in what seem Turner's wildest 
aberrations from the sobriety of nature, there is a foundation of truth 
for the idea he has endeavoured to work out, and that his failures, 
while they arise sometimes from wilfulness, arise more often from his 
_ attempting to represent unusual phenomena by materials utterly 
imadequate for the purpose. Turner in fact seems never to have 
aia the limits of his art, and in seeking to accomplish what is 
‘impracticable with such means as he possessed, and with such neces- 


§ parte’ skill, he became extravagant and bizarre. Although 
eccentricity of colour and indefiniteness of form were at all times 
charged upon his paintings, the extreme development of this fault is 
chiefly urged against the works executed during the last ten or twelve 
_ years of his life, and unquestionably with all there is of unfailing 
‘suggestiveness, to an artistic eye, in every one of them, it is upon 
these works that censure will eventually rest. Yet it is remarkable 
that to this period belongs the work in which, by general consent, 
_ his unrivalled powers as a landscape-painter are seen in their fullest 
_ development, his ‘Childe Harold, or Modern Italy,’ which was painted 
‘in 1832; and to this period also belong some of his most poetic efforts, 
“including ‘The Fighting Temeraire lugged to her last Berth’ (1839), 
and the ‘Slavers throwing overboard the dead and dying—Typhon 
coming on’ (1840). 

Turner died on the 19th of December 1851, in humble lodgings, 
which he had taken in an assumed name, by the river-side at Chelsea. 
He was buried with some state in the crypt of St. Paul’s Cathedral 
by the side of Reynolds, Wilkie, Fuseli, and others of our eminent 
_ painters. Turner was a man of unsocial and reserved manners, and 
_ Mauy gossiping stories are related of his coarseness and love of money: 
_ but they bear on their face a coloured and exaggerated character. It 
is certain that he had hoarded his money for no selfish purpose. For 
_ many years he had refused to sell some of his best pictures, and when 
_ any such, painted and sold in his earlier years, were offered for sale 

_ heif possible purchased them. On his death it was found that he 
had by his will bequeathed to the nation all the pictures and draw- 
ings then collected in his residence, No. 47, Queen Anne-street West, 
- on condition that a suitable gallery was erected for them within ten 
_ years; and his funded property to found au asylum at Twickenham 
_ for decayed artists. Unfortunately the will was unskilfully drawn, 
and a suit in chancery ensued, but it was compromised by the 
engravings and some other property being transferred to the next of 

kin who disputed the will, while the paintings and drawings were held 
_ bythe nation. The oil paintings, one hundred in number, include 
_ many of his finest-works as well as examples of his pencil from the 
very outset to the termination of his career: they are for the present 
exhibited at Marlborough-House. 
number several hundreds, and the sketches, which amount to some 
_ thousands, have been (or are being) arranged, cleaned, and mounted 
_ with rare skill and patience by, Mr. Ruskin, who volunteered his ser- 
vices to the government; and a choice selection of them is now hung 

on screens at Marlborough-House. Among those now exhibited are 
- many admirable drawings in colours, and numerous sepia drawings 
_ made forthe ‘ Liber Studiorum,’ the Rivers, &c., some of which are 

_ of an exquisite beauty and brilliancy of effect, probably unequalled, 
among drawings of that character. The nation also possesses in the 
_ collections presented by Mr. Vernon and Mr. Sheepshanks several 

other choice examples of Turner's pencil. 

There is no need to add anything to what-has been said respecting 
_ the rank which Turner holds among the landscape painters either of 
_ his own or an earlier time. But as his merits are still sometimes 
_ contemptuously denied—perhaps in part owing to the indiscriminate 
_ eulogy, which has of late years been heaped upon him—and as it 
_ is sometimes said that, if he were the great painter so strongly 
affirmed, foreign artists and writers on art would. not be slow to 
acknowledge his superiority—it may be well to quote the calm 
_ judgment of a German writer whose authority is admitted, and 
_ whose opinion is the result of a repeated consideration of his works. 
_ Dr. Waagen says—‘“In point of fact no landscape painter has yet 
_ appeared with such versatility of talent. His historical landscapes 
| exhibit the most exquisite feeling for beauty of lines and effect of 
_ lighting : at the same time he has the power of making them express 
the most varied moods of nature—a lofty grandeur, a deep and 
~ gloomy melancholy, a sunny cheerfulness and peace, or an uproar 
_ of all the elements, Buildings he also treats with peculiar felicity ; 
_ while the sea in its most varied aspect, is equally subservient to his 
_ magic brush. His views of certain” cities and localities inspire the 
_ spectator with poetic feelings such as no other painter ever excited 
in the same degree, and which is principally attributable to the 
exceeding picturesqueness of the point of view chosen, and to the 
beauty of the lighting. Finally, he treats the most common little 
_ Subjects, such as a group of trees, a meadow, a shaded stream, with 


The finished drawings, which 


such art as to impart to them the most picturesque charm. I should, 
therefore, not hesitate to recognise Turner as the greatest landscape- 
painter of all times, but for his deficiency in one indispensable element 
in every work of art, namely, a sound technical basis.”—(‘ Treasures of 
Art in Great Britain,’ 1854, vol. i, p. 383-4.) 

TURNER, SAMUEL, author of ‘An Account of an Embassy to 
Tibet,’ was a native of Gloucestershire, and born about the year 1759. 
Having entered the service of the East India Company, he gained the 
confidence of Warren Hastings, and was sent by him on a con- 
gratulatory mission to the new Dalai Lama in 1783. In 1792 Turner 
distinguished himself at the siege of Seringapatam, and was sub- 
sequently sent ambassador to the sultan of Mysore. He returned to 
England soon afterwards with a large fortune. He was seized with 
apoplexy on the night of the 21st of December, 1801, in an obscure 
street in London, and having no papers about him to intimate his 
name or place of abode, was carried to the workhouse in Holborn, 
When discovered by his friends, it was deemed unsafe to remove him, 
and he diedin the workhouse on the 2nd of January, 1802, in his 
43rd year. Turner was a Fellow of the Royal Society, and a member 
of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. Besides the account of his embassy 
to Tibet, published in 1800, which is still a standard work, he con- 
tributed to the ‘Transactions’ of the Asiatic Society an account of 
his interview with the Teshoo Lama, and an account of Poorungeer’s 
(a native priest in the employment of the company) journey to Tibet 
in 1785, both in vol. i.; and an account of the Yak of Tartary, in vol, 
iv. The account of his interview with the Teshoo Lama was re- 
printed as a pamphlet at Oxford in 1798. The account of the embassy 
was translated into French by Castéra, and into German by Sprengel. ~ 

TURNER, SHARON, was born in London on September 24, 1768. 
He was educated at Pentonville, at a school kept by the rector of St, 
James's Clerkenwell, and at the age of fifteen articled to an attorney. 
On the death of his master, before his clerkship had wholly expired, 
he succeeded him in his business. Even during his clerkship he had 
felt the promptings of a literary taste, and had occupied his leisure 
by studious reading and composition, While in business for himself 
he began to collect materials for his ‘ History of the Anglo-Saxons,’ of 
which the first volume was published in 1799, and the third in 1805. 
It is on this work that his reputation chiefly rests. He was the first 
English author who had taken the pains, or had had sufficient know- 
ledge, to investigate the valuable remains left to us in Anglo-Saxon 
records. He consulted the original manuscripts with great industry 
and intelligence, and the result has been that, though his views have 
been more than once assailed, they have been generally sustained now 
that the study of Saxon literature has been more appreciated, and the 
authenticity of his materials more completely understood. ‘The 
work soon took a permanent place in the historical literature of the 
country, and, encouraged by his success, he continued his history 
from the Norman conquest to the death of Elizabeth, publishing 
at different times the volumes ofa distinct period ; the three sub- 
divisions being re-published together under the title of ‘ The History 
of England from the earliest period to the Death of Elizabeth,’ 6th 
ed., 2 vols. 8vo, 1839. This portion, though distinguished by a large 
amount of industry, and the discovery in consequence of a few 
hitherto unknown facts, was not equal to the previous portion. 
Where the field was less new he had no advantage over previous 
writers ; his views had little originality, and his treatment of his 
subject had no superior merit.. In 1829, after suffering from illness 
for some years, he retired to Winchmore-hill, where he prepared and 
published in 1832 the first volame of his ‘Sacred History of the 
World, as displayed in the Creation, and subsequent events to the 
Deluge. Attempted to be philosophically considered in a series of 
Letters to a Son.’ Two other volumes completed it, the object being, 
from temporal history, to establish the principle of minute providen- 
tial agency or supervision. In 1843 the death of his wife occasioned 
him much distress, and increased his illness. At length he was com- 
pelled to return to London, where, in his old residence in Red Lion- 
square, he died on February 13, 1847. . Besides the works above- 
mentioned, he published a volume of essays and poems under the 
title of ‘Sacred Meditations, by a Layman;’ a ‘Prolusion on the 
Greatness of Britain, and other subjects;’ ‘Richard IIL, a Poem;’ 
and he contributed two or three articles to the ‘ Quarterly Review.’ 
Some letters which he addressed to the Royal Society of Literature, 
of which he was an associate, on the affinities of the various lan- 
guages of the world, have been added to the last edition of his ‘ Anglo- 
Saxons.’ 

*The Rev. Sypney Turner, so long the indefatigable chaplain and 
chief of the Reformatory School-of the Philanthropic Society at Red-hill, 
near Reigate, and so well known as the earnest and zealous advocate 
of reformatory schools generally, is a son of Mr. Sharon Turner. He 
has published ‘Reformatory Schools. A Letter to C. B. Adderley, 
Esq., M.P.,’ 8vo, 1855 ; and edited a new edition (1848) of his father’s 
‘Sacred History of the World.’ In 1857 he was appointed Inspector 
of Reformatories in England and Scotland. 

TURNER, THOMAS HUDSON, was born in London in 1815. 
His father was a printer in the employment of Mr. Bulmer in Pall- 
Mall, but dying young and in: difficulties, his family was assisted by 
Mr. W. Nicol, the nephew and successor of Mr. Bulmer, who placed 
young Turner at school at Chelsea, where he early distinguished him- 


207 TURNER, WILLIAM. 


TURPIN DE CRISSE, LANCELOT. 208 


self by a love for antiquarian research, and formed a friendship with 
the two sons of the late Allan Cunningham. With the younger, Peter, 
his friendship continued until his death. In 1831 he was taken into 
the printing-office of Mr. W. Nicol to learn the business. While 
here he employed all his leisure in pursuing his antiquarian and his- 
torical studies, and on seeing an advertisement for a young man at 
the Record Office in the Tower who could read and translate records, 
he applied for and obtained the situation. He devoted himself with 
great diligence to the study of the records, and his knowledge increased 
rapidly. He projected many historical works, but his labours in 
acquiring constantly fresh information prevented his carrying his 
many plans into execution. From this employment he was taken by 
Mr. Tyrrell, the Remembrancer of the City of London, to assist him 
in collecting materials for a history of London, at which he most 
assiduously laboured, but the information thus collected remains yet 
in manuscript. When this was completed he edited with remarkable 
care a volume of ‘ Early Household Expenses,’ to which he prefixed a 
valuable introduction ; the work. being presented to the Roxburghe 
Club by Mr. Beriah Botfield. After the publication of this volume 
he was made secretary to the Archeological Institute. While he 
held this office his readiness in imparting information respecting 
antiquities was remarkable; he wrote some valuable papers for the 
‘Journal’ of the Society, and communicated several records to the 
Society of Antiquaries at Newcastle, which are printed in the ‘ Arche- 
ologia A£liana.’ On his retirement from this office, he continued 
his studies, but commenced his work, ‘Some Account of Domestic 
Architecture in England, from the Conquest to the End of the 
Thirteenth Century, with numerous Illustrations,’ which was pub- 
lished in 1851. This work, and his papers in the ‘ Archeological 
Journal’ published between 1846 and 1851, form the groundwork of 
his fame. The papers only amount to five, and one of them is on 
the dining-customs of the Middle Ages, a subject similar to that 
of his book. This ‘Domestic Architecture’ is noticeable for the 
exactitude and wide extent of his knowledge, and is a valuable con- 
tribution for the student of English antiquities. It does not confine 
itself to the mere building, but includes a large amount of subsidiary 
information and illustration mainly collected from our national records, 
and comprises an account of the furniture; the implements used in 
the processes of cooking, brewing, baking, &c. ; the state of horti- 
culture at the time; with disquisitions on the manufactures connected 
with the household economy, such as glass, linen, cutlery, &c. Mr. 
Turner's severe «nd constant application to his studies had for many 
years greatly impaired his health, and on June 17, 1852, he died, having 
produced far less than from his great accomplishments could have 
been wished and might have been expected. His vast store of know- 
ledge was freely scattered in conversation; he had conetant applica- 
tions for information, and few were sent away unsatisfied; but his 
ardour for accumulation prevented his application to composition, so 
that of his many projected works the one above-named was the only 
one he executed, and that was in a manner but a fragment: at any 
rate Mr. Turner promised to carry down the subject to a more recent 
period, a promise he did not live to fulfil. A second volume has 
however been prepared and published by Mr. Parker of Oxford. 
TURNER, WILLIAM, a physician, naturalist, and divine, was born 
at Morpeth in Northumberland, about the year 1520. He studied at 
Cambridge, and having taken a very decided part in the great religious 
questions that were discussed, he made himself obnoxious to the 
dominant party, and was thrown into prison. After his release from 
prison he resided on the Continent till the death of Henry VIIL, 
when he returned to his own country. His studies at Cambridge 
had been more particularly directed to physic and divinity, but on 
the Continent he became acquainted with Conrad Gesner at Ziirich 
and Luc Ghini at Bologna, and acquired a taste for natural history. 


During the reign of Edward VI. he was made physician to the pro-. 


tector Somerset, and he was afterwards made a prebendary of York, 
dean of Wells, and a canon of Windsor. He was however again 
obliged to fly to the Continent on the accession of Mary, where he 
- remained till the reign of Elizabeth, when he again returned, and was 
presented with all his original benefices. 

Turner is said to have published several works on botany, but his 
greatest work on this subject, and that on which his reputation rests, 
is his ‘ Herball,’ the first book of which was published in black letter, 
small folio, with wood cuts, in London, in 1551. A second book was 
published at Cologne in 1562, and the whole work was republished 
at the same place in 1568. This work is arranged alphabetically, and 
contains much laborious research and acute criticism with regard to 
the plants then known. Although he appears to have collected plants 
himself, he has described but few new ones in this work. The 
medical properties of the plants are treated of, especially those 
which were unknown to the ancients. Subjoined to this book is one 
on baths, in which the author speaks of the properties of various 

medicinal springs in England, Germany, and Italy. His other writings 
connected with medicine were, a work on the wines used in England, 
and another on the properties of treacle. In 1544 Dr. Turner pub- 
lished at Cologne a small octavo volume on the birds mentioned by 
Pliny and Aristotle, entitled ‘Avium precipuarum, quarum apud 
Plinium et Aristotelem mentio est, Historia.’ In Gesner’s great work 
the ‘Historia Animalium,’ there is an account of the British fishes by 


Dr. Turner. These works afford abundant evidence of his powers as 
a sound critic and accurate observer in the science of zoology. 
Dr. Turner published several works on controversial divinity ; also 
a collation of the translation of the Bible into English, with the 
Hebrew, Greek, and Latin copies. He also translated several works 
on science and divinity from the Latin into English. ‘| ae 
His fondness for plants led him to their cultivation, and he had 
botanic gardens at Wells and Kew. He died July 7, 1568, leaving a — 
large family. Turner was one of the earliest pioneers of nat 
science in Great Britain, and had it not been for the stormy period — 
in which he lived, and the shortness of his life, he evidently possessed 
a genius that could have placed its possessor foremost in the ranks — 
of the cultivators of natural history. 3 
TURPIN or TILPIN, Latinised TURPI'NUS, was origi a 
Benedictine monk of the convent of St. Denis near Paris; but Charle- 
magne raised him, in 773, to the archbishopric of Rheims. This 
dignity he held until his death, in 811, or, according to others, 813. 
There is a Latin romance in verse containing an account of the expedi- _ 
tion of Charlemagne into Spain against the Saracens, of his conquest 
of the country, and of the heroic death of Roland in the vale of © n= 
cesvalles. This poem, which is entitled ‘Historia de Vita Caroli 
Magni et Rolandi,’ was formerly ascribed to Archbishop Turpin, as is 
stated on the title-page of several manuscripts. But among the many 
arguments which have been advanced against that opinion, one is — 
sufficient to show its inconsistency. The author of the romance — 
speaks of the death of Charlemagne, although it is an attested fact that 
Archbishop Turpin died before the emperor. The work was in all 
probability composed about the end of the 11th or the beginning of © 
the 12th century. Whether the name of the author was really Tur- 
pin, and thus gave rise to the confusion,-or whether it is a mere 
forgery, for which the circumstances of those times formerly : 
many temptations, cannot be decided. Thus much only seems Ec 
that the writer’s object was to exhibit Charlemagne as the model of a 
hero in combating paganism and the pagans, and thereby to work — 
upon his contemporaries, so as to rouse them to take part in the 
Crusades. The tendency of the poem is a religious one, and it bears 
great marks of being the work of a learned monk, especially in the 
subtle disputes between the heroes, who fight as much with their — 
tongues as with their swords. Notwithstanding all this, the work is — 
of great interest, being one of the earliest poetical productions of the 
Middle Ages. It is printed in 8. Schardius’ and Reuber’s collections 
of ‘Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum.’ A separate edition was pub- 
lished by Ciampi at Florence, 8vo, 1822, and another in 1823. 
(Vossius, De Historicis Lat., p. 298; Bayle, Dictionnaire Hist, e 
Crit., under ‘ Turpin.’) 1 <7 
TURPIN DE CRISS, LANCELOT, Comte de Criesé, a writer on 
tactics, of considerable celebrity, the materials for whose bi yy 
are, when his reputation is taken into account, astonishingly meagre. — 
He was born in La Beauce, of a noble family, about the year 1715. — 
He entered the army young; obtained a company in 1734, and a 
regiment of hussars in 1744, He distinguished himself in his charge _ 
of colonel in the. wars of Italy and Germany, and was promoted to the 
rank of brigadier-general, - 
Mn the midst of a successful career (about 1753 ?) he astonished his 
friends by renouncing the world, and commencing a noyviciate in the 
abbey of La Trappe. His flight from the sanctuary of asceticism was — 
as abrupt as his entry into it. Soon after this unsuccessful attempt 
to make himself a saint, he became a husband, taking in marriage a 
daughter of the Maréchal de Lavendhal, a lady of literary tastes, 
called by her contemporaries ‘ the secretary of the Abbé de Voisenon,’ 
who nominated her his literary executor, an office whieh, like some — 
literary executors of a later date, she discharged by publishing allthe — 
rubbish of his study. — 
In 1754 Turpin de Crissé made his débiit as an author by publishing 
in conjunction with Castilhon, the ‘Amusemens Philosophiques et 
Litéraires de deux Amis.’ The epistle dedicatory to J. J. Rousseau 
was composed by our author. Rousseau remarked, for his encourage- 
ment, that the work was not bad enough to entitle its author to — 
despair of attaining eminence, nor good enough to entitle him to dis- 
pense with making a better. In the same year appeared a more 
important work by Turpin de Crissé—‘ The Essay on the Art of War, 
upon which his reputation mainly rests. It was translated into 
German by the express orders of Frederic the Great. Ligonier 
accepted the dedication of the English translation by Captain Otway ; 
the Essay was also translated into Russian; and notwithstanding th 
advance made in the theory and practice of war since the time of its _ 
publication, it is still regarded as a work of authority. The work i 
divided into five books, In the first every possible operation of a 
campaign (with the exception of sieges) is systematically explaine 
the second treats of the precautions to be observed in attacking 
enemy in the field; the third, of cantonments; the fourth, of attack- 
ing the enemy in quarters; the fifth, of partisan warfare and the 
management of light troops. : ae 
In 1757 Turpin de Crissé was recalled to active service; in 1761 he 
was created Maréchal-de-camp ; in 1771 he was made a commander of 
the Order of St. Louis; in 1780 he was raised to the rank of lieu- 
tenant-general, and obtained in the following year the appointment of 
governor of Fort Scarpe at Douai. His name appears in the list of 


“se 


18 


a) TURSELLINUS, HORATIUS. 


TOTILO. 


210 


lieutenants-general in 1792. He was one of the emigration, and is 
supposed to have died in Germany in such obscurity, that both the 
time and place of his death are unknown. His wife died before him, 
in the year 1785: it does not appear that they had any family. 

Active service did not withdraw his attention from the literature of 
his profession. M. Weiss (who alone has endeavoured to throw some 
light on the personal history of Turpin de Crissé) mentions, in the 

_ ° *Biographie Universelle,’ ‘Commentaires sur les Mémoires de Monte- 
 euculi,’ published in 1769; and ‘Commentaires sur les Institutions de 
Végice,’ published in 1770. M, Weiss says of the former, that Turpin 
de Crissé confines himself for the most part to the task of explaining 
his author; of the latter, that the commentator confines himself to 
the first three books of Vegetius, but throws out many suggestions in 
his notes, which have been adopted without acknowledgment. The 
“Commentaires de César, avec des Notes historiques, critiques, et 
_ wilitaires, mentioned also by M. Weiss as published in 1785, is a 
_ reprint of Clarke’s text of the ‘Commentaries, with Wailly’s trans- 
lation. (altered in a few places by the Count) in opposite columns, 
numerous notes, and plans of battles. The military remarks of the 
editor are the most valuable part of this edition. 
The only works of Turpin de Crissé we have seen—the ‘ Essay on 
_ the Art of War,’ and the ‘Notes on Casar’—indicate extensive reading 
in the author, and a sobriety of judgment for which the story of his 
entry and retreat from La Trappe scarcely prepares the reader. The 
value of his writings, as expositions of military theory, may be 
_ inferred from the predilection evinced for them by Frederic the Great 
of Prussia. 

TURSELLI’NUS, HORA’TIUS, a learned Jesuit, whose real name 
was Torsellino. He was born at Rome in 1545, and belonged to a dis- 
tinguished family of that city. He devoted himself from early youth 
with indefatigable zeal to classical studies. In 1562 he entered the 
order of the Jesuits. He afterwards taught in the institutions of his 
order at I"lorence and Loretto, and in 1579 he was appointed rector of 
the seminary of the Jesuits at Rome, in which office he continued to 
exercise a very beneficial influence for twenty years, down to his death 
on the 6th of April 1599. 

Tursellinus was one of the best Latin scholars that have ever lived, 
and his work on the Latin particles is still the best book on that 
subject. His principal works are: 1, ‘De Vita S. Francisci Xaverii 
Libri Sex,’ Rome, 1594, the best edition of which is that of 1596, 4to: 

_the work is of great interest, not only on account of the distinguished 
man who is the subject of it, but also because it contains much 
information about the missions of that time. It has been translated 
into nearly all the modern languages of Europe. 2, ‘ Historia Laure- 
tana, libri quinque,’ 4to, Rome, 1597. This is a history of the 
miraculous image of the Virgin Mary at Loretto, 3, ‘De Usu Par- 
ticularum Latini Sermonis,’ 12mo, Rome, 1598. This very excellent 
work was reprinted and edited, with additions and corrections, by J. 
Thomasius in 1673, and by J.C. Schwarz in 1719; it is alco printed in 
the English edition of Facciolati’s ‘Lexicon totius Latinitatis :’ the 
best edition is that of Hand, 8vo, Leipzig, 1829. . 4, ‘Epitome Histo- 
riarum & Mundo Condito ad annum 1598.’ This work is a universal 
history, in ten books, written in the Italian language. Although it is 
very brief, it has always been held in high esteem, and has not only 
been continued by several subsequent editors, but also translated into 
several other languages. 

(For a more detailed account of the Life of Tursellinus, see R. 
Retelius, who has incorporated his work on the Latin particles in his 
Scriptores de elegantiort Latinitate Selecti; and compare Alegambe, 
Bibliotheca Scriptorwm Societatis Jesu ; Mandosius, Bibliotheca Romana.) 

4 *TURTON, WILLIAM, M.D., a distinguished naturalist. He 

__. resided at Swansea, in South Wales, where he practised his profession 

and cultivated with great ardour the pursuit of natural history. One 

_ of his earliest works was ‘The British Fauna, containing a com- 
_ pendium of the Zoology of the British Islands. The first volume was 

_ published at Swansea in 1807. It embraced a description of the 

families, genera, and species of British animals, in a neat duodecimo 
yolume, and the author intended to publish in subsequent volumes an 
account of the plants and minerals of Great Britain. The intention 
seems never to have been fulfilled. In 1819, he published ‘A Con- 
chological Dictionary of the British Islands,’ in which he gives an 
account of the structure and localities of the mollusca of Great 

_ Britain. He subsequently published at Exeter, in 1822, a larger 

_ work with illustrations, in 4to, entitled ‘ Conchylia Insularum Britan- 

_ ‘nicarum, or the Shells of the British Islands systematically arranged.’ 

_ In 1830 he published the ‘ Bivalve Shells of the British Islands, syste- 

_ matically arranged.’ In 1831 appeared his ‘Manual of the Land and 

Fresh-Water Shells of the British Islands,’ a work so well adapted for 

_ the study of the creatures to which it was devoted, that a second 
_ edition, edited by Dr. John Edward Gray, of the British Museum, ap- 

_ peared in 1840. Dr. Turton contributed several papers to the ‘ Maga- 

_ zine of Natural History,’ chiefly devoted to the description of new 
_ British shells. He became a Fellow of the Linnean Society in 1809. 

_ TUSSER, THOMAS. The amusing poetical autobiography of this 
“quaint writer, although it forms almost the only source of information 

respecting his personal history, is unfortunately deficient of dates, 

_ Warton supposes his birth to have taken place about 1523; but in the 

_ biography prefixed to Dr. Mayor's edition of his book it is shown from 

__—-BIOG, DIV. VOL, VI. 


i 


several circumstances that 1515 is a more probable date. He was 
born at Rivenhall, near Witham, in Essex, of a family which is re- 
corded as bearing arms in the heralds’ visitation in 1570: he was 
taught singing at an early age, and became a chorister in the collegiate 
chapel of Wallingford Castle, where he had to endure coarse fare and 
rough treatment, and from whence he was removed by impressment, 
according to a barbarous custom formerly existing, by which boys 
might be forcibly removed from any choir for the service of the royal 
chapel. After being for some time compelled, as he says, “to serve 
the choir, now there, now here,” he was admitted into St. Paul's, 
where he profited by the instruction of John Redford, then organist of 
that cathedral. From St. Paul’s he went to Eton, where he experienced 
some severity from the master, Nicholas Udall, He subsequently 
removed to Cambridge : after which he returned to court, and appears 
to have been a retainer in the family of William lord Paget. When he 
had spent ten years at court, probably engaged in his musical capacity, 
he married, and became a farmer at Katwade, now Cattiwade, in 
Suffolk, where he wrote his celebrated work on husbandry, of which 
the first edition appeared in 1557, entitled ‘A Hundreth Good Pointes 
of Husbandrie,’ After several other changes of residence, and marry- 
ing a second time, Tusser returned to London, whence, about 1574, he 
went to Trinity College, Cambridge; in order to escape from the 
plague. He is supposed to have returned to London, where he died 
about 1580, or between that year and 1585. After passing through 
several editions, his work appeared in an enlarged form in 1573, under 
the following title: ‘Fiue Hundreth Points of Good Husbandry, 
vnited to as many of Good Huswiferie,’ &c., ‘Set forth by Thomas, 
Tusser, gentleman, seruant to the honourable Lord Paget, of Beude- 
sert.’ This work was many times reprinted, with various alterations ; 
but most of the early editions are rare, probably on account of the 
copies being worn out with frequent use. Dr. Mavor reprinted it in 
1812, together with a list of all the known editions, and such informa- 
tion as he could collect respecting the author. Fuller says of bim, in 
his ‘ Worthies of Essex,’ that he “ was successively a musician, school- 
master, serving-man, husbandman, grazier, poet, more skilful in all 
than thriving in any vocation. He traded at large in oxen, sheep, 
dairies, grain of all kinds, to no profit. Whether he bought or sold, 
he lost ; and, when a renter, impoverished himself, and never enriched 
his landlord.” “ Yet,” he adds, “hath he laid down excellent rules in 
his book of husbandry and huswifry (so that the observer thereof 
must be rich) in his own defence.” It is written in familiar verse, in 
numerous detached chapters, and with much variety of measure; and 
it is, as observed by Warton, who styles Tusser the British Varro, 
“valuable as a genuine picture of the agriculture, the rural arts, and 
the domestic economy and customs of our industrious ancestors.” The 
life of the author, which forms by no means the least amusing part of 
the book, appears to have been first printed with the edition of 1573. 
TU’TILO, a celebrated monk of the latter part of the 9th century, 
of the convent of St. Gall in Switzerland. Tutilo and Notker, of the 
same convent, were the most celebrated painters, sculptors, and gold- 
workers of their time in Germany. Tutilo was a universal genius, 
and not only an artist: he was musician, poet, orator, and statesman. 
KEkkehard, junior, an old German Latin writer, thus describes him :— 
“ Erat enim valde eloquens, voce clara et dulci, celature elegans, pic- 
turee artifex, ac mirificus aurifex, musicus,” &c. The emperor Charles 


| the Thick complained that such a man should be shut up in a convent. 


Tutilo was contemporary with the abbot Salomo of St. Gall 
(891-921), who was a great patron of the arts, and he made for him a 
golden crucifix, richly ornamented with bas-reliefs and precious stones. 
He made also a celebrated sitting image of the Virgin Mary, in gold, 
for a church at Metz, by which he acquired great celebrity : it bore 
the inscription, “Hoc panthema pia calaverat ipsa Maria.” One 
account says painted. This image or painting was venerated at Metz, 
In the church of St. Otmahr, also at St. Gall, the altar of St. Gall was 
decorated with some copper plates, on which the life of the saint was 
engraved or carved by Tutilo. He is said to have died in 896, and 
this date is twice repeated by Fiorillo; yet he calls him a monk of the 
10th century. Other writers also call him a monk of the 10th century. 
Lessing and some others have supposed that Tutilo, or Tuotilo, as his 
name is also written, and the Theophilus Presbyter who wrote a 
treatise in Latin upon oil-painting and other arts in or about the 10th 
century, were the same person, but there really seems to be no sufficient 
ground for this opinion. There are manuscripts of the old treatise by 
the monk Theophilus, more or less complete, at Wolfenbiittel, Leipzig, 
Paris, in the British Museum, and at Cambridge. An entire copy of 
the Wolfenbiittel manuscript was printed in 1781 at Brunswick, in the 
sixth number of Lessing’s ‘ Beitriige zur Geschichte und Litteratur,’ 
and by Comte Ch. de l’Escalopier, Paris, 1843 ; and (with an English 
translation and notes) by Mr. R. Hendrie, jun., from the manuscript in 
the British Museum, London, 1847. The treatise is in three books, 
and is known under the title ‘Theophili Presbyteri Diversarum Artium 
Schedula;’ also ‘De omni Scientia Artis Pingendi;’ but it treats of 
other arts besides painting. The authenticity of this work bas been 
doubted by some, who have confounded the invention of Van Eyck 
with that of simply using oil as a vehicle for pigments. This subject 
has been entered into at length by Raspe, in a ‘Critical Treatise on 
Oil-Painting, published in London in 1787; by Knirim, in a work 


entitled ‘The Resin-Painting of the Ancients’ (‘Harzmalerei der 
P 


211 TWEDDELL, JOHN. 


TYCHSEN, OLAUS GERHARD, 212 


Alten’), Leipzig, 1839 ; in Cte de l’Escalopier’s ‘ Théophile, Prétre et 
Moine, Essai sur divers Arts;’ in Mr. Hendrie’s translation, noticed 
above; and in Eastlake’s ‘ Materials for a History of Oil-Painting,’ 
London, 1847. Various old notices of Tutilo are printed in the 
‘Rerum Alemannicarum Scriptores,’ &c., of Goldast. 

TWEDDELL, JOHN, was born on the Ist of June 1769, at Threep- 
wood, near Hexham, in Northumberland, where bis father Francis 
Tweddel was a much-respected magistrate. His early education was 
conducted by his mother, who is much praised for her piety and 
maternal affection. At the age of nine he was sent to a school at Hart- 
ford, near Richmond, in Yorkshire, which was then conducted by the 
Rev. Matthew Raine, who watched and directed the studies of young 
Tweddell with anxious care. After he had left school, and before 
entering the University of Cambridge, he studied for som: time under 
Dr. Samuel Parr, who made his pupil familiar with the best writers of 
antiquity, and at the same time secured his permanent esteem and 
attachment. Tweddell gained the highest classical honours in the 
University of Cambridge, and in 1792 he was elected a fellow of 
Trinity College. His ‘ Prolusiones Juveniles,’ which he published the 
year after (1793), show the extent and versatility of his powers, and 
raised at the time great expectations of the young scholar. His own 
inclination would have led him to devote himself to classical learning, 
or, as some of his letters suggest, to a diplomatic career; but in 
deference to his father, who wished that he should study the law— 


although this profession was altogether against his taste—he entered | 


the Midde Temple. Here~he devoted himself to his new pursuits 
with as much application as his aversion to them would allow him. 
At last however he seems to have been unable to continue his studies, 
and made up his mind to travel for some years in order to prepare 
himself for a different course of life, and to acquire a knowledge of 
the courts of Europe and their several systems of policy. Accordingly 
he embarked for Hamburg on the 24th of September 1795. He 
travelled through the north of Europe, Switzerland, and thence east- 
ward into Asia, where he visited among other parts the Crimea and 
the coasts of the Euxine. Thence he proceeded to several islands of 
the Archipelago, and to Athens, where he took up his residence for 
some months. With the most ardent zeal he explored and described 
the remains of ancient art and architecture, and employed a distin- 
guished French artist of the name of Preaux in making drawings for 
him. But in the midst of these pursuits he died, on the 25th of July 
1799, after a short illness, and was buried within the precincts of the 
temple of Theseus. A monument was erected on his grave, with a 
Greek inscription, by the Rev. Robert Walpole. 

During the whole time of his travels Tweddell kept a diary, in 
which he recorded everything remarkable he met with, intending on 
his return to England to publish an account of his travels, together 
with some of the drawings made by Preaux. After his death 
his friends accordingly made all possible efforts to get his effects, 
manuscripts, and drawings over to England. A great number of 
manuscripts, together with upwards of 300 highly-finished drawings, 
were actually forwarded from Athens to Constantinople, and intrusted 
to the care of the English ambassador there, but nothing ever reached 
this country, and all investigations that have been instituted by the 
friends of Tweddell have remained without any result. The only 
memorial which remains of his travels is a number of letters addressed 
to his friends in England, which were published by his brother the 
Rev. Robert T'weddell, under the title ‘Remains of the late John 
Tweddell, &c., being a Selection of his Letters from various parts of 
the Continent, together with a re-publication of his “ Prolusiones 
_ Juveniles,”’ 4to, London, 1815. This collection of letters is preceded 
by a memoir of the author, by his brother Robert, who, has drawn a 
most charming picture of the amiable, pure, and modest character of 
his brother, which is perfectly borne out by the spirit that pervades 
these letters. Respecting the loss of the manuscripts and drawings, 
and all that was said about the. matter at the time, see the ‘ British 
Critic,’ vol. v. 

TWINING, THOMAS, the only son of a tea-merchant by his first 
wife, was born in 1734. His father-wished his son to succeed him in 
his business, but as Thomas had an invincible desire to devote him- 
self to study, his father gave way to him and sent him to Cambridge, 
where he entered Sidney College. Here he distinguished himself 
not only as a scholar, but by his practical as well as theoretical know- 
ledge of music: he was an able performer on the harpsichord, the 
organ, and the violin, and few persons knew more about the history 
and science of the art than Twining. In 1760 he took his degree of 
B.A., and three years later that of M.A. In 1768 he became rector of 
White Notley in Essex, to which, in 1770, the living of St. Mary, 
Colchester, was added. To this latter appointment he was presented 
by Dr. Lowth, then bishop of London, without any other recommen- 
dation than that of his personal character. Henceforth he devoted 
himself without any desire of further preferment to the faithful 
discharge of his parochial duties and to the pursuit of study, ‘until 
his death, on the 6th of August 1804, at the age of seventy. 

Twining was a man of considerable learning and of great taste in 
the arts, especially poetry and music. He had a good knowledge of 
the ancient languages, and is said to have spoken and written French 
and Italian with the same correctness and fluency as his mother 
tongue. In the performance of his clerical duties he was most con- 


‘College of Surgeons, he entered the medical department of the army — 


scientious, avd during the last forty years of his life he scareely ever 
allowed himself to be absent from his parishioners more than a fort- — 
night in a year, although his society was very much courted. The 
only work that Twining ever published is a translation of Aristotle's 
‘ Poetics,’ which is reckoned one of the best English translations of 
ancient writers. It was published under the title ‘ Aristotle’s Treatise — 
on Poetry translated, with Notes on the Translation and on the © 
Original; and two ‘Dissertations on Poetical and Musical Imitation, 
London, 4to, 1789. A second edition, with some improvements and — 
additions by the author, was edited by his nephew, Daniel Twining, 
London, 2 vols. 8vo, 1812. His notes and dissertations are worthy of - 
the attention of every one who studies the theory of poetry and music, — 
TWINING, WILLIAM, was born in Nova Scotia, and passed the — 
early part of his life there, serving an apprenticeship to Dr. John 
Halliburton, a medical practitioner at Halifax. His medical education 
was completed in London, and, after becoming a member of the 


in 1812. After being employed for some time in the military hi "Oe 
at Hilsea, he served for a short time in the Peninsula, and in 1815, a 
after another service at Hilsea, joined the army in the Netherlands, 
and returned with his regiment in 1818. He remained in England, — 
doing duty at different stations, till 1821, when he went to Ceylon, 
and after residing there for a short time, accompanied the governor, — 
Sir Edward Paget, to India. In 1823 he was placed, at his own 
request, on half-pay, and in 1830 he resigned his commission, and 
entered into private practice at Calcutta, where he was appointed one 
of the surgeons to the civil hospital, and died in high reputation and 
esteem in 1835, ~e 
Mr. Twining wrote numerous papers in the ‘ Transactions of the 
Medical Society of Calcutta,” of which he was secretary, and one of 
the most active members, and other short essays; but his chief work — 
was his ‘Clinical Illustrations of the more important Diseases of — 
Bengal, with the result of an Enquiry into their Pathology and Treat- — 
ment, Calcutta and London, 2 vols. 8vo, 1882 and 1835. He was ~ 
recommended to undertake this work by the heads of the medical — 
department at Bengal; and it has been, ever since its publication, a 
book of the highest authority on all the questions of which it treats, — 
and one of the few composing the libraries of the medical officers in 
the Indian army. . “A 
TWISS, RICHARD, an English tourist, who died in London at an 
advanced age, on the 5th of March 1821. Born to an inde i 
fortune, he indulged his taste for travelling in an extensive tour, which 
embraced Holland, Belgium (then the Austrian Netherlands), France, — 
Switzerland, Italy, Germany, and Bohemia, and was completed in — 
1770. Before setting out on his foreign travels he had visited Seot- 
land. In 1772 he undertook a voyage to Spain and Portugal, and in — 
1775 he went to Ireland. He re-visited France at the time of the 
Revolution. The subsequent years of his life were devoted to litera~- ~ 
ture and the fine arts, of which, especially of music, he was an admirer. — 
He materially injured his estate by entering into a speculation for — 
making paper from straw. His published works are:—*Travels — 
through Portugal and Spain in 1772 and 1773-4, London, 1775; ‘A 
Tour in Ireland in 1775-8,’ London, 1776; ‘The Game of Chess; 
being a compilation of Anecdotes and Quotations relative to the game — 
of Chess,’ 8vo, London, 1787; ‘A trip to Paris in July and August, — 
1792, 8vo, London, 1798; ‘Miscellanies, Svo, London, 1805. The 
Travels through Spain and Portugal have been translated into French ~ 
and German. The tone of the Tour in Ireland provoked great wrath 
in that country, and elicited ‘An heroic Epistle from Donna Teresa 
Panna y Ruiz, of Murcia, to R. Twiss, with Notes by Himself, pub- — 
lished at Dublin in 1776. — 
TYCHO BRAHE’. [Braue, Tyono.] “a 
TYCHSEN, OLAUS GERHARD, a celebrated Orientalist, was born 
at Tondern in Schleswig, on the 14th of December 1734. His father 
was a tailor, in very poor circumstances, but with the assistance of — 
some benevolent friends he was enabled to allow his son, who evinced — 
considerable talent, to devote himself to learned studies. Up to his 
seventeenth year Olaus attended the grammar-school of his native — 
town, and thence went to the gymnasium at Altona, where the cele- — 
pecially in 


s, 
a 


brated Maternus de Cila had great influence upon him, es 
directing his attention to Oriental studies, In a short time 
made himself master of the Hebrew language, and with the peculiar 
dialect spoken by the German Jews of all parts of Germany. Thus — 
prepared he went in 1756 to the University of Gottingen. J. H. 

Callenberg, professor at Halle, was still actively engaged in his labours — 
for the conversion of Jews and Mohammedans to Christianity; and — 
when Tychsen had finished his studies, he thought him a fit person to _ 
engage in these undertakings. Tychsen was accordingly sent by — 
Callenberg, in 1759, on a journey through Germany and Denmark. — 
In 1760 Callenberg died, and Tychsen returned without having con-— 
verted a single Jew. In this year the University of Rostock was 
transferred to Biitzow, and Tychsen was invited as professor extra- 
ordinary of Oriental literature; and three years later he obtained the | 
ordinary professorship in the same department. Here he began his 
varied literary activity, which soon spread his name over all Europe. — 
A part of the professors had remained at Rostock on the transfer of 

the university to Biitzow; and as this would ultimately have led to — 
the establishment of two universities, a re-union of the two parts was 


.- 
bY 


‘tL 
laa 


the latter he was elected president in 1797. Tychsen wrote a great 


TYCHSEN, THOMAS CHRISTIAN. 


TYNDALE, WILLIAM. 214 


librarian and keeper of the museum of Rostock, which offices he held 
until his death, In 1810, after having been employed in the university 
for fifty years, he celebrated his jubilee, and received various honours 
and distinctions on that occasion. He died at Rostock on the 30th of 
December 1815. 

Tychsen was a man of extraordinary knowledge in his departments, 


_ and with all his singularities and conceits, he promoted the study of 


Biblical and Eastern literature more than any man of his time. He 


undertook the laborious task of collecting the various readings of the 


Old Testament, of comparing the earliest translations with the original, 


_ and of making accurate descriptions of the most remarkable editions 


of the Bible. His controversies with Benjamin Kennicot were among 


_ the first writings of the kind which established sound principles of 


biblical criticism, although his pietistical tendency prevented the 
‘unbiassed development of his inquiries in theological matters. He 


wrote several dissertations on the Arabic and Phonician languages, 


and on the inscriptions of Persepolis. He also made investigations 
into the history of the various Christian sects in Asia : and was the 


_ first who directed attention te the curious catechism of the Druses in 
‘Syria. All these things combined to procure him a European repu- 
_ tation, and engaged him in an extensive correspondence, but they 


also produced an immoderate degree of vanity, and the presumption 
of knowing everything, which led him into many gross absurdities, 


and for which he was now and then severely chastised, as in his con- 
_ troversies with Francis Perez Bayer, archdeacon of Valencia. 
_ most important among Tychsen’s works is a journal called ‘ Biitzowsche 
_ WNebenstunden’ (leisure hours of Biitzow), which contains many of his 


The 


essays. It appeared at Biitzow from 1766 till 1769, and consists of 
six volumes. His library, which was very rich in manuscripts and 
works on Oriental and Spanish literature, together with his collection 
of curiosities of all kinds, was purchased by the university of Rostock. 
It was owing to the fame of Tychsen that the Shah of Oude, Ghazi 
uddin Hyder Redaet ud Dowlah, sent to the university of Rostock a 
copy of his splendid dictionary and grammar of the Persian language, 
in seven volumes folio. For a detailed account of the life and 
writings of Tychsen, see Hartmann, Olaf Gerhard Tychsen, oder Wan- 
derungen durch die mannichfaltigsten Gebicte der biblisch-Asiatischen 
Literatur, 2 vols. 8vo, Bremen, 1818-20. 


classical scholar, was born on the 8th of May 1758, at Horsbyll in 
Schleswig, where his father, who gave him a sound and careful educa- 
tion, was a clergyman. His first studies in theology and philology 
were at Kiel: he continued them from the year 1779 at Gottingen 
under Heyne. After the completion of his academical course he was 
sent, together with Moldenhauer, on a scientific journey, in which he 
travelled through Germany, Italy, France, and Spain. On his return 
in 1784 he was appointed professor extraordinary of theology at Gét- 
tingen, and, four years later, ordinary professor in the philosophical 
faculty. He continued here with unwearied activity until his death 
- on the 23rd of October 1834. During the long period of his professor- 
ship various honours and distinctions were conferred upon him, and 
he was made a foreign member of the Asiatic Societies of London and 
Paris, and of the Danish and Gottingen Academies of Sciences. Of 


number of valuable papers on antiquarian and numismatic subjects, in 
various scientific periodicals. Among his greater works we may 
mention his manual of the history of the Jews (‘Grundriss einer 
Geschichte der Hebriier’), 8vo, Géttingen, 1789; his edition of Q. 
Smyrneus, and his Arabic Grammar (‘Grammatik der Arabischen 
Schriftsprache’), 8vo, Géttingen, 1823. 

TYE, CHRISTOPHER, doctor in music, a man who appears pro- 
minently in musical biography, both on account of his professional 
ability and as possessor of some literary talent, was, according to Fuller 
(‘Worthies of England’), born in Westminster, and educated in the 
King’s Chapel. He was especially favoured by Henry VIII, and held 
the distinguishing appointment of musical instructor to Prince Edward, 
and most probably the other children of that monarch, He was admit- 
ted to the degree of Doctor in Music at Cambridge, in 1545, and, ad 
eundem, at Oxford three years after. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth 
he held the office of organist to the Chapel-Royal, for which, Fuller 
tells us, he produced several “ excellent Services and Anthems, of four 
and five parts, which were used many years after his death ;” and, 
we will add, some few of his compositions are still listened to with 
-unfeigned pleasure, by all true lovers of the art who have acquired 
any knowledge of its principles and are acquainted with its best 
specimens. 

In a play by Rowley, printed in 1613, is a dialogue between Prince 
Edward, afterwards Edward VI., and Dr. Tye, in which the illustrious 
pupil announces his royal father’s opinion of the doctor's merit :— 

**T oft have heard my father merily speake 
In your high praise; and thus his highnesse saith, 
* England one God, one truth, one doctor hath 
For musicke’s art, and that is Doctor Tye.’” : ; 

In later days, “One God, one Farinelli!” was said of an Italian 
eunuch, the fanatical lady who screamed it out from a box at the 
opera not knowing, most likely, that a similar absurdity, not to call it 
-profaneness, had been uttered three centuries before. - 


brought about at Rostock in 1789, and Tychsen was appointed chief 


TYCHSEN, THOMAS CHRISTIAN, a celebrated Oriental and 


Dr, Tye possessed a considerable knowledge of Italian as well as 
English literature. He translated in verse the affecting story of ‘ Theo- 
dore and Honoria’ from Boccaccio, and published it in 12mo, black 
letter, under the title of ‘A Notable Historye of Nastigio and Trauersari, 
translated out of Italian into English verse, by C. T.—Imprinted at 
London, in Poule’s Churchyarde, by Thomas Purefoote, dwelling at 
the sign of the Lucrece, anno 1569,’ He also commenced a translation 
of the Acts of the Apostles, in verse, of which he only completed the 
first fourteen chapters, and these were printed in 1553 by William 
Seres, The work was begun because, says Warton (‘ Hist. of Poetry’), 
Tye “had been taught to believe that rhyme and edification were 
closely connected, and that every part of scripture would be more 
instructive and better received,.if reduced into verse.” Combining the 
musician and poet, he set “ notes to eche chapter to synge, and also to 
play upon the lute,” and dedicated his labours “ To the yertuous and 
godlye learned prince, Edward the Sixth,” his crowned pupil, who 
certainly took a pride in and was fond of displaying the musical skill 
he had acquired under so scientific and zealous a master. Sir John 
Hawkins has given a specimen both of the poetry and music of this 
work in vol. iii. of his ‘ History.’ 

Dr. Tye was a constant attendant at court, where his accomplish- 
ments rendered him a welcome visitor. In his later days Anthony 
Wood says that he became rather peevish, in proof whereof he states 
that “ Sometimes playing on the organ in the chapel of Queen Elizabeth 
[that] which contained much music, but little to delight the ear, she 
would send the verger to tell him that he played out of tune; where 
upon he sent word that her ears were out of tune.” This curious 
anecdote appears, as a note, in the handwriting of Wood, in the Ash- 
molean Manuscripts, fol. 189. 

TYNDALE, or TINDALE, WILLIAM, whose name is one of the 
greatest in the history of the English reformation, was, according to 
the commonly received account, born about 1477, at Hunt's Court, in 
the parish of Nibley, in Gloucestershire, the residence of his father, John 
Tyndale, son of Hugh, Baron de Tyndale, of Langley Castle, Northum- 
berland, who, having escaped some years before from a battle in which 
his party (that of the Yorkists) was defeated, had settled in the county 
of Gloucester, assumed the name of Hytchins, Hitchins, or Hutchins, 
and married Alicia, daughter and sole heiress of Hunt, of Hunt's 
Court. William is said to have been the second of three sons. Of all 
this however, old Foxe, the Martyrologist, Tyndale’s earliest biogra- 
pher, says nothing ; and the story appears to rest for the most part on 
tradition, and to have been put together in its present shape in very 
recent times. Neither the place nor time of the battle from which 
Tyndale’s grandfather made his escape is specified ; nor do the retailers 
of the story seem to think it necessary to account for the circunistance 
of a Yorkist nobleman being obliged to keep himself concealed (as this 
account supposes), or at least to remain divested of his titles and his 
property, throughout the reign of Edward IV. Moreover, the barony 
of Tyndale of Langley appears to have been extinct for nearly three 
hundred years before the birth of the reformer : the last baron of whom 
anything is known died without male issue in the reign of Richard I 
John Foxe says, that Tyndale “ was born about the borders of Wales, 
and brought up from a child in the University of Oxford, where he by 
long continuance grew up and increased, as well in the knowledge of 


tongues and other liberal arts as specially in the knowledge of the 


Scriptures, whereunto his mind was singularly addicted; insomuch 
that he, lying then in Magdalen Hall, read privily to certain students 
and fellows of Magdalen College some parcel of divinity.” An ancient 
picture of Tyndale, which has been several times engraved, is preserved 
in the library of Magdalen Hall. Tyndale however at last removed 
from Oxford to Cambridge; ‘“‘ where,” proceeds Foxe, “after he had 
likewise made his abode a certain space, being now further ripened in 
the knowledge of God’s word, leaving that university also, he resorted 
to one Maister Welch, a knight of Gloucestershire, and was there 
schoolmaister to his children, and in good favour with his maister.” 
At the house of this Sir John Welch, of Little Sodbury, as he is 
called by other authorities, Tyndale held many disputes on religious 
subjects with the clerical dignitaries of the neighbourhood, who 
frequented Sir John’s well-laden table; and this after a time brought 
him into so much danger, that he deemed it prudent to leave the 
country and come up to London. After preaching for some time, as 
he had also been accustomed to do in the country, in the church of 
St. Dunstan’s in the West, he attempted to get into the service of 
Tonstall, then bishop of London, of whose learning he had conceived a 
great admiration, and to whom he made his court, by presenting him, 
through Sir Henry Guildford, master of the horse and comptroller of 
the king’s household, with a translation of one of the orations of 
Isocrates; but Tonstall replied that his house was full, that he had 
more people than he could well provide for, and advised him to seek 
about in London where he could not long lack employment. After 
this he was taken into the house of Humfrey Mummuth, or Mon- 
mouth, an eminent merchant and one of the aldermen of the city, who 
kept him for half a year, and then settled upon him an annuity of ten 
pounds to enable him to live abroad. Monmouth, who was exten- 
sively connected with the friends of the new opinions, and who a few 
years after this got into trouble on that account, said in his own 
examination before Bishop Stokesley, as reported in another part of 
Foxe’s work, “ The said Tyndale lived like a good priest, studying 


215 TYRANNIO, 


TYRRELL, JAMES. 216 


both night and day. He would eat but sodden meat, by his good will, 
nor drink but small single beer. He was never seen in that house to 
wear linen about him, all the space of his being there.” Tyndale now 
left England, and proceeded in the first instance to Saxony, where he 
is stated to have conferred with Luther; after which he repaired to 
the Low Countries and settled at Antwerp, where his services as a 
preacher were very acceptable to many of the members of the English 
mercantile factory there established. It was probably while resident 
here that, if he did not begin, he at least executed the greater part of 
his English translation of the New Testament. Of this remarkable 
work the first edition appears to have been an 8vo volume containing 
only the text, which was printed at Wittenberg, and published either 
in 1525 or 1526; the second a 4to, containing glosses as well as the 
text, the printing of which was begun at Cologne and finished at 
Wittenberg or at Worms, and which was certainly published in 1526. 
But this account is in part conjectural, and the subject is one upon 
which bibliographers*are not agreed. These original impressions 
appear to have been rapidly sold; and both in England, and among 
the English residents on the continent, the demand was so great, that 
the Dutch booksellers found it for their interest to produce a suc- 
cession of reprints in the course of the next few years, It was not till 
1534 that Tyndale himself brought out a new edition, in which the 
translation was altered and improved in a great many passages. In 
the interim he had also printed at Hamburg, in 1530, a translation of 
the Five Books of Moses from the Hebrew, in which he is understood 
to have been assisted by Miles Coverdale, who afterwards produced the 
first English translation that was printed of the entire Scriptures; and, 
in 1531, he published at the same place a version of the Book of Jonas. 
During his residence abroad Tyndale likwise sent to the press several 
tracts in vindication of his theological opinions, which were all 
written in his own native language, and were probably mostly sold in 
England. He was master of an admirable English style—easy, correct, 
and lucid, and at the same time full of idiomatic vigour and expressive- 
ness: his translation of the New Testament, in particular, deserves to 
be ranked as one of the classic works of our literature, one of the finest 
samples we possess of the language in what may be described as the 
first stage of its maturity, when it had attained in all essential 
respects the form and character which it has ever since preserved, 
although it had not effloresced into the luxuriance and full manifesta- 
tion of its resources which it exhibits both in the poetry and the 
prose of what has been called the Elizabethan age. Tyndale finished 
his career at Antwerp in 1536. His translations of the Scriptures and 
his other publications had been repeatedly denounced by public 
authority in England; and at last, in 1534, his person was seized, by 
the contrivance, it is supposed, of the English government, and he was 
conveyed to the Castle of Vilvoord, or Villefort, near Brussels, where 
he was kept in confinement for a year and a half, and, being then 
brought to trial, was condemned as guilty of heresy in conformity 
with the imperial decree promulgated at the diet of Augsburg, in 
1530. Upon this sentence he was, says Foxe, “ brought forth to the 
place of execution, was there tied to the stake, and then strangled 
first by the hangman, and afterward with fire consumed.” The 
accounts of the affair that have come down to us however are very 
imperfect and obscure; even the exact dates are wanting. 

A new edition of Tyndale’s translation of the New Testament was 
published at London, in small 4to, in 1836; it is very beautifully 
executed, and professes to be printed verbatim from a copy, supposed 
to be the only perfect copy extant, in the library of the Baptist 
College at Bristol, of the first impression of 1525 or 1526. Only some 
specimens are given of the alterations in the revised edition of 1534. 

But a reprint of this latter edition has since been produced by the 
same publisher (Mr. Bagster) in his ‘English Hexapla,’ Lond., 4to, 
1841. All Tyndale’s original writings were published, along with 
those of Frith and Barnes, at London, in 1573, in a folio volume, in 
which they occupy 478 pp., besides an index; and there is a modern 
edition of them, along with those of Frith, under the title of ‘ The 
Works of the English Reformers William Tyndale and John Firth,’ 
edited by Thomas Russell, A.M., 3 vols. 8vo, London, 1831. In this 
edition T'yndale’s works fill the two first volumes and seventy pages of 
the third. The most detailed life of Tyndal is a Memoir (of 89 pp.) 
by Mr. George Offor, prefixed to the reprint of his New Testament ; 
but it is a very uncritical performance. 

TYRA’NNIO (Tupavviwv), a Greek grammarian, and a native of 
Amisus in Pontus, was made prisoner by Lucullis during his campaign 
in Pontus, B.c. 72. According to Suidas the original name of this 
grammarian was Theophrastus, instead of which he was nick-named or 
surnamed Tyrannio on account of his severity towards those who 
studied under him, He was carried to Rome by Lucullus, and given 
as a present to Murena, who restored him to freedom. At Rome he 
occupied himself with teaching and study, and is said to have amassed 
a considerable fortune. He is also said to have been employed in 
arranging the celebrated library of Apellico, which Sulla: had brought 
from Athens, and which contained most of the works of Aristotle and 
Theophrastus. (Plut., ‘Sulla, 26; Strabo, xiii, p. 609.) That he had 
a great knowledge of books is clear from the fact that Cicero employed 
him in arranging his library, which Tyrannio did to the great satisfac- 
tion of Cicero. (Cicero, ‘Ad Att.’ iv.,4 and 8.) That he however 
should himself have possessed, as Suidas states, a library of upwards 


of 80,000 volumes, is hardly credible. Cicero speaks with great 
respect of his knowledge and his mode of instruction; and we know 
that about the year 8.0. 56 he gave lessons in the house of Cicero to 
Quintus, the son of Cicero’s brother Quintus. (Cicero, ‘Ad. Q. Frat.,” 
ii. 4.) Strabo (xii, p. 548) also mentions him as one of the persons 
whose instruction he had received. He appears to have possessed 
considerable knowledge of geography, for Cicero attributes much 
importance to some objections which he made to Eratosthenes (‘Ad 
Att.,’ ii. 6), Cicero alludes to a work of Tyrannio which he valued, 
but does not inform us on what subject it was written (‘Ad. Att.’ 
xii. 6; ‘Ad Q. Frat.,’ iii. 4.) Tyrannio died of a paralytic stroke at a 
very advanced age. (Suidas, s. v.) 

Suidas mentions a second or younger Tyrannio, whom he calls a 
native of Phoenicia and a pupil of the elder Tyrannio, whose name he 
also adopted, as his real name was Diocles. He was made prisoner in 
the war between Antony and Octavianus, and was bought by one 
Dymas, a freedman of Octavianus. He gave him to Terentia, the wife 


of Cicero, who restored him to freedom, after which he occupied him- 


self with teaching. He is said to have written sixty-eight works, all of 
which are now lost. Suidas mentions the titles of some, such as * On 
the Prosody of Homer,’ ‘ On the Parts of Speech,’ ‘ On the Latin Lan- 


guage,’ ‘On Orthography,’ and similar other grammatical works, The 


circumstance that a copious writer like this Tyrannio is not mentioned 


by any ancient author except Suidas, has led some modern critics to 
suppose that he never existed, and that Suidas has made some great 
blunder. (Brucker, ‘ Hist. Philos.,’ ii., p. 19.) 
mentioned by Suidas as the author of a work on Auguries, in three 
books, and some other works which are not specified. 


TYRRELL, JAMES, was the eldest of the four sons of Sir Timothy 


Tyrrell, of Shotover, near Oxford, by Elizabeth, only child of Arch- 
bishop Usher; and was born in Great Queen-street, London, in May 


1642. After an elementary education in the free school of Camber- 


well, he was, in 1657, admitted a géntleman-commoner of Queen's 


College, Oxford, where he resided three years, and then entered him- — 5 
He took his degree of M.A. in September 
He did not 


self of the Inner Temple. 
1663, and about two years after was called to the bar. 
however follow the profession of the law, but employed a life of 
leisure in his historical inquiries and the composition of his various 
works, residing at first on his estate at Oakley, near Brill, in Bueking- 
hamshire, and afterwards at Shotover, for the sake of easier access to 
the Oxford libraries. He died in 1718, leaving by his wife Mary, 
daughter and heiress of Sir Michael Hutchinson, of Hadbury in Wor- 
cestershire, one son, Lieutenant-General James Tyrrell, who was 


governor of Gravesend and Tilbury Fort, and afterwards of Berwick a 


and Holy Island, and sat in parliament for Boroughbridge from 1722 
till his death in August 1742, at the age of sixty-eight. 

Tyrrell’s first appearance in print was in a dedication to Charles II, 
of a posthumous work of his grandfather Archbishop Usher, entitled 
‘The Power communicated by God to the Prince, and the Obedience 
required of the Subject,’ which had been drawn up, at the commence- 
ment of the civil war, by command of Charles I., and was now, in the 
beginning of the year 1661, published in quarto, by Dr. Sanderson, 
bishop of Lincoln. His next performance was an answer to Sir 
Robert Filmer’s speculations upon government, in an octavo volume, 
printed at London in 1681, under the title of ‘ Patriarcha non Mo- 
narcha; or the Patriarch Unmonarched,’ &c. This was followed by a 
defence of the conduct and character of Usher, published in 1686, at 
the end of Dr. Parr's life of the archbishop, as ‘An Appendix to the 
Life of the Lord Primate Usher, containing a Vindication of his 
Opinions and Actions in reference to the Doctrine and Discipline of 
the Church of England, and his conformity thereunto, from the asper- 
sions of Peter Heylin, D.D., in his pamphlet called “ Respondet 


Petrus.”’ Tyrrell, who with all the other deputy-lieutenants and 


justices of the peace of his county, had been struck out of the commis- 
sion by James II. for refusing to dispense with the Test Act and other 


penal laws affecting the Roman Catholics, warmly hailed the Revolu- 


tion; and, after the establishment of the new government, he came 


forth as a champion of that change in a series of ‘ Political Dialogues,’ — ’ 
nine of which were published in quarto in 1692, a tenth in 1693, three 


more in 1694, another in 1695; and which were afterwards collected 
and republished, in a folio volume, in 1718, and again in 1727, under 
the title of ‘ Bibliotheca Politica; or an Enquiry into the Antient Con- 


stitution of the English Government, with respect to the just Extent 


of the Regal power and the Rights aud Liberties of the Subject,’ &c. 
In 1692 also he published anonymously, in octavo, ‘A Brief disquisi- 
tion of the Law of Nature, according to the Principles and Method 
laid down in the Reverend Dr. Cumberland’s (now Lord Bishop of 
Peterborough) Latin Treatise on that Subject.’ It is mainly a trans- 


lation and compendium of Bishop Cumberland’s work ‘De Legibus — 


Nature,’ not however without additional illustrations and other 
matter, and many changes in the arrangement and mode of exposi- 
tion. But Tyrrell’s great work is his ‘General History of England, 
both Ecclesiastical and Civil,’ in 3 vols. folio (commonly bound in five 
parts), Lond., 1700-1704. As expressed on the title-page, this bistory 
was intended to be brought down “from the earliest accounts of time 
to the reign of .... King William III.;” but only a part of that 
design was accomplished : the first volume coming down to the Nor- 
man Conquest; the second, Part 1, to the accession of John; Part 2, 


A third Tyrannio is” 


TYRTAUS. 


TYSON, EDWARD, 218 


to that of Edward I.; the third, Part 1, to the accession of Edward II.; 
Part 2, to the end of the reign of Richard II. It is asserted by Hearne, 
in his preface to Thomas de Elmham (8vo, Oxford, 1727), that a 
further portion of the work had been prepared for the press; but it 
has never appeared, ‘T'yrrell’s history, which has now become scarce, 
is valuable as being founded throughout upon the original chroniclers, 
of whose accounts indeed it is in great part a literal translation ; but 
it is rather an undigested accumulation of materials than an historical 
narrative with even the humblest pretensions to an artistic character. 
Besides the narrative, there are many prefaces, introductions, appen- 
dices, &c., occupied with the investigation of particular points, or the 
_ defence of the author’s favourite notions, the most remarkable of 
which are, that the Norman.Conquest made scarcely any alteration in 
the original or Saxon frame of the government, and that the repre- 
_ sentation of the commons in parliament in particular has been uninter- 
_ rupted since the Saxon times. The vindication of these opinions is 
_ also the object of several of his ‘ Political Dialogues.’ 

_ TYRTALUS (Tupraios), the second great elegiac poet among the 
ancient Greeks. His age is determined by the fact that he assisted 
the Spartans in their second Messenian War, which is placed by 
 Pausanias between the years B.c. 685 and 668, while others place its 
commencement about the year B.c. 660, and even later. The birth- 
_ place of Tyrtzus is differently stated: Suidas calls him a Milesian or 
_ @ Laconian: he of course became a Laconian after receiving the 
Spartan franchise; and the circumstance that after he was made a 
_ ‘Spartan citizen he spoke in his poems of himself as such, ard of 
his Spartan ancestors, led Strabo to think that Tyrteus was originally 
_ a Dorian of Erineos near Mount Pindus, from whence some centuries 
before a portion of the Dorians had immigrated into Peloponnesus. 
That he was actually residing in Attica, either at Aphidne or at 
Athens, just before he went to Sparta, is attested by the general con- 
sent of antiquity. The common story about his going to Sparta, as 
related by Pausanias and others, runs thus. When the second Messe- 
nian War broke out, the Spartans, not knowing how to act, consulted 
the oracle of Delphi. The god commanded them to avail themselves 
of the advice of an Athenian, and an embassy was accordingly sent to 
Athens to ask for a man who was to be their adviser. The Athenians 
were unwilling to assist the Spartans in extending their dominion in 
_ Peloponnesus, and yet not wishing to disobey the command of Apollo, 
they sent to Sparta Tyrtzus, a schoolmaster who was lame in one foot 
and had never shown any signs of talent. The story about his lame- 
_ ness may be questioned, but that his mental powers were anything 
but weak is sufficiently clear from the effects which his poetry is said 
_ to have produced at Sparta, and the remains which are still extant. 
The elegy, which had recently been introduced in Greece by Callinus 
of Miletus, was the means by which Tyrtzus inspired the Spartans 
with courage and confidence, and by which he led them to their 
victories over the Messenians. 

On his arrival in Sparta he recited his warlike anapzstic elegies to 
the magistrates and to as many of the people as he could gather 
around him, and he exhorted them in the most animating strains to 
fight bravely against their enemies. The number of such stirring 
war-songs (dmo00jjxa1, or droPjKa: di édcyelas), which being sung to the 
accompaniment of the flute made a deep and lasting impression upon 
the Spartans, appears to have been very great. But the mission which 
Tyrtzus had to fulfil was not only to breathe a new warlike spirit 
into the Spartans, but also to settle their internal dissensions ; for 
those Spartans who had lost their lands in Messenia were discontented, 
and demanded a new division of land. For this purpose he composed 
the most celebrated of his elegies, called ‘Eunomia’ (Eivoufa; Suidas 
calls it a woArrefa), that is, ‘good government.” Some fragments of 
it are still extant, and enable us to form some idea of the whole com- 
position, A third class of elegies were march-songs, which the Greeks 
called wéAn moarcumorhpia, euBathpia, evdmdria, ern avdmauora, or mpoTper- 
7ucd. All the poems of Tyrtzus had an extraordinary influence upon 
his hearers, but the most popular among them appear to have been his 


| 


| 


 war-songs, for they continued for centuries after to be sung, not only 


_ at Sparta, but among the Dorians generally before they went out to 
_ battle. There are extant three entire poems of this kind, but it is a 
_ matter of great doubt whether they are not much mutilated and 
_ interpolated. All the works of Tyrtcus were in later times collected 
__and divided into five books. 

_ _Tyrtzeus had the good fortune to live to see the fruits of his wise 
_ advice—the reduction of the Messenians to the condition of Helots 
 (Paus., iv., 14, 3); and the accounts which we now have of the second 
_ Messenian War are probably derived in a great measure from his 
_‘ poems. The first collection of the remains of Tyrtzus that appeared 
in print is that of S. Gelenius and M. Aurigallus, which also contains 
_ the works of Callimachus, 4to, Basel, 1532. The edition of C. A. 
Klotz (‘ Tyrtei Opera que supersunt omnia,’ &c., with a commentary 
and a German translation, 8vo, Leipzig, 1767) is not worth much, 
_ The best editions in which the poems of Tyrtzus are printed, together 
with those of Callinus, are those of J. V. Franke (‘Callinus, sive 
_ Questio de Origine Carminis Elegiaci: accedunt Tyrtzi Reliquis,’ 
 &e., 8vo, Altona, 1816), and N. Bach (‘ Callini Ephesii, Tyrtei Aphid- 
- nei, Asii Samii Carminum que supersunt,’ 8vo, Leipzig, 1831). They 
are also contained in several collections of Greek poets. 

(Thiersch, in the Acta Philol. Monac. of 1826, vol, iii, p. 587, &c. ; 


a 


and in general, Miiller, Hist. of the Lit. of Ancient Greece, i., p- 110, 
oes “ye Geschichte der Lyrischen Dichtkunst der Hellenen, i. p. 
, &C, 

There are many versions of Tyrteus. The Elegies of Tyrtcus were 
translated into English verse by R. Polwhele, 4to, 1786; 8vo, 1792 r 
and the War Elegies (four) were imitated by J. Pye, 8vo, 1795. 

TYRWHITT, THOMAS, was the eldest son of the Rev. Dr. Robert 
Tyrwhitt, the descendant of an ancient Lincolnshire family, who at 
the time of the birth of his son, in London, 29th of March 1730, was 
rector of St. James’s, Westminster, and afterwards became a canon 
residentiary and prebendary of St. Paul’s, archdeacon of London, and 
a canon of Windsor. Thomas was first sent to school at Kensington, 
whence he removed in 1741 to Eton, and he remained there till he 
was entered of Queen’s College, Oxford, in 1747. In 1755 he was 
elected to a fellowship of Merton College; and having taken his 
degree of M.A. the following year, although he had also entered him- 
self of the Middle Temple, he continued his residence at the university 
till 1762, when, resigning his fellowship, he came up to London, and 
entered upon the duties of the office of clerk of the House of Com- 
mons, to which he was appointed on .the resignation of Jeremiah 
Dyson, Esq.; but finding the fatigue too great for his health, he 
relinquished this appointment in-1768, and devoted the rest of his 
life to literary pursuits. Mr. Tyrwhitt, who was greatly beloved for 
his amiable character, died at his house in Welbeck-street on the 15th 
of August 1786. 

The following is a list of his publications, all of which display 
sound scholarship, extensive reading, much taste and critical acumen, 
or, at the least, great accuracy and precision, and the most pains- 
taking and conscientious industry, where higher qualifications were 
not called for:—A poem, entitled ‘An Epistle to Florio at Oxford’ 
(Mr. Ellis of Christchurch), 4to, Lond., 1749. ‘Translations in Verse’ 
of Pope’s ‘ Messiah’ and Philips’s ‘Splendid Shilling’ into Latin, and 
of the ‘Eighth Isthmian Ode’ of Pindar into English, 4to, 1752. 
‘Observations and Conjectures on some Passages in Shakspeare’ 
(anonymous, but with the portrait of the author prefixed), 8vo, 1766, 
‘Proceedings and Debates in the House of Commons in 1620 and 
1621, from the original MS. in the Library of Queen’s College, Oxford, 
with an Appendix,’ 2 vols. 8vo, Clarendon Press, 1766. ‘'lhe Manner 
of Holding Parliaments in England; by Henry Elsynge, Cler. Par. ; 
corrected and enlarged from the Author’s original MS.,’ 8vo, 1768. 
‘Fragmenta duo Plutarchi’ (from the Harleian Manuscript, 5612), 
anonymous, 8vo, 1773. ‘The Canterbury Tales of Chaucer,’ with 
Dissertations, Notes, Glossary, &¢., 2 vols. .4to, Oxford, 1775; also 
5 vols. 8vo, 1778; and since several times reprinted. This is in all 
respects an admirably edited work. ‘ Dissertatio de Babrio,- Fabu- 
larum Atsopicarum Scriptore, 8vo, 1776. ‘Poems supposed to have 
been written at Bristol, in the Tenth Century, by Rowley and others, 
with a Preface, &c. (in refutation of the alleged antiquity of the 
poems), 8vo, 1778. ‘A Vindication of the Appendix to the Poems 
called Rowley’s,’ 8vo, 1779. An edition, in Greek and Latin, with 
notes, of the poem entitled TMep) Ai@ay (On Stones), attributed by 
some to Orpheus (but according to Tyrwhitt written in the early 
part of the fourth century). ‘Conjecture in Strabonem’ (privately 
printed), 1783. An edition of an ‘ Oration of Isaeus against Menecles,’ 
newly discovered in the Medicean Library, 1785. He also left mate- 
rials for a new edition of Aristotle’s ‘ Poetics, which were prepared 
for the press by the Rev. Thomas Burgess and the Rev. John Ran- 
dolph (afterwards bishops of Salisbury and London), and brought 
out at the Clarendon Press, in quarto and also in octavo, in 1794. 
Tyrwhitt is the author of the best notes in Dr. Musgrave's edition of 
‘ Kuripides,’ 1778, and of many of the most valuable in the variorum 
editions of Shakspere; and he has enriched the ‘ Transactions’ of the 
Society of Antiquaries (the ‘ Archzologia’) with several disquisitions 
of distinguished learning and ingenuity. His ‘ Dissertation on 
Babrius,’ after having been republished by himself with additions at 
the end of his edition of the Greek poem ‘ On Stones,’ was reprinted 
at Erlangen in Bavaria; and so were his ‘Conjectures upon Strabo,’ 
in 1788, under the superintendence of Th. Ch. Harles. An octavo 
volume entitled ‘Thome Tyrwhitti Conjecture in Aischylum, Euri- 
pidem, et Aristophanem: accedunt Epistole Diversorum ad Tyr- 
whittum,’ was brought out at Oxford, from the Clarendon Press, in 
1822; and it appears from the preface that a small impression of the 
same matter had many years before been printed, under the care of 
Burgess, at Durham. The letters, which fill from p. 91 to p. 164, 
are from Valcknaer (in Latin), from Villoison (in French), from 
Brunck (in French); from Ruhnken (in Latin), from Schweighiuser (in 
Latin and French), and from Ch. Fred. Matthzi of Moscow (in Latin). 
The editors promise another volume, to consist of Adversaria col- 
lected from Tyrwhitt’s papers; but this has not appeared. 

TYSON, EDWARD, was born in Somersetshire in 1649. He 
studied at Oxford, and received his Bachelor’s degree there in 1670, 
after which he went to Cambridge, where he was made Doctor of 
Medicine in 1680. He lived in London, and was physician to the 
Bridewell and Bethlem hospitals, reader of anatomy at Surgeons’ Hall, 
and, for a time, Gresham professor of medicine, He was one of the 
chief contributors to the early volumes of the Transactions of the 
Royal Society, of which, as well as of the College of Physicians, he was 
a Fellow, He died in 1708. 


219 TYSSENS, PETER. 


TYTLER, PATRICK FRASER. 


Tyson was one of the first comparative anatomists of his time. All 
his works are distinguished by great accuracy and depth of research ; 
they are to this day of unquestioned authority in matters of fact; and 
they prove that he thoroughly understood the scientific purpose of 
comparative avatomy. The chief of them are as follows :—-1, ‘ Pho- 
cena, or the Anatomy of a Porpesse dissected at Gresham College,’ 
4to, London, 1680; 2, ‘Carigueya, seu Marsupiale Americanum; or 
the Anatomy of an Opossum dissected at Gresham College,’ 4to, 
London, 1698; 8, ‘Orang-Outang, sive Homo Sylvestris; or the 
Anatomy of a Pygmie, compared with that of a Monkey, an Ape, and 
a Man,’ folio, London, 1699. This is Tyson’s best and most valuable 
work; for though the others are not less accurate, this relates to an 
animal for the dissection of which opportunities are exceedingly rare, 
It was a chimpanzee, and the later labours of Professors Owen and 
Vrolik, though they have added to what Tyson described, have proved 
the complete accuracy of nearly all his observations ; an accuracy the 
more meritorious, because, before his time, no dissection of the animal 
had been recorded. Haller, with full justice, says, “ We have nothing 
in comparative anatomy that can be compared to this work, excepting 
the works on insects ;” by which last he probably means'those of Swam- 
merdam. 4, There was published with the last-mentioned work, ‘A 
Philological Essay concerning the Pygmies, the Cynocephali, the Satyrs, 
and Sphinges of the Ancients, wherein it will appear that they were 
all either Apes or Monkeys.’ 5, And to a second edition of the two 
preceding was added, ‘ Vipera Caudisona Americana, or the Anatomy 
of a Rattle-Snake.’ 6, ‘Several Anatomical Observations,’ folio, 
London and Oxford, 1680-1705. 

Some of these works had before: appeared in the ‘ Philosophical 
Transactions,’ which contain numerous other papers communicated 
by Tyson between 1678 and 1704. The most important among them 
relate to the renal capsules, the anal glands of the musk-animal and 
others, the black excretion of the cuttle-fish, the anatomy of the ento- 
zoa and of the Tajassu, and the growth of hair and teeth in ovarian 
cysts. Tyson also contributed largely to Samuel Collins’s ‘System of 
Anatomy,’ to Ray’s ‘Synopsis Methodica Quadrupedum,’ and to 
Willughby’s ‘ Historia Piscium.’ 

TYSSENS, PETER, a celebrated Flemish painter, born at Antwerp, 
in 1625. Tyssens, after Rubens and Vandyck, was the first Flemish 
painter of his time, in history and in portrait. He first practised as 
an historical painter, and was highly patronised, but finding portrait- 
painting a more profitable employment, he devoted his time exclu- 
sively to that branch of the art, until, digusted with some uncandid 
criticisms which were passed on some of them, he gave up portrait- 
painting, and again applied himself with increased success to history. 
There are few cities in Flanders without a specimen of the works of 
Tyssens, but there are few of his paintings out of his own country. 
The Assumption of the Virgin, over the great altar of the church of 
St. James at Antwerp, is generally considered his masterpiece, His 
drawing was vigorous and correct, his colouring good, and’his compo- 
sition very spirited. He enriched his pictures by tasteful architectural 
backgrounds. In 1661 Tyssens was made director of the Academy of 
Antwerp. He died in 1692, 

His two sons, Nicholas and Agustine, were also distinguished painters 
in their respective lines. NicHonas T'yssens was born at Antwerp in 
1660; spent several years in Italy, and on his return entered the 
service of John William, the elector-palatine at Diisseldorf, who sent 
him to the principal cities of the Netherlands to purchase pictures for 
the gallery which he was about to form there. Tyssens executed his 
commission to the utmost satisfaction of the elector, but the pictures 
which he purchased, with others of the Diisseldorf gallery, now form 
part of the collection of the Pinakothek at Miinich. Tyssens first 
painted armour, implements of war, and trophies: he afterwards tried 
flower-painting; but he painted latterly birds, in which he was very 
excellent, and his pictures of this class are little inferior to those of 
Boel or Hondekoeter. He visited London, where he is said to have 
died in 1719. 

AvGustinE TyssENs was born at Antwerp in 1662, and was a land- 
scape-painter, and executed many clever pictures in the style of 
Berghem, which he enriched in a similar way, with ruins, figures, and 
cattle. In 1691 he was made director of the Academy of Antwerp. 
He died in 1722. 

(Descamps, La Vie des Peintres Flamands, é&c.; Pilkington, Dic- 
tionary of Painters, ed. 1829.) 

TYTLER, WILLIAM, was born at Edinburgh on the 12th of 
October 1711. His father was Mr. Alexander Tytler, writer (or 
attorney) in Edinburgh ; his mother, Jane, daughter of Mr. William 
Leslie, merchant in Aberdeen. He himself, after an education at the 
High School and University of Edinburgh, was admitted a writer to 
the signet in 1742, and he practised that branch of the legal profession 
till his death, on the 12th of September 1792. Mr. Tytler, besides 
being an accomplished musician, and distinguished for his taste in all 
the fine arts, was the author of several literary works, the chief of 
which, his ‘ Inquiry, Historical and Critical, into the Evidence against 
Mary Queen of Scots,’ first printed in an 8vo vol. in 1759, and after 
several editions extended to 2 vols. 8vo in 1790, acquired him consider- 
able reputation. Itisa defence of Mary, principally ayainst Robertson 
and Hume. His other publications are—‘A Dissertation on the 
Marriage of Queen Mary to the Earl of Bothwell,’ in the ‘Transactions 


of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland,’ vol. i., 4to, 1791; ‘ The 
Poetical Remains of James I, of Scotland, 8vo, Edin., 17838; ‘A 
Dissertation on Scottish Music; subjoined to Arnott’s ‘History of 
Edinburgh ;’ ‘Observations on the Vision,’ a poem, first printed in 
Ramsay’s ‘Evergreen ;’ and an essay ‘On the Fashionable Amuse- — 
ments of Edinburgh during the last Century,’ both publishedinthe 
Scottish ‘Antiquarian Transactions ;’ and one paper in the ‘ Lounger,’ — 
Mr. William Tytler was the father of Alexander F, Tytler, Lord — 
Woodhouselee, P 
TYTLER, ALEXANDER FRASER, styled Lorp WoopHoUSsELEE, 
the eldest son of the preceding, was born at Edinburgh on the 15th 
of October 1747. He attended the High School of his native town — 
from 1755 to 1763, when he was sent to an academy kept at Kensing- 
ton, near London, by James Elphinstone, the author of many works 
on English grammar and pronunciation. Here he studied drawing, — 
natural history, and Italian, as well as the classics. Returning home ~ 
in 1765, he entered the University of Edinburgh with a view of — 
studying for the bar. He was admitted an advocate in 1770, and in 
1776 married Anne, eldest daughter of William Fraser, Esq., of Bal- 
nain, which property, as well as his paternal estate, he eventually — 
inherited. His practice, like that of most young advocates, left him 
leisure enough for some years; the first fruits of which he gave to — 
the world, in 1778, by the publication of a supplementary (folio) 
volume to Lord Kames’s ‘ Dictionary of Decisions,’ bringing down the — 
work to that date. This compilation was undertaken on the a 
of Kames, who showed the author much friendship, and aided his — 
labours by his counsel and revision. In 1780 Tytler was conjoined — 
with John Pringle, Esq., who had occupied the chair for some years, — 
in the professorship of universal history and Roman antiquities in the 
University of Edinburgh ; and in 1786 he became sole professor, on 
the resignation, we believe, of his colleague. This appointment led to — 
the publication, in 1782, of his ‘Outlines of a Course of Lectures, 
afterwards expanded into ‘ Elements of General History,’ 2 vols. 8vo, 
Edinburgh, 1801, a work which has been repeatedly reprinted, the © 
latest edition being that revised and continued to the death of — 
William IV. by the Rev. Edward Nares, D.D., regius professor of — 
modern history in the University of Oxford, in 1 vol. 8vo, London, 
1840. The lectures, of which this work is an abstract, were left ready 
for the press by the author, but have never been published. In 1790 — ' 
Mr. Tytler was promoted to the office of judge-admiral of Scotland; 
and the same year he read before the Royal Society of Edinburgh, of 
which he had been a member and one of the secretaries since its — 
institution in 1783, a series of papers, which he soon after published 
anonymously, under the title of ‘An Essay on the Principles of — 
Translation.’ This performance met with a very welcome reception — 
from the public, and has gone through many editions. A memoir of 
Dr. John Gregory, prefixed to a collected edition of his works pub- 
lished by his son, the late Dr. James Gregory, in 1784; four papers — 
contributed to the Edinburgh periodical publication entitled the — 
‘Mirror” in 1779; seven contributed to its successor, the * Lounger,’ 
in 1785; various essays in the ‘ Transactions’ of the Edinburgh Royal - 
Society ; a‘ Treatise upon Martial Law;’ a new edition of Derham’s 
‘ Physico-Theology,’ with notes, &c., and a Life of the author, pub- 
lished in 1799; and a letter published the same year at Dublin, under 
the title of ‘Ireland profiting by Example, or the Question considered — 
whether Scotland has gained or lost by the Union,’ are the other prin- — 
cipal literary productions of this period of his life. In 1802 he was — 
raised to the bench of the Court of Session, when he took the title of — 
Lord Woodhouselee, from the property of which he had come into 
possession on the death of his father ten years before. In 1807 he 
published his last work, ‘Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Henry — 
Homes, Lord Kames,’ 2 vols. 4to, Edinb. This work (of which there — 
is also an edition in 4 vols, 8vo) has never excited much attention, In — 
1811 Lord Woodhouselee was appointed a lord of justiciary; but his — 
health, which had some years before been broken by a severe illness 
from which he never perfectly recovered, soon after this gave way, and — 
his death took place on the 4th of January 1813. A memoir of this 
respectable writer and excellent man (from which these facts have 
been taken) was read by his friend, the late Rev. Archibald Alis 
before the Royal Society of Edinburgh, on the 3rd of June 1816, anc 
6th of January 1817, and is printed in the Society's ‘ Transactions,” 
vol. viii., 4to, Edinburgh, 1818, pp. 515-564. : a 
TYTLER, PATRICK FRASER, was born at Edinburgh on the 
20th of August 1791, the fourth son of Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord 
Woodhouselee. He was destined to increase the literary reputation 
of a family in which literary taste and talent seemed hereditary. Aft 
having been educated at the High School and the University of E 
burgh, he became a member of the Scottish Faculty of Advocates i 
1818, but he soon abandoned practice for authorship. On the pe 
of 1814 he accompanied Mr. (now Sir Archibald) Alison and 
present Lord-Justice Clerk of Scotland on a visit to the Continent. 
first literary efforts were as a contributor to ‘ Blackwood’s Magazin 
but in 1819 he published in Edinburgh an independent work entit 
‘Life of James Crichton of Cluny, commonly called Admira 
Crichton.’ The work reached a second edition in 1823, when al 
‘Appendix of Original Papers’ was added to it, In 1823 he pub- 
lished also at Edinburgh, ‘An Account of the Life and Writings of 
Sir Thomas Craig of Riccarton; including biographical sketches of 


TZETZES, ISAAC. 


UCCELLO, PAOLO. 222 


_ the most eminent legal characters from the institution of the Court of 
Session by James V. till the period of the Union of the Crowns ;’ and 
this was followed in 1826 by a ‘Life of Jonn Wicklyff, published 
anonymously. It was about this time that, on the earnest suggestion 
of Sir Walter Scott,’ who had at one time thought of undertaking the 
_ task himself, he began his great work, ‘The History of Scotland.’ 
The first volume was published in 1828, and the work was completed in 
nine volumes in 1843. It has since then passed through several 
itions, and is recognised everywhere as the standard History of 
otland—the only work in which Scottish history is treated at full 
ngth on the basis of authentic materials, and in a calm and accurate 
distinct from a merely popular manner. It commences with the 
session of Alexander III. to the Scottish throne in the 13th century, 
brings down the narrative to the union of the crowns in 1608. 
hile writing this work, Mr. Tytler resided sometimes in Kdinburgh, 
metimes in London, collecting materials in both places. During the 
ne that the work was in progress he threw off other smaller histo- 
gal works, of which the following. is a list:—‘ Lives of Scottish 
Worthies, in 2 vols., 1831-33; * Historical View of the Progress of 
Discovery on the more Northern Coasts of America,’ published in 
‘Edinburgh in 1832, and recently re-edited in America; ‘Life of Sir 
Walter Raleigh,’ 1833; ‘Life of Henry the LHighth,’ 1837; and 
‘England under the Reigns of Edward VI. and Mary, illustrated in a 
Series of original letters, with historical introductions and notes,’ 1839. 
. Tytler also wrote the article ‘Scotland’ for the seventh edition of 
2 ‘Encyclopedia Britannica,’ and the article has since been re-pub- 
hed as a useful abridgment. In recognition of claims so well 
anded, Sir Robert Peel’s government conferred on Mr, Tytler a 
pension of 200/.a year. In politics he was a Conservative. Though 
3 i Episcopalian, he took much interest in the Scottish Presbyterian 
“movement of 1834-43. In private life he was much beloved for his 
social qualities. Towards the close of his life he suffered much from 
ill health, and went abroad foratime. He returned to Edinburgh, 
and died on the 24th of December 1849. He was twice married, and 
left two sons and a daughter by his first wife. 

_ TZETZES, ISAAC. [TzErzes, JoANNES.] 
_ TZETZES, JOANNES, a learned grammarian and poet of Constan- 
_ tinople, who lived during the latter half of the 12th century of our 
era. He was a son of Michael Tzetzes and Eudocia: his father’s 
_ brother, Joannes Tzetzes, though himself an unlettered man, was 
_ fond of the society of the learned. His father was descended from a 
_ Basque or Iberian family, but his mother was of a Greek family. He 
hada brother Isaac, with whom Joannes spent the first years of his 
life in his father’s house, where, as Joannes says, they were trained 
_ in all virtue and piety, and learned to despise the wealth and honours 
of the world. The two brothers were instructed by the ablest 
_ teachers of the time, and were afterwards distinguished by the title 
of grammarians, which then designated a learned and accomplished 
scholar. Further particulars of their lives are not known. 
_ We possess a considerable number of works by Joannes Tzetzes, 
consisting of poetical compositions, or rather versified prose, commen- 
_ taries on ancient Greek authors, and some minor works of a scientific 
character. His poetical works, most of which are written in the 
_ 80-called political verse, that is, without any regard to prosody, but in 
a metre in which only the syllables are counted, are—l. ‘TIliaca’ 
 (IAtakd), which, properly speaking, consists of three distinct poems, 
which are called ‘ Ante-Homerica,’ ‘ Homerica,’ and ‘ Post-Homerica.’ 
The first contains the whole cycle of the Trojan story from the birth 
_of Paris to the tenth year of the siege of Troy, where the ‘Iliad’ 
begins; the second is a mere abridgement of the ‘Iliad;’ and the 
_ third contains the events subsequent to the death of Hector, and an 
account of the return of the Greeks from Troy. The whole is, like 
all the versified productions of Joannes Tzetzes, exceedingly dull. 
Some fragments of this work were first published by F. Morel, who 
- did not know the author's name, in his ‘ Iliacum Carmen Poete Greci 
cuius nomen ignoratur,’ arid by Dodwell, in his ‘ Dissertationes de 
' Veterib. Grec. et Rom. Cyclis,’ p. 802. In the year 1770 G. B. von 
'Schirach published, from an Augsburg manuscript, nearly the whole 


of the ‘ Ante-Homerica,’ a portion of the ‘ Homerica, and Dodwell’s 
fragment of the ‘Post-Homerica.’ T.C. Tychsen*at last discovered 
in a Vienna manuscript the complete ‘ Ante-Homerica’ and ‘ Post- 
Homerica,’ and communicated his copy of them to Fr. Jacobs, who, 
after having also procured a complete copy of the ‘ Homeriea,’ pub- 
lished the first complete edition of this work at Leipzig, 8vo, in 1793. 
The best critical edition of the text, for which a Paris manuscript 
was collated, is that by Imm. Bekker, 8vo, Berlin, 1816, 2. BiBaos 
toropikh, taore commonly called ‘ Chiliades,’ or ‘ Chiliades Variarum 
Historiarum.’ The former is the name which Tzetzes himself gives 
to this work; the latter arose from the circumstance that the first 
editor, N. Gerbelius, divided the whole work into sections of 1000 
verses each. Tzetzes himself had divided it into three tables (rivaxes), 
the first of which contained 140 stories, and ended at Chil. iv. 466. 
Between the first and second table there is a letter addressed to one 
Joannes Lachanes, and the second begins at Chil. iv. 781, extending 
to Chil. v. 192, and contains 32 tales, The third, comprising the 
remainder of the work, contains 496 narratives: This work, with its 
numerous mythical and historical tales, is a storehouse of information, 
and innumerable things are recorded here which would otherwise be 
unknown. It is however highly probable that Tzetzes did not always 
derive his information from the original sources, and that he compiled 
it from the works of other grammarians and scholiasts. The author 
is exceedingly vain: he is full of his own praise and that of his 
brother; he delights in mentioning his own name on all occasions, 
and he treats all other writers with contempt. The first edition of 
the ‘Chiliades’ is that of N. Gerbelius, with a Latin translation by. 
P. Lacisius, fol., Basel, 1546; the best edition is that by Kiessling, 
8vo; Leipzig, 1826. 3. ‘Carmen Iambicum de Filiorum Kducatione,’ 
or ‘On the Education of Children.’ This poem is usually added in 
the editions of the ‘ Chiliades.’ 4. A fragment of a poem called Mep) 
‘Pyudtwy *AvOuvrordkrwy, is printed in Bekker’s ‘ Anecdota,’ iii., p. 1090. 
Several other versified productions have never been published, but 
exist in manuscript in various libraries. The most remarkable among 
them isa brdéGecis Tod ‘Ouhpou, consisting of upwards of 8000 so-called 
political verses, and giving explanations of the mythuses which occur 
in the ‘ Iliad.’ 

Joannes Tzetzes wrote commentaries, but only those on the ‘ Iliad,’ 
on Hesiod, and on Lycophron have been printed. Others, as those on 
Oppian’s ‘Halieutica,’ on the canon of Ptolemeeus, as well as his 
original works ‘ On Comedy and Comic Poets,’ the ‘Abridgment of the 
Rhetoric of Hermogenes,’ a collection of his letters, and other works, 
are still in manuscript. The only edition of the ‘Commentary on the 
Iliad’ (‘ Exegesis in Homeri Iliadem’) is that by G. Hermann, who 
published it with the work of Draco of Stratonicea on metres, 8vo, 
Leipzig, 1812. The commentary on Hesiod is printed in the editions 
of this poet, by Victor Trincavelli, 4to, Venice, 1537, and in that of 
Daniel Heinsius, 4to, Leyden, 1603. The commentary on Lycophron’s 
‘Cassandra’ is ascribed in the manuscript to Isaac Tzetzes, the brother 
of Joannes, but Joannes states in two passages (‘ Chil.’ ix., ‘ Hist.’ 296 ; 
‘Epist. ad Basil. Achridenum,’ printed in Potter’s ‘Commentary on 
Lycophron,’ p. 111) that he wrote the Commentary himself and gave 
it to his brother Isaac. J.C. Miiller, the last editor, is of opinion that 
it is the joint production of the two brothers; that Isaac first pub- 
lished it, and that Joannes afterwards made an improved and enlarged 
edition. This opinion is strongly supported by the condition of the 
existing manuscripts, some of which contain considerably more matter 
than others, and display all the vanity and arrogance which are so 
striking in the ‘Chiliades.? But however this may be, the commen- 
tary is a most useful compilation from those of the Alexandrine gram- 
marians, and contains a vast amount of mythological and historical 
information not to be obtained elsewhere, and without it we should 
scarcely be able to understand the obscure poem of Lycophron. It is 
printed in several editions of Lycophron, first in that of Basel, fol., 
1546, and subsequently in those of Canter, Potter, and Sebastiani. 
The last and most correct edition, without the text of Lycophron, is 
that by C. G. Miller, 3 vols. 8vo, Leipzig, 1811, with useful notes and 
indices. 


-7/BERTI, FA’ZIO DEGLI, of a Guibeline family of Florence, is 
_™' believed to have been a son of Lapo degli Uberti, and grandson of 
_the great Guibeline leader, Farinata degli Uberti, who after the defeat 
of the Guelphs at. Monteaperto, saved Florence from the fury of his 
own party, which wanted to raze the town to the ground. Of the 
personal history of Fazio little is known, except that he lived in the 
‘middle of the 14th century, that he was an emigrant in consequence 
of the proscription of his party by the triumphant Guelphs, and that 
e found an asylum at various Italian courts, among the rest at that 

he Visconti at Milan, amusing his patrons by reciting verses. 
Some of his canzoni and other small poems are found in various col- 
Aections. He composed also a descriptive poem in terza rima, entitled 
Dittamondo,’ from the Latin words ‘dicta mundi, the ‘sayings’ or 
‘the news of the world,’ in which, borrowing the plan of Dante, he 


U 


represents himself travelling about the world in company with Solinus, 
the author of the ‘ Polyhistor,’ and describes the various countries, 
their history, the contemporary sovereigns, and other things worthy 
of note. The poem contains six books, subdivided into cantos, but is 
not complete, It is written with graphic conciseness and energy of 
style, and is interesting as a memorial of the geographical information 
of that age, mixed with fabulous traditions and mythological lore. 

The ‘ Dittamondo’ was printed at Vicenza in 1474, and reprinted at 
Venice in 1501, both editions being however full of errors. An 
improved edition, with corrections by Monti and Perticari, was pub- 
lished at Milan in 1826, Fazio is said, by Filippo Villani, to have died 
at Verona, after a quiet old age. 

UCCE’LLO, PA’OLO, a celebrated old Florentine painter, contem- 
porary with the sculptors Ghiberti and Donatello, who would, in the 


295 UDALL, NICHOLAS. 


UGHELLI, FERDINANDO. | 224 


opinion of Vasari, bave been one of the most remarkable painters that 
had lived, from Giotto until Vasari’s own time, had he bestowed as 
much labour on men and animals as he did on perspective. Uccello 
was the first Italian artist who reduced the principles of perspective to 
rule: he was acquainted with geometry as a science, which he learnt 
of his friend the mathematician Giovanni Manetti, with whom he used 
to read Euclid, He painted in fresco and in distemper, but most of his 
works are now destroyed. His pictures were generally of such subjects 
as admitted of the introduction of animals; and he contrived in all 
his works to display his power of foresbortening. His best works 
were those painted in Santa Maria Novello, in green earth, where he 
illustrated the histories of Adam and Eve, and of Noah, the Creation, 
and the Deluge. In these works he painted numerous animals, 
amongst them many birds. He acquired his name of Uccello on 
account of his predilection for painting birds. Vasari does not men- 
tion his family name: it was not Mazzocchi, which is a name given to 
him by Orlandi through misunderstanding a passage in Vasari. He 
was skilful also in landscape-painting, and the backgrounds of some of 
his paintings were the best specimens of this department of art that 
had been produced up to his time. 

Uccello painted also in green earth, in the cathedral, a colossal 
equestrian portrait of an Englishman who was a captain of the Floren- 
tine republic, and who is called Giovanni Aguto by Italian writers: he 
died in 1393. This painting still exists, and is marked at the base, 
Pauli Uccelli Opus. He had a high opinion of his proficiency in his 
own peculiar line, and he painted on the same panel his own portrait, 
with the portraits of four other men distinguished in different arts or 
sciences. He painted Giotto for painting, Brunelleschi for architec- 
ture, Donatello for sculpture, himself for perspective and animal 
painting, and Giovanni Manetti for mathematics. He died, according 
to Vasari, in 1432, aged eighty-three, very poor, having latterly devoted 
his whole time to perspective, which was a very unprofitable study to 
himself, although succeeding artists derived great advantages from his 
labours. Bottari supposes 1472 to have been the date of Uccello’s 
death. 

UDALL, NICHOLAS, was born in Hampshire, in 1506. He was 
admitted a scholar of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, January 13, 1520, 
and took the degree of B.A. September 3, 1524. After he left college, 
he became master of Eton school, and obtained the degree of M.A. in 
1534, which had been refused to him at college on account of his 
inclination to the tenets of Luther. -He was afterwards master of 
Westminster school.» In the early part of the reign of Edward VI. 
he was appointed to a canonry at Windsor, He died in 1564. 

Udall published ‘Flovres for Latyne Spekynge,’ London, 1533, 
which consists of selections from Terence’s comedies, with an English 
translation; he also published translations from some of the Latin 
works of Erasmus; but his chief claim to notice is, that he was pro- 
bably the first writer of regular English comedies divided into acts 
and scenes. Wood says that he wrote several comedies, all of which 
however had been lost, till a printed copy of one of them was discovered 
in 1818: this is ‘Ralph Royster Doyster.’ 

Warton (‘ Hist. Engl, Poet, iii. 213) quotes from the ancient Consue- 
tudinary of Eton School, a passage importing that yearly, about St. 
Andrew's day, November 30, the master was accustomed to select, 
according to his own discretion, such Latin plays as were best and 
fittest to be acted by the boys, in the following Christmas holidays, with 
scenic decorations, before a public audience; and that sometimes also 
he ordered the performance of plays in English, provided that he 
found any with sufficient grace and wit. The author of the piece in 
question calls it, in his prologue of four seven-line stanzas, a ‘ comedie 
or enterlude;” the latter, as we have already intimated, being at that 
date the ordinary appellation for a dramatic production in general; so 
that, in employing also the less usual term ‘comedy,’ Udall seems to 
claim to have his play regarded as of more ‘regular’ and ‘ classical’ 
construction, making at the same time express reference to the works 
of Plautus and Terence, as precedents which he had endeavoured to 
imitate. The scene of this comedy is laid in London; and it isin a 
great degree a representation of the manners and notions of the 
middle classes of the metropolis at that period. It is divided into 
acts and scenes, has nine wale and four female characters, and the 
performance must have occupied two hours and a half, while few of 
the moral plays would require more than an hour, for of those which 
were in two parts, each part was exhibited on a separate day. The 
plot is amusing and well constructed, with an agreeable intermixture 
of serious and humorous dialogue, and a variety of character to 
which no other English play of a similar date can make any preten- 
sion. Udall also wrote, probably for his scholars at Eton, a Latin 
tragedy, ‘ De Papatu,’ 1540. 

UFFENBACH, ZACHARIAS CONRAD VON, a learned German, 
was born on the 22nd of February 1683, at Frankfurt-on-the-Main, 
where his father was a senator, and belonged to an ancient and noble 
family of the place. He was educated at the gymnasium of Rudol- 
stadt, whence he proceeded in 1698 to the University of Strasburg to 
study law. In 1700 he lost both his parents, which obliged him to 
return to Frankfurt; but as soon as he got over his grief he went to 
Halle, where he completed his academical studies, and in 1702 he took 
his degree of doctor of law under Christian Thomasius, after having 
written an inaugural dissertation, ‘De Quasi-emancipatione Germano- 


rum ocecasione Reformationis Francofurtensis.’ Uffenbach from his 
youth showed a great love of books, and while he was at the univer- 
sities he considerably increased the library left him by his father, — 
After completing his studies, he travelled for two years through Ger- 
many, and collected manuscripts and rare books. In1704 hereturned — 
to Frankfurt and settled there. Thenext five years were chiefly spent — 
in completing his library, which became one of the most extensive - 
private collections in Germany. In the mean time some offer was 
made to him at Oxford, and it was partly with a view to see whether 
the offer would suit his taste, and partly with the view of making 
some acquisitions for his library, that in 1709 he visited England, and 
spent some time at Oxford. But various circumstances, and yo 
the English climate, which did not agree with his delicate constitution, — 
induced him in 1711 to return to his native place. He took back with — 
him upwards of 4000 rare and curious books, which he had purchased — 
in England and Holland. In 1721 he was raised to the rank ofa 
senator of Frankfurt, and distinguished himself so much among his 
fellow-citizens, that in the course of nine years he was twice elected — 
mayor: in 1731 he was raised to the office of chief-justice. He died 
on the 6th of January 1734. e 
Uffenbach was a man of extraordinary diligence. As long as his — 
health permitted it, he devoted all his leisure time to bibliographical — 
and other studies, and to the composition of most laborious works. He 
made and published three different catalogues of his library; one in ~ 
1720, and another in 1729, under the title ‘ Bibliotheca Uffenbachiana 
apocrypha vel latens, hoc est, librorum in corpus redactorum vel aliis 
insertorum Catalogus.’ This catalogue was believed to have been 
made by the author with the view of disposing of some parts of his — 
library, as his official duties prevented his attending to it as much as 
before. A third catalogue, in 4 vols. 4to, was published after Uffen- 
bach’s death in 1785. Besides these catalogues he commenced several 
other works, but was prevented from completing them partly by his 
official engagements, and partly by ill-health. These works were,—1, — 
‘Glossarium Germanicum Medii A®vi;’ 2, ‘Commentarius de Vita — 
propria,’ that is, an autobiography; 3, ‘Selecta Historie literarie et — 
librarie,’ the manuscript of which formed several quarto volumes; 4, — 
‘ Adversaria, sive Excerpta Realium ad Rem Librariam et Literariam 
facientium,’ in nine quarto volumes. The work most advanced 
towards completion was Uffenbach’s autobiography ; but when in the — 
latter years of his life he lost all hopes of ever finishing his works, — 
he gave the manuscripts of them to his friend J. G. Schellhorn of 
Memmingen, together with his literary correspondence, forming eigh- — 
teen thick quarto volumes, and allowed him to make any use of them 
he pleased. Schellhorn did not indeed complete or publish the works 
thus bequeathed to him, but he made much use of the materials — 
collected by Uffenbach for his ‘Ameenitates Literaric,’ in the ninth — 
volume of which he gives an account of the earliest printed works — 
contained in the library of Uffenbach. He also wrote a Life of his | 
friend, which is prefixed to a collection of Uffenbach’s letters, *‘Com- 
mercii Epistolaris Uffenbachiani Selecta,’ &c., 5 vols. 8vo, 1753, &e. 
UGGIV/ONE, or UGLO’/NE MARCO, called also Marco of Oggione 
in the Milanese, was one of the best scholars of Lionardo da Vinci. 
He did not, like most of the disciples of that great master, confine 
himself to easel pictures, executed slowly and highly finished, but — 
became an eminent painter in fresco, and his works in the Place at — 
Milan have retained even to our time their tone and colour almost 
unimpaired. Some of them are in the body of the church, but the 
most remarkable of them is in the refectory : this is the Crucifixion, 
which is equally admirable for the skill evinced in the composition, — 
the spirited execution, the variety in the numerous figures, and the — 
taste of the draperies, For the refectory of the celebrated monastery — 
of the Certosa, near Pavia, he made a copy of the Last Supper of — 
Lionardo da Vinci, which is peculiarly valuable on account of the — 
ruinous condition of the matchless original. 7 
The church of St. Euphemia, at Milan, contains one of his master- 
pieces, representing the Virgin and Saints. He died in 1530, but his 
age is not known. a 
UGHELLI, FERDINANDO, born at Florence about 1595, entered — 
the order of Citeaux, in which he rose to the dignity of abbot. He is 
chiefly known for his great work, ‘Italia Sacra,’ published at Rome, 
in 9 vols. fol., 1642-48, in which he gives the history of the various 
Italian sces, with the series of their respective bishops, and illustrates 
them by numerous documents from the episcopal archives, which © 
also reflect much light on the general history of the country. As it 
was impossible for the author to examine himself all the archives of 
the numerous Italian sees, he was often obliged to employ others; and 
the consequence is, that the execution of the work is unequal. Still 
Ughelli’s history is very valuable, and has served as a model for 
similar compilations of the episcopal history of other nations, 
especially of that of France, which was published about fourteen ye: 
after the appearance of Ughelli’s first volume, under the title 
‘Gallia Christiana,’ in 1656, A new edition of Ughelli’s work y 
published at Venice, in 10 vols. fol, 1717-33, with considerable ad 
tions, and with the ‘Sicilia Sacra’ of Rocco Pirro, han 
Ughelli wrote a work in illustration of the history of the Colonna 
family, ‘Imagines Columnensis Familie Cardinalium,’ Rome, 1650; 
and another work in Italian, entitled ‘ Albero e Istoria della Famiglia 
de’ Conti di Marsciano,’ Rome, 1667, Ughelli died at Rome in 1670, 


; | 
i 
sy 
_ 
4 


UHLAND, JOHANN LUDWIG. 


ULLOA, ANTONIO, 226 


*UHLAND, JOHANN LUDWIG, a highly popular German poet, 
was born at Tiibingen, on April 26,1787. He was educated in the 
public schools of that town, and in 1805 commenced the study of law 
in its university. He became an advocate, and in 1810 received the 
degree of doctor of laws. His earliest songs were written in 1804, 
but he first appeared in print in Seckendorf’s ‘Musenalmanach’ in 
1806 and 1807. He then contributed to the ‘Poetischen Almanach,’ 
and to the ‘Deutscher Dichterwald’ in 1813. In the autumn of 1812 
he began to practise as an advocate at Stuttgardt, and for a time 
- occupied a post in the office of the minister of justice. The national 
_ movement against the French, during 1813-15 excited strong feelings 
in Uhland, to which he gave vent in songs which rapidly became 


ae When in 1815 the king of Wiirtemberg proposed to give 
his subjects a new constitution, a contest began between the adherents 
_ of the old and the supporters of the new system. Uhland was a 
vigorous supporter of the liberal party, and produced a number of 
_ inspiring songs, of which the first collection was published in 1815, 
having previously been distributed as single pieces; and they have 
since been issued in repeated editions—the seventeenth was published 
in 1846—and in most of them with considerable additions. 

Uhland’s strong political feelings at length led to a more active 
participation in public affairs, and as he also, about the same time, 
‘was paying great attention to science, there was a consequent interrup- 
tion of his poetical effusions. From 1819 he sat as a member, at 

first for Tiibingen and afterwards for Stuttgardt, of the representa- 
_ tive assembly of Wiirtemberg, in which his talents and his know- 
_ ledge gained him great influence, and he was chosen chairman of many 
_ of the select committees. In 1822 he published a work ‘ Uber 
_ Walther von der Vogelweide,’ his only literary production for many 
years. In 1830 he was appointed professor extraordinary of the 
German language and literature in the University of Tiibingen, but 
resigned the office in 1833, as he failed in obtaining a dispensation from 
its duties when he was chosen a deputy to the Diet, in which he was 
one of the most influential and most esteemed members of the consti- 
tutional opposition. In 1836 he issued a carefully written work, 
derived from original sources, ‘ Uber den Mythus der nordische 
_ Sagenlehre vom Thor’ (on the myth of the northern legend of Thor). 
_ At the new election which took place in 1839, Uhland, like most of 
the members of the party with which he acted, declined coming 
forward again, and lived for a time in a studious and quiet seclusion, 
one result of which was the publication, in 1844-45, of an excellent 
collection of the ‘Alter hoch- und nieder-deutscher Volkslieder, 
(Ancient High and Low German popular songs), to which however the 
promised observations have not yet been supplied. His retirement 
was interrupted in 1848 by the electoral division of Tiibingen selecting 
him as their representative to the united German National Assembly, 
in which he acted as a member of the left, or extreme liberal party, 
until its dissolution, when he again retired from public life. His 
songs, ballads, and romances form the most valuable portion of 
Uhland’s literary works, His songs are distinguished by their spirit 
and energy, their truth and depth of feeling, their lively and pictu- 
resque representations of nature, and their varied subjects; his patriotic 
songs in particular contain some most heart-stirring appeals to all the 
better national feelings that were likely to rouse his countrymen, 
_ and in them is a mixture-of earnestness and jocularity, with a fervent 
__ love of country, and aspirations after the great and good inspired by 
the recollections of his ancestors. His ballads and romances are remark- 
able for their apparent simplicity, the result of a most carefully 
exercised art, shown by the extreme skill and felicity in the choice 
of words, and the masterly way in which characters and manners are 
sketched perfectly but briefly. A translation of some of his poems, 
with a memoir by A. Platt, has been published in English. 

ULFILAS, or ULPHILAS, the most usual orthography of a name 
of which it is thought that Vulfila, meaning ‘ Wolfling,’ was the correct 
form. Ulfilas, born about the year 318, was in the year 348 a bishop of 
the Goths, dwelling between the Danube and Mount Hemus, who had 
recently been converted to Christianity and had adopted Arianism. In 
855 he accompanied his flock, who were compelled to migrate to Lower 
_ Meesia on account of their faith; in 360 he was present at a synod at 
Constantinople ; and in 388 he died in that city, to which he had found 
occasion to make another visit. Though his name occurs with some 
frequency in the ecclesiastical history of his time it is in a philological 
not in a theological point of view that it has become remarkable. He 
_ is mentioned by various ancient writers as being the author of 
‘numerous works, and among others of a translation of the Scriptures 
into the Gothic language, a circumstance the more noteworthy as he 
was himself by descent a Cappadocian, his parents. having been taken 
by the Goths in a distant foray. This translation was said to in- 
clude the whole of the Scriptures, except the books of Kings, which 
it was stated that Ulfilas had refrained from translating from fear of 
encouraging a warlike spirit among the already too warlike Goths, 
The version was in constant use among the Gothic congregations in 
_ Italy and elsewhere for some centuries, when it disappeared with the 

_ language. In the 16th century, Anthony Morillon, secretary to the 
Cardinal de Granvelle, found in the Monastery of Werden, near 
_ Cologne, an ancient volume, containing portions of a translation of the 
Scriptures, which he at once conjectured to be the long lost Gothic 
_ version. This volume, the subsequent vicissitudes of which were 
__-BIOG, DIY. VOL. VI. 


‘ 


very singular, is now in the library of the University of Upsal and is 
known under the name of the ‘Codex Argenteus,’ or Silver Volume, 
from its being bound in solid silver. An additional interest now 
attaches to it from the discovery first made by Ibre {Iure) that the 
letters in it were produced not by ordinary writing, but by a sort of 
stencilling process, an early approach towards the art of printing, 
The first edition of its contents was published by Francis Junius at 
Dordrecht in 1665, a second by Zahn appeared at Weissenfels in 1805, 
in which were inserted some additional fragments, discovered by 
Knittel in a palimpsest, in the library of Wolfenbiittel, and Cardinal 
Mai and Count Castiglioni published between 1819 and 1839 several 
additional fragments, which they had found in a palimpsest at Milan. 
All of these are united in an exellent edition by von der Gabelenz 
and Loebe, published at Leipzig between 1836 and 1846 in two 
volumes quarto, including a Grammar and Glossary of the Gothic 
language. This edition, with a translation of the German portions 
into Latin by Tempestini, was reprinted by the Abbé Migne at Paris 
in 1848, as the 18th volume of the immense collection of his ‘ Patro- 
logize Cursus Completus,’ As the earliest extant specimen of a Teuto- 
nic language, and anterior by many centuries to any other, the labours 
of Ulfilas have a value in the eyes of philologists, which it would be 
difficult to overrate. Every fragment that is discovered throws light 
on portions of the history of the German language and our own that 
might otherwise remain in impenetrable darkness. There is a separate 
work on the biography of Ulfilas by Waitz, ‘ Ueber das Leben und die 
Lehre des Ulfila,’ Hanover, 1840. 

* ULLMANN, KARL, was born at Epfenbach, near Morbach, in 
Baden, on March 15, 1796. His early education was received in the 
schools of Morbach and Heidelberg until 1812, and completed in the 
Universities of Heidelberg and Tiibingen. At Heidelberg he attended 
the lectures of Hegel, Daub, and Creuzer, and in 1819, on a visit to 
North Germany, he formed an intimacy with Schleiermacher, Neander, 
and De Wette. In 1821 he was appointed professor extraordinary of 
theology in the University of Heidelberg, having already distinguished 
himself as a private teacher, and as an author in his essay ‘Uber die 
Siindlosigkeit Christi,’ a work that has been frequently reprinted. In 
1823 he published his essay, ‘De Hypsistariis,’ and in 1825 a mono- 
graphy of ‘Gregor von Nazianz, der Theolog, both of which acquired 
him considerable reputation. In 1828, in conjunction with his 
colleague Umbreit, he commenced the issue of ‘ Theologische Studien 
und Kritiken, a journal of sterling value and wholesome tendency. 
In 1829 he was called as ordinary professor to the University of Halle, 
where his instructive discourses and his mild manners acquired him 
numerous friends. Inthe ‘Theologischen Bedenken aus Veranlassung 
des Angriffs der Evangelischen Kirchenzeitung auf den halleschen 
Rationalismius,’ (Theological Considerations occasioned by the Attacks 
of the Evangelical Church Journal on the Rationalism professed in 
Halle), published in 1830, he warmly pleaded for the freedom of 
theological discussion. In 1834 he published ‘Johann Wessel, ein Vor- 
ginger Luthers’ (John Wessel, a forerunner of Luther), an excellent 
work, which he enlarged in 1841-42, and published under the title of 
*Reformatoren vor der Reformation, vornehmlich in Deutschland und 
den Niederlanden,’ which has been translated into English. In 1836 
he resigned his professorship at Halle, and returned to Heidelberg, 
where he taught theology and wrote among other works, ‘ Historisch 
oder mythisch,’ 1838, directed against the doctrines of Strauss; 
‘Cultus des Genius,’ 1840, written, in conjunction with Schwab, and 
‘Uber den Deutschkatholicismus,’ with Huber, in 1847; and from 
his own pen he also produced ‘Fiir die Zukunft der evangelischen 
Kirche Deutschlands’ (Of the future of the evangelical Church in 
Germany), 1846; ‘Uber die Gleichberechtigung der Confessionem’” 
(On the equal authority of the Confessions of Faith), 1848; ‘ Uber 
die Geltung der Majoritiiten in der Kirche’ (On the Value of a Majority 
in the Church), 1850; and ‘ Uber das Wesen des Christenthums’ (On 
the Nature of Christianity), of which a fourth edition was published 
in 1855. Nearly all his works have gone through more than one 
edition, most of them have been translated into Dutch, and several 
of them into English, French, and Danish. In 1853 he was nominated 
an evangelical prelate and a member of the Upper Church Council in 
Heidelberg, since which time he has taken an active part in endeavour- 
ing to produce a Christian union among the sects in Baden, and a 
better position for the ministers of the Church in that country. 

ULLOA, ANTO’/NIO, was born in Seville on the 12th of January 
1716. He was educated for the naval service, in which more than one 
member of the-family from which he sprung had distinguished them- 
selves. He was admitted in 1733 into the company of royal marine 
guards. In 1735 he was selected in consequence of the distinguished 
progress he had made in mathematics and in the theory of his pro- 
fession, along with Jorge Juan, to accompany the French Academi- 
cians to South America, to measure a degree of the meridian at 
the equator. Both the young mariners (Ulloa was at this time only 
in his twentieth and Juan in his twenty-third year) were promoted to 
the rank of lieutenant in the navy on receiving this appointment. 

The squadron in which Ulloa and his companion embarked sailed 
from Cadiz in May 1785, and landed them at Carthagena on the 9th 
of July. They did not return to Spain till the year 1746, The whole 
of the intervening period was not however devoted to scientific 
measurements. They were detained five months at Carthagena wait- 

Q 


227 ULLOA, ANTONIO, 


ULPIANUS, DOMITIUS. 228 


ing for the French corvette which carried the Academicians, and this 
time was spent by Ulloa.in studying the natural history of the 
district. The geodetical operations commenced in the neighbourhood 
of Quito, in June 1736, and the exertions of Ulloa to advance them 
were strenuous and indefatigable, till towards the close of September 
1740, when Juan and he were summoned to Lima by the Vice- 
roy to assist in placing the coasts in a state of defence against 
the expected arrival of the English squadron under Anson. As soon 
as the necessary arrangements were made they returned to the scene 
of their labours, which were almost immediately interrupted by a 
summons to Guayaquil, where the sack of Payta by the English had 
spread universal terror. After the necessary measures for the security 
of the proyince had been adopted, the terrified inhabitants insisted 
upon one of the officers being left to superintend their execution. 
Ulloa returned to Quito without his companion, and had scarcely 
reached it when he was recalled to Lima, Two frigates were placed 
under the command of himself and Juan, with orders to cruise along 
the coast of Chili and off Juan Fernandez, At last the arrival of 
reinforcements from Spain set them finally at liberty, On returning 
to Quito however they found the Academicians had departed, with 
the exception of Godin, along with whom they observed the comet 
of 1744, Ulloa and Juan embarked in October of that year on board 
two French vessels to return to Europe. That which carried Ulloa 
sought refuge from an English privateer in the harbour of Louisbourg 
in Cape Breton, but by the time it entered, the town had fallen into 
the hands of the English, and all on board were made prisoners of 
war. Ulloa was conveyed to London, where he was received with 
marks of distinction, made a member of the Royal Society, and by 
the intercession of his scientific friends set at liberty, He arrived at 
Madrid, in July 1746, after an absence of eleven years and two months 
from his native country. 

Ulioa’s reception at court was flattering; he was appointed to the 
command of a frigate, and created a commander of the order of San- 
tiago. The task of publishing the scientific observations devolved 
upon Jorge Juan: to write the history of the expedition was the 
charge of Ulloa, Two years were consumed in preparing the narra- 
tive for publication: it appeared in 1748. The work was comprised 
in four volumes: the first relates the adventures of the expedition 
from the time of its departure from Cadiz till the conclusion of the 
geodetical measurements; the second contains a description of the 
province of Quito in one book; the third, the narrative of Ulloa’s 
and Jorge Juan’s journeys to Lima and cruise along the coasts of 
Chili while a descent on the part of Anson was apprehended; the 
fourth, the return voyage from Callao to Europe, and an appendix 
containing a chronological account of the rulers of Peru, from 
Manco Capac to Ferdinand VI, The work shows that the necessity 
of the case, as well as personal tastes, had contributed to devolye 
the account of the strictly scientific operations of the expedition 
upon Jorge Juan. Ulloa had more taste for knowledge than talent 
for strict scientific inquiry, His activity and inventive genius, 
fruitful in resources, had materially promoted the labours of the 
expedition, and he had that passion for knowledge which enables 
its possessor to give an impetus to discovery. But for the addi- 
tions made to strict science by the Spanish members of the expe- 
dition the world is beholden to Jorge Juan. Ulloa’s work however, 
though deficient in method and accuracy, is amusing and suggestive of 
thought. He and Jorge Juan in the character of their intellects 
stood in somewhat the same relation to each other as La Condamine 
did to Bouguer; but to the honour of the Spaniards, no paltry 
jealousy occasioned unseemly quarrels between them, such as de- 
tracted from the merits of the Academicians, and their harmonious 
co-operation enabled them to get the start of their French associates 
in publishing the results of their labours, Don David Barry published 
in 1826 a volume which professes to contain the ‘ Secret Report,’ 
made by Juan and Ulloa to the minister Ensenada, of the condition 
of Spanish America: it could have been wished that the editor had 
given some account of the history of the manuscript, and the manner 
in which it came into his hands. ’ 

Ulloa subsequently made tours of observation, by order of the 
Spanish government, in several countries of Europe. During the 
reign of Ferdinand VI. however he appears to have been kept in the 
background. Upon the accession of Charles III, innovation became 
for a time fashionable at court, and the inquiring and enterprising 
spirit of Ulloa found itself in a more congenial element. After 
Louisiana was ceded to the crown of Spain, in consequence of the 
peace of 1762, he was nominated to take possession of and to organise 
the province. He arrived at Louisiana in 1766, but his attempt to 
play the part of governor was an entire failure; it was necessary to 
supersede him by the appointment of O’Reilly, Ulloa after his return 
to Europe published (in 1772) a volume of essays on the natural 
history and antiquities of America. They bear, even more strongly 
than his narrative of the expedition to South America, the impress of 
a dilettante spirit of inquiry. In 1778 he published a memoir entitled 
‘The Marine ; or the Naval Forces of Europe and Africa,’ a work 
which we have not met with. In 1778 he published, at Cadiz, ‘Obser- 
vations of a Solar Eclipse, made at Sea.’ 

_ In 1779, having by this time risen to the rank of lieutenant-general 
in the naval service, he was placed in command of a squadron fitted 


out to intercept and capture an English merchant fleet off the Azores, 
and then to repair to Havannah, to join a larger force destined to make 
a descent on Florida, Wholly engrossed by his speculative inquiries, 
Ulloa forgot to open his sealed despatches, and returned to port after 
an unsuccessful cruise of two months, He was arrested, tried by a 
court-martial in 1780, allowed to retain his rank and titles, but never 
again employed on active seriyee. He even retained his place in 
ministry of the marine, but was only employed in examining 
pupils of the school of naval artillery. 

Ulloa died in the Isla da Leon, on the 8rd of July 1795, He 
retained his constitutional gaiety and activity to the last. Visitors 
found him surrounded with papers, antiquities, mathematical instru- 
ments, crucibles, in short all the nicknacks of science. But if not 
himself a great philosopher, Ulloa aided materially in promoting that 
temporary re-awaking of the intellectual activity of Spain, which 
characterised the second half of last century. He contributed ily 
to the establishment of the observatory at Cadiz, Spain is indebted 


to him for its first cabinet of natural history, and its first laboratory 
of experimental metallurgy. He wasa munificent patron of theartsof 
printing and engraving, He superintended the construction of themaps 


of the Peninsula, He originated the canal of navigation and irrigation 
of Old Castile, commenced under Charles III., and abandoned by his 
successors, Ulloa superintended the establishment of a cloth mannfac- 
tory at the expense of the government, at Segovia, which was intended 
to set the example of improving the domestic manufactures of Spain; 
and upon his urgent representations young Spaniards were sent to 
acquire the liberal and mechanical arts in various countries of Banope 
ULPIA/NUS, DOMI’TIUS, a distinguished Roman jurist, was either 
a native of Tyre in Phoenicia, or his ancestors were of that place, The 
year of his birth isnot known. Tyre was made a Roman colony by 
Septimius Severus, as appears from that emperor's medals (Rasche, 


‘Lexic. Rei Numarie—‘Tyrus’); but if that was the firsts Roman 
settlement at Tyre, Ulpian could owe nothing of his Roman education 


to that city, even if it was his native place; and his own words only 
prove that he or his ancestors were from that place. In the rei 
Septimius Severus and of his son Antoninus Caracalla (a.p. 198-211), 
he was a writer on law, but more particularly under the sole reign 
of Caracalla, as appears from various passages in his writings where he ~ 
speaks of Severus as ‘divus,’ a term which implies that Severus was 
then dead, and of Caracalla as ‘imperator noster,’ or the reigning 
prince. Ulpian was banished by Elagabalus, but the elevation of 


Alexander Severus to the imperial power (a.D. 222) opened to him — : 


the road to new honours. He became scriniorum magister and pree- 
fectus annone, and was a particular favourite of the emperor, He 
also held the office of prefectus pretorio under Alexander Severus ; 
Lampridius doubts whether he received his appointment under 


Elagabalus or Alexander Severus, though it is stated that he certainly _ 


held it under Alexander. If he held this office under Elagabalus, we 
must assume that he was deprived of it on his banishment, Ulpian 
was a confidential adviser of Alexander, and exercised great influence 
over him, Xiphilinus, the epitomator of Dion, fixes on Ulpian the 
imputation of clearing the way for his promotion to the dignity of 
preetorius preefecto by causing the execution of his predecessors. This 
fact is not mentioned by any other ancient authority, and it is incon- 
sistent with the character which Lampridius gives Ulpian, whom he 
calls a good man, Ulpian was murdered shortly after (a.p. 228), in 
the night-time, by the preetorian soldiers, in the palace of Alexander, 
and in the presence of 


the emperor and the emperor’s mother. (Dion, 
lib. 80.) 


Ulpian was one of the most fertile of the Roman writers on law. 


His chief works, as they are known to us from the ‘Florentine Index’ — 


and the excerpts in the ‘ Digest,’ are the following :—The great work — 


‘ Ad Edictum,’ in eighty-three books at least, was probably founded on 
the similar work of Julian, and itself was shear: the basis of Justi- 
nian’s ‘Digest.’ This work, with the fifty-one ‘Libri ad Sabinum, 
the twenty books ‘ Ad Leges Juliam et Papiam Poppam,’ the three 


books ‘ De Officio Consulis,’ ten books ‘ De Officio Procunsulis,’ the six _ 


books on ‘ Fidei commissa,’ two books of ‘ Institutiones, and others, — 


were written in the reign of Caracalla. The work of which a fragment 3 
Fragmenta,’ was written 


is still extant, entitled ‘Domitii Ulpiani 
either in the reign of Caracalla (‘hodie ex constitutione Im 
Antonini, Tit. xvi., 2), or after Caracalla’s rei This, 
rally considered to be a fragment of his ‘ Liber Singularis 


consists of twenty-nine titles, and is a valuable source for our know- — 


ledge of the Roman law. This fragment, together with the ‘Institu- — 
tiones’ of Gaius [Garus], has enabled us to attain to more correct 

views on the historical development and the connection of the various — 
parts of the Roman law. Though it has long been known to jurists, — 
it is only within the present century that it has been used with that — 
critical discrimination which the study of Roman jurisprudence most — 


especially requires; and for this we are mainly indebted to the — 


labours of Hugo and Savigny. These fragments treat chiefly of the , 


arriage, and on testaments, legacies, and 
fidei-commissa. The most recent edition of the ‘Fragmenta’ is that 


law relating to persons and m 
of E, Boecking, 12mo, Lips., 1855. Among Ulpian’s other works was 
probably one ‘ De Interdictis,’ in four books at least, and certainly a 
work ‘ De Officio Preetoris Tutelaris,’ both of which are nessa in 
the * Vaticana Fragmenta,’ 


reign of 


which is gene- 


B99 ULPIANUS, 


ULYSSES, 230 


The style of Ulpian is clear, but more diffuse than that of his great 
contemporary Paulus. He was a man of ability, and an accomplished 
jurist. Ulpian and Paulus, with Cervidius Scevola, are called by 
Modestinus (Dig. 27, lib. 2,8. 13), who was Ulpian’s pupil, the chief of 
jurisconsults (kopypato: ray vouxdy) ; and his superior merit was fully 
acknowledged in the time of Justinian, whose great compilation from 
the writings of the Roman jurists, the ‘Digest, contains extracts 

’ from twenty-three of Ulpian’s works: the proportion of the extracts 
from Ulpian is about one-third of the whole compilation. 

___ A charge has been brought both against Paulus and Ulpian of being 

hostile to Christianity. But the passage in Lactantius (‘ Div. Instit.,’ 

y. 11) which is cited in confirmation of this charge may not apply to 

this Ulpian ; and if it does, the passage is not decisive. 

_ Ulpian the Tyrian, as he is called in the Greek argument prefixed to 
Athenzus, is one of the speakers in the “ Deipnosophists,’ and he is 
mentioned (p. 686, ed. Causaub.) as having died happily, “ without 
having given any time or opportunity to disease,’ which seems a sin- 
gular way of referring to his death, if the circumstances were such as 
above stated. But it is not certain that this Ulpian is the jurist. 

(Gul. Grotius, Vite Jurisconsultorum, and Zimmern, Geschichte des 
_ Rim. Privatrechts, where the authorities are referred to; Lampridius, 
_ Magabalus and Alexander Severus ; Domitii Ulpiani Fragmenta quibus 
in Ood. Vat. inscriptum est Tituli ex Corpore Ulpiani, accedunt Frag- 
menta ex Ulpiani Institutionibus, d&e., iterum edidit, ed. Bocking, 
Bonn, 1836.) — 

__ ULPIANUS (OdaAmidvos). Three persons of this name are men- 
_ tioned by Suidas : 

Uxpian of Emesa was a Sophist, and the author of various works, 
among which was an ‘ Art of Rhetoric.’ 

ULPIAN of Gaza was the brother of Isidore the philosopher, and had 
a great reputation for mathematical ability at Athens, whence it may 
be concluded that he taught or lived there. He was a contemporary 
of Syrianus, and must therefore have lived in the 5th century, A.D. 
He died young. No works of his are mentioned by Suidas. 

Uxpianvs of Antioch, a rhetorician, the contemporary of Constantine 
the Great, is the reputed author of Prolegomena, and a Commentary 
(Effynors) on the Olynthiac and two of the Philippic orations of De- 
mosthenes. There are also attributed to him Commentaries on the 
Orations of Demosthenes, commonly called ‘Symbuleutici,’ and on the 
* Oration on the Crown,’ the ‘ Oration against Leptines,’ and others. 
These Commentaries are printed in Dobson's ‘Collection of the Attic 
Orators, and in other editions. They were first printed by Aldus, fol. 
Venice; 1503, with the ‘ Lexicon of Harpocration,’ entitled, OdAmavov 
pnropos mporeyoueva cis Tovs "OAvybiakods Kal Sirummucods Anuocbévous 
Adyous. “Ekfynois avayxaordrn cis déxa Tpets TOD Anuoobévous Adyous. 

It is not certain that Ulpian of Antioch was the author of the 
Commentaries on Demosthenes. Suidas attributes to him various 
works, but does not mention the Commentaries. 

*ULRICI, HERMANN, was born on the 23rd of March 1806, at 
___ Pforten, in Lower Lusatia. He was educated in the public schools of 
__ Leipzig and Berlin, in which towns his father had successively held 

a government situation, and in 1824 he was entered at the University 
of Halle to study law, in compliance with the wishes of his father. 
He afterwards removed to the University of Berlin, and in 1827 com- 
menced his professional career as a lawyer's clerk in Berlin, proceeding 
in 1829 as referendar or practising barrister at Frankfurt-on-the-Oder. 
The law however had not sufficient charms to withdraw him from the 
study of ancient history, poetry, and art, and the death of his father 
towards the end of 1829 allowed him to secede from the profession 
and to devote himself to his favourite pursuits. The first fruits of his 
labour was the ‘ Charakteristik der antiken Historiographie,’ in 1833. 
In the same year he passed an examination in the University of Berlin, 
and in the following year was created professor in that of Halle, 
which thenceforward has become his permanent residence. His next 
literary production was a ‘Geschichte der hellenischen Dichtkunst’ 
(History of the Poetical Art in Greece), published in 1835, which was 
followed in 1839 by his work ‘ Uber Shakspeare’s dramatische Werke, 
und sein Verbiiltniss zu Calderon und Géthe,’ a work which has gone 
through two editions in Germany, and has been translated into English. 
Ulrici shows in this work a remarkably just and at the same time 
poetical appreciation of Shakespere’s merits, and he recognises his 
Ruperiority even to Gothe; but he has started an hypothesis which, 
though supported by him with considerable ingenuity, appears to us 
altogether baseless: that Shakspere had for an object the diffusion and 
Maintenance of a religious theory, which Ulrici contends was pre-emi- 
nently Christian with a Protestant tendency. This theory he thinks he 
traces as an under-current in nearly all of Shakspere’s plays; but the 
proofs he produces belong rather, we believe, to exemplifications of 
- human character, which, though consonant to the doctrines of 
' Christianity, were not introduced for the purpose of supporting any 
_ particular modification of it. In 1841 he published a work, ‘ Uber 

_ Princip und Methode der Hegelischen Philosophie,’ in which he 

°C the doctrines advocated by Hegel. At this period he appears 
_ to have been much occupied with metaphysics. In 1845-46 he pub- 
_ lished two volumes of ‘Das Grundprincip der Philosophie,’ and in 1852 
_ a‘ System der Logik.’ In his latest work he seems to have recurred 
_ to his favourite author, having published in 1853 an edition of ‘Romeo 
and Juliet, with critical and explanatory remarks. 


ULUG BEG. The real name of this prince was Mirza MonamMep 
Taraal, but he is better known by the sirname of Ulug (or Ulugh) 
Beg. He was the grandson of Timur, being the son of Shah Rokh, 
the son of Timur, and was born a.n. 796 (A.D. 1394), He governed 
his father’s territories as regent, his capital being Samarcand, from an 
early age until a.H. 851 (a.D. 1447), when he succeeded to the throne 
by his father’s death. His life was marked by the usual military 
successes, without which few Oriental princes of that time could keep 
their thrones; but as these are of little interest, and form none of his 
title to fame, we may omit the detail of them. He is said to have had 
the weakness to cast the horoscope of his eldest son Abdallatif, and, 
from some suspicions of his fidelity derived from the stars, to have 
preferred his younger brother. ‘I'he consequence was that the elder 
son revolted, defeated and took his father, whom he caused to be put 
to death. Ulug Beg reigned in his own name only two years. 

The astronomical labours of this prince have handed down his name. 
He was the founder of an observatory, and the patron of some of the 
best astronomical tables among those which preceded the invention of 
the telescope. It even appears that he was himself a diligent observer, 
and in some, perhaps a great degree, the author of the tables which 
bear his name. According to D'Herbelot, the tables were constructed, 
under his name and authority, first by his former instructor, Salahed- 
din Cadizadeh al Roumi, and after the death of that astronomer by 
Gaiatheddin Mohammed Giamschid al Couschgi, But the expressions 
quoted by Hyde, from the preface, are difficult to reconcile with any 
supposition except that of Ulug Beg being actually an observer. 

The astronomical works of Ulug Beg were written in Arabic, but 
were afterwards translated into Persian, from which language the 
principal of them were translated into Latin by Greaves and Hyde. 
Greaves published first the chronological portion, under the title 
‘Epochee celebriores, Astronomicis, Chronologicis, Historicis, Chataio- 
rum, Syro-Grecorum, Arabum, Persarum, Chorasmiorum, usitatz, ex 
traditione Ulug Beigi, London, 1650, He afterwards published the 
geographical part as an appendix to his ‘Astronomica quedam ex 
traditione Shah Cholgii Perse :’ this appendix having the title ‘ Bine 
Tabule Geographice, una Nessir Eddini Perse, altera Ulug Beigi 
Tartari, London, 1652. Greaves is also said, by Hyde, to have pub- 


| lished (but where we do not know) the places of 100 stars from Ulug 


Beg; and he had also prepared for the press the whole table of the 
places of stars, which he left in the hands of Archbishop Usher. Dr. 
Thomas Hyde, not knowing of what Greaves had done, published, in 
Latin and Persian, his ‘ Tabulz Longitudinis ac Latitudinis Stellarum 
Fixarum, ex Observatione Ulugh Beighi,’ Oxford, 1665, accompanied 
by a valuable series of notes, particularly on the Arabic names of the 
stars: the greater part of all this, if not the whole, was reprinted by 
Dr. G. Sharpe in 1767. A new edition of Ulug Beg’s Catalogue, by 
Mr. Baily, forms part of the thirteenth volume of the ‘ Memoirs of 
the Royal Astronomical Society. The epoch of these tables is 
A.H. 841 (A.D. 1487), and the observations were made at Samarcand, 
long. 99° 16’, lat. 39° 37’. Some description of the tables has been 
given by Delambre, from a manuscript belonging to Lalande (‘ Astro- 
nomie du Moyen Age,’ p. 208). The whole enjoys a high reputation 
for its times and the existing means of observing. 

ULYSSES, ULYXES, or ULIXES, is the name under which the 
Greek hero Odysseus (Odvoceds) was popularly known among the 
Romans. Ulysses, who is the hero of Homer's ‘Odyssey,’ was a son 
of Laertes and Anticleia, king of Ithaca, husband of Penelope, and 
father of Telemachus. The story about Ulysses, as related by Homer, 
has been much extended and modified by later poets and mytho- 
graphers. In Homer he is represented as the model of a prudent 
warrior, a8 a8 man of great experience and cunning, always ready to 
devise means of avoiding or escaping from difficulties, as superior to 
all men in eloquence and intelligence, in wisdom equal to the gods 
themselves, and in adversity courageous and undaunted. Later poets, 
on the other hand, describe him as a cowardly, false, and intriguing 
person. When the Greek chiefs had resolved upon their expedition 
against Troy, Agamemnon went to Ithaca to invite Ulysses to join 
them, but it was not without difficulty that he was induced to assist 
in the enterprise, He joined the other Greek chiefs in the port of 
Aulis, with twelve ships. During the war against Troy he acted a 
very prominent part, sometimes as a gallant warrior, and sometimes as 
a bold and cunning spy or emissary. At the taking of Troy he was 
one of the heroes concealed in the wooden horse, After the destruction 
of the city his sufferings began. He and his companions wandered 
about for ten years in the Mediterranean, endeavouring in vain to 
reach his native island, while his faithful wife Penelope was beset by 
numerous suitors, who consumed his property. The various calamities 
he had to encounter before he returned to Ithaca are immortalised in 
the ‘Odyssey.’ During the twenty years which he was absent from 
his home, he always enjoyed the especial protection of the goddess 
Athena (Minerva), and it was she who at last enabled him to reach 
Ithaca, His father Laertes was living in solitary retirement, and 
Ulysses, without being known, was hospitably received by Eumzeus, 
the swineherd. Telemachus, the son of Ulysses, who had in the 
meantime grown up to manhood, was absent: he had gone to Pylos 
and Sparta to obtain information concerning his father, but he returned 
while Ulysses was staying with Eumwus. His father made himself 
known to him, and a plan was formed to get rid of the insolent 


231 UMBREIT, FRIEDRICH WILHELM KARL. 


URBAN II. 232 


suitors. Ulysses, in the disguise of a beggar, followed his son to the 
town, where he was insulted by the suitors and some of his own 
servants, but was welcomed by Penelope and recognised by his aged 
nurse Eurycleia. With the assistance of Athena, Ulysses, his son, and 
some of his faithful servants began a contest with the suitors, all of 
whom lost their lives, Hereupon Ulysses made himself known to 
Penelope, and went to his aged father Laertes. The news of the fall 
of the suitors excited their friends and relatives to take up arms 
against Ulysses, but Athena, in the disguise of Mentor reconciled the 
people to their lawful king. Respecting bis death, the ‘Odyssey’ 
(xi. 119, &c.) only contains a mysterious prophecy of Tiresias, accord- 
ing to which he was to die a gentle death in-his old age. According 
to later traditions, Ulysses was killed by Telegonus, his own son by 
Circe, who had been sent out by his mother in search of his father, 
and was thrown by a storm on the coast of Ithaca, where he was 
attacked, while plundering the country, by Ulysses and Telemachus. 
(Hyginus, Fab, 127; Horat., Carm., iii. 29, 8; Dictys Cretensis, 


vi. 15.) 

* UMBREIT, FRIEDRICH WILHELM KARL, a Protestant theo- 
logian, was born at Sonneborn in Saxe-Gotha, on April 11, 1795. He 
studied at Gottingen, where his acquaintance with Kichhorn produced 
in him an inclination for the study of the oriental languages, and as 
early as 1816, his ‘Commentatio historiam Emirorum-al-Omrah ex 
Abulfeda exhibens,’ gained the university prize. After passing his 
examination in 1818 he became professor extraordinary of theology 


and philosophy at Heidelberg, in 1823 advancing to ordinary professor 


of philosophy, and in 1829 to ordinary professor of theology. He was 
a colleague with Ullmann in the editing of the ‘ Studien und Kritiken.’ 
His chief works however and his great merits consist in exegetical, 
zesthetical, and critical expositions of the Holy Scriptures, to a great 
extent resting upon his thorough acquaintance with the eastern 
tongues. His first work, the ‘Lied de Liede, das ilteste und schonste 
aus dem Morgenlande’ (The Song of Songs, the oldest and most beautiful 
from the East), in which he maintains its completeness as a connected 
whole against the opinion of Herder, was published in 1820, and has 
been since reprinted. This was followed in 1824 by an ‘ Ubersetzung 
und Auslegung des Buchs Hiob’ (Translation and Interpretation of 
the Book of Job), of which an English translation has appeared, under 
the title of ‘Version of the Book of Job ;’ in 1826 by a ‘ Philologisch- 
Kritischen und Philosophischen Commentar iiber die Spriiche Sa- 
lomo’s’ (a Philclogical, Critical, and Philosophical Commentary on 
Solomon’s Proverbs) ; in 1833, by the ‘ Christlich Erbauung aus dem 
Psalter, oder Ubersetzung und Exklarung auserlesener Psalmen’ 
(Christian Edification from the Psalter, or Translations and Illustra- 
tions of select Psalms); in 1843, by ‘ Grundténe der Alten Testa- 
ments’ (Fundamental Principles of the Old Testament); and in 
1841-6, by ‘Praktischen Commentar iiber die Propheten des Alten 
Testaments’ (Practical Commentary on the Prophets of the Old Testa- 
ment), on which work he has bestowed great pains and labour, and 
with great knowledge has made the oriental philological interpretation 
of the Old Testament consonant with modern theological views. His 
own theological creed is best shown in‘ Der Knecht Gottes’ (The 
Servant of God), 1840; and ‘Die Siinde: Beitrag zur Theologie des 
Alten Testaments (Sin: a Contribution to the Theology of the Old 
Testament), 1833. In 1847 he published also ‘Neue Poesie aus dem 
Alten Testament,’ which has been highly popularin Germany. Most of 
the works above mentioned have gone through more than one edition. 
UNGER, JOHANN FRIEDRICH GOTTLIEB, was born in 1750, 
at Berlin. His father, Johann Georg Unger distinguished himself 
greatly by the improvements which he introduced into printing, and 
the typographical ornaments then usually displayed in printed books. 
The art of wood-cutting, which had fallen into neglect, was revived by 
him, and he engraved in wood several landscapes, which are even now 
considered as works of art. When he died, in 1788, his son, who was 
established as a publisher and printer, followed the footsteps of his 
father. He became one of the most distinguished printers and wood- 
cutters of his time. As a printer, he endeavoured to introduce such 
changes in the types of the German printed characters as would bring 
them nearer to the Roman, and remove their old-fashioned and 
angular forms. The kind of types which he introduced were called, 
after him, Ungerian types (Unger’sche Schrift), and were used for a 
time very extensively, but afterwards they gave way to the old forms. 
The art of wood-cutting was much improved by him, and he was the 
first who raised it to a high degree of estimation in Germany. As an 
acknowledgment of his merits, he was appointed, in the year 1800, 
professor at the Academy of Arts at Berlin, of which he had been a 
member for some years. At the same time he continued his business 
as a publisher, and many excellent works appeared from his establish- 
ment. He died in 1804, and his wife, Frreperikr HELEN UNcmr, a 
woman of very great acquirements and talent, continued his business 
until her death, on the 21st of September, 1813. Friederike Unger 
acquired a considerable reputation as a writer of novels, and asa 
translator from the French and English, with which two languages she 
was perfectly familiar. Her novels, which are still much read, are 
chiefly praised for their beautiful delineation of character. The best 
among them are:—l, ‘Julchen Griinthal, eine Pensionsgeschichte’ 
(Julia Griinthal, or the History of a Girl at a Boarding-school), Berlin, 
1794, 8vo, A third and much enlarged edition, in 2 vols., appeared in 


1798, It is translated into several languages. 2, ‘ Bekenntnisse einer 
Schénen Seele’ (Confessions of a fair Saint), Berlin, 1806; 3, Der junge 
Franzose und das Deutsche Midchen’ (The Young Frenchman and 
the German Girl), Hamburg, 1810. Most of her works appeased 
without her name. 
URBAN I. succeeded, A.D. 222, Calixtus I. as bishop of the Chris- 
mee congregation at Rome, under the reign of the emperor Alexander 
everus. 
his dialogue entitled ‘ Octavius,’ in defence of Christianity. [Mmyucrus 
Friix.] We have no biographical particulars concerning Urban, 
except that he died, some say a martyr’s death, in the year 230, and 
was succeeded by Pontianus. 
URBAN IL., Otho, bishop of Ostia, and a native of France, succeeded 


It was about this time that Minucius Felix wrote at Rome — 


Victor III. in the papal chair in 1088, being elected in a council held — 


at Terracina, Guibert, antipope, under the name of Clement IIL, who 
had been set up by Henry 1V. of Germany, in opposition to G 

VIL. was still acknowledged as pope by a part of the Christian wor 
and he had possession of some strongholds in the city of Rome. But 
in the following year the people of Rome, encouraged by Pope Urban, 


rose against the antipope and obliged him to evacuate the city. Mean- 


time a marriage was negociated, through Pope Urban, between the 


Countess Matilda, who was the great supporter of the pope against 


Henry, and Welf, son of the Duke of Bavaria and grandson of the 


Marquis Alberto Azzo II. of Este. Henry of Germany, alarmed ab 


this alliance, which strengthened the power of the pope, went to Italy 
with an army, and scoured the territory of Mantua, which belonged to 
Matilda, who was obliged to take refuge with her husband in the 
Apennines of the Modenese. Mantua surrendered to Henry, The 
people of Rome, excited by Henry's success, turned against Pope 
Urban, and recalled the antipope Guibert, 1091. In the following 


year Hepry continued to devastate the territories of Matilda, and the 
Papal party was evidently on the decline, when the countess contrived — 


to induce Conrad, eldest son of Henry, who was with the army in 
Lombardy, to revolt against his father by holding before him the 
prospect of becoming king of Italy. It appears that Conrad was dis- 
satisfied with his father’s brutal conduct towards himself as well as 
towards his step-mother Adelaide. However this may be, Pope Urban 
received Conrad with great kindness, and caused him to be crowned 


king at Milan in 1093. The pope, who had been at Anagni and other 


places, also regained possession of Rome, except the castle of S. Angelo 
and the Lateran palace, in which the antipope kept garrisons; the 
antipope himself was staying with Henry at Verona. In the follow- 
ing year the keeper of the Lateran palace gave it up to Urban for 
asum of money, and some time after the pope repaired to Tuscany, 
where he was met by the Countess Matilda. About this time Henry’s 
wife Adelaide, who was kept in confinement by her husband at Verona, 
contrived to escape, and sought the protection of the Countess Matilda, 


and there she disclosed all the particulars of her husband’s brutality __ 


towards her. In 1095 Pope Urban assembled a council at Piacenza, 


at which two hundred bishops were present, as well as Queen Adelaide, — | 


who made a solemn exposure of her husband’s treatment of her. The 
antipope and his adherents were excommunicated. There were also 
present envoys from the emperor Alexius Comnenus, requesting 
assistance against the Turks. It was in this Council that Pope Urban 
first proclaimed the Crusade, but the furtherance of that object was 
put off till the next Council, which the pope convoked at Clermont in 
France, in the autumn of the same year, and where multitudes took 


the Cross amidst the general exclamation of ‘Dieu-le veut, ‘God 


wills it.’ In the following year, 1096, Pope Urban assembled two 


more Councils at Nismes and at Tours for the same object,and various __ 


bodies of the Crusaders, the principal of which was commanded by 


Godefroi de Bouillon, set out on their march through Germany and 
Another corps under the orders of 


Hungary towards Constantinople. 
Hugh, brother of Philip I. king of France, took the road by Italy, and 
were met by Pope Urban in Tuscany, who gave them his solemn blessing, 
They then proceeded to Rome, from whence, with the exception of 


the castle of S. Angelo, they drove away the antipope and his parti- — ! 
They then proceeded to Apulia, from whence they crossed over — 


sans. 


to Greece. Pope Urban returned to Rome, where he celebrated the — 


Christmas festivals with great splendour. 


In the following year, 1097, Henry IV. left’ Italy, where his party 


was reduced very low, and returned to Germany. Thus Pope Urban 


and the Countess Matiida at last obtained their object. His rebelson — 
Conrad, who had married a daughter of Roger, count of Sicily, was 
acknowledged king of Italy, although his power was little more than 
nominal, as the great feudatories, such as Countess Matilda, the 
Marquises of Este, Monferrato, Susa, &c., acted as sovereign princes, — 
and the great towns of Lombardy and Tuscany had already established — 


their independence. 
In the year 1098 Pope Urban repaired to Campania, where 


Norman princes, Roger, duke of Apulia, his uncle Roger, count of 4 


Sicily, and Richard, count of Aversa, were besieging Capua, which had 
revolted against Richard. The pope endeavoured to induce 


citizens to capitulate, but not succeeding, he repaired to Beneven- 
tum. Capua having at last surrendered, Duke Roger, and his uncle 
the Count of Sicily, went to Salernum, whither Pope Urban went also — 


to have an interview with Count Roger, who was about returning to 


Sicily. It was on this occasion that the pope appointed by a bull — 


URBAN III, 


URBAN VL 


234 


_ the count and his successors perpetual apostolic legates in Sicily. This 
_ was the origin of the immunities of the church of Sicily, which were 
afterwards a subject of dispute between the kings of Sicily and the see 
_ of Rome, and for the maintenance of which acourt, called the Tribunal 
* de Monarchia,’ was established. 
_ From Salernum Pope Urban repaired to Bari, where he held a 
Council, which was attended by one hundred and eighty-five bishops, 
%ncluding several Greek prelates. The controversy about the word 
_ ‘filioque,’ in speaking of the proceedings of the Holy Ghost, which the 
_ Greeks rejected, was agitated, and Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, 
Gi with much eloquence and erudition the part of the Western 


; » The Greeks however would not give up the point. From 

i Pope Urban returned to Rome, where he celebrated the Christmas 
festivities. He also succeeded at last in obtaining possession of the 
Castle St. Angelo. About Easter in the following year, 1099, he held 
another Council at Rome, in which the antipope Guibert and his 
_ adherents were again excommunicated, and the censure of the church 
was pronounced against those priests. who lived in a state of concu- 
_ binage. In the following July Pope Urban died, just about the time 
_ that the Crusaders took possession of Jerusalem, and was succeeded by 

Paschal Il. Urban II. was a man of considerable abilities and activity ; 
, os personal character appears to have been generally esteemed. By 
his perseverance and timely policy, and through his connection with 
the Countess Matilda in the north, and the Norman princes in the 
J south, of Italy, he confirmed and strengthened the Papal supremacy 
which Gregory VII. had laboured to establish. 
_ (Maratori, Annali d’ Italia, and the authorities therein quoted.) 
__ URBAN IIL, Uberto Crivelli, Archbishop of Milan, succeeded 
Lucius II. in November 1185. He strove hard to send assistance to 
_ the Christians in Palestine, who were hard pressed by Salah-ed-deen, 
and he repaired to Venice for the purpose; but he fell ill and died at 
Ferrara in October 1187, after a pontificate of less than two years. 

URBAN IV., James, Patriarch of Jerusalem, a native of Troyes, in 
_ France, succeeded Alexander IV. in 1261. Manfred was then on the 
_ throne of Sicily and Apulia, and was the acknowledged head of the 
Guibelines of all Italy, whilst the popes were at the head of the Guelph 
_ party, hostile to Manfred and the whole house of Suabia. [MANFREDI.] 
_ Urban persevered in the policy of his predecessors, and went even 
farther in his determined hostility against Manfred. He summoned 
_ him to appear before him, to answer numerous heinous charges which 
he stated against him, and as Manfred refused to appear, unless 
- accompanied by a sufficient escort for his own protection, the pope 
excommunicated him as a tyrant, a heretic, and an enemy of the Holy 
Church, Manfred sent troops to attack the papal state, and the pope 
oom a crusade against Manfred, and induced Robert, count of 
Flanders, to come to Italy with a number of French knights and men- 
at-arms, who, after defeating the Guibelines of North Italy, and 
restoring the ascendancy of the Guelph party, marched against Manfred 
_ himself, who was encamped on the frontiers of hisown kingdom. But 
_ one of those insurrections, so frequent among the people of Rome in 
_ the middle ages, obliged Urban to recall the Count of Flanders in 
order to support him against the insurgents. This gave some respite 
_ to Manfred, but Pope Urban, who was determined in his purpose, sent 
_ a legate to Charles, count of Provence and Anjou, brother of Louis IX., 
___ of France, offering him the crown of Sicily and Apulia as a fief of the 
_ Roman see, Charles accepted the offer, and his brother, Louis IX., 
_ gave also his consent, though with reluctance, as that good king had 
great doubts concerning the justice of the measure. From this fatal 
convention originated all the wars of the Anjous for centuries after, 
_ for the possession of Naples and Sicily, and the subsequent invasions 
of Italy by the French kings, who derived from the house of Anjou 
their pretensions to the crown of the Two Sicilies, Charles was making 
his preparations for attacking Manfred, when Pope Urban fell ill and 
- died at Perugia in 1264, and was succeeded by Clement IV. 
URBAN V., Guillaume.de Grimoard, a Frenchman, and abbot of 

_ $t. Victor of Marseille, succeeded Innocent VI. in 1362, Like his 
_ predecessor, he took up his residence at Avignon, leaving to the legate 
_ Albornoz to defend the temporal interests of the Roman sce in Italy. 
[Atzorxoz, Git c. DE.) Bernabd Visconti, lord of Milan, a brutal but 
_ determined man, who oppressed his own subjects and encroached upon 
all his neighbours, paying no more regard to churchmen than to lay- 
_ men, was excommunicated by the pope for having usurped several 
territories of the Roman see. In 1364 however a reconciliation took 
place, and Bernabd was relieved from the censures of the church ; but 
_ the reconciliation did not last long, as Bernabd was too restless to 
 yemain at peace. In 1367 Pope Urban took the resolution of restoring 
the pontifical court to Rome, to which he was urged by the Romans 
themselves. Petrarch also wrote him several hortatory letters to the 
same purpose. Urban landed on the coast near Corneto, and thence 
repaired to Viterbo, where Cardinal Albornoz had prepared everything 
_ for his reception. After some time the pope proceeded to Rome, in 
_ the month of October, escorted by Niccolo of Este, marquis of Ferrara, 
Amadeus, count of Savoy, Malatesta, lord of Rimini, and other great 
feudatories, and by the ambassadors of the emperor, of the king of 
Hungary, and of Queen Joanna of Naples, and a numerous retinue of 
“men-at-arms. . He was met outside of the gates by the Roman clergy 
and people, who accompanied him in the midst of acclamations to the 
Basilica of the Vatican. The pope found the city of Rome in a very 


~ 


dilapidated condition, many churches, palaces, and houses in ruins, a 
population scanty and poor, and other marks of the long absence of a 
central government and court. Nearly the whole of Italy was at that 
epoch jn a deplorable condition. The various princes and republics were 
continually at war with each other, and kept for the purpose, at a great 
expense, mercenary bands of Germans, Hungarians, English, Bretone, 
and other foreigners, led by their respective condottieri, who committed 
all kinds of atrocities in the territories which they scoured. Ambrosio 
Visconti, one of the numerous bastard sons of Bernabd, who was deso- 
lating the Abruzzi at the head of several of these bands, amounting to 
nearly, 10,000 men, was defeated by the troops of Queen Joanna, 
united with those of the pope. Most of Ambrosio’s men were killed, 
either in or after the fight, and 600 of them were taken prisoners to 
Rome: the pope caused 300 to be hung, and the rest were sent to 
Montefiascone, whence having attempted to escape, they were hung 
likewise, Similar scenes occurred in Lombardy and Tuscany, where 
Florence, Pisa, and Siena were continually making incursions into 
each other's territories by means of the mercenary bands. And yet 
this is the age represented by some historians as one of independence 
and prosperity for the republics of Tuscany. 

In 1368 Joanna, queen of Naples, and Peter, king of Cyprus, went 
to Rome on a visit to Pope Urban, who received them most kindly. 
In the month of April the emperor Charles IV. went to Italy with a 
large force, which was joined by the troops of the pope and of Queen 
Joanna, for the purpose of chastising Bernabd Visconti, who paid no 
more respect to the emperor than to the pope. But all these prepa- 
rations ended in nothing; Charles signed a truce with Bernabd, some 
say after receiving from him a sum of money, dismissed most of his’ 
troops, and then proceeded through Tuscany to Viterbo, where he 
met the pope, and they proceeded together to Rome, where Isabella, 
Charles’s. wife, was crowned empress by the pope with great solemnity. 

In the following year, 1869, John Paleologus, emperor of Constan- 
tinople, repaired to Rome, where he abjured those peculiar tenets of 
the Eastern church in which it differs from that of Rome, and 
acknowledged the supremacy of the pope over the whole Christian 
church. The great object of the journey of Paleologus was to obtain 
the assistance of the Western states against the Turks, in which how- 
ever he did not succeed. The pope was not always at peace in his 
own dominions. He was obliged to send an army against the people 
of Perugia, who had revolted, and the people of Rome proved at 
times restive, which probably induced the pope to reside chiefly at 
Viterbo and Montefiascone, In 1370 Urban determined to return to 
Avignon. The reason alleged for this was to mediate between the kings 
of France and England, who were at war. But Petrarch, who greatly 
lamented this step, attributed it to the importunities of the French 
cardinals, who preferred the easy life which they used to lead in their 
own country, to the formality and discipline which were enforced at 
Rome. In the month of September the pope embarked at Corneto, 
and returned to Provence, but shortly after his arrival at Avignon he 
fell ill, and died in December of the same year. He was generally 
regretted for his personal character, his disinterestedness, charity, and 
pious zeal. He was succeeded by Gregory XI. A life of Urban V., 
in Latin, is inserted in the third volume of Muratori’s ‘Rerum 
Italicarum Scriptores.’ 

URBAN VL, Bartolomeo Prignano, archbishop of Bari, was elected, 
after a stormy conclave, in April 1378, to succeed Gregory XI., who 
had again restored the Papal see to Rome. Of the sixteen cardinals 
who were at Rome, twelve were French and four Italian. The former 
wished fora French pope, but the people of Rome assembled tumul- 
tuously, crying out that they would have a Roman pope, and the 
magistrates of the city sent envoys to the ‘cardinals in conclave 
assembled entreating them to elect, if not a Roman, at least an Italian 
pope. As none of the four Italian cardinals was thought fit for the 
office, it was at last agreed to elect the Archbishop of Bari, a native 
of the kingdom of Naples, who happened to be at Rome at the time, 
But before his election was made known, the impatient populace 
broke into the hall of the conclave and the frightened cardinals ran 
away. The following day, 9th of April, peace being restored by the 
magistrates, the cardinals assembled again, and confirmed the election 
of the Archbishop of Bari, who then accepted the Papacy, and 
assumed the name of Urban VI. He was solemnly crowned on the 
18th of April, attended by the sixteen cardinals who were at Rome, 
and who communicated the news of the canonical election of the new 
pope to the other cardinals, who were still at Avignon, as well as to 
all the kings, princes, and republics of Christendom. There appears 
therefore to be no truth in the subsequent allegation of the French 
cardinals, who began the schism, that the election had not been free, 
and was a fiction arranged with the consent of Prignano himself, in 
order to escape from the violence of the Romans, It was not until 
the following July that the French cardinals, having one after the 
other left Rome on the pretence of the summer heats, assembled at 
Anagni for the purpose of revoking the election of Urban, and they 
invited the Italian cardinals to join their convention. One of the 
latter, Francis Tebaldeschi, cardinal of S. Pietro, fell ill, and died in 
the following August, after making a solemn declaration that Urban 
had been legally elected, and that he acknowledged him as the true 
successor of St. Peter. The true reason of the secession of the 
French cardinals, besides their original desire of having a French pope 


235 URBAN VI. 


URBAN VIII. 


residing at Avignon, was that Urban, who had the character of an 
austere, zealous churchman, but destitute of all spirit of charity or 
conciliation, began his pontificate by assuming a harsh, haughty tone 
towards the cardinals, upbraiding them with their dissolute lives, 
their simoniacal practices, and threatening them with severe measures 
of reform, which were certainly wanted, but which, after the inveterate 
habits of relaxed discipline contracted during the long absence of the 
Papal court from Rome, could only have been effected gradually and 
with caution. As it was, Urban by his intemperate conduct, instead 
of a reform, effected a schism in the church. He also contrived to 
offend, by his imprudent words and uncourteous behaviour, Joanna of 
Naples, his natural sovereign, who had sent her husband, Otho of 
Brunswick, with a splendid retinue to congratulate him on his exalta- 
tion. The consequence was that Queen Joanna, as well as King 
Charles V. of France, gave their countenance to the French cardinals 
at Anagni, who on the 9th of August declared Urban to be a usurper, 
and excommunicated him. On the 20th of September they elected as 
pope, Robert, cardinal of Geneva, a man notorious for his unclerical 
habits, and for the atrocities which he had committed at the head of 
the bands of foreign mercenaries in the Romagna, and especially at 
Cesena, a few years before. He assumed the name of Clement VIL, 
but he is placed in the list of antipopes; for although Urban’s subse- 
quent conduct was far from laudable, there is no doubt of his having 
been legally and canonically elected. 

Pope Urban, seeing himself forsaken by all his cardinals, for even 
the few Italian cardinals had left him, promoted twenty-six eccle- 
siastics, mostly persons of merit, to the rank of cardinal, and excom- 
municated the others as rebels against the head of the church. Thus 
began the great Western schism, as it is called, which lasted nearly 
half a century, and was the occasion of the famous Council of Con- 
stance, France, Savoy, and Naples sided with the antipope Clement; 
the rest of the Catholic world with Urban. Both issued bulls and 
decretals ; both conferred livings and sees, causing thereby great 
contention and confusion in church and state. Clement took up his 
residence at Avignon, Urban remained at Rome, where, in 1379, he 
proclaimed a crusade against the antipope and Queen Joanna, and 
took into his pay the mercenary troop called the Company of St. 
George, commanded by Alberico da Barbiano, an Italian condottiere, 
who defeated, near Marino, in the Campagna, the Breton company or 
troop in the service of Queen Joanna. In the following year Pope 
Urban deposed the Queen, by a bull, as being schismatic, heretic, and 
guilty of high treason, and released her subjects from their allegiance. 
He also excommunicated and deposed the Archbishop of Naples for 
having acknowledged the antipope, and he appointed another in his 
place. Lastly, he wrote to Louis, king of Hungary, and offered him 
the kingdom of Naples. Louis, being old, gave up his claims to his 

. cousin Charles of Durazzo, who, having raised an army in Hungary, 
went to Italy in 1381, and after being crowned at Rome by Pope 
Urban, marched to Naples, which he occupied without much fighting, 
and took Queen Joanna prisoner, and some time after put her to 
death. Urban had stipulated with Charles that he should give to 
Francis da Prignano, surnamed Butillo, the pope’s nephew, the duchy 
of Capua, with Nocera and other territories; and as Charles, now 
settled in the throne of Naples, delayed performing his promise, the 
pope set out for Naples, and saw his nephew put in possession of his 
duchy in 1383, From Naples Urban went to Nocera, where he 
remained for a long time with no apparent object. There he had 
disputes with King Charles, and also with the cardinals of his retinue, 
who, tired of their uncomfortable and forced residence at Nocera, 
began to express their opinion of the wayward obstinacy and strange 
caprice of the pontiff. A series of questions were published about 
that time by Bartolino, a jurist of Piacenza, about the propriety of 
appointing curators to the pope in case he showed neglect or inca- 
pacity in the performance of the duties of his high office. It was 
reported to Pope Urban that six of his cardinals had discussed these 
questions and held the affirmative, and in fact that there existed a 
conspiracy to arrest him and condemn him as a heretic. Urban 
became furious at this report, which appears to have been greatly 
exaggerated; and in January 1385, he had the six cardinals seized and 
loaded with chains, and gave them in charge to his nephew Butillo, 
who put them to the torture. One of them, the Bishop of Aquila, 
was induced, by the acuteness of the pain, to acknowledge all that he 
and his colleagues were accused of. Meantime the pope, dissatisfied 
that King Charles still kept @ garrison in the fortress of Capua, which 
place had been given to Butillo, the pope’s nephew, reproached him 
for not fulfilling this and other conditions of the investiture, and 
threatened to resume the kingdom as a fief of the Roman see King 
Charles sent a force, under the great constable of the kingdom, to 
besiege Nocera, upon which the pope excommunicated Charles, and 
he used to show himself daily on the town-walls, and then at the sound 
of a bell he loudly repeated his anathemas against Charles and against 
his troops that were encamped around the town. At last the pope was 
relieved from siege by Sanseverino and other barons, and escorted to 
the coast of Pastum, where he embarked on board a Genoese squadron 
which lay in waiting, and went to Genoa, taking along with him 
the cardinals as prisoners, except the Bishop of Aquila, who died or 
was put to death on the road. The others were privately put to death 
by Urban’s order in Genoa; some say that they were drowned in 


sacks, others that they were strangled in his own palace. The citizens 
of Genoa were disgusted at this shameless abuse of authority, and 
Urban left Genoa for Lucca, where he spent the Christmas of 1385, 
Meantime Charles of Durazzo was murdered in Hungary, whither he 
had gone to claim that crown, and his infant son Ladislaus was Z 
claimed at Naples. He had a competitor in Louis IL of Anjou. | 
Pope Urban, being applied to by the queen-dowager, countenanced — 
the claims of Ladislaus, whilst Louis of Anjou was supported by the © 
antipope Clement, who gave him the investiture at Avignon. The © 
kingdom was divided between the two parties, Pope Urban, having — 
raised troops, removed from Perugia, where he then was, to ae 
near the frontiers of Naples, but on the way he fell from his 
and was much bruised. He was carried to Rome, and died in October — 
1389. His violence, which bordered upon frenzy, his excessive pride, — 
his obstinacy, his cruelty, his worldliness, disgraced his pontifigate, 
and were the cause of many crimes and many calamities. His 
character and doings bear considerable resemblance to those of Boni- 
face VIII. Theodore von Niem, who was Urban’s familiar and an <— 
witness of his deeds at Nocera, has given many particulars in his — 
‘Historia de Schismate sui temporis.’ Thomas, bishop of a 
wrote ‘Opusculum de creatione Urbani VI,’ Muratori, in his ‘ is 
of Italy,’ gives several other authorities for his account of Urban’s 
pontificate. He was succeeded by Boniface IX. | wisi a 
URBAN VIL, Gio. Batista Castagna, born at Rome of a Genoese — 
family, was elected after the death of Sixtus V., in September, 1590, — 
and died a few days after. Gregory XIV. was then elected in his 
lace, 
2 URBAN VIIL, Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, sueceeded Gregory XV. — 
He was born at Florence in 1568, of a noble family, and after epite: 
with great success at Rome, where his uncle Francesco Barberini filled — 
an office in the Papal administration, he was promoted successively — 
to several important offices, was made referendary of justice, proto- — 
notary of the Papal court, legate in France to Henri IV., cardinal — 
bishop of Spoleto, legate of Bologna, and lastly pope, and was crowned — 
in September, 1628, He displayed from the beginning of his pontifi- 
cate a liberal mind, being generous, affable, fond of literature, and of 
classical studies, in which he was well versed, and well acquainted — 
with state affairs. He found the court of Rome involved in the — 
tedious and perplexing affair of the Valtellina, which, from being — 
originally a war of religion between the inhabitants of that country 
and the Grisons, had become an intricate political question, in which 
the courts of France, Spain, Austria, Savoy, and Rome took a lively — 
part, and which endangered the peace of Europe. Urban, whose — 
policy was rather comprehensive than narrow, was not inclined to 4 
to the already overgrown Spanish power in Italy, and he leaned ra 4 
to the side of France, but he was obliged to manceuvre and ¢o 
his real sentiments, until the treaty of Moncon, in March, 1626, — 
between France and Spain, set the question at rest, at least fora time. — 
The next affair of importance was that of the Duchy of Urbino, a — 
fief of the Roman see, whose duke, Francesco Maria 11. della Rover 
was nearly eighty years old, and had lately lost his only son, who © 
left no male issue. Pope Urban induced the duke to make a donation — 
‘inter vivos, of his duchy to the see of Rome, after securing for 
himself a competent income. Thus that fine country, which stood — 
between the Papal provinces of the Marches and Romagna, was — 
incorporated with the Papal State in 1626. Next came the war about 
the succession to the duchy of Mantua, between the emperor Ferdinand ~ 
and the court of Spain on one side, and the French on the other, 
which lasted several years, and which spread desolation all over — 
North Italy and brought in the plague into Lombardy. Pope Urban 
endeavoured repeatedly to restore peace to Italy, but did not sueceed 
till 1631, by the treaty of Cherasco, concluded between the king of | 
Franee, the duke of Savoy, and the emperor. Meanwhile the great 
war, called ‘the Thirty Years’ War, was raging in Germany, and 
Gustavus Adolphus, at the head of the Protestant party, was in the 
full tide of success. Italy began to feel alarmed, and several princes 
urged Pope Urban to assist the emperor by all the means at his — 
disposal as the head of the Catholic world. Urban however showed — 
himself rather cool on the subject; he did not feel very friendly — 
towards the house of Austria, since the war of Mantua, and once in — 
full consistory he imposed silence on and ordered away Cardinal — 
Borgia, the Spanish ambassador, who was remonstrating loudly with — 
him on his duties as pontiff. Mey 
In 1€83 Giacinto Centini, nephew of Cardinal Centini of 4 
wishing to see his uncle pope, betook himself to sorcery in com a 
with other infatuated men, in order to effect the destruction of Urban. — 
The absurd conspiracy being revealed, the judges, who themselves 
believed in magic, made it a capital case: Centini was beheaded, — 
others were burnt, and others sent to tle galleys, In the same year, 
Galileo, being summoned to Rome by the court of the Inquisition, — 
was obliged to abjure solemnly his solar system, after which he was 
allowed to return to his country-house near Florence. In 1635 wat 
broke out again in Italy between the French and the dukes of Savoy = 
and of Parma on one side, and the Spaniards, who ruled in Lombardy, _ 
on the other. Pope Urban, in order to allay the storm, sent to Paris — 
the nuncio Giulio Mazzarino, a young man of abilities, who was then 
pushing forwards in the world. This embassy was the beginning of — 
the extraordinary fortune of Mazzarino, for Cardinal Richelieu found 


URE, ANDREW, M.D. 


URSINS, PRINCESSE DES, 238 


him to be a man after his own mind, and took him into his confi- 
dence ; but the ostensible object of Mazzarino’s mission, that of 
eace-making, was forgotten or set aside, and the war continued in 
orth Italy. 
In 1642 the Papal state itself was the scene of a petty war. Odoardo 
Farnese, duke of Parma, was possessed also of the duchy of Castro and 
Ronciglione, a fief of the Roman see. The Barberini, nephews of 
_ Pope Urban, were at variance with the duke upon matters of prece- 
_ dence, and they also wished to have the duchy of Castro for their 
_ own family, The duke made preparations for defence. The Barberini 
persuaded their uncle, who was old and infirm, to take military 
_ possession of the duchy of Castro. The duke of Parma made a 
defensive alliance. with the duke of Modena, the grand-duke of 
Tuscany, and the republic of Venice, against the ambition of the 
Barberini, who, disposing at their pleasure of the Papal treasury and 
influence, had moved an army to the northward to attack the state of 
Parma. Several combats took place on the banks of the Po between 
_ the Papal troops, commanded by Cardinal Antonio Barberini, and the 
troops of Modena and Venice. The troops of Tuscany also took part 
fin this desultory but destructive warfare, which lasted till 16438, 
_ when by the mediation of France peace was made and Pope Urban 
_ promised to restore the duchy of Castro to the duke Farnese on the 
de making an humble apology. Vittorio Siri wrote a diffuse history 
_ of this war, called ‘Guerra di Castro.’ 
- On the 29th of July, 1644, Pope Urban VIII. died, after a pontifi- 
cate of nearly twenty-one years. He was succeeded by Innocent X. 
_ Urban encouraged learning and the arts; he founded the college of 
Propaganda; he completed the aqueduct of Acqua Felice; built the 
country residence of Castel Gandolfo, enlarged and embellished the 
_ Quirinal palace, and increased the Vatican library. He was himself a 
_ good classical scholar, and no mean Latin poet. The principal charge 
against him is his extreme partiality towards his nephews, who abused 
his old age and credulity. 
| URE, ANDREW, M.D., a distinguished chemist, was born at 
_ Glasgow in the year 1778. He was educated in the university of his 
native town, and afterwards studied medicine at Edinburgh, and took 
_ his degree of M.D. at Giasgow in 1801. In the following year he was 
appointed professor of chemistry and natural philosophy in the 
Andersonian Institution in Glasgow. He also gave the lectures on 
materia medica in connection with the medical courses of this institu- 
_ tion, In the year 1809 he took an active part in the establishment of 
_ anobservatory in the city of Glasgow, and for this purpose visited 
London, where he made the acquaintance of many of the distinguished 
_ astronomers and chemists of the day. The observatory having been 
_ erected, he was appointed astronomer, and lived in the observatory, 
where he was visited by Sir William Herschell. In the year 1813 he 
_ published a ‘Systematic Table of the Materia Medica,’ with a disser- 
tation on the action of medicines. In 1818, he read a memoir before 
_ the Royal Society, entitled ‘ New Experimental Researches on some of 
_ the leading doctrines of Caloric, particularly on the relation between 
the Elasticity, Temperature, and Latent Heat of different Vapours, and 
on Thermometric Admeasurement and Capacity.’ This memoir was 
_ printed in the ‘ Philosophical Transactions, and has obtained for the 
_ author a lasting reputation as a natural philosopher. Hesubsequently 
_ wrote several papers on chemical subjects, all remarkable for the 
_ accuracy of the experiments on which his views were founded. 
_ Amongst these were papers on nitric acid, the constitution of muriatic 
acid, and on the construction of anew eudiometer. In 1821 he published 
_ a ‘Dictionary of Chemistry,’ which was remarkable for the extent and 
accuracy of its information on all subjects connected with the science 
of chemistry. The following year (1822) he published a paper ‘ On the 
Ultimate Analysis of Animal and Vegetable Substances,’ in the ‘ Phi- 
losophical Transactions.’ This paper was remarkable as being one of 
the first to initiate the brilliant period in the history of chemistry, 
- connected with researches into the composition of organic bodies. In 
_ 1824 he published a translation of Berthollet on ‘ Dyeing,’ In 1829 
he published his ‘System of Geology,’ one of the last books on 
this subject adyocating the influence of the Noachian deluge on the 
surface of the earth. In 1830 Dr, Ure removed to London, and in 
_ 1834 was appointed analytical chemist to the Board of Customs, It 
was in connection with this important office that he obtained mate- 
rials for many of his subsequent works, In 1835 he produced a work 
on the‘ Philosophy of Manufactures,’ and in 1836, ‘ The Cotton Manu- 
facture of Great Britain compared with that of other countries,’ In 
1839 he published a great work ‘On the Arts and Manufactures,’ A 
_ second edition of this work was published in 1853. It contains a 
| great mass of useful information of the most accurate kind and con- 
_ veyed in a most lucid style, He was elected a Fellow of the Royal 
_ Society of London in 1822, and was one of the original Fellows of the 
_ Geological Society, and a Fellow of the Astronomical and other 
_ seientific societies both in this country and abroad, He died at his 
‘residence in Gower-street, London, on the 2nd of January 1857, 
_ URFE’, HONORE’ D’, author of the pastoral romance ‘ L’Astrée:’ 
an anti-Gallican satirist might call him the French Sir Philip Sydney. 
, was born in 1567, the younger son ofa noble family originally from 
‘Suabia, and allied with the houses of Lascaris and Savoy. There isa 
‘perfect harmony between his life and the tinsel sentiment of his 
-Tomance. In 1583, when studying in the college of Tournon, he com- 


posed a drama, which was acted by himself and his schoolfellows, he 
playing the part of Apollo, “in a wide taffety robe of crimson and 
orange, his head surrounded by sunbeams,’ On leaving college he 
obtained a company of fifty men, and served bravely in the wars of 
Henri IV., whose party was embraced by the family D’Urfé. In 1598 
or 1599 he married Diane de Chdteau Morand; this lady had been 
married in 1575 or 1577 to Anne d’ Urfé, elder brother of Honoré, then 
in his twentieth or twenty-second year; it was a juvenile passion, so 
ardent on both sides, that their parents found difficulty in preventing 
their marrying before the lady was of marriageable age. After more 
than twenty years of married life Anne d’Urfé and Diane were di- 
vorced by mutual consent, and Honoré married the lady in order that 
her estates might not go out of the family. Diane’s passion for the 


-chase kept her continually surrounded by numbers of large dogs, 


which she allowed to share her own and husband’s sleeping apartment, 

Stunk out of his bed by his wife’s canine attendants, Honoré retired 

to a small property which he owned in the neighbourhood of Nice, 

and amused himself with the composition of ‘ L’Astrée,’ the first part 

of which was published in 1610, and received so favourably, that a 

second part appeared in 1612, and two more in 1618, Honoré d’Urfé 

died in 1625, of a breast complaint; his secretary Baro compiled a 

conclusion to the work from his master’s manuscripts. For upwards 

of half a century ‘L’ Astrée’ enjoyed an unmeasured popularity; it was 
a storehouse of subjects for the playwright, the painter, and the -en- 

graver. La Fontaine placed it next to the works of Maret and Rabe- 

lais. The best editions of ‘L’Astrée’ are that of Paris, 1637, and that 
of Rouen, 1647; Honore d’Urfé also published ‘La Syreine; avec. 
d’autres Piéces,’ 1611 and 1618; ‘Epitres Morales,’ 1598, 1603, and 

1620; and ‘La Sylvanire, Fable bocagére.’ His brother Anne, after 
getting rid of his wife, declined the order of St. Esprit offered him by 
Henri IV. in 1598, for his warlike services, and took priest's orders in 

1599. He died in 1621, with the reputation of a gentleman and 

scholar. When young he composed one hundred and fifty sonnets 

in honour of Diane de Chiteau Morand, which remained in manu- 

script; in maturer years he wrote hymns, which he published in 

1608. He also published, in 1592, ‘Deux Dialogues: l’Honneur et la 
Vaillance.’ 

URSINS, ANNE MARIE DE LA TREMOUILLE, PRINCESSE 
DES, was remarkable in her day for her daring and restless spirit of 
political intrigue. She was daughter of Louis de la Tremouille, duke 
of Noirmoutier; was born before 1642, and married, in 1659, Adrien 
Blaise de Talleyrand, prince de Chalais. Her husband was banished, 
in 1668, for being engaged in a duel; and she, following him to Italy, 
was left by his death a widow in a foreign land. In 1675 she married 
the old and rich duke of Bracciano, head of the Orsini family, after 
whose death she sold the duchy, and, retaining only his family name, 
was called la Princesse des Ursins, by which name she is known in 
history. Rome was in her time looked upon as the best school of 
state intrigue; and the voluptuous, haughty, subtle, and dexterous 
princess was soon recognised as one of the leading spirits of that 
court. In 1701, when Philip V. of Spain was married to the princess 
of Savoy, the choice of a camerara-major occasioned considerable 
embarrassment. Louis XIV. neither dared to confide the post to a 
Spanish lady, nor to give umbrage to the Spaniards by the appoint- 
ment of a French lady. Madame des Ursins, an Italian princess, 
though a Frenchwoman by birth, was ultimately fixed upon, and in 
1701 she joined her royal mistress at Nice. With the exception of a 
brief interval (in 1704), the princess retained the post of camerara- 
major till the queen’s death in 1714. Previous to her ephemeral dis- 
grace the princess courted the alliance of the Spanish party at court ; 
after her return she appears to have acted entirely by the direction of 
Madame Maintenon, After the death of the queen the chief solicitude 
of Madame des Ursins was to select a new wife for Philip, over whom 
she might exercise as unbounded a control as over her predecessor. 
Alberoni, by his false representations of the character of Elisabeth 
Farnese, persuaded her to promote the king’s union with that princess. 
The first step of the new queen was to drive the camerara-major from 
court with indignity; a step to which the king submitted without 
remonstrance, and against which the court of France offered no objec- 
tion. Hopelessof returning to Spain, the Princess des Ursins retired 
to Rome, but, unable to live without the excitement of political 
intrigue, she thrust her services upon the Pretender James Stuart, 
who allowed her to do the honours of his house, till her death in 
December 1722. Madame des Ursins was a mere courtier; her 
political struggles were exclusively personal. She could make and 
unmake friendships—supplant favourites—recover power when under- 
mined herself—but of governing a state she does not appear to have 
had eyen the shadow of an idea. She was merely one of those idle 
though gaudy weeds which grow up in courts, and are of no use even 
when they supplant trifiers as worthless as themselves. The memoirs 
and letters of the Princess des Ursins interest us in the same way that 
‘Gil Blas’? does—by their mixture of passion and adventure. In this 
point of view her correspondences with the Maréchal de Villeroi, and 
still more her correspondence with Madame Maintenon (both have been 
published), are very edifying. It is clear from those letters that all 
her unquestionable energy and versatility only enabled her to make 
her power the means of more embroiling the perplexed affairs of Spain 
during the War of Succession. 


239 URSINUS, BENJAMIN. 


USHER, JAMES, 


URSI’NUS, BENJAMIN, a descendant of the celebrated Zacharias 
Ursinus, distinguished himself as a Lutheran preacher during the 
latter part of the 17th and the beginning of the 18th century. He 
was at first court preacher to the elector of Brandenburg. In 1701, 
when Frederic I. assumed the title of king of Prussia, he made Ursinus 
bishop, and raised him to the rank of nobility. Ursinus used to 
begin his sermons with the words ‘Once upon a time.’ When Frede- 
ric I. died, in 1713, his successor, Frederic William I., who employed 
himself in regulating the finances of his kingdom and reducing the 
public expenditure, also reduced the salary of the bishop Ursinus. 
The bishop petitioned that his former income might be restored: the 
king replied by a letter, which contained only these words, ‘ All that 
was once upon a time.’ The sermons preached by Ursinus on various 
great court occasions are said to be superior to those of other preachers 
of the time, both in style and matter. 

URSI’NUS, FU’/LVIUS, one of the most eminent Italian scholars 
of the 16th century, was born on the 2nd of December 1529, at Rome. 
He was the natural son of a commander of the order of Malta, who 
belonged to the noble family of the Orsini. During his early years 
his education was conducted with great care, but afterwards a dispute 
arose between his mother and his father, in consequence of which she 
and her child were cast upon the world without any means of subsist- 
ence, and she was obliged to seek support by begging. However, 
some early indications of talent which the boy evinced procured him 
a place as ‘clericus’ in the church of St. John in the Lateran. Here 
he attracted the attention and gained the attachment of a canon of 
the name of Gentilio Delfini, who not only took him into his house, 
but also instructed him in the Latin and Greek languages. The 
amiable character of Ursinus, his industry, and his talents, induced 
the canon to use all his influence in his behalf; and after Ursinus had 
been ordained priest, he obtained successively several preferments in 
the Church, and became at last the successor to his benefactor. He 
now formed the acquaintance and friendship of the most distinguished 
and learned men in Rome and Italy. Cardinal Rainutius made him his 
librarian; and, after his death, Cardinal Alexander Farnese engaged 
his services for the same purpose. In these positions he was very 
liberally rewarded, and had also opportunities of becoming acquainted 


with all the treasures of ancient literature and art which were then. 


known. Cardinal Caraffa recommended him to Pope Gregory XIIL, 
and procured him an annual pension of 200 ducats. The ample 
income which he now enjoyed enabled him to spend considerable sums 
on books, manuscripts of ancient authors, and a valuable archzological 
museum, and to support his mother; for whom he always showed a 
tender affection. When he was advanced in years he made his will, 
in which he bequeathed his museum to Cardinal Odoardo Farnese, hia 
manuscripts to the Vatican library, his printed books to Horatio Lance- 
lotti, and the sum of 2000 crowns to Geatilio Delfini, bishop of Cama- 
rino, who was probably a near relation to his early benefactor. He 
died at Rome, on the 18th of May 1600. 

Fulvius Ursinus possessed very extensive learning, and he was a man 
of good sense and talent. His knowledge of ancient manuscripts was 
very great, and he was particularly skilled in deciphering them. Of 
this art he appears to have made a sort of secret, upon which he 
avoided giving any information when he was asked. His works, 
which are very numerous, consist of commentaries, critical and exe- 
getical,-on ancient writers, editions of them, and original treatises on 
antiquarian subjects. Among his commentaries, which are usually 
yery short, but useful for the critical study of the ancients, the most 
important are those on the ‘Scriptores Rei Rusticz ;’ on the Roman 
historians, such as Sallust, Cesar, Livy, Velleius, Tacitus, Suetonius, 
Spartianus, and others. These notes on the Roman historians are 
reprinted at the end of his ‘Fragmenta Historicorum Romanorum,’ 
8vo, Antwerp, 1595. His notes on Sextus Pomponius Festus are 
printed in several subsequent editions of this grammarian:; those on 
all the works of Cicero appeared at Antwerp, 8vo, 1581, and are also 
contained in Lambinus’s edition of Cicero, Besides the fragments of 
the Roman historians, he edited a collection of the lyric and elegiac 
poets of Greece; and in 1582 he published the first edition of the 
‘Eclogee de Legationibus,’ which contained various parts of the works 
of Polybius, Dionysius, and Appian, which had until then been 
unknown. Among the original dissertations of Ursinus we may 
mention—1. ‘Familie Romanz, que reperiuntur in antiquis numis- 
matibus,’ of which an improved and enlarged edition was published 
by C. Patin, 1663. It is also printed in vol. vii. of Grevius’s ‘ The- 
saurus Antiquitatum Romanarum.’ 2. ‘Imagines et Elogia Virorum 
illustrium, e marmoribus, nummis, et gemmis express.’ The best 
edition is that of J. Faber (1606), with a commentary. 3. An appendix 
to Ciaconius’s treatise ‘De Triclinio Romano.’ <A Life of Ursinus, in 
which his will also is printed, was published by Joseph Castalio, 8vo, 
Rome, 1657. It is reprinted in the ‘Vite Selecte eruditorum quorun- 
dam Virorum,’ published at Breslau, 1711. ¢ 

(Compare Tomasini, Zlogia; Niceron, Mémoires des Hommes I llustres, 
vol. xxiv.; Jicher, Allgem. Gelehrten-Leaic.) 

URSI’NUS, ZACHARI’AS, a celebrated German divine of the 16th 
century, was born at Breslau on the 18th of July 1534. He studied 
at Wittenberg, and as he was very poor, he was obliged to live on 
gratuities and on what he could earn by private lessons. His uncom- 
mon perseverance and industry gained him the friendship of Melanch- 


thon, who, in 1557, took him with him to the conference at Worms, 
From Worms Ursinus went to Geneva, and thence to Paris, for the 
purpose of acquiring a knowledge of French and of studying Hebrew 
under Mercer. Almost immediately after his return to Wittenberg 
he was appointed rector of the Gymnasium Elizabethanum at Breslau, — 
in 1558, Being a follower of Melanchthon, he soon became inyolyed 
in theological controversies with the strictly Lutheran divines — 
of Breslau respecting the nature of the Lord’s supper and baptism 
and he was designated by the name of ‘the Sacramentarian.’ He 
explained his own views on these subjects in a dissertation, but as he 
could not silence his adversaries, and as he himself was not inclined to 
continue the controversy, he asked leave to resign in 1560, and went — 
to Ziirich, where he met with a kind and hospitable reception from 
Peter Martyr, Gesner, Simler, and others. He had not been much 
more than a twelvemonth at Ziirich, when he was invited to a profes: 
sorship in the Collegium Sapientae at Heidelberg. lage 
In the year 1562 Ursinus was made Doctor of Divinity, and, at the — 
command of the elector palatine, Frederic III, Ursinus drew up the 
famous Heidelberg Catechism, which was subsequently adopted by all — 
the German Calvinists as the exposition of their creed. It was 
fiercely attacked by the Lutherans, such as Flacius, Heshusius, and — 
others. The elector ordered Ursinus to write a defence of it, which 
appeared in 1563, in German, The attacks upon the elector and his — 
protégé however did not proceed from Lutheran diyines alone; 
and the elector was charged by some princes of the empire with — 
protecting and propagating doctrines contrary to the Augsburg Con- — 
fession. Ursinus was again called upon to write a defence of his 
doctrines, This he did in 1563, in a work called ‘Exegesis Ver 
Doctrine de Sacramentis contra Bacmeisterum.’ In 1564 Ursinus — 
attended the colloquy at Maulbrunn, at which he spoke with great 
energy against Brentius and Schmidlinus, and the doctrine of Ubiquity — 
maintained by them. About the same time the elector founded some — 
new educational establishments at Amberg, Heidelberg, and Neuhaus; — 
and Ursinus, at his request, drew up the rules for their administration. 
The manner in which he discharged this and other duties raised 
Ursinus so high in the esteem of his prince, that in 1571, when the — 
professorship of Theology in the university of Lausanne was offered 
to him, and he seemed inclined to accept it, the elector took the pains — 
to persuade Ursinus to remain at Heidelberg. The elector palatine 
Frederic IIL. died in 1577, and was succeeded by his son Ludwig, on 
which a great change took place in the palatinate ; for as this prince 
tolerated only strict Lutherans among his clergy and in the university, — 
Ursinus and his disciples were obliged to quit Heidelberg in 1578, 
and went to Neustadt, where he was appointed professor of theology — 
at the gymnasium which was just established there. Here Ursinus 
taught theology and logic, and continued his studies without any 
further disturbance until his death, on the 6th of March 1583. 7 
Ursinus was a modest though very passionate man; but he exer- — 
cised great control over his passions, and he is said never to haye — 
answered an objection immediately. He had no talent for preaching, — 
and he discontinued it as soon as he discovered his unfitness. His 
diligence and application were extraordinary; and in order that he 
might not be disturbed by intruders, he put the following inscription 
on the door of his study :— 
** Amice, quisquis hic venis, ee 
Aut agito paucis, aut abi, J 
Aut me laborantem adjuva!” ; 
Some of his works were at the time translated into English: for 
instance, his exposition of the Heidelberg Catechism, under the title 
of ‘Summe of the Christian Religion,’ translated by Henry Parrie, 
1587, 4to. All his works were collected and published after his death, — 
at Neustadt, 1587; but the best and most complete edition is” 


which was edited by his former pupils, David Pareus and Quirinus : 
Reuterus, at Heidelberg, 1612, 3 vols. fol. . 
URVILLE, DUMONT D,’ [Dumont D’Urvitts, J. 8. C.] 


USHER or USSHER (in Latin USSERIUS), JAMES, a most 
learned and distinguished Irish prelate, was born at Dublin, on the 
4th of January 1580. His father, the descendant of an ancient family, 
founded by an Englishman of the name of Nevil, who in exchange 
for that had assumed the name of his office on coming over to Ireland 
with Henry II.’s son John in the quality of usher, about 1185, wa iy 
Arnold Usher, one of the six clerks of the Irish court of chancery, 
his mother was a daughter of James Stanyhurst, who was thrice 
elected speaker of the Irish House of Commons, and held the offices” 
of one of the masters in chancery and recorder of the city of Dublin. 
A brother of his father’s, Henry Usher (about whom there is an 
article in Bayle), was Archbishop of Armagh from 1595 to 1618: a 
brother of his mother’s was Richard Stanyhurst, who (as well as his — 
sister and his father) latterly became a Roman Catholic, and is the 
author of a translation of the first four books of the ‘ Aineid” 
English hexameters, besides several learned theological and histo 
works, of one of which, his ‘Descriptio Hiberniz,’ an English t 
tion is printed in Holinshed’s Chronicles. Muli 

Usher, who was his father’s eldest son, is said to have been taught 
to read by two aunts who had been blind from their cradle. He was 
then sent, at eight years of age, to a school kept in Dublin by two 
secret political emissaries of King James of Scotland, Mr. (afterwards 
Sir) James Fullerton and Mr. James Hamilton (afterwards created 


_ return to his archbishopric. 


241 USHER, JAMES. 


UVAROV, SERGY SEMENOVICH., 243 


Viscount Clandeboye in the Irish peerage). The concealed political 
agents were excellent scholars and teachers, and Usher in after-life 
used mainly to attribute whatever proficiency he had made in learning 
to the five years during which he had the benefit of their instructions. 
From their seminary he proceeded in 1593 to the newly-opened uni- 

versity of Trinity College, Dublin, of which he was one of the first 
three students that were admitted, 

. He had already acquired a high academic reputation, when in 1598 
the death of his father, who had intended to educate him for the law, 
left him at liberty to follow his own inclinations, which led him to 
the study of theology. Upon coming to this determination he made 
over his paternal inheritance to his younger brothers and sisters, only 


_  Yeserving a small annuity from the rental of the property (which it 
_ seems was much involved by law-suits, as well as otherwise encum- 


ered). Having then taken his degree of M.A. in 1600, he was the 


_ next year ordained both deacon and priest by his uncle, the Arch- 


bishop of Armagh. 

His first appointment, which he received very soon after, was of 
Sunday afternoon preacher before the state, as it was called, in 
Christ Church, Dublin. Two visits which he made to England in 
1603 and 1606, to purchase books, the first time for the library of 
Trinity College, the second time for himself, brought him into 
acquaintance with Sir Thomas Bodley, Sir Robert Cotton, Camden, 
and other distinguished persons of the day, whose admiration appears 

_ to have been strongly excited by the extensive acquirements he had 
made at so early an age. From this time he usually made a journey 


_ to England every three or four years, when his practice was to spend 
_ one month at Oxford, another at Cambridge, and the rest of his stay 
at London, principally in the Cottonian Library. In 1607, having 


roceeded bachelor of divinity, he was chosen professor of that faculty 
in his college, and this post he held for the next thirteen years. This 
Same year also he was made chancellor of the Cathedral of St. Patrick. 
In 1610, he was unanimously chosen provost of Trinity College, but 
declined the office, through an apprehension, it is said, of its duties 
interfering with his studies. In 1612 he took his degree of D.D.; and 
the next year, being at London, he there published in 4to his first 
work, entitled ‘De Ecclesiarum Christianarum Successione et Statu :’ 
itis a continuation of Bishop Jewel’s ‘Apology for the Church of 
England’ (also written in Latin); but it remains itself unfinished 
both in this first edition and in the reprints at Hanover in 1658, 8vo, 
and at London in 1687, 4to (along with his ‘ Britannicarum Ecclesiarum 
Antiquitates ’), although in the last impression falsely described on 
the title page as ‘Opus integrum ab auctore auctum et recognitum.’ 
Usher had from the first been a zealous opponent of popery, which 
he maintained the law ought to discountenance not only as politically 
objectionable, but as idolatrous; he was also in doctrine a decided 
Calvinist and Predestinarian; and besides being opposed to the 
Arminian principles, which were now coming into vogue, he did not 
profess in the matter of church’ government to hold the same high 
notions as to the divine right of episcopacy with many of the clergy. 
_In consequence of all this he had obtained the reputation of being 
inclined to Puritanism; and some pains had to be taken by his 
friends to satisfy the king’s mind on this point; but the representa- 
tions that were made by influential persons in Ireland, and by Usher 
himself, were so successful, that in 1620 James nominated him 
to the see of Meath. In 1623 he was made a member of the Irish 
privy council; and in January 1624, while he was in England (where 
he was detained by illness till August 1626) he was raised to the 
archbishopric of Armagh and the primacy of the Irish church. 
For some years after this his life was passed tranquilly in the admi- 
nistration of the affairs of his see and the prosecution of his studies. 
In 1631 he published, all at Dublin, in 4to, certain writings of 
the old theologian Godeschale, in defence of predestination, with 
illustrations, under the title of ‘Godeschalci et Predestinarianze Con- 
troversize ab eo mote Historia’ (said to have been the first Latin 
book printed in Ireland); in 1632 a collection of letters of Irish 
bishops from the 6th to the 13th century, under that of ‘ Veterum 
Epistolarum Hibernicarum Sylloge;’ in 1638 his ‘Emanuel, or a 
Treatise on the Incarnation of the Son of God,’ reckoned one of his 
greatest performances, and reprinted in 1643 at Oxford, in 1645 and 
1648 at London, in 4to, and again at London in 1670, in folio; and in 
1639 his celebrated ‘Britannicarum Ecclesiarum Antiquitates,’ also 
several times reprinted. 

In the beginning of 1640 he came over to England, with the 
intention of staying a year or two at most; but he never again saw 
his native country. He took up his residence in the first instance at 
Oxford, and there published, in 1641, a 4to volume of theological 
dissertations, under the title of ‘ Certain Brief Treatises.’ The same 
year he was plundered of nearly everything he possessed in Ireland by 
an attack of the rebels upon his house at Armagh ; and in the state of 
that country, it seems to have been thought needless for him to 

Upon thig the king, Charles I., conferred 
on him the bishopric of Carlisle, to be held in commendam ; but of 
this he is said to have made very little; and when soon after the 
_ revenues of the bishops were confiscated by the parliament, he did not 


_ receive the pension of 400/. a year that was allotted for his support 


above once or twice, Meanwhile, continuing to rseide mostly at 


_ Oxford, where he preached every Sunday at one or other of the 


BioG, DIV, VOL, VI, 


churches, he published there, in 1644, in 4to, an edition, in Greek and 
Latin, of the Epistles of Polycarp and Ignatius, reprinted at London 
in 1647. Soon after this he left Oxford, and retired first to the house 
of his son-in-law, Sir Timothy Tyrrell, at Cardiff; thence, after a stay 
of six months, to the castle of St. Donate, on the invitation of the 
dowager Lady Stradling; thence in 1646 to London, to the house of 
his friend the Countess of Peterborough, near Charing Cross. In 
1647 be was chosen preacher to the society of Lincoln’s Inn, upon 
which he took up his residence in a suit of apartments provided for 
him in the inn, and had his library, the only part of his property he 
had saved, removed thither. He preached regularly during term- 
time in the chapel of the inn for nearly eight years, In 1647 he 
published his treatise ‘De Romanz Ecclesi# Symbolo,’ and the next 
year his learned ‘Dissertatio de Macedonum et Asianorum Anno 
Solari.” In the end of the year 1648, during the negociation between 
the king and the parliament about the settlement of the Church, his 
majesty sent for Usher to come to him at the Isle of Wight; and here 
a scheme of Church government, which had been drawn up by the 
archbishop seven years before, and then rejected by Charles, was now 
proposed by him anew, but, although accepted by the king, was 
rejected by the parliamentary commissioners. It was published by 
Dr. Bernard at London in 1658, under the title, by which it is com- 
monly known, of ‘The Reduction of Episcopacy to the Form of the 
Synodical government in the Antient Church.” In 1650 Usher 
published at London, in folio, the first part of his great work, his 
‘Annales Veteris et Novi Testamenti,’ which was followed by the 
second part in 1654; other editions of both parts, all in folio, 
appeared at Paris in 1673, at Bremen in 1675, and at Geneva (the 
best) in 1722, The only other works he sent to the press were his 
‘Epistola ad Ludovicum Capellum de Variantibus Textus Hebraici 
Lectionibus, 4to, London, 1652; and his ‘Syntagma de Greca LXX. 
interpretum Versione,’ 4to, London, 1655, and again Lipsiz, 1695. He 
died at Lady Peterborough’s house, at Ryegate in Surrey, after a day’s 
illness, on the 21st of March 1656; and his remains were interred in 
Westminster Abbey by order of Cromwell, who is said however to 
have left the relations of the deceased prelate to pay the greater part 
of the expense of the public funeral. By his wife Phcobe, daughter of 
Dr. Luke Challoner, whom he married in 1613, and who died about a 
year and a half before him, Usher left only one daughter, Elizabeth, 
who became the wife of Sir Timothy Tyrrell. [Tyrrevt, James.] In 
addition to the works above mentioned, several others were printed 
from his papers after his death :—1, ‘The Judgment of the late Arch- 
bishop,’ &c., published by Dr. Nicholas Bernard, 8vo, Lond., 1658 ; 
2, ‘Chronologia Sacra,’ &c., published by Dr. Thomas Barlow (after- 
wards bishop of Lincoln), 4to, Lond., 1660; 3, ‘The Judgment and 
Sense of the present see of Rome,’ also by Dr. Bernard, 8vo, Lond., 
1659; 4, ‘The Power of the Prince and Obedience of the Subject 
stated,’ by his grandson, James Tyrrell, 4to, Lond., 1661 ; 5, A volume 
of Sermons; 6, ‘ Historia Dogmatica Controversie inter Orthodoxos 
et Pontificios de Scripturis et Sacris Vernaculis,’ by Henry Wharton, 
4to, Lond., 1690; 7, ‘A Collection of Three Hundred Letters written 
to James Usher, lord archbishop of Armagh, &c., collected by Richard 
Parr, D.D., his lordship’s chaplain at the time of his death,’ folio, 
Lond., 1686. To this collection Parr has prefixed an ample biograph- 
ical memoir of the archbishop; and there are lives of Usher, in 
Latin, by Dr. Bates (in the ‘ Collectio Batesiana’), and by Dr. T. Smith 
(in his ‘ Vitee Eruditissimorum,’ and also prefixed to the Geneva edition 
of the ‘ Annales’), A complete edition of the works of Archbishop 
Usher was undertaken afew years back by the Dublin University, 
under the editorship of Dr, Elrington, but.the doctor dying soon after 
the 13th volume was printed, the publication was for some time sus- 
pended, but subsequently resumed under the editorial care of Dr. 
J. H. Todd, and eventually finished in 17 vols., the last volume being 
an index to the whole. 

UTRECHT, A. VAN. [Van Utrecat, A.] 

UVAROV, SERGY SEMENOVICH, or OUVAROFYF, as the name 
is written in French, an eminent Russian statesman and author, was 
born about 1785 of a noble family, and received his Christian name 
from the Empress Catherine to whom his father was aide-de-camp. 
He studied at Gottingen, and in the year 1810 made his first appear- 
ance as an author in a ‘Project for an Asiatic Academy,’ written in 
French and addressed to the Emperor Alexander, in which he pro- 
posed the foundation of a great institution for the study of the 
languages and literature of Asia. In the following year he was 
appointed, young as he was, to the curatorsbip of the university and 
educational establishments of the district of St, Petersburg, an im- 
portant office which he discharged with great liberality of views. 
‘The European Republic” he remarked in a Russian pamphlet, 
published at the conclusion of the great struggle in 1814, “is now 
preparing to emerge from chaos and to consolidate its foundations. A 
stupid tyranny will no longer oppose itself to the efforts of reason, 
and on the whole surface of the globe it will be permitted to think.” 
When the Emperor Alexander's views became of a more retrograde 
character than they had been, Uvarov, after in vain offering the intro- 
duction of some new regulations relating to education, retired, in 1821, 
from his curatorship, but still retained the post of president of the 
Academy of Sciences which had been conferred on him in 1818. In 


the following year he became director of the department of manu- 
R 


243 UWINS, THOMAS, R.A. 


UZZIAH. 


factures and internal commerce, and he was subsequently for some 
years minister of finance, That his influence was not extinct was 
proved by his being able to establish in 1823 an institution for the 
instruction of young diplomatists in the Oriental languages, carrying 
out in some degree his early project. After the accession of the 
Emperor Nicolas he was appointed in 1832 Minister of Public 
Instruction, a step which excited some surprise, as the tendencies of 
the new government were certainly not in favour of permitting the 
liberty to think. From that time till 1848 Uvarov was indefatigably 
active in founding museums, botanical gardens, observatories, and 
educational institutions, and in providing for the better endowment 
of such establishments, and any deficiency in liberality in their 
management was attributed rather to the emperor than the minister, 
In 1848 he again retired from office on occasion of some restraints on 
education being imposed, of which he did not approve. 

The principal writings of Uvarov are rather elegant than profound : 
they are collected in two volumes, one bearing the title of ‘ Studies of 
Philology and Criticism,’ and the other ‘Political and Literary 
Sketches’ (‘ Etudes de Philologie et de Critique,’ St. Petersburg, 1843, 
2nd edition, Paris, 1845, ‘ Esquiases politiques et litéraires,’ Paris, 1848). 
All of these essays are in French, except two on philological subjects, 
one ‘On the poet Nonnus of Panopolis,’ and the other ‘On the 
Ante-Homeric Age,’ which are in German. In the preface to the 
essay on Nonnus, addressed to Giéthe, the author expresses an opinion 
that ‘it is now time for every author to choose for his instrument 


the language which is best suited to the circle of ideas he intends to 


treat.” He seems however, in spite of the confidence of his tone, to 
have been for some time in doubt as to venturing to print in German, 
and before publication applied to Géthe for advice, who in a half 
jesting tone replied “‘ Never confide to any German the grammatical 
revision of your manuscripts. Do not forfeit the immense advantage 
you enjoy in not knowing German grammar; I have been trying to 
forget it these thirty years.” Among the few foreigners who have 
written in that language, Uvarov is admitted to have been one of the 
most successful. In French, which was in the time of his youth more 
familiar than Russian to educated Russians, his style is pronounced to 
be perfectly idiomatic by his French editor M, Léouzon Ledue, who 
in his amusing preface declares with apparent confidence in his own 
correctness that “everywhere our novels, our plays, our books, 
whether serious or frivolous, enjoya monopoly of admiration.” The 
subjects of Uvaroy’s essays ‘Stein and Pozzo di Borgo,’ ‘The Prince 
de Ligne,’ ‘ Venice,’ ‘Rome,’ &c., are in themselves of interest and are 
treated in a light and graceful style which never fatigues the reader. 
Uvarov is reported to have written memoirs of his own time, which may 
probably form the best portion of his writings in the eyes of posterity. 

* ALEXEI SERGIEVICH Uvarov, the son of the preceding, has pub- 
lished in Russian ‘ Researches on the Antiquities of Southern Russia 
and the coasts of the Black Sea’ (‘Izsliedovaniya o drevnostiach 
Yuzhnoy Rossii, St. Petersburg, 1852, &c.) and is still publishing a 
magnificent work on the antiquities of Kertch. 

* UWINS, THOMAS, R.A., was* born in Pentonville, London, in 
1783. Apprenticed to Smith, an engraver of some repute in his day, 
he acquired, whilst learning the use of the burin, a certain. familiarity 
with the general principles of design. But having fixed his heart on 
becoming a painter, he, on quitting Smith, entered as a student at the 
Royal Academy, at the same time availing himself of the lectures 
which Sir C, Bell 'was then delivering to students in art. For some 
years he was principally occupied in making designs for book engravings, 
in which he seems to have taken Stothard as his model, though 
maintaining considerable originality; many of his designs display 
very decided power as well as grace. He also made numerous copies 
of paintings for the use of engravers. At this time he practised 
almost exclusively in water-colours, and in 1811 he was elected a 
member (and subsequently secretary) of the Society of Painters in 
Water Colours. Failure of health having led to a temporary abandon- 
ment of his profession, he after a short interval commenced practice 
in Edinburgh as a portrait painter, having prepared himself by making 
a series of portraits for book illustrations. In 1826 he visited Italy, 
and the studies which he made during his stay led him to commence 
painting pictures illustrative of the cheerful out-door life of the 
Italian, and especially of the Neapolitan peasantry. These works 
painted with a light bright pencil, picturesque in costume, gay in 
colour, and cheerful in spirit, became at once very popular, and their 
popularity remained undiminished as long as he continued to produce 
them. As samples of these sunny Italian pictures may be mentioned, 
‘The Mandolin ;’ ‘Dressing for the Festa;’ ‘ Neapolitan Peasantry 
returning from a Festa;’ ‘The Fisherman’s Song of Naples;’ ‘ In- 
terior of a Saint Manufactory at Naples;’ ‘Festa della Madonna del 
Arco;’ ‘Loggia of a Vine-dresser’s cottage in the afternoon of a 
Saint-day ;’ ‘ Mountaineers returning from the Festa;’ ‘ Bay of Naples 
on the 4th of June;’ ‘ Teaching a child the Tarantella;’ ‘ Children 
asleep in a Vineyard;’ ‘Making a Nun.’ He also painted some 
English peasant pieces, as ‘The Top of the Stile’ * The Pet of the 
Village,’ &c., but with less suecess. Later he painted illustrations 
from popular authors, Sterne’s Maria, the Dorothea, &c.; and still 
later he essayed a loftier class of subjects, as ‘Lear and Cordelia in 
prison ; * «Cupid and Psyche’ (painted for Prince Albert) ; ‘ Psyche 
returning from the Infernal Regions with the Casket of Beauty ;’ 


‘Phe Reproof;’ ‘John the Baptist proclaiming the Messiah on the 
Morning after the Baptism;’ ‘Judas,’ &c.; but these were scarcely 
adapted to his pencil. Mr. Uwins was elected a Royal Academician 
in 1836; and from 1844 to 1855 he held the office of librarian to the 
Royal Academy. He was appointed keeper of her Majesty’s pictures 
in 1842, and keeper of the National Gallery in 1847, but he resigned” 
the latter situation after two or three years. In the Vernon collection — 
are two pictures by Mr. Uwins, ‘The Vintage in the Claret vineyards, 
South of France,’ and ‘ Le Chapeau de Brigand :’ in the Sheepshanks’ 
collection are four more characteristic examples of his pencil— Italian 
Mother teaching her Child the Tarantella;’ ‘ Neapolitan Boy decorating 
his Inamorata ;’ ‘ The favourite Shepherd ;’ and ‘ Suspicion.’ 

UZ, JOHANN PETER, was born at Ansbach on the 3rd of October 
1720. He studied at Halle, where he formed a friendship with Gleim 
and Gotz, and, in conjunction with the latter, published a translation 
of Anacreon in 1746. In 1748 he was appointed secretary to the 
College of Justice in Ansbach, then an independent margraviate. Of 
this post he performed the duties for twelve years, but devoted his 
leisure to the writing of poetry, chiefly in a lyrical form, of whichin 
1749 he published a small collection, entitled ‘ Lyrische Gedichte.” It — 
acquired him a considerable reputation, and encouraged him to pro- 
duce the ‘ Sieg des Liebesgottes ’ (Victory of Love), a narrative poem}; 
in 1755 ‘Theodicee,’ which has much poetical merit; and in the 
same year a new edition of his lyrical poems, with considerable — 
additions, In 1760 he produced his didactic poem of ‘Die Kunst, — 
stets frohlich zu sein’ (Art is ever Cheerful), written in alexandrines, — 
and which still maintains a high rank in this classof poetry. In 
1768 he was appointed assessor of the justiciary court at Niirnberg, © 
and again published his lyrics, with fresh additions; but then fora — 
time abandoned poetry in order to devote himself more sedulously to — 
the duties of his office. In 1781 however he was called upon by his 
prince to write, in conjunction with Jungheim, a ‘ Neue Ansbachische 
Gesangbuch ’ (a new Ansbach Hymn-book), in which he was very suc- _ 
cessful. In 1796, when Ansbach was incorporated with Prussia, he — 
was created a counsellor of justice and judge of the court at Ansbach, 
but he enjoyed his dignity only a short time, for he died on the 12th 
of May of the same year. His poems still continue popular, and 
several editions have been issued since his death. ‘he religious 
hymns, the epistles, and some of his lighter sportive pieces are the 
best of his productions. In 1825 a monument was erected to his 
memory in the royal gardens at Ansbach, with a colossal bust from 
the chisel of Heideloff. aa ‘ 

UZZIAH, or, as he is sometimes called, AZARIAH, king of Judah, — 
was the son of Amaziah and Jecholiah. Uzziah was only five years old 
when his father Amaziah died (B.c. 849), and as the inhabitants of — 
Judah did not acknowledge him as fit to reign till he had reached his 
sixteenth year, there was a regency for eleven years. Uzziah appearsto 
have been instructed by Zechariah, a wise and holy man, whose teaching _ 
had a salutary influence on his mind, so that when he grew up he 
served the Lord; and we are told that ‘as long as he sought the Lord, 
God made him to prosper.” When Uzziah was sixteen years of age 
he was raised to the throne. Everything he undertook prospered in ~ 
his hands, and his mind was equally engrossed by the arts of peace and 
of war. He bred cattle, and for their protection and subsistence he 
built towers and dug wells. He also had many husbandmen and vine- 
dressers, ‘for he loved husbandry.” He repaired the old fortresses — 
and built new ones; and he not only caused the walls of Jerusalem, 
which had been damaged, to be repaire8, but he also strengthened the — 
towers, and had baliste and catapult mounted onthem, He also — 
caused shields, spears, helmets, bows, slings, and other warlike 
weapons to be prepared for his army—as it would seem, a kind of 
militia—which consisted of 307,500 men, commanded by 2600 chiefs, 
all mighty men of valour. Being in possession of such an immense 
power, he waged war against the Philistines, and obtained R= 
of several of their principal towns—Gath, Jabneh, and Ashdod. He — 
was also successful in his wars against the Arabs, of Gur-Baal, the — 
Mehunims, and the Ammonites, and the terror of his name was > 
abroad. Rendered arrogant by his power and prosperity, he was dis- — 
satisfied at not possessing—like the king of Israel and some other — 
neighbouring monarchs—the right to officiate as high priest atthe — 
incense-altar, and he determined to assume the function. Accordingly, — 
he went into the temple to offer incense upon the altar. Azariah, the 
high-priest, with eighty other priests, followed after him, and warned — 
him that his usurpation of the priestly function was unlawful and 
impious. Uzziah was enraged at this remonstrance, and took the — 
censer to burn incense, but no sooner had he done so than he was 
smitten with leprosy. On perceiving this, the priests would have 
expelled him from the Temple as a pollution; but he himeelf, being — 
conscience-stricken, hastened to leave it, and he remained a leper to — 
the day of his death. According to the Jewish law, lepers were — 
excluded from towns during the continuance of their leprosy : Uzziah — 
was consequently unable to exercise his kingly office, and the sove- 
reign power was administered by his son Jotham in his father’s name. — 
Uzziah died 2.c. 757, having lived sixty-eight years and reigned pa 
two. His reign was longer than any other of the kings of Judah — 
with the exception of Manasseh. The prophets Amos, Hosea, and 
Joel began to prophecy during his reign, and in the last year of it 
Isaiah was called to the prophetic office. F 


~ mentioned. 


RPE CAE eS ONE ONT ae ae ge 


= eat 


245 VACARIUS, 


VAGA, PERINO DEL, 243 


gn of Stephen, about the middle of the 12th century. Of the 

ersonal history of Vacarius little is known. In the anonymous 
Rceshin Chronicle, which mentions him, and briefly notices a work 
written by him, he is described as “ gente Longobardus, vir honestus 
et jurisperitus, qui leges Romanas anno ab incarnatione Domini 1149 
in Anglié discipulos doceret.” Being a Lombard by birth, it is highly 


_ probably that he was brought up at the University of Bologna, whic 


at that time was in high reputation, and it is possible, as far as dates 
are concerned, that he may have studied in the school of Irnerius, 
Selden has fallen into an error respecting Vacarius, which has been 
adopted from him by Heineccius, Duck, Montfaucon, and many other 
eminent writers. He calls him Rogerius Vacarius, and supposes him 
and Rogerius, abbot of Bec in Normandy, and also Rogerius Bene- 
ventanus, a well-known glossator, to be one and the same individual. 
(Selden ‘Diss. ad Fletam, cap. vii, sec. 3-7.) It has been clearly 
roved by recent German writers that Selden has in this respect. con- 
‘ounded three separate persons, and that the mistake originated in the 
false punctuation of a passage in the anonymous Norman Chronicle, 
cited by Selden, in which both Vacarius and Rogerius, abbot of Bee, are 
(Wenck, ‘ Magister Vacarius Primus Juris Romani in 
Anglid Professor, p. 3; Savigny, ‘Geschichte des Rémischen Rechts 
im Mittelalter,’ vol. iv., p. 348.) The time and occasion of Vacarius’s 
appearance in England are related by Gervase of Dover, who is 
supposed by Selden to have written his Chronicle at the beginning of 
the 13th century. Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, relying upon 
the aid and advice of Thomas 4 Becket, who had himself studied the 
Roman law at Bologna, appealed to Pope Celestin II. against the 


king’s brother, Henry, bishop of Winchester, who was legate to the 


apostolical see, contending that, as archbishop, of Canterbury, he was 
legatus natus, and entitled of right to the legatine authority. This 
appeal occasioned great litigation. ‘ Oriuntur hinc inde,” says Gervase 
of Dover, “‘discordie graves, lites et appellationes antea inavdite. 
Tune leges et causidici in Angliam primo vocati sunt, quorum primus 
erat Magister Vacarius. Hic in Oxonefordiai legem docuit,’ &c. 
Twysden, ‘ Hist. Angl. Scriptores,’ vol. ii, p. 1665.) As Celestin IT. 

ied in September, 1143, within six months after his election to the 
papacy, and as Pope Eugenius III. disposed of the subject of the 
above appeal in 1146 in favour of Archbishop Theobald, the period of 
the introduction of Vacarius and the Roman laws and lawyers into 
England, as noticed by Gervase of Dover, must have been between 
the years 1143 and 1146. In the Chronicle of Robertus de Monte (of 
which the above-cited Norman Chronicle appears clearly to be merely 
an imperfect abstract) it is expressly stated that Vacarius continued to 
teach the Roman law in England in 1149, and that “ many, both rich 
and poor, resorted to him for instruction.” The same authority goes 
on to say that, “at the suggestion of the poorer, students, Vacarius 
composed nine books from the Code and Digests, which, for any person 
perfectly acquainted with them, were sufficient to decide all disputed 
points of law which usually came to be discussed in the schools.” 
(Savigny, ‘Geschichte,’ &c.) This latter expression no doubt refers to 
the controversies on supposed propositions of law, which we know pre- 
vailed as juridical exercises in the universities during the middle ages, 
and which were probably derived immediately from the scholastic dis- 
putations, though the general notion of them might possibly have been 
handed down by tradition from the schools of rhetoricians at Rome. 
The only other mention of Vacarius to be found in the meagre histo- 
ries of those times is by John of Salisbury, in the book entitled ‘ Poli- 
eraticum, sive de Nugis Curialium.’ which is supposed to have been 
written about the year 1159. This writer, after inveighing against 
kings who assumed to command the church and interfere with eccle- 
siastical matters, says, “ I have seen some who have thrown the books 
of law into the fire, and have not scrupled to cut the laws (jura) and 
canons to pieces if they fell into their hands. In the time of King 
Stephen the Roman laws, which the house of the venerable Father 


. Theobald, primate of Britain, had brought into England, were ordered 


out of the realm. Every man was forbidden by a royal edict to retain 
the books of that law, and our Vacarius was enjoined to silence. 
Nevertheless, by the help of God, the virtue of that law more pre- 
vailed in proportion as impiety sought to weaken it.” (‘ Policrat.,’ lib. 
ili., c. 22. 
aan cas of Vacarius is chiefly important as connected with the 
introduction of the Roman law into England at this early period, and 
the great attention which it seems to have attracted. From the 


; passages above cited from contemporary writers, it is clear that a 


oreign professor taught the civil law at Oxford in the reign of 


t q Seer his teaching was attended by great numbers of rich 
an 


oor students,—that for the use of the latter he composed a work 
consisting of an abstract of the Code and Digest,—that the effect of 


& his teaching was sufficiently important to call for its suppression by a 


 soyal edict,—and that, notwithstanding that edict, the study of the 
_ Roman law continued to flourish exceedingly. 


With the slender 


V 


‘ YAcARIUS, a civilian, who taught the Roman law at Oxford in the 
rei 


information we possess respecting the history of this period, it is not 
easy to ascertain with precision either the motives which induced 
this zealous and persevering attention to a foreign system of juris- 
prudence, or the practical uses to which the knowledge of it was 
applied. No doubt the judges, delegates, advocates, and procurators 
in the episcopal consistories must have been civilians; but the number 
of those who for this purpose required an acquaintance with the 
Roman law could not have been sufficiently great to have constituted 
so large and flourishing a school as that of Vacarius at Oxford. ‘The 
fact may perhaps be ascribed to a more general cause. We know 
that the extraordinary impulse which had then recently been given to 
the study of the Roman law at Bologna had been communicated to 
the Continental universities of Europe, and that in all of them the 
juridical disputations in the schools were pursued by great numbers 
without any practical object, though with a degree of interest, and 
even enthusiasm, which it is difficult for us to understand at the 
present day, but which may in great measure be accounted for by the 
paucity of other objects of polite learning in those ages, This feeling 
was probably imported into England, and operated in the same 
manner at Oxford as in foreign universities. That the civil law was 
not used as an authority in the English common law courts is evident 
from the records of the Curia Regis which are in existence from the 
time of Stephen, and which demonstrate that the law of the land was 
the ancient customary law. Nevertheless the extent to which the 
Roman law was studied and understood, and the manner in which it 
was employed by writers in illustrating the common law and sup- 
plying its deficiencies, are exemplified in the treatise of Glanville, and 
still more remarkably in those of Bracton and Fleta. And indeed 
Vacarius himself, who wrote in England and for English pupils, seems, 
in an obscure passage of his work, to indicate the mode in which 
these writers subsequently made use of the Roman law: “ Quid pro- 
hibet pauea veluti in collem aliquem, eis maximé, qui legibus istis non 
utuntur, cumulare, ut infra septa justitize quasi ex loco eminenti con- 
spiciendo, discant sine magno labore accedere ad optata.” (Wenck’s 
‘Magister Vacarius,’ p. 87.) 

Several copies of Vacarius’s work are still extant in manuscript. 
The cathedral library at Prague contains a copy which Savigny says 
he has seen, and of which Professor Wenck gives an account. Another 
copy is in the town library at Bruges; a third is in-the library at 
Konigsberg; and a fourth is the property of Professor Wenck at 
Leipzig, and is particularly described in his work respecting Vacarius. 
The book probably exists in other collections, and one would expect 
to find it at Oxford; but as yet no other copies have been discovered. 
The original title appears to have been as follows :—‘ Liber ex universo 
enucleato jure exceptus, et pauperibus presertim destinatus. The 
whole work consists of nine books, as stated in the Chronicles. These 
books correspond as to their general subjects with the first nine books 
of the Code, but the subdivisions are different, some of the titles being 
taken from the Digest or from other books of the Code. The words 
of the Code and the Digest are retained as the substance or text of 
these titles, and a copious gloss accompanies it, composed partly of 
passages taken from other sources of Roman law and partly of the 
explanations and illustrations of the author. The work has little 
value at the present day, except as the only remaining trace of an 
English school of Roman law at the early period at which it was written. 
It is described by Savigny in his history; and Professor Wenck has 
published a very copious abstract of it in his ‘ Magister Vacarius.’ 

VADDER, LOUIS DE, a celebrated Flemish landscape-painter, 
was born at Brussels in 1560, He excelled in representing the misty 
atmosphere of his country, especially sunrise scenes ; his foliage also 
was managed with great skill and truth, and he was very successful in 
representing reflections in water, which he painted with remarkable 
transparency. He etched some spirited plates after his own designs. 
He died in Brussels in 1623. Vadder was the master of Lucas Acht- 
schelling, who was also a clever landscape-painter. 

VAGA, PERI‘NO DEL, or Prerrmno Buonaccorst, a celebrated 
Italian painter, was born at Florence in 1500. He lost his parents 
when very young, and was brought up in extreme poverty, but he 
found a useful protector in the painter Andrea de’ Ceri, who took him 
into his house and gave him employment. He worked afterwards for 
Ridolfo Ghirlandaio, and finally with a Florentine painter of the name 
of Vaga, who took him to Rome and recommended him to the notice 
of Giulio Romano and Penni, whence he acquired his name of Pierino 
del Vaga. Giulio Romano spoke favourably of Pierino’s ability to 
Raffaelle, who appointed him to assist Giovanni da Udine in the 
arabesques and stucco-work of the loggie of the Vatican. He assisted 
also Polidoro da Caravaggio in his chiaroscuri, and exhibited so much 
ability that he became a great favourite with Raffaelle, who intrusted 
him with the execution of some of his designs in fresco, and they are 
amongst the best painted in the loggie. Pierino painted the ‘Taking 
of Jericho,’ the ‘ Passage of the Jordan,’ the ‘ Offering of Abraham,’ 
‘Jacob and the Angel,’ ‘Joseph and his Brethren,’ and many others. 


247 VAHL, MARTIN, 


VAILLANT, FRANCOIS LE. 


Del Vaga, with the exception of Giulio Romano and Penni, surpassed 
all the assistants of Raffaelle. He was a great draughtsman and exe- 
cuted with rapidity. Vasari considered him the best designer among 
the Florentines after Michel Angelo, and the most able of Raffaelle’s 
scholars. . His design however resembles more that of Michel Angelo 
than that of Raffaelle, but he coloured much in the style of Raffaelle. 
He painted many works in Rome: the best is generally considered the 
‘Creation of Eve,’ in the church of San Marcello. There are numerous 
works by him in various cities of Italy, in Tivoli, in Florence, in Lucca, 
in Pisa, and in Genoa, where he painted his greatest works, and held 
the same position that Giulio Romano held at Mantua; they were 
respectively the founders of the schools of Genoa and of Mantua. Del 
Vaga left Rome at the sack of that place in 1527, when he lost all his 
property, and repaired to Genoa, where Prince Doria took him imme- 
diately into his service, and employed him to superintend the decora- 
tion of his new palace, The great works executed by Vaga in this 
palace were amongst the finest paintings in Italy, but most of them 
are now destroyed. The subjects were chiefly from Roman history 
and the Heathen mythology. On the ceiling of the great hall he 
painted in oil the Shipwreck of Alneas and his comrades, but it has 
since been whitewashed. On the ceiling of a neighbouring apartment he 
painted in fresco Jupiter destroying the Giants; a work which alone, 
says Soprani, is sufficient to immortalise its author, and to render the 
palace valuable. 


Vaga returned to Rome after staying some years at Genoa, and was. 


much employed by Pope Paul III., who granted him a pension for life 
of twenty-five ducats per month. Shortly before his death his reputa- 
tion was so great in Rome that nearly all the great works in painting 
were executed under his direction or from his designs, and he was so 
much occupied that he made only the cartoons of his works, the 
painting of them being intrusted to his scholars and assistants, who 
were very numerous. By incessant application, combined with intem- 
perate habits, he hastened his death. He died in 1547, in his forty- 
seventh year, and was buried in the Rotonda; where Raffaelle and other 
great painters were buried. 

His principal scholars were Luzio Romano, Marcello Venusti, Giro- 
lamo da Sermoneta, and the Spaniard Luis de Vargas. Caraglio, 
Bonasone, Hollar, and others have engraved after his works. 

VAHL, MARTIN, a botanist, was born on the 10th of October 
1749, at Bergen in Norway. Having received his preliminary education 
at Bergen, he was entered a student of the university of Copenhagen 
in 1766, and resided in the house of the Rev. Hans Stroem, a distin- 
guished naturalist. It was here that he imbibed his taste for botany, 
and having lived at Copenhagen two years, he left for Upsal, in order 
that he might study under Linnzus. Here he became one of the 
most distinguished pupils of the great botanist, and remained at 
Upsal for five years. His intercourse however with his preceptor was 
suddenly interrupted by a domestic occurrence, for “it was scarcely 
to be expected,” says Smith, “that the dignified professor, then in the 
venith of his prosperity and honours, could favourably regard the 
inclination of one of his daughters for a student who had his own 
fortune to seek ; nor is anything recorded of this daughter which might 
have justified a romantic attachment or adventurous pursuit on the 
part of the young man.” 

In 1779 Vahl was appointed lecturer at the Botanic Garden of 
Copenhagen, where, having remained three years, he was appointed 
by the king of Denmark to undertake a scientific tour, during which 
he visited Holland, France, Italy, Spain, Barbary, Switzerland, and 
England. In these various countries he made large collections of 
_ plants, and visited their principal museums. Whilst in England he 
was in constant intercourse with Sir J. Banks and Sir J.,E. Smith, to 
whose herbaria and libraries he had constant access, and he availed 
himself extensively of this privilege. 

On his return to Copenhagen in 1785, he was appointed professor 
of natural history in the university, and was intrusted with the 
continuation of the ‘Flora Danica,’ already commenced by (Eder. 
This work was completed in twenty-four fasciculi, seven of which 
were done previous to its having been undertaken by Vahl. He made 
several journeys to the coasts and mountains of Norway for the 
purpose of getting materials for this work, which was completed in 
1810. In 1790 he commenced a work entitled ‘Symbolz Botanicz.’ 
It appeared in three folio fasciculi, each fasciculus containing twenty- 
five plates. The principal object of this work was to illustrate 
Forskil’s discoveries; but Vahl gave descriptions and drawings of 
many plants from his own collections, In 1796 he commenced the 
publication of his ‘ Eclogee American,’ which was a sequel to the 
ey and consisted of three fasciculi containing in all thirty 
plates. 

In 1799 and 1800 the government again paid his expenses in 
visiting Holland and Paris, for the purpose of examining botanical 
specimens, to enable him to bring out a great work which he had in 
contemplation on the whole vegetable kingdom. On returning to 
Copenhagen from this visit, he was appointed professor of botany in 
the university. He lived to complete only one volume of his great 
work entitled ‘Enumeratio Plantarum,’ This was published in 1804 : 
he died on the 24th of December of the same year; and five more 
volumes were published subsequently. His extensive library, con- 
sisting of 3000 volumes of books, his herbarium, and manuscripts, 


were purchased by the king of Denmark for 3000 dollars (about 6751), 
besides an anata pension of 400 dollars to his widow, and of 100 
dollars to each of bis six children. 

Vahl also paid attention to zoology: he communicated remarks on 
the carnivora to Cuvier, and also some observations on insects to 
Fabricius, and assisted in the completion of the ‘ Zoologia Danica,’ a 
work that had not appeared at his death, He was a learned and 


zealous botanist, and his works will remain a monument of his accurate — 


acquaintance with a large portion of the vegetable kingdom. Vaslia, 
a genus of Saxifragaceous plants, was named in honour of him by 
Thunberg. 

(Biographie Universelle ; Sir J. E. Smith, in Ree’s Cyclopedia, 

VAILLANT, FRANCOIS LE, was born in 1753, at Paramaribo, in 
Dutch Guiana, where his father, a rich merchant and native of Metz, 
was French consul. His parents had a taste for collecting objects of 
natural history. They were also in the habit of making frequent 
excursions to the less settled parts of the colony, always carrying the 
boy along with them. Le Vaillant at an early age had thus not only 
contracted the tastes of his parents and the habits of the backwoods- 
man, but at the age of ten years had acquired considerable experience 
in collecting, and arranging after a system of his own, insects and 
birds, 

In 1765 the family of Le Vaillant left Surinam to return to Europe. 
They landed at the Texel, and after spending some time in Holland 
proceeded to Metz. Here Le Vaillant found a fresh stimulus to his 
favourite pursuits in the ornithological cabinet of M. Bécmwur. In 
Surinam he had been accustomed to dry and preserve the skins of 
birds : he now set himself assiduously to acquire the art of preserving 


the form and attitude of life by stuffing them. A passionate hunter, ~ 


he tells us that during a residence of two years in Germany and of 
seven in Alsatia and Lerraine, he killed an. immense number of birds. 


But he had also a taste for observing their habits, and spent whole “J 


days and even nights in watching them. These pursuits were in him 
the indulgence of a passion. What plan of education his parents 
adopted, or whether they destined him for any profession, is unknown. 
The only hint preserved on this subject is an incidental observation 
in his Travels, that his father insisted upon his acquiring a number of 
languages. Dutch he spoke fluently—probably learnt in childhood ; 
German and French, it is said, he also spoke well, though his writings 
are alleged by critics to want the idiomatic precision of a native. 

In 1777 he came to Paris, where the rich collections of birds and 


the writings and conversation of naturalists at first attracted and then — 


repelled him, He felt and acknowledged the genius of those in whose 
hands observations such as he had made self-taught after the desultory 
fashion of an amateur had become a science. 
the varied wealth of collections from all quarters of the world which 
were opened to his inspection. But accustomed to pry into the habits 
and economy of the living bird, the mere cataloguing and classifying of 
skins and skeletons soon became repulsive to him; and the inaccura- 
cies of mere closet speculators nourished a perhaps overweening 
estimate of his own more living knowledge. This feeling, his sports- 
man habits, the pleasant recollections of his boyhood in the forests of 
Guiana, all contributed to make him dwell with pleasure on the 
project of ransacking the yet unexplored regions of the earth in order 
to drag to public view their feathered inhabitants. With this object 
he quitted Paris, unknown to his friends, in July, 1780. He repaired 
to Amsterdam, where he formed an intimate acquaintance with 
Temminck; and after five months spent in preparations, embarked, 
in December, for the Cape of Good Hope, where he arrived in 

1781, 

Le Vaillant remained in the colony till July, 1784. War had just 
broken out between England,and Holland; the vessels at the Cape 
were ordered to Saldanha Bay, to conceal them from English cruisers : 
Le Vaillant accompanied them. An English squadron discovered 
their place of refuge, and the captain of the ship on board of which 
Le Vaillant’s travelling equipage was embarked, blew it up to prevent 
its falling into the enemy’s hands. Le Vaillant, thus stripped by an 


accident of all the property he carried with him, was hospitably treated — 


by the colonists; the fiscal Boers advanced everything that was neces- 
sary to fit him out’for the expeditions he contemplated, and the other 
government officers did all in their power to promote his enterprise. 
During the three years which he spent in the colony he made two 
principal excursions. In the first, which occupied him from the 18th 
of December, 1781, to the 2nd of April, 1782, he advanced westward, 
at no great distance from the coast, to the Great Fish river; ascended 
its most western branch to the frontier of the Gonaquois and Caffres 


(apparently near to where Beaufort now stands), and from thence ~ 


made an excursion into the country of the Caffres. He returned bya 
more northerly route to Cape Town. His second excursion appears to 
have commenced in April 1783, and lasted sixteen months: in this 
time he advanced northward beyond the Orange river—how far is 
uncertain, probably not so far as the map which Laborde constructed 
from his journals represents, but farther than his rival travellers 


admit. On his return to the Cape, Le Vaillant contemplated a voyage — 
to Madagascar, but soon relinquished the idea, and embarked for — 


Europe on the 14th of July, 1784. In 1785 he returned to Paris. _ 
Le Vaillant’s first care on returning to Europe was to arrange his 
cabinet and prepare his journals for publication. The narrative of his 


He was delighted with — 


>, 


249 


VAILLANT, JEAN FOY, 


“a 


VAILLANT, JEAN FRANCOIS FOY. 250 


first expedition from the Cape was published in 1790. In 1789, and 
again in 1795, efforts were made to have his cabinet purchased by 
government, but a price could not be agreed upon. In 1796 the 
second part of his Travels appeared. The first volume of the ‘ Natural 
History of the Birds of Africa’ was published the same year; it was 
followed at intervals by four others; the sixth appeared in 1812; and 
Le Vaillant at his death left two additional volumes in manuscript. 
The ‘ Natural History of Parrots,’ in 2 vols., was published 1801-5; 
*The Natural History of Birds of Paradise,’ 1801-6; ‘The Natural 
History of Contingas,’ 1805; ‘The Natural History of Calaos,’ 1804. 
The veracity of Le Vaillant has been questioned by Barrow and 
Lichtenstein, but on very insufficient grounds,—the loose statements 


_ Of colonists speaking from recollection after a lapse of twenty or thirty 
_ years, or the non-appearance of a particular horde at the place where 


was met by Le Vaillant after a similar interval. It may be conceded 
to Barrow that Le Vaillant was not an accurate geographer—he made 
no pretensions to the character. In his ornithological works he 


_ describes the appearance and habits of birds; in his. travels he 


narrates his adventures while in pursuit of them. His accounts of 
birds are such as could only be supplied by one with whom it was a 
passion to follow them into their most secluded haunts and watch all 
their actions. The narrative of his travels throws light upon his 


_ character, and explains how he came to be capable of such persever- 


ing and minute observation. It is allowed by all who have had oppor- 


_ tunities of observing, that he has described the character of the 


Hottentot with perfect fidelity. The narratives of Barrow, Campbell, 


_ Pringle, and the events of later years, show how truthfully he has 


delineated the robust recklessness of the Dutch colonists. Mistakes 


_ there are doubtless many, but the history of his travels is essentially 
_ atruthful book. It is a sincere faithful record of his impressions, of 


things in the light in which he viewed them ; and the author delineates 
himself so unreservedly and so unconsciously in his eagerness, 


3 buoyance, enterprise, vanity, warmth of affection, and unregulated 


enthusiasm, that it is easy to estimate the colouring effects of the 
medium through which all objects are viewed. There is a graphic 
power and life in Le Vaillant’s descriptions, that give all his writings 
the charm of romance. He is great in the description of an elephant 
or rhinoceros chase: his faithful monkey Klees is a most felicitous 
pes and there is scarcely a more delicate creation in poetry than 

is Gonaquoi girl Narina. Le Vaillant stands high in a class of 
writers, of which St. Pierre, Wilson (the ornithologist), and Audubon 
may be considered the types. 

Neither Le Vaillant’s entire devotion to his favourite pursuits, nor 
his innocent boyish enthusiasm for that kind of liberty which the 
‘possessor of the wealth and acquirements of civilised life.can com- 
mand in a genial climate among a rude and simple people, could 
enable him to escape entirely the dangers of the Revolution. He was 


4 only saved from the guillotine by the opportune death of Robespierre. 
_ After his liberation he retired to a small property which he possessed 


at La Neve, near Lauzun; and there, except at brief intervals, during 


which he was obliged to visit Paris to superintend the publication of 


his works, he spent the remaining thirty years of his life. There he 
lived through all the wars of the Revolution, hunting as eagerly, and 
with as little distraction from the turmoil around him, as if he had 


_ been among the woods of Surinam or in the valleys of the Cape. He 


died on the 22nd of November 1824. 

(Le Vaillant, Voyage dans UIntérieur de Afrique, and Second 
Voyage dans U Intériewr de U Afrique, and also incidental notices in his 
ornithological works; Travels in Africa, by Barrow, Lichtenstein, and 
Campbell; Biographie Universelie.) 

VAILLANT, JEAN FOY, was born at Beauvais on the 24th of 
May 1632, When only three years old he lost his father, but he was 
educated by au uncle, who wished his nephew to study the law, in 
order that he might become his successor in some offices which he 
held. The uncle however, who left all his property to his nephew, 
died at a time when Vaillant was not yet old enough to become his 
successor, and being now in the possession of a considerable fortune, 
he followed his own inclinations, and devoted himself to the study of 
medicine, of which he was made doctor at the age of twenty-four. 
Vaillent’s name has become celebrated, not for what he did in his pro- 


7: fession, but for what he did for numismatics : he is one of the first 


men who showed the importance of ancient coins for history. The 
circumstance which led him to the pursuit of these studies is related 
as follows:—A. farmer in the neighbourhood of Beauvais, while 
working in his fields, discovered a great quantity of ancient coins, and 
not knowing what to do with them, he took them to Vaillant, and 


consulted him about the use that could be made of the coins, Vaillant 


looked at them at first very cursorily, but on further thoughts his 
curiosity became excited, and he began examining them carefully. 


a The discoveries which he made afforded him so much pleasure that 


henceforth he devoted nearly all his time to the study of this branch 


of antiquity. Some years after this occurrence he had occasion to go 


| 4 to Paris, where he became acquainted with Pierre Seguin, who had a 


fine collection of ancient coins, and was very fond of the study. 
Vaillant visited him frequently, and made also the acquaintance of 
several other eminent men, who soon perceived that he possessed 


g extraordinary talent, and more than an ordinary knowledge of ancient 
medals, until at length he also attracted the attention of Colbert. This 


* 


minister was then about removing the numismatic cabinet of Gaston 
de Bourbon to Versailles, and he wished to increase it. He therefore 
commissioned Vaillant to travel through Italy, Sicily, and Greece, for 
the purpose of collecting ancient medals for the king’s cabinet, 
Vaillant spent two years on this journey, and collected a great quan- 
tity of beautiful and rare coins, which made the cabinet of Versailles 
one of the most splendid collections of medals in Europe, In the 
year 1674 Vaillant published his first work, on the coins of the Roman 
emperors, under the title ‘ Numismata Imperatorum Romanorum 
preestantiora, i Julio Cesare ad Postumum et Tyrannos, of which a 
second and much improved edition appeared in 1692, 2 vols, 4to. The 
last and best edition is that of Baldinus, 3 vols. 4to, Rome, 1743. 
In the same year in which Vaillant published his first work, he was 
sent out a second time by Colbert in search after ancient coins. He 
embarked at Marseille for Rome, but on the second day after leaving 
the port the French vessel was captured by an Algerine corsair, and 
all persons on board were taken to Algiers as slaves, Vaillant was 
kept in slavery for upwards of four months, until, after some energetic 
remonstrances on the part of the French government, he was restored 
to freedom. After having recovered a number of gold coins which 
the Algerines had taken from him, he embarked for Marseille. On 
the second day of the voyage the vessel was again pursued by a 
corsair, and when Vaillant saw that the danger became threatening, 
he resolved to secure at least his gold medals, and he swallowed them. 
However, a sudden change of the wind delivered the vessel from the 
enemy, and after several adventures it was thrown among the sands at 
the mouth of the Rhéne. Vaillant got on shore in a skiff, but 
suffered very much from the medals till he was relieved of them, 
Soon after his arrival he was sent out on a third expedition, during 
which he travelled through Egypt and several parts of Asia. His 
exertions were richly rewarded ; he returned to Paris in 1680, and 
brought with him a very large collection of coins, which were again 
incorporated in the king’s cabinet, the whole arrangement of which 
was now intrusted to him. Immediately after his return he was 
chiefly occupied with studying the coins and the history of the Seleu- 
cide in Syria, and in 1681 he published the results of his labours in 
his ‘Seleucidarum Imperium, seu Historia Regum Syriz ad fidem 
Numismatum accommodata,’ 1 vol. 4to. The.remaining years of his 
life Vaillant spent at Paris, in the uninterrupted study of numis- 
matics and the composition of his works. During this period he also 
paid a visit to England to see the most valuable collections of medals. 
In 1702, when Louis XIV. gave a new constitution to the Academy of 
Inscriptions, Vaillant was made a member, and soon after a pensionary 
of it. He died on the 28rd of October 1706. 

In estimating the merits of Vaillant, we must bear in mind that he 
cultivated numismatics at a time when the subjett was yet in its 
infancy, and his labours, if estimated under these circumstances, are 
highly meritorious. Although most of his works have been super- 
seded by the more recent investigations of Eckhel, Sestini, and others, 
some are still of great value. Besides those mentioned above, the 
following works deserve notice :—1, ‘Numismata exrea Imperatorum 
et Ceesarum in Coloniis, Municipiis, et Urbibus jure Latio donatis, ex 
omni Modulo percussa,’ 2 vols. fol., Paris, 1688; 2, ‘ Numismata 
Imperatorum et Cesarum 4 Populis Romane ditionis Greece loquenti-— 
bus ex omni Modulo percussa,’ 4to, Paris, 1698, a second and enlarged 
edition of this work appeared at Amsterdam, fol., 1700; 3, ‘ Historia 
Ptolemxorum, Aigypti Regum, ad fidem Numismatum accommodata,’ 
fol., Amsterdam, 1701 ; 4, ‘ Nummi Antiqui Familiarum Romanarum 
perpetuis Interpretationibus illustrati,’ 2 vols. fol, Amsterdam, 1703. 
After his death there appeared—5, ‘Arsacidarum imperium, sive 
Regum Parthorum Historia ad fidem Numismatum accommodata,’ 
4to, Paris, 1725; and 6, ‘Achemenidarum Imperium, sive Regum 
Ponti, Bosphori, Thraciz, et Bithynize Historia ad fidem Numismatum 
accommodata,’ 4to, Paris, 1725. The ‘Mémoires de l’Académie des 
Inscriptions et Belles Lettres’ also contain several interesting papers 
by Vaillant. 

VAILLANT, JEAN FRANCOIS FOY, a son of the celebrated 
numismatist, Jean Foy Vaillant, was born at Rome on the 17th of 
February 1665, when his father was travelling for the purpose of col- 
lecting ancient coins, At the age of three years he was brought to 


- Beauvais, and at twelve he was sent to a college of the Jesuits at Paris. 


His father wished him to follow the medical profession, but at the 
same time made him familiar with numismatics, and usually took him 
with him to the royal cabinet of medals during the time that he was 
engaged in arranging them. Young Vaillant accompanied his father 
on his visit to England, and after his return to Paris he began seriously 
to apply himself to the study of medicine, of which he was made a 
doctor in 1691. His reputation as a numismatist however appears to 
have been much greater than that as a physician, and in 1702 he was 
made a member of the Academy of Inscriptions, to the ‘ Mémoires’ of 
which he contributed several papers on antiquarian and numismatic 
subjects, which raised great expectations, and show that he would per- 
haps have surpassed his father had his life been spared longer. He 
died on the 17th of November 1708, in consequence of a fall which 
produced an abscess in his head, The only medical work of Vaillant 
is a treatise on the virtues of coffee. 

(Nicéron, Mémoires des Hommes Illustres, vol. xv.; Chaufepié, Dic- 
tionnaire Historique et Critique.) 


251 VAILLANT, SEBASTIAN, 


VAKHTANG. 


VAILLANT, SEBASTIAN, botanist, was born on the 26th of 
May 1669, at Vigny, near Pontoise, being the eldest son of a shop- 
keeper in that town. At a very early age he acquired a taste for 
botany, and when only six years old had made a collection of the wild 
plants of the country, which he cultivated in his father's garden. But 
his father, fearing that his love of plants would be the ruin of him, 
directed his attention during his-leisure hours to music; and so great 
was his progress on the organ, that, at the age of eleven, on his tutor 
dying, he was appointed organist:in his place in the Benedictine con- 
vent of St. Macloud. He also was distinguished by his attention to 
his general studies at the grammar-school of Pontoise. He was after- 
wards appointed resident organist in a nunnery near his native town, 
and having a strong inclination for the study of medicine, he took every 
opportunity to visit the sick in a neighbouring public hospital. His 
progress in anatomical and medical reading having been great, he was 
appointed assistant-surgeon to the hospital. At the age of nineteen 
he left this position to pursue his medical studies at Evreux, in Nor- 
mandy; and having been introduced to the aerd os de Goville, a 
captain of the royal fusileers, he was appointed by him surgeon to his 
company, with the rank of lieutenant. In this position he was present 
at the battle of Fleurus, where his patron having been killed, he left 
the army and came to Paris in 1691, His intention was still further 
to pursue medicine, but in the course of his studies he attended the 
lectures of Tournefort, who was then at the height of his popularity 
as a botanical teacher. His long-forgotten passion for plants again 
broke forth, and he resolved to abandon himself entirely to the study 
of botany. The period was favourable for this determination ; the genius 
of Tournefort had just shed a brilliant light on many of the obscure 
departments of botany, which served to show how much was yet to 
be done. Vaillant soon gained the friendship of Tournefort, and was 
afterwards introduced to M. Fagon, first physician to the king, and 
professor of botany and subdemonstrator of plants in the Jardin du 
Roi. Fagon made him his secretary, and appointed him, under him- 
self, a director of the Jardin du Roi, and, in 1708, resigned in his 
favour his professorship and subdemonstratorship, situations which 
Tournefort was known to have been anxious to obtain. Soon after 
his appointment to these positions, many improvements were made in 
the gardens, and Vaillant was commissioned by the king to form a 
museum of materia medica. In 1716 he was elected a member of the 
Academy of Sciences, an honour which he had never sought, and 
which he at first refused to accept. 

As a lecturer Vaillant was successful, and for many years he did 
little else than publish his views through the medium of his lectures. 
Although a pupil, an admirer, and a friend of Tournefort, he was 
opposed to many of his views, and especially the system on which he 
had arranged the vegetable kingdom; and in 1721 he read before the 
Academy of Sciences a criticism on the method of Tournefort, which 
was published in the Memoirs of the Academy for 1723. He did not 
however succeed in establishing any classification of his own; and it 
is not probable, even if he had lived to have carried out his own views 
on systematic botany, that he would have produced a system that 
could have supplanted the one which was the basis of the ‘Institu- 
tiones Rei Herbarize,’ and which laid the foundation for the labours 
of Adanson, the Jussieus, and De Candolle. The most successful 
portions of his criticisms directed against Tournefort were those with 
regard to the functions of the stamens and pistils, which Tournefort 
looked upon as only excretory organs, and held to be of very second- 
ary importance in the structure of the flower. Vaillant published his 
views on this subject in a paper, entitled ‘Sermo de Structura Florum, 
- horum differentia usuque partium eos constituentium,’ &c., Leyden, 
1718. It was also published at the same time in French. Between 
the years 1718 and 1722 he read several papers before the Academy 
of Sciences on the genera and species of the natural order Composite, 
which were very valuable contributions towards the elucidation of 
the structure of that difficult order of plants. He did not publish 
remarks on the foreign species of other orders, but Sir J. E. Smith 
states that the remarks in his Herbarium, preserved at Paris, “ display 
astonishing instances of his profound knowledge and acute judgment 
with respect to the genera, species, and synonymes of plants.” 

Vaillant had evidently during his life been preparing for some great 
work, but before he had arranged his materials he was attacked with 
the symptoms of pulmonary consumption, which obliged him to aban- 
don his design. There was one work however on which he had spent 
a great deal of time and labour, and which he was anxious to have 
published, and that was on the plants growing around Paris. ‘T'ourne- 
fort had, in his ‘ History of Plants which grow in the neighbourhood 
of Paris,’ attempted the same thing; but this was admitted to be the 
least successful of his efforts, and Vaillant obtained for his work the 
assistance of Aubriet, the first botanical draughtsman of the day, who 
had made upwards of 300 drawings: the descriptions of all the species 
were very carefully made, with an accurate account of the synonymes, 
in which Tournefort’s work was very deficient; and, in addition, he 
had also examined to some extent the cryptogamic plants. Finding 
that he could not publish this work before his death, he wrote to 
the celebrated Boerhaave, requesting that he would consent to publish 
it: a negociation was carried on between the two by means of our 
countryman Dr. William Sherard [Saerarp, WitrttAM], and ended in 
the consent of Boerhaave to publish the work. Vaillant, having been 


throne in s.D. 238, and having conquered Iberia, gave it to hisson — 


thus relieved of this last earthly anxiety, prepared composedly for his 
death, which took place on his birth-day, May 26, 1722. . 
The posthumous work, entitled ‘Botanicon Parisiense,’ was published _ 
at Leyden in 1727, forming a large folio with 33 plates, one f 
between 300 and 400 figures of plants. The figures are uncolo 3 
and the plants are arranged in an alphabetical manner. The definition — 
of the species is in Latin; the rest of the text is in French. rot 
Vaillant was a man of no ordinary talent and in ; 
botanical works display the accuracy and originality of his mind, and 
it is probable that had not his plans been too gigantic for his 
enfeebled constitution and the shortness of his life, he would have 
left behind him more abundant proofs of his genius. He began to 
tread in the path which was so successfully followed up by Linnwus; 
and his attempt at improving the nomenclature of botany is an — 
indication of his perception of the necessity of that change which was 
effected by the subsequent efforts of Linnzus. He was also one of those 
who, before the time of Linneus, distinctly taught and upheld the 
doctrine of the sexuality of plants. He has been sometimes censured 
for his attacks on Tournefort, but these were directed, not towards 
the man, for whom he entertained a profound regard, but towards — 
what he deemed his errors. When his friend and patron Fagon was — 
on his death-bed, Vaillant was unremitting in his attentions ny 
out a painful disease; and when pressed to receive a sinecure under 
government enjoyed by Fagon, as a reward for his attentions, he — 
refused. He left a widow, but no offspring. The genus Vaillantia of — 
De Candolle was named in honour of him. —_ 
(Bischoff, Lehrbuch der Botanik ; Haller, Bib. Bot.; Biog. Univ. ;— 
Sir J. E. Smith, in Rees’s Cyclopedia. oy 
VAILLANT, WALLERANT, a distinguished portrait painter, was — 
born at Lille in 1623, and was the pupil of Erasmus Quellinus, at 
Antwerp. He painted the portrait of the Emperor Leopold I. at — 
Frankfurt, and many of the people of his court. He su PS 
went with Marshal Grammont to Paris, and was there equally distin- 
guished by the French court. After having amassed considerable — 
riches he died at Amsterdam, in 1677. ‘= 
Vaillant was employed in 1656 at Brussels by Prince R to 
assist him in executing some plates in the new method of mezzotinto 
engraving then communicated to the Prince by Siegen [Smmern, Lup- — 
wic von}. As Vaillant is the first artist who engraved in this style, — 
his prints have more than ordinary interest. Among these are two 
portraits of Prince Rupert, one of which is inscribed—Prins Robbert, — 
vinder van de Swarte Prent Konst, which is one of the principal — 
causes of Siegen’s being so long deprived of the merit of his invention. 
Vaillant had four younger brothers, who were all painters or 
engravers and his pupils. 4 
VAKHTANG, the name of several kings of Georgia. rw 
VAKHTANG THE First, surnamed Goor Aslan, was, according to the — 
chronicles of Georgia, the thirty-third king of that country, and a 
descendant of Sapor the First, king of Persia, who ascended the — 


Mirian, who founded the third dynasty of Georgia. Vakhtang the — 
First died about the end of the 5theentury. He was a great warrior, — 
and extended the frontiers of his empire, and strengthened them by — 
the construction of many fortresses. The Georgian chronicles of - 
that period are however very uncertain, and contain much fable — 
mingled with truth. -— 

VAKHTANG THE SECOND, of the dynasty of Bagratides, ascended — 
the throne of his country in 1289, with the consent of the Mongols, 
whose dominion at that time extended over a great of Asia. He 
died after a reign of three years, regretted by his subjects on account — 
of his virtues. *~ 

VAKHTANG THE THIRD, of the same dynasty as the second of the — 
same name, ascended the throne in 1301. The Mongols wishing to — 
compel him and his nation to embrace Mohammedanism, he went to 
the court of the khan, in order to induce him to desist from his design — 
against the Christians of Georgia. He did not succeed in his object, — 
was imprisoned, and afterwards murdered in 1304. Heis revered as 


a martyr. . 
VakutTane THE Fourta belonged to the same dynasty as the — 
preceding. He succeeded his father, Alexander, who became a monk 


who governed them as his vassals, he assumed the title of 
kings. He died after a reign of three years, without issue, 

VAKHTANG THE Firru, king of Kartli, (one of the provinces into © 
which Georgia was divided) is also known under the name of Shah 
Nawaz, which he assumed on being obliged outwardly to conform to 
Mohammedanism. He ascended the throne in 1665. He lived al 
time in Persia, at the court of Shah Abbas the Second, with whom 
enjoyed great favour. This and other favourable circumstar 
enabled him to reunite under his dominion, with the approbation of — 
the Shah of Persia, the disjointed part of Georgia, and this country 
enjoyed under his rule a repose of which it had been long deprivec 
He died in 1676, having during his lifetime divided his domini : 
between his two sons. ol 

VaKHTANG THE SrxrH, the legislator of Georgia, and the grandson — 
of the preceding, ascended the throne of Kartli in 1703, after his 
brother Khosrew, who had become a Mohammedan, and rae the © 
lifetime of his father Leo, who was detained in Persia, Vakhtang 


in 1442. Having" granted several provinces to his younger brothers, — 


I 
| 
; 


983 VAKHUSTA, 


VALDES, JUAN. 264 


assumed the government in the name of his father, and went to the 
court of Persia in order to obtain the confirmation of his dignity. 
The Shah would not grant the confirmation, except on condition of 
Vakhtang embracing Mohammedanism, which having refused to do, 
he was imprisoned, and his brother Jesse, who complied with the 
condition, was put in his place. Jesse governed Kartli two years, 
during which it suffered from internal troubles and the inroads of the 
Lesghis. Vakhtang, who had been imprisoned all this time at 
Ispahan, resolved, in order to restore tranquillity to his country, out- 
wardly to conform to Mohammedanism. He thus conciliated the 
Shah, who nominated Vakhtang his sirdar, and appointed him 
governor of the province of Azerbijan, and sent his son Bakar to 
vern Kartli, whence Jesse, having abjured the Islam, had retired, 
Vakhtang remained seven years in Persia before he was permitted to 
return to his own country. His first care was to improve the laws 
and the state of religion. He therefore ‘assembled such learned men 
as he couid find, translated from the Greek the statutes of the Emperor 
- Leo the Philosopher, accommodated them to the regulations of dif- 
_ ferent Armenian and Georgian kings, added to them several of his 
own, and thus formed the code which is known by his name. He also 
undertook the printing of the Bible, which had been, as it is believed, 
q translated as early as the 4th century from the Greek into the 
_ Georgian, and corrected in the 11th by three Georgian princes, monks 
{ of the Iberian convent on Mount Athos, This version, being cor- 
rupted by successive copyists, required great emendations: the 
_ version of the books of the Ecclesiasticus and of the Maccabees had 
_ been entirely lost. These were however supplied before the printing 
was undertaken, by Vakhtang’s uncle, Archil, king of Imiritia, who, 
being expelled from his country, died in Russia. Vakhtang established 
at Tiflis a printing-press, and printed the Gospels, the Acts, the Psalms, 
and several liturgies and prayer-books; but the court of Persia, per- 
_ eeiving that Vakhtang, instead of following the Koran, promoted 
Christianity, sent an army against him. Vakhtang, after having 
_ defended himself for some time at Tiflis, was finally expelled; his 
_ printing establishment and all the published books which could be 
_ found were destroyed; and his brother Constantine, who had become 
a Mohammedan, was established in his place. Vakhtang called the 
Turks to his assistance, and submitted to the authority of the Sultan; 
but these protectors, having occupied the country, gave the throne to 
his brother Jesse, who again became a Mohammedan. 

In the invasions and wars between the Turks, Persians, and Af- 
ghans, three-fourths of the population of Georgia were destroyed; 
and Vakhtang, after having wandered a long time with his most 
faithful adherents in the mountains, sought protection from Peter the 
Great, who invited him to Russia. Vakhtang went to Russia, in 1725, 
with his family, five bishops, and many inferior clergy of Georgia. 
Peter had just died, but his successor, Catherine the First, granted 
Vakhtang a large pension and considerable estates. Vakhtang resided 
in Russia till 1734, but in that year he resolved to make an attempt to 
recover his dominions by the co-operation of the Shah of Persia. The 
_ empress Anna consented to Vakhtang’s project, but gave him in- 
. structions how to act in Persia, and in what manner he should induce 
7 the Georgians as well as the Caucasian highlanders to enter the 
_ Russian service, in order to bring about their entire submission to 
the authority of Russia. Vakhtang started for his diplomatic journey, 
in company with a Russian general, but fell ill on his way, and died at 
7 Astrakhan. His descendants exist to the present day in Russia under 
the name of the Georgian (Gruzinski) princes. 
Vakhtang the Sixth was a man of considerable talents and attain- 
_ ments, which is shown by his engaging in literary pursuits amidst all 

_ the troubles with which his life was agitated. He wrote the history of 
Kartli, which is considered to contain very important materials for the 
history of Georgia, and is known under the name of the ‘Chronicle of 
Vakhtang the Sixth.’ One manuscript copy of this chronicle exists at 
Rome, and another at St. Petersburg, in the Rumianzoff Museum. 
Des Guignes employed it for the names of the kings of Georgia in his 
‘Histoire des Huns,’ &c, It has been also mentioned by Guldenstadt 
and Klaproth. 

(Klaproth, Tableau du Caucase; Eneyclopedical Dictionary of St. 
Petersburg.) 
 VAKHUSTA, a natural son of Vakhtang the Sixth, king of Kartli 
_ (Georgia). He completed, with his brother, Prince Bakar, the printing 

of the Bible in Georgian, which had been only partly done by their 
_ father, Vakhtang the Sixth. He established for that purpose, in his 
house near Moscow, a printing-press, taught the art of printing to 
_ several Georgian clergymen, and completed the first edition of the 
| Bible in the language of his country in 1743. The printing-press was 
afterwards transferred to Moscow, where several religious works in 
__ Georgian were printed. Vakhusta wrote a history of Georgia, which 
still remains in manuscript. - 

VALCKENAER, LUDWIG KASPAR, a celebrated Dutch scholar, 
was born in 1715 at Leeuwarden in Friesland. He studied at Franeker, 
_ and although he had chosen philology as his department, he devoted 
_ considerable time to philosophy and theology. After the completion 
_ of his studies he was for a time master in a school, until, in 1741, he 
_ was appointed professor of Greek at Franeker, in the place of Hem- 
_ sterhuis. In 1755 he obtained the professorship of Greek and of 

archeology in the university of Leyden, which office he held until his 


Eee 


a 


eS ee 


death in the year 1785. The life of Valckenaer, like that of most 

scholars, presents few incidents worthy of note, and all that we ean 

say of him is that he was a very modest man, and contributed greatly 

to maintain the high reputation of the university of Leyden. He 

possessed a very extensive knowledge of all the matters connected with 

antiquity, but the department in which he excelled was his critical 

and grammatical knowledge of the Greek language; and what he has 

done in this respect, partly in his editions of Greek writers and partly 

in separate dissertations, has secured him a distinguished place among 

the illustrious scholars of his country. Among his editions of Greek 

authors, the following deserve especial notice:—1. The work of the 

grammarian Ammonius, ‘De Differentia adfinium Vocabulorum,’ to 

which are added some other ancient grammatical works, Leyden, 

4to, 1739 (reprinted with some additions at Leipzig, 8vo, 1822); 2, the 

‘Phoenissee’ of Euripides, with a very excellent commentary, the 
Greek scholia, and a Latin translation by H. Grotius, Franeker, 4to, 

1755 (reprinted at Leyden in 4to, 1802, and at Leipzig, 2 vols., 8vo, 

1824); 3, the ‘ Hippolytus’ of Euripides, with a Latin translation by 

Ratallerus, and notes by the editor, Leyden, 4to, 1768 (reprinted at 

Leipzig, 8vo, 1823); 4, the‘ Idyls’ of Theocritus, with a Latin version 

by Wetstein, Leyden, 8vo, 1773. The commentary, especially that on 

the idyl called the ‘ Adoniazusz,’ is fullof the most exquisite gramma- 

tical remarks. Valckenaer also wrote notes on other writers, such as 
Herodotus and Callimachus, which were inserted in the editions of 
others, Those on Herodotus are contained in the editions of Wessel- 
ing and Schweighaiiser. Among his separate treatises, his ‘ Diatribe 
in Euripidis Perditorum Dramatum Reliquias, which is contained in. 
his edition of the ‘ Hippolytus,’ was printed separately at Leipzig, 8vo, 

1824. This is one of the most masterly treatises. ever written on 
matters of antiquity, and should be studied by every scholar. His 
smaller essays were collected and published at Leipzig, in 2 vols. 

8vo, 1808. 

VALCKENAER, JAN, the only son of Ludwig Kaspar Valcknaer, 
was born at Leyden, 1759. He studied jurisprudence in the univer- 
sity of Leyden, and was afterwards appointed professor of the same 
department in the university of Franeker. His reputation as a dis- 
tinguished jurist, and still more his political sentiments, for he was 
one of the leaders of the anti-Orange party, procured him in 1787 the 
professorship of jurisprudence in the university of Utrecht. But in 
the same year the rights and claims of the hereditary Stadtholder of 
the Netherlands, William V., were victoriously established by the 
armed assistance of Prussia, and Valckenaer was obliged to quit 
Holland. The Dutch patriots, to whom Valekenaer belonged, were 
only intimidated, but not annihilated. They looked to France for 
support, and on the 6th of February 1793, Vaclkenger, together with 
other representatives of the patriots, presented himself at the bar of 
the National Assembly of France, and requested them to send an army 
into Holland to support the party of the patriots. In 1795 a French 
army under Pichegru made its appearance in the Netherlands, and 
Valckenaer returned to Holland and was appointed professor of public 
law in the university of Leyden. He now started a patriotic journal 
called ‘The Advocate of Batavian Liberty,’ which however did not last 
long, for in the beginning of the year 1796 he was sent as ambassador 
of the Batavian republic to Spain. He returned to Holland in 1799, 
but was sent again in the same year as minister plenipotentiary to the 
court of Madrid. He remained there till 1801, and after his return 
he withdrew for a time altogether from public life. But soon after 
he was sent on a special mission to Berlin, to settle some financial 
matters, which however had not the result which was anticipated. 
On the 16th of March 1810, Louis Napoleon, king of Holland, sent 
Valckenaer on a mission to Napoleon, to avert a rupture with the 
French emperor, and to prevent, if possible, the contemplated incor- 
poration of the Netherlands with France. A few months later Louis 
Napoleon abdicated, and the events which followed induced Valcke- 
naer to withdraw from public life. Hespent the remainder of his days 
in study and in the enjoyment of the company of a select circle of 
friends, partly at Amsterdam and partly at his country-seat near 
Haarlem, where he died on the 25th of January 1821, at the age of 
sixty-two. Valckenaer was an able politician and statesman, but he 
had the misfortune to see nearly all the plans for which he had 
struggled thwarted by the cireumstances of the time. He wrote 
several political pamphlets, which have been praised for the sound- 
ness of their arguments and the eloquence with which they are 
treated. 

VALDES, JUAN, or VALDESSO, GIOVANNI, a native of Spain, 
studied law, was employed in several missions by the emperor 
Charles V., and appears to have lived to an advanced age in retire- 
ment at Naples. He died in 1640, He carried from Germany to 
Italy several works of Melanchthon and other reformers, and adopted 
several opinions condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, to which 
he converted some of his familiar friends. Neither Valdes nor any 
of his disciples during his life separated themselves from the Roman 
communion; and he remained unmolested on account of his opinions, 
although they appear to have been generally known. A similar spirit 
of negative or latent heresy prevailed at the same time in different 
parts of Italy, in Piedmont, at Bologna, Padua, and Vicenza. In 
1542 the Italian governments, especially that of Naples, took the 
alarm, and the friends of Valdes were obliged to fly or recant. Valdes 


255 VALENS, ABURNUS. 


VALENTINIAN I., FLAVIUS. 


has been claimed by the Socinians, but it is difficult from the few 
works attributed to him, and published after his death, to glean what 
his doctrinal opinions really were. That which was published at 
Basel in 1550, with the title ‘Le cento dieci Considerazioni del 8. 
Giovanni Valdesso, nelle quali si ragiona delle Cose piu utili, piu 
necessarii, e piu perfette della Cristiana Professione,’ consists of com- 
mentaries on the gospels of St. Matthew and St. John, the Epistle to 
the Romans, and the Epistle to the Corinthians. It is exclusively 
practical. Bayle attributes to Valdes two dialogues printed at Venice 
without date or author’s name, which, judging from their titles, must 
be rather historical than polemical. 

VALENS, ABURNUS, a Roman jurist, whose age is partly deter- 
mined by the fact that he cites Javolenus and Julianus (Dig. 4, tit. 4, 
s. 83), from which we may conclude that he was younger than both. 
He is called Aburnius in the Florentine Pandect. He was a Sabinian, 
as appears by his being placed by Pomponius among the followers of 
Javolenus. It appears that he was living under Antoninus Pius 
(Capitol., ‘Pius,’ 12), though, as the text of Capitolinus stands, he is 
called Salvius Valens, His complete name may have been Salvius 
Aburnus Valens; or Salvius in this passage may be separated from 
Valens and may mean Salvius Julianus. But there is a rescript of 
Pius (Dig. 48, tit. 2, s. 7, § 2) addressed to Salvius Valens, 

Valens wrote seven books on Fideicommissa, from which there are 
excerpts in the Digest; and there is also in the Digest a passage from 
the seventh book of a work on Actiones. Valens is mentioned by 
Pomponius, and cited several times by Paulus (Dig. 4, tit. 4, s. 33). 

VALENS, FLA’VIUS, emperor of Constantinople, reigned from 
A.D. 364 to 378. He was a brother of Flavius Valentinian, who, after 
being proclaimed emperor in 364, made Valens his colleague, and gave 
to him the government of the Eastern empire, and Constantinople as 
his capital. The year after his accession, while he was staying at 
Cesarea in Syria, he received intelligence of a rebellion, which was 
headed by Procopius, a Cilician, who assumed the purple at Constan- 
tinople. Valens himself was in despair at the news, and would have 
resigned himself to his fate, but the courage and resolution of his gene- 
rals saved him; and in the two engagements of Thyatira and Nacosia, 
Procopius was deserted by his troops and conducted by some of his 
own followers to the camp of the enemy, where he was immediately 
beheaded, 366. The year after this victory Valens marched with an 
army across the Danube against the Goths, who had supported the 
usurper Procopius. During the war which now ensued, and lasted for 
upwards of two years, the Goths acted on the defensive. In the third 
year the Goths suffered a great defeat, and Athanaric, the judge of 
the Visigoths, sued for peace and obtained it, a.p. 369. Valens 
returned to Constantinople in triumph. About the same time he was 
threatened with a war by Persia, but he confined himself to the pro- 
tection of Armenia, without letting matters come to an openwar. His 

~empire now enjoyed peace for several years, during which some wise 
regulations in the administration and legislation were made, In 375 
his brother Valentinian died, and Valens was thus deprived of a wise 
adviser at a time when he was most in need of him. In the year 
following the Huns entered Europe from Asia, and after having 
subdued the Alani, pressed upon the Goths north of the Danube, 
some of whom were likewise subdued. About 200,000 Visigoths took 
refuge in the Roman territory as suppliants, and obtained permission 
to settle in it. They were soon followed by hosts of Geuthrungi, or 
Ostrogoths, who crossed the Danube without having asked the per- 
mission of the Romans. The Goths soon found themselves exposed 
to all kinds of vexations from the Roman officers: in consequence of 
which a part of them, headed by Fritigern, took up arms, defeated 
the Romans near Marcianopolis, and began ravaging the country. 
Valens had been staying during the last years at Antioch, watching 
the proceedings of the Persians, and was still there when these events 
occurred. Two generals whom he sent to Pannonia, was unable to 
effect anything against the Goths, Fritigern secured the assistance of 
the cavalry of the Huns and the Alani, and at last Valens himself 
hastened with an army of veterans from Syria against the Goths. A 
slight advantage gained by his general Sebastianus emboldened him so 
much that he hastened to fight a decisive battle in the neighbourhood 
of Adrianople before the emperor of the West could come to his 
assistance. The victory of the Goths on that memorable day in a.p. 
378 was so complete, that scarcely the third part of the Roman army 
escaped. Valens himself was wounded and carried to his tent, which, 
according to some accounts, was set on fire by the barbarians, and the 
emperor ended his life in the flames, { 


Coin of Valens. 
British Museum. Actual size. 


Valens, who at the time of his elevation was in his thirty-sixth year, 


was a man of a passionate and also of a cruel character, and always 
lent a ready ear to informers. Most of the noble acts of his reign, 
such as his legislative measures, the establishment of schools, saan ‘ 
reduction of taxes, were owing partly to the influence of his brother, 
to whom he was sincerely attached, and partly to the wisdom and 
virtue of his preefect Sallust. During the first year of his reign 
he imitated the toleration of his brother; but after he had received — 
baptism at the hands of the Arian bishop Eudoxus, he adopted his 
theological views, and persecuted those who differed from him, 
(Ammianus Marcellinus, xxvi.-xxxi.; Aurelius Victor, Epitome, 46; _ 
Orosius, vii, 32; Sozomen, vi. 8: compare Gibbon, Decline and Fall, 
chaps. 25, 26.) i 
VALENTIN, MOISE, a French painter of great ability, was born 
at Coulomiers, in Brie, in 1600. Writers differ as to the Christian 
name of Valentin; some call him Moses, and others Peter. He was — 
first educated in the school of Vouet; he afterwards visited Italy, — 
and adopted the style of Michel Angelo Caravaggio, in which he 
painted several admirable pictures, and he became one of the best of the — 
‘naturalisti, or followers of Caravaggio, at Rome, although he diedin 
1632, aged only thirty-two. Valentin died of a fever in consequence ~ 
of taking a cold bath on a hot summer's evening, after smoking and — 
drinking wine to excess. Cardinal Francesco Barberini, nephew of 
Pope Urban VIIL, was a great patron to Valentin, and employed him — 
to paint several pictures for him, a Death of John the Baptist, and — 
others: it was also through his interest that Valentin was com- — 
missioned to paint an altar-piece for St. Peter’s, of the Martyrdom of — 
SS. Processo and Martiniano. There is also in the Corsini palace an 
excellent picture by him of the Denial by Peter. He did not often — 
paint religious subjects: his favourite pictures were scenes from 
common life, as soldiers playing at cards, fortune-tellers, concerts, 
and tavern scenes, &c. He painted with ease and rapidity, eb : 
from nature, had a light touch, and coloured well and forcibly, but — 
his drawing is often incorrect, aud his forms are vulgar. There 
are eleven pieces by Valentin in the Louvre at Paris, but his 
works are not numerous: several of them have been engraved. N. 
oi and Valentin were contemporaries at Rome, and were great 
riends, q 
VALENTINIAN I, FLA’VIUS, a Roman emperor, who reigned — 
from a.D. 364 to 375. He wasason of Count Gratian, and a native — 
of Cibalis in Pannonia. He distinguished himself as a gallant warrior — 
in various campaigns; his mind was uncorrupted by the sophistries of — 
the age, and his body was strong and healthy. After the death of 
Jovian in 364, Valentinian, then at the age of forty-three, was pro- — 
claimed emperor at Nicwa, although he himself was absent at Ancyra, 
and had never employed any means for the purpose of raising himself — 
to that high station. Shortly after his accession he divided the 
empire between himself and his brother Valens, reserving for himself 
the western portion. [VaLEns, FLavius.] The frontiers of the empire — 
were successively exposed to great danger during his reign. The 
Alemanni and Burgundians penetrated into Gaul from tke east, the 
Franks from the north, and the Saxons made inroads from the sea. — 
The Picts and Scots pressed forward from the north, and ray; the 
province of Britain. Valentinian chose Paris as the central point for 
his operations against the barbarians, and through his general, Jovinus, _ 
he gained a great victory over the Alemanni in 366. The year following — 
he was attacked by a dangerous illness, and on his recovery he raised _ , 
his son Gratian to the rank of Augustus. Britain was in the mean- 
time delivered from the inroads of the Picts and Scots by Count 
Theodosius, who recovered the country as far as the wall of Anto- 
ninus. In 368 the Alemanni renewed their attacks upon eastern Gaul, _ 
and plundered Moguntiacum (Mainz); but Valentinian drove them — 
back, crossed the Rhine, and defeated them in their own country, near 
Solicinum (Schmetzingen or Sulzbach), and as they retreated into their __ 
forests the emperor re-crossed the Rhine and took up his residence at _ 
Treves. With the view of securing the eastern frontier of Gaul against 
further inroads of the neighbouring Germans, Valentinian built a line 
of fortifications along the banks of the Rhine, and a bridge of boats — 
on the Rhine at Moguntiacum, Peace was also concluded with Macri- 
anus, king of the Alemanni, and security on that side was for the — 
present firmly established. The Saxons, in one of the : 
inroads on the coast of Gaul, were likewise defeated, and all who fell _ 
into the hands of the Romans were cut to pieces. After these 
victories and the establishment of peace, Valentinian celebrated a — 
splendid triumph at Treves, and the orator Q. Aurelius § chus — 
proclaimed the valour and enterprising spirit of the emperor. Theo- 
dosius, who after the recovery of Britain had been raised to the rank — 
of magister equitum, was sent, in 372, into Africa, where Firmus had 
revolted and set himself up as an independent prince. Firmus was 
conquered by Theodosius, and reduced to such extremities thes here 
an end to his own life, in 373. While peace was thus res’ r 
Africa, the Quadi and Sarmate rose in arms and invaded Pannonia. 
Valentinian himself set out from Treves at the head of his army, 
drove the barbarians across the Danube, and pursued them into Hun- — 
gary. He ravaged the country, and put to death all the Quadiwho 
fell into his hands. The barbarians desparing of success, sent ambas- __ 
sadors to the emperor to sue for pardon and peace. Valentinian, who — 
was staying at Bregetio when they arrived, poured out against them — 
all his indignation. During this excitement he broke a blood-vessel _ 


a 


jh. 


VALENTINIAN II., FLAVIUS. 


VALERIANUS, PUBLIUS LICINIUS. 258 


_ and was choked, a.p. 875. Valentinian was a man of sober and tem- 
_ perate habits, and observed a general toleration towards persons of 
_ all creeds, without however entertaining any indifference or contempt 
_ for the Christian religion. But he was of a passionate character, 
which often led him to acts of cruelty. The condition of his sub- 
jects, a of Italy in particular, was greatly improved by his wise 
, tg ion. 

> (Ammian. Marcellin, xxvi.-xxx.; Zosimus, iii. 36, &., iv. 1, &e.; S. 


_ Aurelius Victor, Epitome, 45: compare Gibbon, Decline and Fall, 


_ chap. 25.) 
ri VALENTINIAN IL, FLA’VIUS, also called Valentinian the 
Youn r, was a son of Valentinian I. by his wife Justina, and was 
only four years old at the time when his father died. Gratian, who 
_ had been raised to the rank of Augustus in 367, succeeded Valen- 
 tinian I. in 375, and made his brother, Valentinian: the Younger, his 
colleague in the government of the empire, assigning to him the 
eae of Italy and the western part of Illyricum. His mother 
_dustina was to reign in his name until he should become of age. 
Gratian was greatly attached to young Valentinian, but his govern- 
_ Ment was more nominal than real, since Gratian in fact governed the 
whole of the western empire. The education of Valentinian was left 
_ to his mother, who, being an Arian, endeavoured to instil the same 
pee pione into the mind of her son. Their residence was at Milan, and 
when Justina requested the archbishop Ambrose to assign a church 
_ for the use of herself and her son, that they might exercise divine 
worship according to the Arian forms, Ambrose strenuously refused 
to comply with her request. This gave rise to tumults at Milan, in 
which the life of the young emperor himself was endangered. The 
_ court however was at last obliged to give way to the archbishop ; but 
_ an edict was promulgated in the name of the emperor, which granted 
the free exercise of religion to all Christians, which again created 
_ great disturbances. [AmBrosius, St.] Maximus, who after the death 
of Gratian in 388, had been recognised as the lawful sovereign of Gaul, 
Spain, and Britain, on condition that he should leave Valentinian 
_ unmolested in the government of Italy, was tempted by the religious 
_ disputes in Italy to make himself master of that country also; and 
_ while he feigned a faithful attachment to Valentinian, he invaded 
Italy. The affrighted Justina fled with her two children, Valentinian 
_.and Galla, to Thessalonica, to implore the protection of Theodosius. 
The usurper was conquered, and Valentinian was restored to his 
throne in 389. (TuEopostus.] Justina did not long survive this event, 
and after her death Valentinian gave up his Arian heresies, and 
thus gained the attachment and admiration of his subjects. Peace 
_ was thus restored in Italy, but another usurper arose in Gaul. 
_ Count Arbogastes strove to gain the sovereignty of the West. Valen. 
_ tinian allowed himself to be persuaded to go himself to Gaul in 392. 
While staying at Vienne, in the midst of his secret enemies, he 
ventured to oppose the arrogance of Arbogastes, and a few days after- 
_ wards, on the 15th of May 392, he was found strangled in his own 
_ apartment. His body was conveyed to Milan, and the funeral oration 
_ which Ambrose delivered over it is still extant. 


— 


Coin of Valentinian II. 
British Museum. Actual size. 


® (Paul. Diacon., ii.; Pomponius Laet. in Valent.; Orosius, vii. 35 ; 
_ §. Aurelius Victor, Zpitome, 48: compare Gibbon, Decline and Fall, 


_ chap. 27.) ‘ 
, VALENTINIAN IIL, PLACI/DIUS, a Roman emperor, son of 
Constantius by Galla Placidia. In 425, when he was only a boy of six 
years, his uncle Theodosius II. raised him to the rank of Augustus, 
and assigned to him the western portion of the empire, which his 
mother Placidia was to govern in his name. She was little fit for 
such a task, and the contemptible character which her son afterwards 
displayed was probably the result of the dissolute manner in which 
_ she brought him up. Her two generals, Aétius and Bonifacius, who 
_have justly been called the last of the Romans, might yet have saved 
_ the sinking empire had they acted in concord, but the enmity between 
_ them hastened its downfall. Gaul was constantly invaded by fresh 
hosts of barbarians, but Aétius compelled them to sue for peace. 
_ Africa, where Bonifacius had the command, was lost, and fell into the 
hands of Genseric, king of the Vandals. In 437, Valentinian went to 
Constantinople, and married Eudoxia, the daughter of Theodosius II, 
and Eudocia. When he had reached the age at which he might at 
st have taken a part in the administration of his empire, he passed 
time in acts of wanton cruelty and debauchery, leaving the ad- 
nistration in the hands of his mother, and the conduct of the wars 
his generals. After the death of Theodosius II., in whose reign the 
Eastern empire had been ravaged and ransacked by the Huns, Attila, 

BIOG. DIV, VOL. VI. 


their king, invaded Gaul and destroyed many of the most flourishing 
cities. But in 451 they were defeated in the plains of Chélons by 
Aétius, and driven back across the Rhine. In the year following how- 
ever they invaded Italy, and, as Aétius had not sufficient troops to 
meet them in a decisive battle, the freedom of Italy was purchased by 
humiliation and great sacrifices. The greatness of Aétius had long 
nourished the secret envy and jealousy of the impotent Valentinian, 
and in 454 he assassinated him with his own hand. But the emperor 
himeelf did not long survive this atrocious act: on the 16th of March, 
455, he was murdered by the patrician Petronius Maximus, whose 
wife had been violated by Valentinian, and who now usurped the 
throne of the West. 


Coin of Valentinian IIT. 
British Museum, Actual size. 


(Paul. Diacon., v.; Pomponius Laet. in Valent.: compare Gibbon, 
Decline and Fall, chaps. 33 and 85.) 

VALERIA’NUS, PU’BLIUS LICI’NIUS, a Roman emperor, who 
reigned from a.D. 253 till 260. He was a Roman by birth, and 
descended of a noble family. He rose gradually from one office to 
another, and at the time when Decius was carrying on the war against 
the Goths, Valerianus held a distinguished post in his armies. In 251 
Decius, in his desire to revive the ancient political virtue of the 
Romans, conceived the idea of restoring the censorship, which had 
been extinct since the days of Titus and Vespasian. The election 
was left to the senate, and the senators unanimously elected Valerianus 
as the most worthy. A speech, in which the emperor Decius is said 
to have announced to Valerianus his elevation to the censorship, and 
described to him the powers it conferred upon him, is preserved in 
Trebellius Pollio’s history of Valerianus (c. 2). Valerianus urged his 
incapacity to perform the arduous duties of such an office; and while 
the negociations were still going on a new war with the Goths broke 
out, and the censorship of Valerianus remained a mere title, as Decius 
and his generals had to use all their energy against the enemy. In 
253, when Gallus was murdered by A.milianvs, Valerianus had the 
command of the legions in Gaul and Germany, and with them he 
hastened to Italy to avenge the death of his sovereign. A milianus 
however was put to death by his own soldiers in the plains of Spoleto, 
before Valerianus had time to strike a blow, and Valerianus was called 
to the imperial throne by the unanimous voice of the Roman world. 
His mild and unblemished character, his prudence, experience, and 
learning, inspired both the senate and the people with confidence. 
The Roman empire was threatened at that time by formidable enemies 
on all sides, and required the emperor to be an energetic general as 
well asa wise ruler. Valerianus, who on his accession was at least 
sixty years of age, immediately appointed his son Gallienus his col- 
league in the empire. This choice was very unhappy; for Gallienus 
was an effeminate and careless man, and the whole period of their 
joint reign was a series of calamities, interrupted only by one great 
victory of Postumus, a general of Gallienus, over the Franks, in 256, 
while his master was revelling in the pleasures of his court at Treves. 
Some German tribes ravaged Gaul and Spain, while the Goths crossed 
the Danube and invaded the countries south of that river. At the 
same time, Sapor I., king of Persia, who had already made himself 
master of Armenia, disturbed the peace of the eastern provinces. 
Notwithstanding his advanced age, Valerianus left the care of the 
northern provinces to his generals, and marched in person against the 
Persians. He crossed the Euphrates, and met his enemy in the neigh- 
bourhood of Edessa. The Romans were vanquished, and the treachery 
of Macrianus, the prafectus pretorio, delivered Valerianus into the 
hands of Sapor in 260. The Roman soldiers laid down their arms, 
and Sapor himself filled the vacant throne of the empire with one 
Cyriades of Antioch, who received the acclamations of the army. In 
order to gain the favour of his conqueror, Valerianus betrayed his 
own country, and conducted Sapor to Antioch, which was taken by 
surprise and destroyed, and Syria and Cilicia fell into the hands of 
the victor. But notwithstanding this, Valerianus was dragged about 
by Sapor as a slave, dressed in the imperial purple, and treated in the 
most humiliating manner. It is related that whenever Sapor mounted 
his horse, Valerianus had to kneel down and serve as a stepping-stone 
to his master. Valerianus soon sank under the weight of grief and 
shame : after his death his body was flayed, his skin was stuffed with 
straw, and set up in a temple in Persia as a monument of Sapor's 
victory. 

Valerianus deserves both the praise and censure which have been 
bestowed upon him: he was a well-meaning but feeble governor. In 
his conduct towards the Christians he was at first mild and tolerant, 
but during the latter half of his reign the influence of Macrianus, a 


zealous upholder of paganism, induced Valerianus to begin “ bitter a 


259 VALERIUS ANTIAS, QUINTUS. 


VALLA, LORENZO, 


persecution of the Christians as that which had taken place in the 
reign of Decius, 


Coin of Valerianus, 
British Museum, Actual size: 


(Trebellius Pollio, Valerianus; 8. Aurel. Victor, Hpitome, c. 32's 
Eutropius, ix. 6; Zonaras, xii., p. 625 ; Eusebius, Hist, Hecles., vii. 10: 
compare Gibbon, History of the Decline and Fall, c, x.) 

VALE’RIUS A’/NTIAS, QUINTUS, or Valerius of Antium, wrote 
Annals of Rome from the foundation of the city to about the time of 
Sulla, in 45 books at least. Gellius (vii. 9) mentions the 45th book. 
He is often cited by Livy; but Livy used his Annals with caution, and 
observes on his exaggerations in numbers, 

VALE’RIUS FLACCUS. [Ftaccus, Catus VALERIUS.] 

VALE/RIUS MA‘XIMUS was, according to an anonymous Latin 
life of him, of a Patrician family, and of the Gens Valeria: on his 
mother's side he belonged, according to the same authority, to the 
Gens Fabia, and from these two families derived his name of Valerius 
Maximus. But this account of the origin of the name Maximus may 
be safely rejected. The anonymous Life states that Valerius Maximus 
spent his youth and part of his early manhood in improving himself 
by education: he afterwards served in the army, and accompanied 
Sextus Pompeius to Asia. This last circumstance is confirmed by 
Valerius (ii. c. 6) in a passage in which he speaks of Sextus Pompeius 
and himself witnessing in the island of Ceos the death of an old 
woman, who, being weary of life, determined to die by poison, and 
invited Pompey to be present on the occasion. This Sextus Pompeius 
was consul in A.D. 14, the year in which Augustus died, and seems to 
have been afterwards proconsul of Asia, and to have had Valerius 
Maximus among his comites. Nothing more is known of Valerius. 

Valerius Maximus is the author of a work in nine books, entitled 
‘Exemplorum Memorabilium Libri Novem ad Tiberium Cesarem 
Augustum.’ It is dedicated to the emperor Tiberius Cesar Augustus, 
who is eulogised as the patron of all virtues and the enemy of vice. 
It is concluded from a passage in the ninth book (c. 11) that this 
work was written after the downfall of Sejanus, who appears to be 
clearly pointed at in this passage, though his name is not mentioned. 
The work of Valerius consists of short stories and anecdotes, taken 
from various writers. The chapters into which each book is divided 
have their appropriate headings, under which the subdivisions of each 
chapter are arranged: such as (lib. i.) ‘on religion,’ ‘on simulated 
religion,’ ‘ on foreign religion rejected,’ ‘on auspices,’ ‘on omens,’ ‘on 
prodigies,’ ‘on dreams,’ ‘on miraculous things ;’ (lib. ix.), ‘on luxury 
and lust,’ ‘on cruelty,’ ‘on anger and hatred,’ and soon. Each head 
is illustrated by examples. This collection has some value, as the 
author has preserved many facts which would be otherwise unknown ; 
but his want of judgment renders his statements doubtful when they 
cannot be confirmed by other authority. He was not critically 
acquainted with the history and constitution of his own country, and 
- accordingly his work should be used with caution. A singular blunder 
of his is pointed out by Savigny (‘Das Recht des Besitzes,’ p. 175, 
5th ed.), The style of Valerius Maximus is totally devoid of all 
merit: it falls so far below the best writers of his age, that some 
critics have, on this ground alone, in opposition to the evidence 
already given, assigned him toa much later period. Julius Paris, a 
writer of uncertain date, epitomised the work of Valerius; and this 
epitome, which has been published by Mai, varies somewhat from the 
present text of Valerius both as to matter and expression. There is 
also an epitome by Januarius Nepotianus; and another, which was 
made at the close of the 15th century, by J. Honorius. 

There is appended to the work of Valerius in its present form a 
fragment of a work, entitled ‘De Nominibus, Prenominibus, Cogno- 
minibus, Agnominibus,’ which is on a different subject from the other 
nine books. It professes to be an epitome or compendium by the 
same Julius Paris. This is clearly an extract from some other work 
than that of Valerius Maximus, and it has been conjectured that it is 
an extract from the ‘Annales’ of Valerius of Antium; but on what 
this conjecture is founded is not clear. 

The first edition of Valerius Maximus was printed at Strasbourg 
about 1470. Subsequent editions are numerous. One of the best is 
by A. Torrenius, 4to, Leyden, 1726; the latest is by C. Kempfius, 
8vo, Berol., 1854. Valerius Maximus has been translated into most 
European languages. There is an English version by Speed, 8vo, 
London, 1678. ‘The epitome of Julius Paris was published by Mai, in 
his ‘Seriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio,’ 4to, Rome, 1828, vol. iii., 
which also contains the epitome of Januarius Nepotianus. 

(Vossius, De Historicis Latinis; Biihr, Geschichte der Rimischen 
Literatu.) 


VALE’RIUS POPLI/COLA. [Pusticora.] 

VALE’RIUS PROBUS, MARCUS, a Roman grammarian, who ig 
living in the time of Nero, was a native of Berytus in Syria. He 
served originally in the army, but afterwards betook himself to study. 
Having formed a taste for verbal criticism, he applied himself to the 
emendation of authors and to annotations on hati A short time 
before his death he made an emendation of the following passage of 
Sallust :—* Satis eloquentiw, sapientiea parum;’ ( 
‘loquentiz ’ for ‘eloquentia.’ He was perfectly satisfied of the truth 
of this emendation, and gave a reason for it. (Gellius, i. 15.) Accord- 
ing to Gellius, he also wrote on the accent of certain Punic words, and 
on the secret meaning of the letters or symbols in the Epistles of 
C. Julius Cesar to C. Oppius and Balbus Cornelius. This Vale: 


Probus may be the grammarian of the same name who is often cited — 


in the Scholia on Terence, and also the author of Scholia on Virgil's 
‘ Georgics’ and * Bucolies.’ 
The work entitled ‘De Interpretandis Notis Romanorum’ is not 


that to which Gellius refers, for the work mentioned by Gellius was 


on secret writing, whereas this is on abbreviated writing, or steno- 
graphy. There are several editions of this work. One of the best is 


by Lindebrog, 8vo, Leyden, 1599. The two books ‘ Institutionum x 


Grammaticarum,’ which bear the name of Valerius Probus, are also 
supposed to be by another and a later writer. They were edited 
Lindemann, in his ‘Corpus Grammaticorum Latinorum,’ 4to, Leip: 


1831. . 


(Suetonius, De Illustribus Grammaticis ; Bahr, Geschichte der Rémi- 
schen Literatur.) 
VALESIUS. [Vators, H. Dz.] 


VALLA, LORENZO, one of the most distinguished Latin scholars 


of the 15th century, was born at Rome, according to Drakenboreh, in 


1407, but according to others five years later. He was the son of an 


eminent lawyer, was educated at Rome, and became acquainted with 


the Greek language under the tuition of Aurispa, rg the . 7 
with-— 


troubles consequent upon the death of Pope Martin V., Vi 


drew from Rome, and was engaged for a time in teaching rhetoric at 


Pavia and Milan. In 1435 he went to Naples, where he continued the 
same occupation, and gained the friendship of King Alfonso I. of 
Naples. He is said to have instructed the king in the Latin langua 

Valla and Beceadelli used to read to the king during dinner the works 
of the ancients, and especially Livy’s Roman History, and to converse 


with the king about the subjects which were read. While at Naples, — 


Valla began by his writings to show his talent as a critic and a scholar. 
The freedom with which he treated Livy, and the fearless manner in 
which he attacked historical and theological errors, drew upon hi 
the enmity of contempotfary scholars and theologians; for to dou 


the accuracy of Livy’s statements was regarded in those times asa 


kind of heresy. After having spent some years at Naples he went to 
Rome, and became a canon of St. John in the Lateran. But his 
heresies endangered his safety ; and after some time he was compelled, 
by the command of the pope, to quit Rome. Valla returned to 
Naples, where Alfonso, as before, gave him protection against his 
enemies, and in 1443 the king appointed him his private secretary. 
The number of his enemies, among whom we may mention Beccadelli, 


a 


in which he read 4 


q 


La 
7 


* 


4 
= 


Facius, and Poggio, was increased by the bitterness with which Valla — 


inveighed against them; and a theological dispute, in which he 
became involved at Naples, had the most serious consequences for 
him: he was summoned by the Archbishop of Naples before an 


assembly of all the clergy of the city, and condemned to be burnt — 


alive. Valla evaded the execution by declaring that he believed 
everything which the Church required, until Alfonso had time to 
rescue him. Poggio relates that he was scourged round a convent at 
Naples, and then expelled from Naples. This story is believed to be 


a malicious fabrication of Poggio; but however this may be, Valla left 
and the — 


Naples and went to Rome to justify himself before the Pope 


cardinals, and he succeeded so well that Pope Nicholas V. not ¢ 


treated him with great distinction, but appointed him professor of 


rhetoric with a handsome salary He was also restored to his place as 


canon of St. John in the Lateran, and was at last raised to the office” 
of secretary to the pope. He died at Rome in 1457, or, acco ; ta 
others, in 1465, and was buried in the church of which he had bee 
a canon, where his tombstone still remains. 
removed from the church, but Niebuhr discovered it and caused it to 


be restored. 
Valla was the ablest Latin scholar of his time. He was the first 


— 


It had at one time been 


who read the ancient writers in a true critical spirit. He was also — 


the first who pointed out inconsistencies in Livy, for which he was 


bitterly persecuted by Poggio and Morandus of Bologna. The con- — 


troversies which were carried on between him and his antagonists are” 
almost unequalled in the history of literature for their bitterness: 


they are full of the most vehement invectives and slanderous imputa- 


tions. Valla’s works are partly historical, partly War A 


critical: after his death two collections of them were publish 


at Venice in 1492, and a more complete one at Basel in 1540. Those 


a 


works which deserve especial mention are his ‘Elegantiz Sermonis 


Latini, which has often been printed, and is still very useful; his 
‘Note in Novum Testamentum, sive de Collatione Novi Testamenti,’ 
in two books ; and his Commentaries on Livy and Sallust. Vi 


+ 


also translated into Latin the Fables of Ausop, Homer’s liad, Thucy- 


261 VALLE, PIETRO DELLA. 


VALMONT DE BOMARE, J. C. 262 


dides, and Herodotus. The last translation was incomplete when he 
died, and was finished by Pontanus. His translations have been 
severely censured by modern critics for their carelessness and inaccu- 
racy, but it must be borne in mind that many of their deficiencies may 
not have risen altogether from his imperfect knowledge of Greek or 
carelessness, but also from the bad manuscripts which he used. 

The biography of Valla involves many difficulties, which partly 

_ arise from the false or exaggerated accounts of his enemies. A minute 
and critical history of the life of Valla is given by Drakenborch, in 
the seventh volume of his edition of Livy. Compare also Hodius, 
De Gracis Illustribus, p. 104, &c. ; Vossius, De Histor, Lat., p. 579, &e.; 
Fabricius, Bibliotheca Latina Medie et Infime tat. under ‘ Valla,’ 
where a complete list of his works is given; Bayle, Dictionnaire 

_ Historique et Critique, under ‘ Valla.’ 

_ VALLE, PIETRO DELLA, surnamed II Pellegrino, a traveller of 
the 17th century, was born at Rome on the 2nd of April 1586. Pos- 
sessed of an independent fortune, he spent his youth in literary pur- 
suits; his verses procured him admission into the academy of the 
Umoristi. The expectation of a war created by the disturbances 
which followed the death of Henry IV., induced Della Valle to turn 
soldier. He does not appear however to have seen any land service 
at that time, and of a cruise which he made off the coasts of Barbary 
in a Spanish fleet in 1611, he says himself that they had only scuffles, 
not battles. 

An unsuccessful love affair, in which he was engaged on his return 
Rome, drove him to Naples to consult his friend Mario Schipano, 
ut a project he had formed to visit the Holy Land. At Naples he 

took upon him the habit, and made a vow always to bear the name, 

E of a pilgrim. He embarked at Venice on the 8th of June, 1614, and 

continued an unsettled traveller till 1626. He first bent his course 
to Constantinople, which he reached on the 15th of August; he 

__ remained there till the 25th of September 1615. From Constantinople 

____ he proceeded by way of Rhodes and Alexandria to Cairo. Leaving 

| 

: 


———— 


' Cairo on the 8th of March 1616, he travelled by land to Aleppo and 
Baghdad, where he fell in love with Maani Gioerida, a young Chaldean, 
a native of Mardin, whence her parents had been driven by the Kurds, 
and married her. Della Valle carried his wife into Persia, where he 
was favourably received by Shah Abbas. He remained in Persia six 
years (January 1617, to January 1623), during which time he visited, 
in the suite of the king, Ispahan, the Caspian provinces, and Azer- 
bijan. Heserved in a war between Persia and the Porte, and endea- 
voured to procure some amelioration of the condition of Christians 
in Persia. In December, 1621, his wife died: he had her corpse 
embalmed, intending to carry it to Rome with bim. In the beginning 
. Of 1623 he sailed from Gambroon to Surat: he remained in India till 
the close of 1624. He returned by Muscat to Basrah, traversed the 
desert to Aleppo, and visiting Cyprus, Malta, Sicily, and Naples by 
the way, he arrived at Rome on the 28th of March 1626. Here Della 
Valle deposited the body of his wife in the tomb of his ancestors, on 
_ the 23rd of May 1627: he pronounced a funeral oration over her, in 
the delivery of which he was interrupted by his tears. Some authors 
a0, that his audience sympathised with him; others that they laughed 

at him. 

‘Urban VIII., to whom Della Valle presented a memoir on the con- 
dition of Georgia, appointed him an honorary gentleman of his bed- 
chamber. Soon after he buried his first wife, Della Valle married a 

_- young relation of hers who had accompanied him on his travels. 
Having in a violent access of anger killed a coachman on the Place of 
_  8t. Peter, while the pope was in the act of pronouncing the benediction, 
Della Valle was banished from Rome, but soon obtained a pardon and 
leave to return. He died on the 20th of April 1652. 
Della Valle caused to be printed in 1627, but did not publish, the 
___ oration which he pronounced over his wife’s body at the funeral cere- 
mony. In 1628 he caused to be printed at Venice an account of Shah 
Abbas, which Bellori (1662) says was not published: a French trans- 
lation of this work appeared at Paris in 1631. Della Valle published in 
: 1641, ‘ Di tre nuove Maniere di Verso sdrucciolo, Discorso di Pietro 
della Valle nell’ Academia degli Umoristi il Fantastico, detta nella 
___ stessa, a’ 20 di Novembre, 1633.’ In 1650 he published the first part of 
the letters written to his friend Schipano m the course of his travels : 
_ this first part was contained in one 4to volume, and brought down the 
narrative to the time of his marriage with Maani Gioeride. The 
letters relating to Persia were published after his death, in 1659, in 
two volumes: the third part—his Indian travels and his return to 
_ Rome—were published in 1662. This work has been translated into 
French, Dutch, and German ; an English translation of the last part 
was published in 1665. The memoir on Georgia presented to 
Urban VIII. was inserted by Thévénot in the first volume of his 
Collection. In 1644 Della Valle composed a narrative of the adven- 
tures of his second wife, which does not appear ever to have been 
published. He also left in manuscript an account, in Latin, of the 
kings or chiefs subject to Persia, and some plans and drawings, which 
his widow refused to communicate for publication. Della Valle 
appears to have been rash and vain, but he possessed the susceptibility 
to external impressions, retentive memory, and facility of expression, 
which is frequently found in persons of that character. His accounts 
of routes and distances, of the external appearance of countries, and 
of manners and customs, are lively and accurate, 


(Pietro della Valle, Viaggi descritti in Lettere familiare al suo amico 
Mario Schipano ; Bellori, Life of Dellw Valle, prefixed to the edition 
of his Travels published at Rome in 1662; Biographie Universelle.) 

VALLISNE’RI, or VALISNIE/RI, ANTONIO, an Italian natu- 
ralist; was born on May the 3rd, 1661, at the castle of Tresilico, of 
which his father was governor. He received his early education from 
the Jesuits at Modena, and by them was instructed in the philosophy 
and science of the schvols of the day. In 1683 he repaired to Bologna, 
where he studied medicine under the celebrated Malpighi, and acquired 
from him a taste for the observation of nature, as well as an impres- 
sion of the unsoundness of the prevailing systems of philosophy and 
science, In 1684 he graduated at Reggio, but again returned to 
Bologna, to pursue his natural-history studies under Malpighi, who 
after three more years of application, is said to have dismissed his 
pupil in these words: “Systems are ideal and mutable. Observation 
and experience are solid and unchangeable.’ He visited Padua, 
Venice, and Parma, and in 1688 commenced the practice of a physician 
in Reggio. Here he devoted all his leisure to the study of nature : 
he planted a botanic garden, made collections of plants, minerals, and 
objects of interest in his neighbourhood, and commenced a series of 
observations on the anatomy of the silkworm, from which he was led 
to the study generally of the metamorphoses and generation of insects, 
Having published his observations, they acquired him great reputa- 
tion, and he was invited to occupy a chair amongst the medical pro- 
fessors of the University of Padua in 1700. On taking his position 
amongst the teachers of an old university, he felt that his views were 
opposed to prevailing systems, and in order to prevent any alarm at 
his teaching, he published a lecture in which he endeavoured to main- 
tain the position that the studies of the moderns do not overturn, but 
confirm the medical knowledge of the ancients. Notwithstanding 
this attempt to appease the advocates of old systems, and of entire 
obedience to prescribed authority, Vallisneri attacked with so much 
energy the prevailing errors in medicine, and especially in the sciences 
of anatomy and physiology, that he met with much opposition. But 
he found an able protector in Frederic Marcello, the procurator of 
St. Mark, and in 1711 was appointed to the first chair of the theory 
of medicine. 

During the interval of his lectures Vallisneri took every oppor- 
tunity of studying natural history, and for this purpose made an 
excursion to the Apennines, and also visited Lucca, Pisa, Leghorn, 
Florence, and other parts of Italy. In these excursions he made con- 
siderable collections of objects in natural history, as well as found 
many subjects of interesting research for the microscope, which he 
used with great success. In 1720 he was invited by Pope Clement XI. 
to become physician to his holiness in the place of the celebrated 
Lancisi, but he refused. In 1728 the Duke of Modena presented him 
with the order of knighthood, which was to be hereditary in his 
family. He was also invited early in his career to become first pro- 
fessor of physic at Turin, with a large salary, which he declined. He 
was known by his writings and correspondence to men of science in 
Great Britain, and was elected a fellow of the Royal Society of 
London, Vallisneri was married in 1692, and although his wife pro- 
duced him eighteen children, she managed his family with so much 
good sense and prudence, that he was always in easy circumstances, 
and enjoyed much domestic felicity. He died on the 12th of January 
1730, and was buried in the church of the Eremitani at Padua. He 
left behind him only four of his numerous family, three daughters and 
one son, who published an edition of his father’s works, in three folio 
volumes, at Venice, in 1733. 

Vallisneri deservedly ranks high as a naturalist and a physician. 
He published many papers on the various departments of natural 
history, in which he pointed out the necessity of observation of external 
nature before proceeding to generalisation. He did much by his ana- 
tomical and physiological inquiries, in conjunction with the labours- 
of Malpighi, Redi, and others, to rescue medicine from the thraldom 
of received opinions, and to upset the absurd hypotheses of the 
functions of the animal economy which prevailed in his day. He was 
a great opponent of the doctrine of equivocal or spontaneous gene- 
ration, a notion that was generally entertained by physiologists of 
that day, and which then, as now, was often looked upon as involving 
consequences opposed to religious truth. His contributions to botany 
were not numerous; but his catalogue of plants collected around 
Leghorn was a valuable production for its time, and his paper on the 
fructification of Lemna was an important addition to existing know- 
ledge of the structure of a very obscure and interesting tribe of 
plants. Asa physician he was a judicious observer of the effects of 
remedies in relieving disease, and was among the first to use Peruvian 
bark: he published several essays on the action of this and other 
medicines on the human economy. His name is perpetuated in 
that of a curious and interesting genus of plants, called by Micheli 
Vallisneria. 

(Bischoff, Lehrbuch der Botanik ; Haller, Bib. Bot.; Sir J. E. Smith.) 

VALMONT DE BOMARE, J. C., was born at Rouen in September 
1731. He originally studied the law for the purpose of practising at 
the bar, but his attachment to natural history induced him to abandon 
a profession so foreign to his tastes. Having obtained from the Duke 
d’Argenson a travelling appointment of some kind, he visited the 
principal cities of Europe, and examined with great care the various 


263 VALOIS, HENRY DE. 


VALSALVA, ANTONIO MARIA. 264 


museums of objects in natural history which they contained. He took 
an especial interest in mineralogy, and visited mines and metallurgic 
establishments for the purpose of increasing his knowledge in this 
department of science. During his travels, of which he published an 
account, he visited Lapland and Iceland, and returned, laden with 
objects of natural history, to Paris in 1756. In 1758 he published a 
list of objects in natural history, under the title ‘Catalogue d’un 
Cabinet d'Histoire Naturelle’ 12mo. In 1761 and 1762 he published 
a large work on minerals generally, in 2 vols. 8vo, entitled ‘ Nouvelle 
Exposition du Régne Mineral,’ His greatest work was a dictionary 
of natural history, entitled ‘Dictionnaire Raisonné Universel d’ His- 
toire Naturelle,’ in 6 vols. 8vo. This work was one of very consider- 
able merit, and gave descriptions of the various objects in the three 
kingdoms of nature, and of their uses in the economy of the arts. It 
has gone through a great number of editions, printed at various 
places, and is the basis of more modern dictionaries on the same 
subject. He gave courses of lectures on natural history in Paris from 
1756 to 1788. He had offers to accept chairs of natural history in 
Russia and Portugal, but refused. He died at Paris, in August 1807. 
(Haller, Bib, Bot. ; Sir J. E. Smith.) 

VALOIS, HENRY DE, commonly called by his Latinised name, 
Henricus Valesius, a celebrated French scholar, was born at Paris on 
the 10th of September 1603, and was descended of an ancient noble 
family of Normandy. He was educated at Verdun, in the college of 
the Jesuits, and afterwards at Paris in the college of Clermont, where 
he had the instruction of. Petavius and Sirmond, both of whom enter- 
tained a high opinion of his talents. In 1622 he went to Bourges to 
study jurisprudence, and after. the completion of his studies he 
practised for several years as a lawyer, but more to please his father 
than from his own inclination, for the study of the ancient authors 
was his favourite pursuit. At last however he gave up his pro- 
fessional occupations altogether, and devoted himself entirely to 
literature. He worked very hard and without any intermission, 
except on a Saturday afternoon, which he used to devote to his 
friends, His excessive study cost him his right eye, and the left was 
so much weakened that he could not continue his studies without a 
reader. But his father was too economical to allow his son any sum 
of money for this purpose, and De Valois would have had a miserable 
existence, had not a friend, M. de Mesmes, given him a handsome 
pension. De Valois enjoyed this until the death of his father in 
1659, which placed him in independent circumstances. The repu- 
tation which he acquired by this time as a scholar and a critic induced 
the French clergy to apply to him for a new edition of the Greek 
writers on ecclesiastical history. De Valois, who had before been 
requested to lend bis assistance in this undertaking, had refused to 
do s0; but now, when the whole was left to him, he readily undertook 
the task. By way of encouragement he received from the clergy an 
annual pension, which was afterwards considerably increased by the 
liberality of Cardinal Mazarin. In 1660, while De Valois was still 
engaged upon this great undertaking, he was honoured with the 
title of historiographer to the king. Two years after this he became 
completely blind. Until the year 1664 he had devoted himself to 
literature, but now he surprised his friends by marrying a handsome 
young woman, who bore him seven children. He died on the 7th of 
May 1676, after having suffered very much during the last few years 
from the infirmities of old age. 

Henry de Valois was one of the last of that race of great scholars 
who adorned France during the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth 
centuries. He possessed very extensive learning and great critical 
sagacity, but he knew his powers, he was vain and proud, and 
resented any neglect of the respect which he thought due to him. 
His ill temper increased as he advanced in years. His works are still 
very useful. The following list contains the most important among 
them :—1l. ‘ Excerpta Polybii, Diodori, Nicolai Damasceni, Dionysii 
Halicarnassensis, Appiani Alexandrini, Dionis et Joannis Antiocheni, 
ex Collectaneis Constantini, Augusti Porphyrogenitae, nunc primum 
Graece edita, Latine versa, cum Notis,’ Paris, 1634, 4to. These are 
the so-called ‘ Excerpta de Virtutibus et Vitiis,’ or ‘Excerpta Peires- 
ciana, after M. Peiresc, to whom the MS. of the ‘Excerpta’ belonged, 
and to whom De Valois dedicated his edition, 2. An edition of 
Awmianus Marcellinus, with critical and explanatory notes, Paris, 
1636, 4to. A second edition, with additional notes by H. de Valois, 
Lindebrog, and the editor, was published by Adrien de Valois, the 
brother of Henry, Paris, 1681, fol.; and a third, containing the notes 
of the Valesii and Lindebrog, with some of his own, by J. Gronovius, 
Leyden, 1693. 3. A series of the Greek Ecclesiastical Historians, in 
8 vols. fol., with notes and Latin translations. They appeared in the 
following order :—Eusebius (Paris, 1659), Socrates and Sozomen 
(Paris, 1668), Theodoretus, Evagrius, and Philostorgius (Paris, 1673). 
This edition of the Ecclesiastical Historians was afterwards reprinted 
at Amsterdam, 1699, and at Cambridge, in 1720. 4. After his 
death there appeared his ‘ Notae et Animadversiones in Harpocra- 
tionem et P. J. Maussaci Notas,’ edited by J. Gronovius, They are 
reprinted in Blancard’s edition of Harpocration, Leyden, 1683, 4to. 

The Life of H. de Valois was written by his brother Adrien, It 
is printed in Bates’s ‘ Vitae Selectorum aliquot Virorum,’ and 


ae additions to it were afterwards published by P. Burmann, in 
739, 


VALOIS, ADRIEN DE, commonly called Adrianus Valesius, a 
younger brother of Henry de Valois, was born at Paris on the 14th of 
January 1607. He received the same education as his brother, but 
he devoted himself principally to the study of poetry, oratory, and 
history. History, and more especially the history of his own country, 
engaged his attention for many years, and in 1646 he published the 
first volume of his great historical work of France, under the title 
‘Gesta Francorum, seu de Rebus Francicis.’ The whole work 
of 3 vols. fol., and the last two appeared in 1658. This extensive and 
very learned work comprises the history of France only during the 
short period from a.D, 254 to 752. It raised his reputation so much, 
that in 1660 he received the title of historiographer to the king, with 
a pension of 1200 livres. The minister Colbert wished him to 
continue the work, but De Valois declared that he could not, the 
difficulties being insurmountable, In 1675 he published a very useful 
work on the state of ancient Gaul, entitled ‘ Notitia Galliarum Ordine 
Alphabetico digesta,’ in fol. His edition of Ammianus Marcellinus 
and his ‘ Life of Henry de Valois’ are noticed in Vatois, HENRY DE. 
His other works are now of little importance, and a list of them is 
found in the:works cited below. He died at Paris, on the 2nd of July, 
1692. A collection of some minor works of A. de Valois was afterw: 
published by his son under the name of ‘ Valesiana.’ 

(Perrault, Les Hommes Illustres qui ont paru en France; Niceron, 
Mémoires des Hommes Illustres, vol. iii.; Chaufepié, Nouveau Diction- 
naire Historique.) 

VALPY, REV. RICHARD, D.D., was born December 7, 1754, in 
the island of Jersey, where his father, Richard Valpy, possessed an 
estate. -He was the eldest of six children, all of whom died before 
they attained middle age except himself and the Rev. Edward Valpy 
of Norwich. He was sent at an early age to one of the foundation 
schools of his native island, whence at the age of ten years he was 
removed to the college of Valognes in Normandy. There he remained 
five years, during which he acquired the French language, which he 
ever afterwards spoke with facility. At the age of fifteen he was sent 
to the grammar-school at Southampton, and afterwards went to the 
University of Oxford, having been appointed to one of the scholarships 
founded in Pembroke College for natives of Jersey and Guernsey. 
Having taken his degree of B.A. he was ordained in 1777, and removed 
first to Bury St. Edmunds, and afterwards in October 1781 to Reading 
in Berkshire, having been unanimously elected by the corporation 
head-master of the grammar-school there. « 

In the performance of his duties as master of Reading School Dr. 
Valpy spent nearly the whole of his subsequent life. To elevate the 
school from the low state in which he found it was the first wish of 
his youth, and to maintain it at the height of reputation to which he 
had raised it was the great object of his later years. He was twice 
married, first in 1778, and secondly in 1782. He survived his second 
wife by a few years, and left a family of eleven children, all of whom 
were married and established in life before his death. In 1787 he 
was presented to the rectory of Stradishall in Suffolk, and as he was 
obliged to pass the greater part of the year at Reading he visited his 
parishioners regularly at the Midsummer and Christmas vacations. 
About six years before his death the infirmities of age, and particularly 
dimness of sight, compelled him to withdraw from the mastership of 
Reading School, when his youngest son, the Rev. Francis Valpy, was 
unanimously elected by the corporation to succeed him. Another of 
his sons, A. J. Valpy, was for many years a printer and publisher in 
London; and a great number of valuable editions of Greek and Latin 
works issued from his press, of which perhaps the most important was 
the new edition of Stephens’s ‘Thesaurus,’ by Barker, 7 vols. folio, 
1815-28. Dr. Valpy died March 28, 1836, at the residence of his son, 
Kensington, London. ~ 

From his youth to old age Dr. Valpy was an admirer of poetry and 
the drama. The tragedies of the Greek dramatists were occasionally 
represented at Reading school by his pupils, and he also adapted some 
of Shakspere’s Plays for performance there. He composed several 
elementary works to facilitate the attainment of different branches of 
education, among which a Greek Grammar and a Latin Grammar have 
had a very large circulation. 

VALSA’LVA, ANTO’NIO MARI’A, was born of a noble family at 
Imola, in 1666. After a preliminary education by private tutors, he 
was sent to the University of Bologna, where he studied medicine, 
and especially anatomy, under Malpighi, Salini, and others, He 
received his doctor’s degree in 1687, and was even at that time 
distinguished for his industry and learning. After this, he devoted 
himself with extraordinary zeal to the study of both normal and 
morbid anatomy; dissecting night and day, preparing the dis- 
sected parts, and performing experiments; and all this, although he 
was of a weakly constitution, and was much occupied in private 
practice. He was equally excellent in surgery and medicine. In the 
former he is celebrated for having first in Bologna discarded the 
cautery and adopted the ligature of the arteries in amputation; for 
having materially improved the whole practice of aural surgery; and 
for his inventions and improvements of many surgical instruments. 
He also described the true nature of the steatomatous tumours © 
formed by diseased hair-follicles, the morbid anatomy of apparent 
glaucoma from amber-cataract, and the constancy of the seat of 
cataract in the lens or its capsule. In medical practice, applying his 


ae 


ae ne 


eat 


—) ae ht -.. 


, pte, r 
* 


ae = eee 


. 


+ 


~ father. 


_ distinguished colourists at Venice. 


265 VAN ACHEN, HANS. 


VANBRUGH, SIR JOHN. 266 


unusually great knowledge of morbid anatomy, he was particularly 
celebrated for accuracy of diagnosis, and for his skill in treating those 
who suffered under diseases reputed incurable. To these he gave 
indeed his chief attention; striving to discern what these diseases 
are in their early stages, when, if ever, some remedy might be used. 
Among the most remarkable results which he thus attained was that 
mode of treating aneurisms which is still commonly called Valsalva’s 


. method, and which consists in reducing the force of the patient’s 


circulation to the lowest degree compatible with life, by repeated 
bleedings, absolute rest, and starvation; a method which, often as it 
failed, is the only one which offers any prospect of success in aneurism 
of the aorta. It was he who also first pointed out the dependence 
of hemiplegia upon effusion in the opposite side of the brain. In 


_ normal anatomy he rendered great service by his accurate description 


of the muscles and other parts of the ear before scarcely known; and 
by his account of the muscles of the pharynx and soft palate, and of 
the aorta. Among bis errors must be mentioned his notion that the 
attachment of the muscles of the eye round the optic nerve forms a 
ring capable of compressing and moderating the action of that nerve, 
and his account of a duct which he supposed to pass from the renal 
capsule to the ovary or testis, 

In 1697 Valsalva was made professor of anatomy in the University 
of Bologna, and in 1705 surgeon to the Hospital of Incurables. He 
was three times president of the Bologna Institute; he was elected 
a Fellow of the Royal Society of London, and received honours of 
various kinds from the states and from.the learned societies of Italy. 
He died at Bologna in 1723, leaving to its public institutions a large 
philosophical and medical library, and the museums of anatomy and 
surgical instruments which he had formed. His statue was placed in 
the hall of the Institute by order of the senate, and his great pupil, 
Morgagni, wrote his life. 

Valsalva’s published works are few and small, though full of value. 
They are, 1. ‘De Aure humana Tractatus,’ Bologna, 1704, 4to., which 
was several times afterwards published at Utrecht and other places, 
and reprinted in Morgagni’s ‘ Epistole;’ 2. ‘ Dissertationes Tres 
Anatomice Posthume,’ Venice, 1740, 4to., read at the Bologna 
Institute in 1715-16-19, and edited by Morgagni. There is also 
a letter by Valsalva in Larber’s edition of Palfyn’s ‘ Surgical 
Anatomy.’ 

(Morgagni, Life, prefixed to his edition of Valsalva’s works.) 

VAN ACHEN, HANS, one of the most distinguished German 
painters of the sixteenth century, was born at Cologne in 1552. His 
name is written in various ways, as Ab Ach, Dach, Dac, Van Aken, 
and otherwise ; but Van Achen is the correct form: a picture in the 
gallery of Schleissheim, near Munich, is marked ‘Hans V. Acu. Fr. 
1598. His family name is not known; he was called Achen, after 
the town of Achen or Aachen (Aix-la-Chapelle), the birth-place of his 
Van Achen was first instructed by a painter called Jerrigh by 
Van Mander, with whom he remained about six years. He studied 
also the works of Spranger, whose style of design he imitated, and 
although not so mannered as that master, he never forsook his style 
of design in after-life. Shortly after he left his first master he went 
to Venice to acquire the Venetian style of colouring, which he learnt 
of Gaspard Rems, a Fleming, who at that period was one of the most 
From Venice he went to Florence 
and Rome. In Rome he acquired a great reputation by several 
pictures which he painted there, some of which were engraved by 
Raphael Sadeler, who was at Rome at the same time. A ‘ Nativity of 
Christ,’ painted for the church of the Jesuits at Rome, extended Var 
Achen’s reputation to Germany. He visited Venice a second time, 
and whilst there received an invitation from Duke William of Bavaria 
to go to Munich, whither he repaired; and he received constant 
employment there for some years, and was paid very highly for his 
works. During his stay at Munich he was repeatedly invited by the 
emperor Rudolph II. to go to Prague; he however allowed four years 
to elapse before he complied with the emperor's request. At Prague 
he painted many pictures for the emperors Rudolph and Matthias, 
and, excepting a short time spent at Munich and Augsburg, he passed 
the remainder of his life there. Whilst at Augsburg he gained 
the affections of the daughter of the celebrated musician Orlando 
di Lasso, and was married toher. He died at Prague, in 1615, aged 
sixty-three. 

Van Achen had the reputation of being the richest painter of his 
time. He was a bold and a rapid painter, but was a great mannerist: 
he neglected both the study of nature and of the antique, and was 
one of the leading propagators of that gross and heavy style which 
prevailed in Germany at the beginning of the 17th century. It con- 
sisted of an attempted union of the Florentine and Veneiian styles, 
and combined a florid colouring with exaggerated and mannered 
forms. This style prevailed generally in Germany, until Rubens and 
Rembrandt and their imitators spread a very different taste. Achen’s 
principal works are at Munich : the best are—the Calling of St. Peter, 
for St. Michael’s Church: a ‘St. Sebastian,’ for Stanislaus Chapel, 
engraved by J. Miiller; ‘ Christ upon the Cross,’ with John and Mary, 
for the Chapel of the Cross, engraved by E. Sadeler; and the ‘ Dis- 
covery of the Cross by St. Helena,’ for the chapel of the elector. 
There are several of his works also in the Gallery of Vienna: among 
them, portraits of Rudolph II, and his brother Ernest when young, 


both in armour. He painted many portraits: two of his best are 
considered, the portrait of Rudolph II., engraved by R. Sadeler; 
and that of Spranger the painter, engraved by J. Miiller. Other 
celebrated works by Achen are—an ‘Kece Homo,’ engraved by G. 
André; ‘Mary Magdalen in the Wilderness,’ by L. Kilian; and ‘Justice 
and Truth, by G. A. Wolfgang the elder. Many other eminent 
engravers have executed plates after this master. 

VANBRUGH, SIR JOHN, was of foreign lineage. His grandfather, 
a citizen of Ghent, came over to England at the time of Alva’s per- 
secution of the Protestants in the Netherlands, and died in 1646, 
leaving a handsome fortune to his son Giles, who seems to have been 
at first engaged in business, but afterwards it is said held the place of 
comptroller of the treasury chamber. Giles lived till 1689, at Chester, 
and had a family of eight sons by his wife Elizabeth, youngest 
daughter and coheir of Sir Dudley Carleton, who died in 1711. John 
was born in 1666, but whether in London or Chester is uncertain, and 
beyond that very little is known with certainty respecting him till he 
began to write for the stage. We have no account of his early studies, 
and it appears rather doubtful if he was regularly educated to the pro- 
fession of architecture; certainly no claim has been put forth in 
behalf of any one for the honour of having been the instructor of such 
a pupil. According to some anecdotes told of him, he studied archi- 
tecture in France, where, being detected in making drawings of some 
fortifications, he was imprisoned in the Bastile. That he was sent by 
his father to that country at the age of nineteen does not admit of 
much doubt; yet whether it was for the purpose of completing or 
commencing his studies in architecture is not very clear. If this was 
the case, he did not attend to them very diligently, for in the course 
of his stay there he entered the military service, though he did not 
continue in it very long. It is certainly to be regretted that no more 
satisfactory account has come down to us, for it would be instructive 
to learn how an architect of such a peculiar taste formed a style which 
may be called his own. Still we think it may be traced to French 
models—to the palaces and chateaux of that country, of which lofty 
pavilions, turrets, and chimneys were characteristic features, and pro- 
duced that variety of outline which is considered the great merit of 
Vanbrugh’s designs. From the same source he seems to have derived 
his predilection for arched windows and horizontal rustics, even to the 
exclusion of variety in that respect. In fact he seems to have had 
little knowledge of, or else little relish for, the works of the Italian 
school, since, with all his love for massiveness and boldness, he never 
availed himself of its more ornate and diversified modes of rusticated 
work. 

Whatevever may have been his progress up to that period, we may 
suppose him to have acquired some reputation for architectural skill 
previous to 1695, for he was then appointed one of the commissioners 
for completing the palace at Greenwich when it was about to be 
converted into an hospital. About the same time he began to dis- 
tinguish himself in his other and widely different career of a dramatic 
writer; and of his masterly talent for comedy his plays of the ‘ Pro- 
voked Wife,’ the ‘ Relapse,’ and the ‘Confederacy’ (the last founded 
upon Dancour’s ‘ Bourgeoises & la Mode’), afford sufficient proof, and 
also of the levity of his disposition, if not of the licentiousness of his 
morals. Considered merely as literary productions they are entitled to 
great admiration ; yet so libertine are they, not merely in language, but 
in plot, in sentiment, and in general tendency, that they are calculated 
to corrupt as well as to please. They are now banished not only from 
the stage, but almost from the closet; and he who might have been 
the Moliére of our dramatic literature—or at any rate a standard 
classic in it—is now consigned to comparative oblivion. Fortunately 
he had an opportunity of displaying his other talent, and that upon a 
large scale. In 1702 he was employed by Charles, the third earl of 
Carlisle, to erect a mansion for him in Yorkshire, on the site of the 
ancient castle of Hinderskelf; and he produced the palace of Castle 
Howard, an extensive and noble pile (660 feet in length), though, like 
all his other works of that class, more satisfactory in its general 
character than when examined in detail. His patron Carlisle, who 
was then earl marshal of England, signified his approbation by be- 
stowing on him the honourable and not unprofitable appointment of 
Clarencieux king-at-arms, in 1703. His work of Castle Howard also 
recommended him as architect to many noble and wealthy employers, 
for whom he erected stately mansions in various parts of the kingdom. 
Among them may be mentioned Eastbury in Dorsetshire, built for 
Bubb Doddington, but afterwards pulled down by Earl Temple (a 
circumstance not greatly to be regretted, if we may judge of it from 
the designs in the ‘ Vitruvius Britannicus’); King’s Weston, near 
Bristol, which is greatly admired for the effect produced by its chim- 
neys; Duncombe Hall, Yorkshire; Grimsthorpe, Yorkshire, considered 
one of his most important works; Seaton Delaval, Northumberland; 
and Oulton Hall, Cheshire. He seems to have been employed ex- 
clusively on works of this class, country-seats and mansions: for no 
public buildings are attributed to him except one, which was a specu- 
lation of his own, connected with his dramatic pursuits, a theatre in 
the Haymarket, which afterwards became the original Opera-house, on 
the site of the present building. In this scheme he was assisted by 
many persons of quality, and had Congreve for his dramatic coadjutor 
and Betterton for manager, by whom the house was opened in 1706. 
This ‘confederacy’ of comic talent was not however so successful as 


267 VAN CEULEN, LUDOLPH. 


VANCOUVER, GEORGE, 


Vanbrugh’s piece of that name, which was first brought out there. 
Congreve very soon retired from the concern, nor was it long before 
Vanbrugh himself was glad to get rid of his share in it. 

It was at this period that the nation voted, as a monument of its 
gratitude to the first duke of Marlborough, a palace, to be named after 
the victory at Blenheim. The architect of Castle Howard was ap- 
pointed as the fittest person for so important an occasion. Yet if the 
distinction and the reputation since derived to him from the building 
itself have shed lustre on Vanbrugh’s name as an architect, the affair 
turned out for him a very vexatious and also a Josing one. “The 
secret history of the building of Blenheim,” in D’Israeli’s ‘ Curiosities 
of Literature,’ shows in what difficulties the architect was involved in 
consequence of no specific fund or grant for the work having been pro- 
vided by parliament, and being afterwards refused. The queen fur- 
nished the necessary supplies for what was built during her life; but 
at her death difficulties increased, and on that of the duke, his wife 
Sarah, “that wicked woman of Marlborough,” as Vanbrugh calls her, 
discharged him from his post of architect, and refused to pay what 
was due to him as salary. The structure was however finally com- 
pleted according to the original model, and as long as it stands it will 
be a monument honourable to Vanbrugh. Yet it was a long time 
before its architectural merits were appreciated. Reynolds was almost 
the first who ventured to express his approbation of Vanbrugh’s style, 
and to bear his testimony as an artist to the picturesque magnificence 
of Blenheim. Such authority, and afterwards that of Sir Uvedale 
Price and. others, removed the prejudices that had been excited by 
former critics, and by the ridicule thrown upon Vanbrugh by Swift 
and Pope. But, in changing, public opinion ran almost from one 
extreme into the other: as it had been the fashion to see in Van- 
brugh’s architecture nothing but heaviness, it now became the fashion 
to see in it nothing but picturesque effect. His works certainly are 
heavy ; and although solidity and massiveness are far from being 
faults in architecture, they may be carried too far. Vanbrugh’s build- 
ings are to be studied both with diligence as to their merits and with 
caution as to their defects. 

Sir John died at his house at Whitehall (erected by himself ), March 
26, 1726, leaving a widow, many years younger than himself, but no 
family, his only son having been killed at the battle of Tournay. 
Notwithstanding the licentiousness of his pen, his private character 
appears to have been amiable, and his conduct tolerably correct; and 
even his enemies Swift and Pope admitted that he was both “aman of 
wit and man of honour.” 

VAN CEULEN, or KEULEN, LUDOLPH, a Dutch mathemati- 
cian, who lived in the latter part of the 16th and the beginning of the 
17th century, and whose name indicates that his family came originally 
from Cologne. He was born at Hildesheim, but neither the year of 
his birth nor the manner in which he was educated is known; and it 
can only be surmised that his taste led him early to the study of 
elementary geometry and algebra. He taught the mathematics at 
Breda, and subsequently at Amsterdam; but his fame rests chiefly on 
the effort which he made to express by numbers the ratio which the 
circumference of a circle bears to its diameter. The determination of 
this ratio has engaged the attention of mathematicians from the time 
of Archimedes; and during the 16th century, Metius, Vieta, Adrian 
Romanus, and Van Ceulen laboured, by extending the approximative 
processes, to reduce the error within narrower limits. The diameter 
being supposed to _be the unit, Romanus obtained an expression for the 
circumference in numbers consisting of seventeen decimals, and Van 
Ceulen computed one which differs from the truth only at the thirty- 
fifth decimal. It may be observed that the approximation has since 

been carried to a much greater extent by means of the well-known 
series for the value of a circular arc in terms of its tangent: 

Van Ceulen published at Delft, in 1596, a tract on the circle, in 
Dutch; and a translation of it, in Latin, was published by Snellius in 
1619, under the title ‘De Circulo Adscriptis.’ The method pursued 
in the investigation is described in this work; and though extra- 
ordinary labour must have been undergone in the performance of the 
arithmetica] computations, it may be seen that this was not accom- 
panied by any display of genius; since, beginning with the known 
chord and the sagitta of one-sixth of the circumference, the process 
consists in computing the lengths of the chords and tangents of the 
arcs formed by continual bisections. As a monument of patient 
industry the determination has great merit; and it may be presumed 
that the computer estimated his labour highly, for, according to 
Snellius, he requested that the numerical expression of the cireum- 
ference of a circle might be inscribed on his tomb. 

Besides the work which has been mentioned, Van Ceulen published 
two others, in Dutch, on mathematical subjects, both of which were 
also translated in Latin by Snellius, and published at Leyden in 1615, 
under the titles ‘Fundamenta Arithmetica et Geometrica,’ and Zete- 
mata (seu problemata) Geometrica.’ From these works it may be 
seen that the author possessed considerable skill in the management 
of algebraic quantities, 

He died at Leyden in 1610, and was interred in the church of St. 
Peter in that city. 


VANCOUVER, GEORGE, was born, according to the author of his 


Life in the ‘Biographie Universelle,’ about. 1750, but probably some 
years later. Vancouver himself states, in the introduction to the 


narrative of his Voyage round the World, that he entered the navy in 
his thirteenth year; and John Vancouver, who edited the work, states 
that his brother’s firet appointment was to the Resolution, by Captain 
Cook, in 1771. 

George Vancouver served as midshipman on Cook’s second voyage 
(1772-1775) ; and on the third voyage, in which that great navigator 
lost his life (1776-1780). His name only occurs once in the history of 
these two voyages: Captain King mentions his having sent Mr, 
Vancouver to Captain Clerke for instructions the morning after the 
murder of Captain Cook. When Captain King was promoted from 
being first-lieutenant of the Resolution to be captain of the Discovery, 
Captain Gore permitted him to take with him “ four midshipmen who 
had made themselves useful to me in astronomical calculations, and 
whose assistance was now particularly necessary, as we had no Ephe- 
meris for the present year.’ Of this number it is almost certain that 
Vancouver must have been one, for of the six original midshipmen of 
the Resolution, the two eldest had by that time been promoted im 
consequence of the death of Captains Cook and Clerke. A better 
school for a seaman than the two principal voyages of so accurate a 
navigator and surveyor, o strict a disciplinarian as Cook, can searcely 
be imagined. Captain King has borne testimony to the merits of the 
young officers in the expedition of 1776-80 :—“ The two ships never lost 
sight of each other for a day together, except twice; which was owing, 
the first time, to an accident that happened to the Discovery off the 
coast of Owhyhee; and the second, to the fogs we met at the entrance 
of Awatska Bay. A stronger proof cannot be given of the skill and 
vigilance of our subaltern officers, to whom this share of merit almost 
entirely belongs.” 


The Resolution and Discovery reached the Nore on the 4th of aa 


October 1780, and on the 9th of December following Vancouver was 
created a lieutenant and appointed to the Martin sloop. He conti 
on board this vessel until he was removed to the Fame, one of Lord 


Rodney’s fleet in the West Indies, where he remained till the middle — 


of the year 1783. In 1784 he was appointed to and sailed in the 


Europe to Jamaica, and remained at that station till the vessel a 


returned to England, in September 1789. 


When Vancouver arrived in England, he found that a voyage had 


been planned by the government for exploring the Southern regions. 
A vessel, named the Discovery, had been purchased for this service, 
and Captain Henry Roberts, who had served under Cook during bis 
two last voyages, had been named to the command. Commodore 
(afterwards Admiral) Sir Alan Garduer, under whose flag Vancouver 
was then serving, recommended him to the Admiralty, and he was 
solicited by the board to accompany Captain Roberts. Having been 
intimate friends while on board Captain Cook’s sbip, the ont 
was agreeable to both officers. Towards the close of April the 


| Discovery was nearly ready to proceed down the river, when intel- 
| ligence arrived of depredations committed by the Spaniards on dif- 


ferent branches of British commerce on the north-west coast of Ame- 


rica. The equipment of the Discovery was suspended, and Vancouver 
resumed his professional career under his old captain, Sir Alan 
| Gardner. i 


The high prices obtained by the sailors of the Resolution and 


| Discovery, at. Canton, for the ill selected, half-worn furs which they 
had brought from the north-west coast of America, had attracted a 
horde of adventurers to tbat region. Their loose observations, pub- 


lished by ignorant book and map compilers, had given currency to the 
most inaccurate and contradictory accounts of the coast. The dis- 


-coveries of Cook had also stimulated the Spaniards to resume their 
| long-suspended maritime activity. 
of America by Spanish officers of marine was commenced im 1775, 


A survey of the north-west coast 
and prosecuted with intermissions for several years with skill and 


dexterity. In April 1789, an attempt was made by some British 


subjects to establish themselves at Nootka: the attempt gave umbrage 
to the Spanish officers engaged in the survey; the settlement was 
forcibly broken up, and some commanders of British merchantmen 
made prisoners, and their vessels and cargoes seized. The court of 
Spain yielded to the representations made by the British resident, 
and at his request a letter addressed to the Spanish commandant at 
Nootka, instructing him to deliver up possession of the country and 
buildings to the British officer by whom the letter should be delivered 
to him, was transmitted to the court of St. James's by Count Florida 


Blanca. The Discovery was again put in commission ; the Chatham, 
‘an armed tender, destined to accompany her; and in March 1791, 
Vancouver was appointed to command these vessels on an expedition 
to the north-west coast of America. His instructions were, to reeeive 
‘the surrender of Nootka by the Spaniards; to make an accurate 


survey of the coast from the 30th degree of N, lat. northwards; and 
to inquire after any communications, by inlets, rivers, or lakes, between 
the coast and Canada. The summers of 1792-93 were allowed for 
the execution of the survey; the intervening winter was to be spent 
in completing the examination of the Sandwich Islands. After the 


completion of the survey, the vessels were to return to England by . 


Cape Horn, and, if practicable, to examine the west coast of South 


America, from the south point of the island of Chiloe, supposed to | 
southern — 


be about 44° S. lat.,.in order to ascertain which was the most 
Spanish settlement, and what harbours there were south of that 
settlement. : : 


269 VAN DALE, ANTON. 


VANDER MEER, JAN. 270 


The expedition sailed from Falmouth on the Ist of April 1791. 
The close of that year and the beginning of 1792 were occupied in 
an examination of the Sandwich Islands. On the 16th of March the 
vessels sailed for the coast of America, which they struck in 39° 27’ 
N. lat. They ran down the coast, examining it minutely, to Nootka, 
where the frank and honourable conduct of Quadra, the Spanish com- 
mander, rendered the diplomatic part of Vancouver’s commission 
’ easy and agreeable, From Nootka the expedition returned south- 
ward to San Francisco de Monterez, examining more in detail the 
various inlets along the coast. When the season during which the 
yperations of the survey could be carried on with safety terminated, 

ancouver returned to the Sandwich Islands. On the 29th of April 


he was again off the coast of America, near Cape Mendocino, He 


landed at Rocky Point (41° 2’ N, lat.), discovered and taken possession 


of by the Spaniards in 1775. Thence he ran along the shore to 
Nootka, where the coast survey was resumed. Vancouver returned 
on the approach of winter to Owhyhee, and in 1794 again returned to 
the American coast, which he surveyed as far north as Cook’s Inlet. 
Having concluded this operation, he, in compliance with his instruc- 
tions, sailed along the coast of South America, visiting the principal 
Spanish settlements, and doubling Cape Horn, brought the Discovery 
into the Shannon on the 13th of September 1795. During the whole 
of these operations the most cordial assistance and frank communi- 
eations were interchanged by Vancouver and the Spanish officers 
engaged in a simultaneous survey of the coast. 

In 1794 Vancouver had without solicitation been promoted to the 
rank of post-captain. He was paid off at the conclusion of his voyage, 
and from that time to his death, which took place in May 1798, he 
was incessantly busied preparing his journals for publication. Before 
his death, all the charts were completed, and the narrative printed 
and corrected as far as the 408th page of the third volume. The 
little that remained to be told was prepared for the press by his 
brother John. Of all the pupils of Cook, George Vancouver ap- 
proached nearest to his master in accuracy and persevering energy. 
With the exception of sixteen months, and the two years during which 
he was busy preparing his journals for the press, he was engaged in 
active service till his death. The greater part of his survey of the 
north-west coast of America was performed in boats. The arduous 
service undermined his constitution, and on his return to England it 
was apparent that his death must bea premature one. The same 
exact enforcement of discipline, and the same incessant care of the 
health and comfort of his crew, which characterised Cook, were also 
found in Vancouver. fi 

(Cook, Second and Third Voyages ; Vancouver, Voyage of Discovery 
to the North Pacific Ocean and round the World ; Humboldt, Zssai 
Politique sur la Nouvelle Espagne; Biographie Universelle.) 

VAN DALE, ANTON, a learned Dutchman, was born on the 8th 
of November 1638. He was the son of a merchant, and, in com- 
pliance with the wish of his parents, he engaged in mercantile occu- 
pations up to the thirtieth year of his age. But the desire of 
knowledge which he had felt ever since his childhood induced him to 
abandon commerce and devote himself to the study of theology and 
medicine. After the completion of his studies he took his degree of 
doctor of medicine: but, besides his medical practice, he officiated for 
several years as a preacher among the Mennonites, until he was 
appointed physician to the hospital at Haarlem, where he remained 
until his death, on the 28th of November 1708. 

Notwithstanding his medical practice, Yan Dale never abandoned 
his theological studies, and he also devoted a great deal of his leisure 
- to the study of Greek and Roman antiquities. His works, which are 
all of a theological and antiquarian nature, show great learning and 
critical skill, but they are deficient in method and arrangement. They 
are all written in Latin, but the language is bad, and his works have 
ceased to be of much use. The following were at the time regarded 
as the most important :—1, ‘ Dissertationes II. de Oraculis,’ 4to, 1700; 
2, ‘ De Origine et Progressu Idololatrie et Superstitionum,’ 4to, 1696; 
8, ‘ Dissertatio super Aristea de Septuaginta Interpretibus,’ 4to, 1705. 
Several other dissertations, as ‘Super Sanchuniathone,’ and nine 
* Dissertationes Antiquitatibus et Marmoribus cum Romanis tum 
Grecis inservientes,’ were published after his death (4to, 1712 and 
1743). 

VANDELLI, DOMINIC, an Italian physician, who paid much 
attention to the study of natural history. His earliest contribution to 
natural history was a dissertation on some insects and marine z00- 
phytes, accompanied with drawings. This was published at Padua, 
where he probably graduated, with the title ‘ Dissertationes de Aponi- 
thermis, de nonnullis Insectis terrestribus, et Zoophytis marinis,’ 4to, 
1758. In 1761 he published an account of some of the Conferve 
found in the hot-springs of Padua. He visited South America, and 
remained in Brazil some time, and on his return was appointed super- 
intendent of the botanic garden at Lisbon. In 1768 he published an 
account of the dragon-tree, and in 1771 a small work entitled ‘ Fasci- 
eulus Plantarum,’ which he dedicated to Sir Joseph Banks. It was 
accompanied with four engravings of figures of plants. He also 
wrote against Haller, maintaining, in opposition to that distinguished 
anatomist, that the tendons and fibrous membranes generally possessed 
_ sensibility. This is said to have displeased Haller very much, who 

Speaks of Vandelli’s labours very disparagingly. He also wrote some 


small papers on the actions of medicine and other subjects. He visited 
England at a very advanced age, in the year 1815, and died shortly 
after his return. He was a correspondent of Lianwus; and, at the 
suggestion of Browne, Linneus named a genus of Scrophulariaceous 
plants, in honour of him, Vandellia, The species of this genus are 
West Indian plants, and one of them, the V. pratensis, is known in 
Cayenne by the name of Wild Basil, and is esteemed a powerful 
vulnerary, 

VANDER HELST, BARTHOLOMEW, a celebrated Dutch portrait- 
painter, was born at Haarlem in 1613, or, according to the ‘Museo 
Fiorentino,’ in 1601. He was one of the best portrait-painters of his 
time, and had by some been compared with Vandyck. He excelled 
equally in the head and figure and in the accessories, which he painted 
with the fidelity of representation almost peculiar to the painters of 
his nation : he also coloured richly and drew well. He painted like- 
wise small historical pieces, and had great skill in landscape-painting, 

In the town-house of Amsterdam there is a large picture by Van- 
der Helst, containing twenty-four full-length portraits of officers of 
the train-band of that place, which Sir Joshua Reynolds pronounced 
the finest picture in the town-house, and one of the best pictures 
of portraits in the world. He says, “ This is perhaps the first picture 
of portraits in the world, comprehending more of those qualities 
which make a perfect portrait than any other I have ever seen: they 
are correctly drawn, both heads and figures, and well coloured; and 
have great variety of action, characters, and countenances, and those 
so lively, and truly expressing what they are about, that the spectator 
has nothing to wish for.” This picture is dated 1648. There are two 
portraits by him—a male and a female—in the National Gallery. 
Vander Helst was still living in 1668: Pilkington and some others 
mention 1670 as the date of his death; Houbraken gives no date, and 
Nagler says the date of his death is unknown. Vander Helst left a 
son, according to Houbraken, who painted battle-pieces and landscapes, 
but he was very inferior to his father. 

VANDER HEYDEN, JAN, a celebrated Dutch architectural 
painter, was born at Gorcum in 1637. He learnt originally of an 
obscure painter on glass, and commenced early without other instrue- 
tion to paint pictures of old buildings, churches, palaces, and other 
architectural views. He is unrivalled for the representation of modern 
architecture ; his pictures are remarkable for their elaborate finish and 
the beautiful arrangement of their masses of light and shade; and yet, 
through their admirable perspective and harmony of colouring they 
have all the softness and truth of nature, and in this respect are supe- 
rior to the works of Canaletto. 

Sir Joshua Reynolds says that the works of Vander Heyden have 
“the effect of nature seen in a camera-obscura.” There are several of 
his works in this country. In the collection of Sir Robert Peel there 
is a very small view, on wood, of a street in Cologne, with figures by 
A. Vandervelde, which was purchased for 415 guineas. There is also 
in the collection of Lord Ashburnham a small town view, on wood, 
with twenty figures by A. Vandervelde, Which was sold for 6001. It 
was taken by the French, and was placed for some time in the Louvre, 
but was sent back to Holland at the general restoration of the works 
of art carried off by the French to their rightful owners. There is 
likewise in the Bridgewater Gallery an excellent specimen of the works 
of Vander Heyden, A. Vandervelde painted figures in many of Vander 
Heyden’s pictures, and after that painter’s death he was assisted by 
Lingelbach. One of his best pictures is a view of the town-house of 
Amsterdam : it is now in the Louvre. He painted also views of the 
Royal Exchange of London, and of the London Monument. 

Vander Heyden was a mechanic as well as a painter, and he is said 
by some Dutch writers to have been the inventor of fire-engines. This 
is however not sufficiently attested ; yet he is known to have been a 
great improver of those machines, both in their efficiency and porta- 
bility. He published in 1690 a book in folio upon the subject, with 
illustrations drawn and etched by himself; and he was appointed by 
the authorities of Amsterdam to the office of director of the fire- 
engines of that city, with an annual salary. This appointment inter- 
fered with Vander Heyden’s time for painting: he executed several 
good pictures after it notwithstanding. 

VANDER MEER, JAN. There were apparently three Dutch 
painters of this name, but the accounts of them do not agree: some 
writers relate of only two artists what others relate of three. 

JAN VANDER MzER, the old, was born at Rotterdam in 1627. He 
painted in various styles, but excelled chiefly, according to D’Argen- 
ville, in small landscapes with figures, and in sea-pieces, in which he 
displayed a perfect knowledge of the construction of ships. This 
account has however been questioned, for Vander Meer painted his- 
torical pieces and portraits, and is said also to have painted some 
battle-pieces ; and it is not probable that the same painter should 
practise in so many different lines. According to Houbraken, he visited 
Italy and spent some years in Rome. In 1664 he was dean of the 
guild of painters in Amsterdam, and was at one time in affluent cir- 
cumstances: he purchased a picture of De Heem for 2000 florins, 
which eventually proved of great service to him. In 1672, when 
nearly all his property was either destroyed or stolen by the French at 
Utrecht, he presented this picture to the Prince of Orange, who gave 
him a situation under the government, and in 1674 created him a 
counsellor. The. landscapes and other small pieces attributed to this 


271 VANDERMEULEN, ANTONY FRANCIS. 


VANDERVELDE, WILLIAM. 272 


' painter are executed in a light and free manner, but are too blue in 
the distances. According to Van Eynden and Vander Willigen, in 
their ‘ History of National Art,’ Vander Meer painted only history and 
portrait. The date of his death is not known. 

JAN VANDER MEER, the young, a relation of, and, according to some, 
the son of the preceding, was born in 1656, He was first instructed 
by the elder Vander Meer, and after his death he became the scholar 
of N. Berghem, in whose style he executed a few pictures, but he 
painted chiefly landscapes with sheep and goats, _ His landscapes are 
excellent, and in painting sheep, which predominate in his pictures, he 
has not been equalled by any of his countrymen: he seldom painted 
horses or cattle. He excelled also in making pen-and-ink drawings, 
which he shaded very skilfully with Indian ink. He etched likewise 
a few plates ina very masterly manner. He died in 1706, in great 
poverty, brought on by intemperate habits, Some of the pictures 
attributed to the elder Vander Meer have been most likely painted by 
the younger. 


The supposed third artist of this name is by some writers called | 


John, and by others Jacob; and the misfortune said to have happened 
to the elder Vander Meer at Utrecht is related of this artist, but the 
accounts are too discrepant to enable us to say decidedly whether 
there were three or only two artists of this name. 

VANDERMEULEN, ANTONY FRANCIS, a celebrated Flemish 
landscape- and battle-painter, was born at Brussels in 1634. He 
was the scholar of Peter Snayers, and painted some good battles in the 
style of his master while still very young. Some of these pictures 
were seen by the French minister Colbert, who invited Vandermeulen 
to Paris, and held out such hopes to him that he was induced to leave 
his own country and settle in the French capital, where he was allowed 
a pension of 2000 francs by Louis XIV., besides being paid handsomely 
for his works. His pension was afterwards increased to 6000 francs. 

Vandermeulen accompanied Louis XIV. to the Netherlands in some 
of his campaigns, and made drawings of all the fortified places visited 
by the king or his army, and of all the sieges, battles, and engagements 
in which he was successful. The pictures painted from these designs 
are highly valued both for their faithful representation of the localities 
and for their correct costume. He excelled also in horses, which he 
designed with great spirit. His execution was free and his colouring 
generally rich, but his landscapes are rather too green in tone: his 
handling is in the style of Van Uden and Wildens. 

Vandermeulen’s principal works, twenty-nine in number, were in 
the Chateau de Marly. There are now many of them in the Louvre 
and many others at Versailles. These pictures are mostly of a large 
size: they were dead-coloured from his designs by his scholars, Martin 
the elder, Baudouin, and Bonnart, but were all finished by himself. 
The best are views of Luxembourg and Fontainebleau, the Entrance 
of Louis XIV. into Arras, Dinant, and another city, and the Passage 
of the King over the Pont-Neuf. 

Vandermeulen was a member of the highest class of the French 
Academy. He was the friend of Le Brun, and after the death of his 
first wife he married a niece of that painter, who by her misconduct is 
said to have sent her husband prematurely to the grave. He died at 
Paris in 1690. Many of his pictures and designs have been engraved ; 
the prints after his works amount to nearly one hundred and forty. 

Peter VANDERMEULEN, the brother of Charles Anthony, painted 
some battles for William III. of England: he came to this country in 
1670. He was originally a sculptor. 

VANDERMONDE, a French mathematician and philosopher, was 
born in Paris in 1735, and during his childhood, his health being deli- 

_cate, his father, a physician of Landrecies, caused him to be early 
taught to sing, in the hope that, by the exercise of his voice, his lungs 
might acquire strength. 

When he was thirty years of age he was introduced to Fontaine, in 
whose society he felt so much pleasure that he became his pupil, and 
immediately applied all the powers of his mind to the study of mathe- 
matics. In this he appears to have succeeded so far, that on being 
recommended by his friend Dusejour to propose himself as a candidate 
for admission to the Académie des Sciences, he prepared a memoir 
on the resolution of algebraic equations, which he read at a sitting of 
that learned body in 1771. Having been elected, he subsequently 
presented several other memoirs on mathematical subjects: among 
these may be mentioned one entitled ‘ Recherches analytiques sur les 
Irrationelles d’une nouvelle espéce,’ and another on the elimination of 
unknown quantities, 

Vandermonde had always a decided taste for music, and during 
several years he made it a particular object of study. Having analysed 
the works of the best musicians of the time, he came to the conclusion 
that the whole art was founded on one general law, by which, with the 
aid of mathematical processes, it would be possible for any person to 
become a composer ; and he explained the nature of his method before 
the Académie in 1788, and again in 1790. His two ‘Mémoires’ were 
submitted to the consideration of certain members who were appointed 
to examine them ; and though a favourable report was made by Gliick, 
Philidor, and Piccini, the opinions were not unanimous; the mathe- 
maticians are said to have found in the ‘Mémoires’ too much music, 
and the musicians too much mathematics. 

The versatility of his taste and talent led Vandermonde next to the 
study of chemistry; and becoming connected with Lavoisier, Monge, 


and Berthollet, he was engaged for a time in making experiments on 
the gases and on the composition of iron and steel. 

After the death of Vaucanson, Vandermonde was appointed to the 
direction of a conservatory or museum for arts and manufactures 
which had been formed by that philosopher; and considering it as a 
collection which might be made highly useful to the country, he spared 
no pains or expense to augment it with models of all the different 
machines which he could procure. This was the original of the Con- 
servatoire pour les Arts et Métiers, which was afterwards removed to 
the Abbaye St. Martin. 

From a conversation with M. Senovert, the translator of Stewart's — 
‘Philosophy of the Human Mind,’ he was induced to study that branch __ 
of science; and applying himself to it with his usual ardour, he was 
soon above the level of his countrymen in his knowledge of that intri- 
cate subject. On the formation of the Ecole Normale he was appointed 
in 1795 professor of political economy in that institution, and in the 
same year he was appointed to the first class of the Institut. 

At the breaking out of the Revolution Vandermonde entered into 
the clubs which were then formed, purely, it is said, as a philosopher, 
that he might study the characters of the men who distinguished 


themselves in those turbulent times, and without taking any active — 7 


part in the measures which were then put in practice, 4 
He exhausted his private fortune in advancing the objects of the 
museum which had been committed to his care; and being paid, like __ 
other public functionaries, in assignats, the depreciation of these 
reduced him to poverty. He died of a vomiting of blood, on the 1st 

of January 1796. : 

His works consist only of the ‘Mémoires,’ which are printed in the 
volumes of the Académie des Sciences. His lively imagination seems 
to have carried him too rapidly from one subject to another to permit 
him to acquire a profound knowledge of any ; and thus the reputation — 
which he acquired during his life may be said to have terminated at 


his death, or to have survived only for a time in the memory of his 


friends. 

VANDERVELDE, ADRIAN. This celebrated painter was born 
at Amsterdam in 1639, and showed great ability for drawing at an 
early age. He became the scholar of John Wynants, with whom he 
remained some years. Adrian Vandervelde excelled in landscapes, 
in cattle, and in small figures, and was of great assistance to many of 
the most distinguished painters of his time by embellishing their 
pictures with figures, and thus adding greatly to their value. He 
painted figures in the pictures of Wynants, Vander Heyden, Ruysdael, 
Hobbema, Moucheron, and others. Vandervelde executed likewise 
some historical pieces, in-which he was very successful; he painted a 
‘Taking down from the Cross’ for a Roman Catholic church at Amster- 
dam, in which the figures, though less than life, were of a considerable 
size ; and he left several other works of a similar description unfinished 
at his death in 1672, in only his thirty-third year. Considering the 
early age at which he died, his pictures are very numerous, yet they 
are sold for very high prices. 

Adrian Vandervelde was well acquainted with the human figure, and 
also with everything else that he painted. He was extremely indus- 
trious, and was constant in his recourse to nature in the studies of all 
his works : the various effects of light upon the trees and other objects 
of his landscapes, both in the morning and evening scenes, are remark- 
ably true to nature, and are managed with perfect mastery of his 
materials. He is distinguished also for the extreme delicacy of drawing 
of all the objects which he represented. y 

VANDERVELDE, or VANDEVELDE, WILLIAM, called the Old, ~ 
to distinguish him from his son of the same name, a very celebrated __ 
marine painter, was born at Leydenin 1610. Of his early studies little 
is known, but he appears as a boy to have been bred tothe sea; andit 
was during the voyages of his youth that he acquired his love forthe 
sea and his knowledge of ships, which was eventually of such eminent 
service to him as a marine painter. He distinguished himself early by 
some drawings of sea-fights, and he was in consequence commissioned _ 
by the States of Holland in 1666 to accompany Admiral de Ruyter on 
board the Dutch fleet, for the purpose of making designs of whatever 
engagements might take place between the Dutch and English fleets. 
He made some admirable drawings of the great engagement which 
took place off Ostend in June in that year. By these and other designs 
he acquired such a reputation that he was invited in 1675 to England 
by Charles II., who granted him a pension’ of 100/. per annum, with 
the title of painter of sea-fights to the king. He is said to have been 
so zealous in the service of Charles, as to be ungrateful to his country : 
he led the English fleet to burn Schelling. 4 

Vandevelde did not paint his designs: they were generally executed 
with a pen upon paper fixed upon canvas, upon parchment, or upon 
white prepared canvas; he also executed some in black and white: — 
every part is drawn and made out witha knowledge and precision 
‘unrivalled in that style. Some of his designs were painted in oil by 
his son, who lived with him in this country, and received from the 
king also a pension of 100/, per annum for that express purpose, A 
copy of the following privy-seal was purchased among the papers of 
Pepys, and was given by Dr. Rawlinson, the antiquary, to Vertue, the 
engraver ;—“ Charles the Second, by the grace of God, &e., to our 
dear cousin, Prince Rupert, and the rest of our commissioners for exe- 
cuting the place of lord high-admiral of England, greeting. Whereaswe 


} 

J 

“4 
> 
a 
i 
i 
iF) 
MW 


| 


; 
f 
| 


' 


a 


273 VANDERVELDE, WILLIAM. 


VANDYCK, SIR ANTONY. 274 


have thought fitt to allow the salary of one hundred pounds per annum 
unto William Vandevelde the elder, for taking and making draughts 
of sea-fights; and the like salary of one hundred pounds per annum 
unto William Vandevelde the younger, for putting the said draughts 
into colours for our particular use; our will and pleasure is, and wee 
do hereby authorise and require you to issue your orders for the 
present and future establishment of the said salaries to the aforesaid 

William Vandevelde the elder, and William Vandevelde the younger, 
to be paid unto them and either of them during our pleasure; and for 
so doing these our letters shall be your sufficient warrant and discharge. 
Given under our privy-seal at our pallace of Westminster, the 20th day 
of February, in the 26th year of our reign.” After the death of Charles, 
James continued the pension. 

Vandevelde witnessed many of the fights that he drew: he attended 
the engagement at Solebay in a small vessel by order of the Duke of 
York. He died in London, and was-buried in St. James’s Churchyard ; 
the following inscription was engraved on his tombstone: “ Mr. William 
Vandevelde, senior, late painter of sea-fights to their majesties king 
Charles IT. and king James, dyed 1693.” 

VANDERVELDE or VANDEVELDE, WILLIAM, the Younger, 
was greatly superior to his father, and is accounted by connoisseurs 
the best marine-painter that ever lived ; but in representing the gran- 
deur of a stormy ocean he is very far inferior to Turner, and in truth 
of colour and transparency he is inferior also to Stanfield. William 
Vandervelde was born at Amsterdam in 1633, and was taught by his 
father until he came to England, when he was placed with Simon de 
Vlieger, a clever ship-painter. Young Vaindervelde came early to this 
country, and lived probably with his father at Greenwich ; he died in 
London in 1707. The works of the younger Vandervelde are very 
valuable: the best of them are in England. His calms and his storm- 
pieces are equally excellent, and they are all remarkable for their 
delicacy of drawing and transparency of colouring. Walpole says of 
him, ‘‘ William Vandevelde, the son, was the greatest man that has 
appeared in this branch of painting; the palm is not less disputed 
with Raffaelle for history, than with Vandevelde for sea-pieces.” Two 
of the younger Vandervelde’s pictures are in the National Gallery, 
*A Calm at Sea,’ and ‘A Fresh Gale at Sea;’ but they are of small 
size and little importance. The collection of the Karl of Ellesmere 
at Bridgwater-House is very rich in Vanderveldes, containing ‘ The 
Entrance to the Brill;’ ‘A Calm;’ ‘A Fresh Breeze;’ two “Naval 
Battles;’ a ‘ View of the Texel;’ and the famous ‘Rising of the 
Gale,’ in competition with which—and as a companion to it—Turner 
painted his ‘ Gale at Sea,’ which now hangs in the same gallery. 

The younger Vandervelde left a son of the same name, who also 
painted sea-pieces, and made good copies of the works of his father. 
9g died in Holland. Both the Vanderveldes sat to Sir Godfrey 

neller, 

VANDER WERFF, ADRIAN. This celebrated painter was born 
of a good family at Kralinger Ambacht near Rotterdam, in 1659. He 
studied first with Cornelius Picolett, a good portrait painter, but at 
the age of thirteen was placed with Eglon Vander Neer, with whom 
he remained four years, and made such. progress as to render his 
master great assistance in his works. At the early age of seventeen 
Vander Werff set up for himself as a portrait painter at Rotterdam. 
He painted small portraits in oil, in the style of Netscher: he how- 
ever soon got tired of this branch, and took to historical painting ; 
and he was remarkably successful in disposing of his first pictures. 
Perhaps no painter ever rose more steadily to fortune than Vander 
Werff; every year added to his wealth and to his reputation. He 
painted a picture for an East India merchant of the name of Steen at 
Amsterdam, where he had been with his master Vander Neer, which 
was apparently the making of his fortune. It attracted the attention 
of and was purchased by the Elector John William of the Pfalz, when 
passing through Amsterdam; and when that prince was at Rotterdam 
in 1696, he visited Vander Werff, and ordered two pictures of him: 
his own portrait, for the grand-duke of Tuscany, and a Judgment of 
Solomon, which pictures he requested Vander Werff to bring to him 
in person to Diisseldorf, in the following year. Vander Werff took 
the pictures, and the elector was so well satisfied with them, that he 
wished to take the painter into his service, and offered him a noble 
salary: Vander Werff however consented to give up only six months 
in the year to the elector, and was allowed a salary of 4000 florins, 
but it was raised to 6000 upon his afterwards consenting to devote 
nine months in the year to the prince, who presented him with his 
portrait set in diamonds, and honoured him with knighthood for him 


and his heirs. He purchased also at a high price the works which 


Vander Werff executed during the remaining three months of the year. 
Vander Werff received very high prices for his pictures. After 


_ the death of the elector in 1716, he was at liberty to dispose of them 
‘fe 


to whom he pleased; and in the following year, 1717, he sold three 
to one nobleman for 10,000 florins, a Judgment of Paris for 5500 
florins, a Holy Family for 2500 florins, and a Magdalen for 2000 


florins. In the year after he sold another Judgment of Paris for 
_ 5000 florins, and a Flight into Egypt for 4000 florins: shortly after- 


_ wards he sold to an English gentleman ten pictures for 33,000 florins ; 


_ and after his death, a painting of the Prodigal Son was sold for 5500 
florins. He died in 1722. 

_ The pictures, or the greater part of them, painted by Vander 
_ BIOG, DIV, VOL. VI. 


Werff for the elector John William, which formed part of the Diissel- 
dorf collection, are now in the Pinakothek at Munich, where there are 
twenty-nine paintings by Vander Werff, including the Fifteen Mys- 
teries of the Roman Church, and many of his best pieces. The Ecce 
Homo, containing many small figures, painted in 1698; Abraham with 
Sarah and Hagar, painted in 1699; and a Magdalen in the Wilderness, 
painted in 1707 ; are remarkable works, equally excellent in compo- 
sition, drawing, colouring and execution, and are perhaps almost 
unequalled for their delicate and elaborate finish; yet through an 
artificial chiaroscuro they have a cold and inanimate effect, which 
greatly detracts from the gratification the spectator might be expected 
to experience in contemplating such exquisite works of art. Sir 
Joshua Reynolds saw most of these works at Diisseldorf before the 
collection at that place was purchased by the late king of Bavaria, 
and in his ‘Journey to Flanders and Holland’ he has made some 
remarks on these pictures, which define admirably the beauties and 
defects of this painter. He says: “His pictures, whether great or 
small, certainly afford but little pleasure. Of their want of effect it 
is worth a painter’s while to inquire into the cause. One of the prin- 
cipal causes appears to me, his having entertained an opinion that the 
light of a picture ought to be thrown solely on the figures, and little 
or none on the ground or sky. This gives great coldness to the effect, 
and is so contrary to nature and the practice of those painters with 
whose works he was surrounded, that we cannot help wondering how 
he fell into this mistake. In describing Vanderwerf's manner, were 
I to say that all the parts everywhere melt into each other, it might 
naturally be supposed that the effect would be a high degree of soft- 
ness; but it is notoriously the contrary, and I think for the reason 
that has been given; his flesh has the appearance of ivory or plaster, 
or some other hard substance. What contributes likewise to give 
this hardness, is a want of transparency in his colouring, from his 
admitting little or no reflection of light. He Has also the defect which 
is often found in Rembrandt, that of making his light only a single 
spot. However to do him justice, his figures and his heads are gene- 
rally well drawn, and his drapery is excellent; perhaps there are in 
his pictures as perfect examples of drapery as are to be found in any 
other painter’s works whatever.” 

(Houbraken, Groote Schouburgh der Nederlantsche Konstschilders, &c.) 

VANDER WEYDE, ROGER, a celebrated old painter of Brussels, 
was born in the latter part of the 15th century. He was, according 
to Van Mander, one of the first to reform the style of design of 
the Flemish painters; he divested it considerably of its Gothic 
manner, was correct in his proportions, and was very successful in 
expression. He painted portrait and history: there are, or were, four 
very celebrated pictures by him in the town-hall of Brussels, illustra- 
ting remarkable acts of justice. One represents a father on his death- 
bed putting to death his guilty son; another account describes it as 
Archambald, prince of Brabant, putting his nephew and heir to death, 
for having violated a maid of that country: the expression of sorrow 
in the face of the old man is said to be excellent. There was also in 
a church of the Virgin at Louvaine a Descent from the Cross, by 
Vander Weyde, which was highly valued. It was sent to Spain by 
command of the king of Spain, and a copy of it, by Michael Cocxis, 
put up in its place at Louvaine. Vander Weyde died in 1529, in the 
prime of life, of an epidemic disease which carried off many people. 
Van Mander says that he amassed considerable wealth, and spent 
much on the poor. Two heads, on gold grounds, in the gallery of the 
Louvre, one of Christ and the other of the Virgin Mary, numbered 515 
and 516, and said in the catalogue to be by an unknown artist, are, 
according to Dr. Waagen, by the hand of Vander Weyde. He praises the 
expression and the colouring. (Van Mander, Het Leven der Schilders ; 
Waagen, Kunstwerke und Kiinstler in England und Paris.) 

VANDYCK, SIR ANTONY. This great painter was born at 
Antwerp, March 22nd 1599. His father was a glass-painter of Herto- 
genbasch (Bois-le-Duc), and gave his son his earliest instruction in 
drawing; he was instructed also by his mother, who painted land- 
scapes, and was very skilful in embroidery. Before he became the 
scholar of Rubens, Vandyck is said to have been placed with Van 
Balen. With Rubens he made such progress as to be soon intrusted 
with the execution of some of his master’s sketches, and, according to 
a common but probably incorrect report, to excite his jealousy. 
Rubens has had the credit of having been actuated by jealousy when 
he advised Vandyck to confine himself to portrait painting, and to 
visit Italy for the purpose of studying the works of Titian and other 
great Italian masters. Walpole entertained a more rational view: he 
supposes that Vandyck felt the hopelessness of surpassing or even 
equalling his great master in his own line, and that he voluntarily 
devoted his chief attention to portrait. If Rubens recommended 
Vandyck to visit Italy, it was clearly for Vandyck’s benefit, and his 
following that advice clearly shows that he saw fully the advantages 
to be derived from such a visit, of which Rubens himself was an 
excellent example. The immediate cause of Rubens’s reputed jealousy 
of his scholar is accounted for by a variously told anecdote. Diepen- 
beck, another of Rubens’s scholars, is said to have been pushed by 
one of his companions against the great picture of the Descent from 
the Cross, upon a part that was still wet, and to have done it consl- 
derable damage, which was however so well repaired by Vandyck, that 
Rubens is reported to have been at first better pleased with that part 

T 


275 


VANE, SIR HENRY. 276 


' of the picture after the accident than before it; but upon the circum- 
stance being related to him, to have become jealous of Vandyck, and 
to have repainted the part again himself. Another version of the 
story says that this accident increased his esteem for Vandyck. 
Whatever may be the real statement of the case, Rubens and Van- 
dyck appear to have parted on the best of terms. Vandyck pre- 
sented Rubens with two historical pictures, an Ecce Homo and Christ 
in the Garden of Olives, and a portrait of Rubens’s second wife: he 
me presented in return by Rubens with one of his most beautiful 

orses. 

At the age of twenty Vandyck set out for Italy, but delayed some 
time at Brussels, fascinated by the charms of a peasant girl of Savel- 
them, who persuaded him to paint two pictures for the church of her 
native place—a St. Martin on horseback, painted from himself and the 
horse given him by Rubens; and a Holy Family, for which the girl 
and her parents were models. In Italy he spent some time at Venice 
and Genoa, where he painted many excellent portraits. From Genoa 
he went to Rome, where he was also much patronised, and lived in 
great style. A portrait of Cardinal Bentivoglio, painted at this time, 
is one of his masterpieces : it isin the Pitti Palace, and hangs near the 
celebrated portrait of Leo X. by Raffaelle, and is in every respect an 
admirable picture. Vandyck was known in Rome as the Pittore Cava- 
lieresco, He avoided the society of his countrymen, who were men 
of low and intemperate habits. They had formed themselves into a 
well-known society called the Schilder-Bent, and annoyed Vandyck 
so much that he was obliged to leave Rome and return to Genoa 
about 1625. Germans were also admitted into this society: it was 
not broken up until the year 1720. Whilst at Genoa Vandyck received 
an invitation to go to Palermo; whither he went, and he painted there 
portraits of Prince Philibert of Savoy, the viceroy, and other dis- 
tinguished persons; also the celebrated painter Sophonisba Anguisciola, 
then in her 92nd year. He remained only a short time in Sicily, being 
driven away by the plague. He returned to Genoa, and thence to his 
own country. 

Vandyck’s first picture after his return to Antwerp was a St. 
Augustin, for the church of the Augustines in that place, by which he 
established his reputation as one of the first painters of his time, and 
it was followed by his still more celebrated picture of the Crucifixion 
painted for the church of St. Michael at Ghent. He painted several 
other excellent historical pictures, but acquired greater fame by his 
portraits. He was in high favour with his old master Rubens, who is 

‘said to have offered him his eldest daughter in marriage, but Vandyck 
declined upon the plea that he intended to return shortly to Rome, or 
really, as some say, because he was in love with the step-mother. 
From Antwerp Vandyck went to the Hague by the invitation of the 
prince of Orange, Frederick of Nassau, and painted many portraits of 
the principal personages at that court. Whilst at the Hague he heard 
of the great love of the arts of Charles I., and he came to England 
with the hope of being introduced to the king. His hopes not being 
realised, he went to Paris, and not being more successful in that place, 
he returned to his own country. Charles however, having shortly 
afterwards seen the portrait of the musician Nicolas Laniere, director 

-of the music of the king’s chapel, requested Sir Kenelm Digby, who 
had sat to Vandyck, to invite him to come again to England. He 
came to England about 1682; was lodged by the king at Blackfriars ; 
was knighted in that year, and in the year following, 1633, he was 
granted an annual pension of 200/. for life, with the title of painter 
to his majesty, besides being handsomely paid for his works. There is 
a note in Walpole of a sum of 280/. paid to Vandyck by the king, for 

“various pictures in 1632. For a simple whole length the king paid 
251., but other people appear to have paid more. Walpole says, 
*Vandyck had 40/. for a half, and 60/. for a whole length; a more 
rational proportion than that of our present painters, who receive an 
equal price for the most insignificant part of the picture.” 

Vandyck was indefatigable in his application ; he painted a portrait 
ina day. He often detained people who sat to him to dinner, that he 
might have an opportunity of studying their countenances, and he 
retouched their portraits again in the afternoon. He kept a great 
table, and was of most expensive habits; he was also fond of music, 
and was liberal to musicians. In the summer he lived at Eltham in 
Kent. Buckeridge, in his ‘Essay towards an English School,’ speaking 
of Vandyck, says, “He always went magnificently dressed, had a 
numerous and gallant equipage, and kept so good a table in his apart- 
ment, that few princes were more visited or better served.” ‘This 
luxurious and sedentary life destroyed his constitution and wasted his 
means. He endeavoured to repair his fortunes by the absurd study 
of alchemy and the search of the philosopher’s stone: a pursuit in 
which he was probably encouraged, says Walpole, by the example of 
his friend Sir Kenelm Digby. Shortly before he died, the king 
bestowed on Vandyck, for a wife, Mary, daughter of the unfortunate 
Lord Ruthven, earl of Gowry. Not long after they were married, he 
went with his wife to Paris, “in hopes,” says Walpole, “ of being 
employed in some public work ;” but after remaining there for a short 
time, and seeing no prospects of success, he returned to London, and, 
still bent upon executing some public work, he proposed to the king, 
by Sir Kenelm Digby, to paint the walls of the Banqueting-house at 
Whitehall with the history and procession of the Order of the Garter. 
He made a design, with which the king is said to have been pleased, 


but he demanded such a large sum for the carrying it into execution 
(80,000/., probably a misprint for 8000/.), that it was judged unreason- 
able ; and whilst the king was treating with him for a less sum, the 
project was put an end to by the death of Vandyck: he died in 
London, in 1641, in the 42nd year of his age; and was buried in St. 
Paul’s Cathedral, near the tomb of John of Gaunt. He left one 
daughter by his wife Mary Ruthven, who married Mr. Stepney, who 
rode in the horse-guards on their first establishment by Charles IL. 
Notwithstanding his expensive habits, he died worth about 20,0002. 

Vandyck is generally allowed to dispute the palm with Titian in 
portrait painting, and he is by some accounted upon the whole 
superior to him. He was inferior to Titian in richness and warmth 
of colouring, but surpassed him in perhaps every other respect. Van- 
dyck is unrivalled for the delicacy of drawing and beauty of his 
hands; he was perfect master of drawing and of chiaroscuro; he was 
admirable in draperies; and with simplicity of expression and grace 
of attitude, he combined both dignity and individuality. His portraits 
generally impress us with the feeling that he has not only selected the 
most suitable attitude for the figure, but that he has also chosen the 
best view of the countenance. His latest works are executed in a 
careless though masterly manner, but some of his earliest portraits, 
particularly some of those painted in Italy, combine with his own 
masterly style of design the exquisite finish of Holbein. 

Although Vandyck has acquired his great name by his portraits, he 
painted also many excellent historical pieces, and he never at any time 
ceased to paint pictures in this line; they are however very inferior 
to his portraits: they want generally both feeling and expression. 
His best historical picture, in the opinion of Sir Joshua Reynolds, is 
the ‘Crucifixion between the two Thieves,’ at the church of the Recol- 
lets at Mechlin, of which he says, “ This perhaps is the most capital 
of all his works, in respect to the variety and extensiveness of the 
design, and the judicious disposition of the whole. In the efforts 
which the thieves make to disengage themselves from the cross, he 
has successfully encountered the difficulty of the art; and the expres- 
sion of grief and resignation in the Virgin is admirable. This picture, 
upon the whole, may be considered as one of the first pictures in the 
world, and gives the highest idea of Vandyck’s powers: it shows that 
he had truly a genius for history-painting, if it had not been taken off 
by portraits.” 

Vandyck’s pictures are very numerous, almost as much so as those 
of Rubens. Many of the best of them are in this country, at Windsor 
Castle, at Hampton Court, at Wilton House, and at Blenheim, and in 
many other private collections. His masterpiece, in the opinion of 
Walpole, is the dramatic portrait of the Karl of Strafford and his 
secretary Sir Thomas Mainwaring, at Wentworth House. There is 
one also at Blenheim of this subject, which Dr. Waagen praises very 
highly ; Walpole however says that the picture at Wentworth House 
is infinitely superior to it. At Wilton House there are twenty-five 
pictures by Vandyck, and it is here, says Walpole, that Vandyck is 
upon his throne; and the great portrait of Philip, earl of Pembroke, 
with his family, says the same writer, “though damaged, would serve 
alone as a school of this master.” Charles I. was painted several times 
by Vandyck, sometimes on horseback, and he repeated some of the 
portraits of him: they are among his best works. Among his more in- 
teresting works also is the series of portraits of the most eminent artists 
and others his contemporaries at Antwerp, painted in small in chiaro- 
seuro, before he left Antwerp for the Hague. The originals were never 
collected, but they were etched and have been published together, to 
the number of one hundred, three times, under the following titles— 
‘Icones Virorum doctorum, pictorum, chalcographorum, &c. numero 
centum, ab Antonio Vandyck pictore ad vivum expresse et ejus 
— eri incisee Antverpie,.’ Vandyck etched some of the plates 
himself. 

The superb head of Gevartius, as it is called, in the National Gallery 
in London, attributed to Vandyck, is supposed by some critics to have 
been painted by Rubens. Passavant and Dr. Waagen are both of this 
opinion, but they think that the rest of the picture is the work of 


Vandyck. Dr. Waagen has observed that this picture cannot be the 


portrait of Caspar Gevartius, the friend of Rubens; for he was not 
born until 1593, and it represents a man between 50 and 60; and that 
if it represents the canon John Gevartius, it cannot have been painted 
by Vandyck, for he died in 1623, whilst Vandyck was in Italy; nor 
can it have been painted by him before he went to Italy, for it is not 
the production of a young hand. If it be the head of John Gevartius, 
it must have been painted by Rubens. Besides the Gevartius there 
are threo other works by Vandyck in the National Gallery—aA ‘ Por- 
trait of Rubens,’ ‘The Emperor Theodosius refused Admission into 
the Church by St. Ambrose,’ which is little more than a free copy of 
the picture by Rubens in the Imperial Gallery at Vienna; anda ‘Study 
of Horses,’ b: 4 
(Houbraken, Groote Schouburgh, &c. ; Descamps, La Vie des Peintres — 


Flamands, &e.; Walpole, Anecdotes of Painting in England; Passa- 


vant, Kunstreise durch England wad Belgien; Waagen, K erk 
und Kiinstler in England und Paris; Carpenter, Pictorial Notices ; 
consisting of a Memowr of Sir Anthony Van Dyck.) 
VANE, SIR HENRY, the Younger, was born about the year 1612. 
He was descended from an ancient family in the county of Kent,and — 
was the eldest son of Sir Heny Vane of Hadlow in Kent, knight, — 


{ 


ain 


—_= = 


ey ssn re any 


277 VANE, SIR HENRY. 


VAN HELMONT, SEGRES JACOB. 278 


comptroller of the household and secretary of state to King Charles I. 
He received the first part of his education at Westminster School. 
About the sixteenth year of his age Sir Henry Vane became a gentle- 
man commoner of Magdalen Hall, Oxford; but Wood says, that when 
he should have matriculated as a member of the university, and taken 
the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, he quitted his gown, put on a 
cloak, and studied notwithstanding for some time in that hall. On 
leaving Oxford he spent some time in France, and more in Geneva, 
where he contracted an unconquerable aversion towards the govern- 
ment and liturgy of the Church of England. After his return home, 
his father, being then comptroller of the household and a privy coun- 


cillor, was greatly displeased’on discovering the heterodox state of his 


son's opinions.. The interference of Laud in the work of recalling 


- him to the doctrines of the Church of England produced the effect.of 


confirming him in his sectarianism. In 1635 he went, for.conscience 
sake, to the infant colony of New England, where he remained about 
two years. Onhis return to England he married; and, through his 
father’s interest, was joined with Sir William Russell-in the office of 
treasurer of the navy. In 1640 he was knighted. He sat for the 
borough of Kingston-upon-Hull in the parliament which met at West- 
minster, April 13, 1640, and again in the Long Parliament, which 
began November 3, the same year. During Strafford’s trial young 
Vane, in searching for some papers for his father, found in his father’s 
cabinet some notes, which were used as material evidence against 
Strafford on the trial. Having been appointed sole treasurer of the 
navy, and considering the fees, which by reason of the war amounted 
to nearly 30,000/. a year, as too much for a private subject, he gave 
up his patent, which he had for life from Charles I., to the parliament, 
only desiring that 2000/. a year should go to a deputy whom he had 
bred to the business. When the Independents sprung up, he declared 
himself one of their leaders. He did not approve of the force put 
upon the parliament by the army, nor of the king’s execution, with- 
drawing for some time for public affairs, 

Upon the establishment of the Commonwealth, in February 1648-49, 
he was appointed one of the council of state; and in 1652 he was for 
a time president of the same council, and also at the same time one of 
the commissioners of the navy. On the 9th of January 1649-50, he 
made the Report to the House of Commons from the Committee 
appointed to consider the manner of electing future Parliaments. 
Towards the end of 1651 he was nominated one of the commissioners 
that were to be sent into Scotland in order to introduce the English 
government there, 

Vane was one of those who would not submit to the usurpation of 
Cromwell. When Lieutenant-Colonel Worsley entered the House of 
Commons, on the 20th of April 1653, with two files of musqueteers, 
to drive out the Commons, Vane exclaimed, “This is not honest ! yea, 
it is against morality and common honesty:” whereupon Cromwell 
fell a railing at him, erying out with aloud voice, “O, Sir Henry 
Vane ! Sir Henry Vane! the Lord deliver me from Sir Henry Vane !” 
In 1656, as Vane persevered in his hostility to Cromwell’s government 
—which hostility he displayed in a book published by him, entitled 
‘A Healing Question propounded and resolved’—he was imprisoned 
for some time in Carisbrook Castle in the Isle of Wight. But not- 
withstanding this and other means to shake his resolution, he remained 
inflexible both under Oliver and his son and successor Richard. 

After Richard's abdication the Long Parliament, which had been 
restored by a general council of the officers of the army, constituted 
Sir. Henry one of the Committee of. Safety, and also a member, and 
afterwards president, of the council of state. But he afterwards 
seems to have fallen under the displeasure of the parliament, for it 
was voted that he should repair to his house at Raby, and remain 
there during the pleasure of the parliament. 

On the king’s restoration, the House of Commons resolved, on the 
llth.of June 1660, that Sir H. Vane should be one of the twenty 
persons to be excepted out of the Act of General Pardon and Oblivion, 
for and in respect only of such pains, penalties, and forfeitures, not 
extending to life, as should be thought fit to be inflicted on him. In 
July he was committed to the Tower. In January 1660-61 an insur- 
rection of the Fifth-Monarchy Men broke out, and Sir Henry Vane, 
being almost the only person of station who had countenanced them, 
was removed from one prison to another, and at last to the Isle of 
Scilly. In August 1660 the Lords and Commons had joined ina 
petition to the king, that “if he were attainted, yet execution as to 
his life might be remitted,” to which his majesty returned a favourable 
answer. But in July 1661 the Commons had so far altered their 
sentiments as to order that he should be proceeded against according 
to law, and for that purpose be sent for back to the Tower of London. 

On Monday the 2nd of June 1662, Vane was arraigned, having been 
indicted of high treason before the Middlesex grand jury the preceding 
term, He pressed much for counsel, and the court assured him that 
after pleading counsel should be assigned him; which assurance, after 
his pleading not gwilty, we are informed the court thought fit to 
violate. On Friday the 6th of June, the attorney-general having 
addressed the jury, Sir Henry was required to make his defence, and 
to go through with his case all at)once, and not to reply again upon 
the crown lawyers. Vane spoke in his defence with great spirit and 
courage. After he had finished, Finch, the solicitor-general, addressed 
the jury, who, having then retired for about half an hour, returned 


with their verdict, which found the prisoner guilty of high treason 
from the 30th of January 1648 (the day of Charles 1.’s execution). 
On the 11th of June, the sentence-day, the court finally refused to 
hear his reasons for an arrest of judgment, though they had promised 
him, before the verdict, that they would hear anything of that kind he 
had to offer; as they had also, before his pleading not guilty, promised 
him counsel. The sentence was, that he should be hanged, drawn, 
and quartered, at Tyburn; but in the order for his execution the 
manner of his death was altered into a beheading only on Tower 
Hill, which order was accordingly carried into execution on the 14th 
of June. - 

Sir Henry Vane left only one son, who was knighted by King 
Charles IL, and created, by King William, Lord Barnard of Barnard 
Castle. 

Sir Henry Vane was the author of various publications, both 
political and theological. Of the latter, the most remarkable bears 
the following strange title :—‘ The Retired Man’s Meditations, or the 
Mysterie and Power of Godlines shining forth in the Living Word, 
to the unmasking the Mysterie of Iniquity in the most Refined and 
Purest Forms... In which Old Light is restored, and. New Light 
justified, being the Witness which is given to this Age. By Henry 
Vane, Knight,’ 4to, 1655, in which, amongst other subjects equally 
dark, he discusses the “creation, nature, and ministry of angels,’ 
“the tree of knowledge of good and evil,’ the “fall of man,’ and 
“the thousand years’ reign of Christ;” which last discussion, though 
it might be supposed to be the Fifth-Monarchy Man’s strong subject, 
we found the most unintelligible of the whole. 

(Lhe Life and Death of Sir Henry Vane, Knt., Lond., 1662; Biog. 
Brit., art. ‘Vane ;’ Ath. Oxon, art.‘ Vane;’ Birch’s Lives ; Ludlow’s 
Memoirs ; Vane’s Speeches in Brit. Mus.; Whitelock; Z'rial of Su 
Henry Vane, Knt., 1662; State Trials, vol. ii.) 

VAN EFFEN, JUSTUS, a writer who has been called the Addison 
of Holland, was born at Utrecht in 1684, and was intended by his 
father for the same profession as his own, namely, the military service. 
But Justus felt no inclination for the army: he preferred study, and 
applied himself to that of jurisprudence, in which faculty he obtained 
a Doctor’s degree at Leyden in 1727. He does not however appear 
to have practised law much asa profession; for he was at first suc- 
cessively employed as private teacher in several families of rank, and 
afterwards occupied in literary pursuits, In the first-mentioned 
capacity he was brought into contact with superior society, and had 
the opportunity of forming advantageous connections, owing to one 
of which he was appointed to accompany Van Duivenvoorde as his 
second secretary when he was sent by the States, in 1714, to con- 
gratulate George I. on his accession, He afterwards visited England 
a second time in 1727, in the quality of first se¢retary to Count Van 
Welderen, who was then ambassador to this country. On the former 
of these occasions he became acquainted with Swift’s writings, and 
translated his ‘Tale of a Tub,’ not however into Dutch, but into 
French, which language he wrote as easily as his own, under the title 
of ‘Conte du Tonneau.’ On the other, he was elected a member of 
the Royal Society of London. In 1719 he visited Sweden, in company 
with a German nobleman, and there received many marks of attention 
from the highest persons at court. A place of some emolument was 
bestowed upon him by his patron Van Welderer ; but as its duties 
did not accord with his inclination, he put in a substitute, to whom 
he gave up a considerable part of the salary, and occupied himself 
with his pen, not only more congenially, but so successfully as to 
acquire a high literary reputation. 

Many years before (1711) he had published a French work, under 
the title of ‘Le Misanthrope,’ upon the plan of our English ‘Spectator,’ 
and he now commenced a similar one, but every way superior to the 
former. ‘The ‘ Hollandsche Spectator,’ begun in 1731,and continued 
till 1735, the year of the author’s death, was not only the first attempt 
of the kind in the language, but has become a classical work. It is 
stamped by easy elegance of style, by pleasantry and wit, attempered 
by judgment and correct feeling. Like his English model, Van Effen 
both instructs and pleases; and if time has deprived their pictures of 
life and manners of the charm of freshness, it has also imparted to 
them no little historic value. 

(Van Kampen, Beknopte Geschicdnis van der Letteren en Wetenschap- 
pen in de Nederlanden.) 

VAN HELMONT, SEGRES JACOB, a Flemish historical painter, 
was born at Antwerp in 1683. He was the son of Matthew Van 
Helmont, a painter of Brussels, and was instructed in his art by his 
father: he followed however a very different line. The father painted 
markets, fairs, shops, alchemists at work, and similar scenes; the son 
distinguished himself for religious compositions in the great style. 
The younger Van Helmont settled at Brussels: he was of a weak con- 
stitution, and never left his own country. He excelled in composition 
and in colouring, and was considered one of the best Flemish painters 
of his time. He painted many works for the churches and for private 
persons at Brussels. Descamps has enumerated many of his works. 
The Triumph of Elijah over the Priests of Baal, in the church of the 
Carmelites; the Martyrdom of St. Barbara, in St. Mary Magdalen ; 
and the Triumph of David, in St. Michael’s church, at Brussels, are 
— his masterpieces. He died at Brussels in 1736, aged fifty- 
three. 


279 VAN HELMONT. 


VANMANDER, CAREL, 


VAN HELMONT. [Hetmont, Van.]} 

VAN HOECK, JAN, a distinguished Flemish painter, was born at 
Antwerp about 1600. He first studied for one of the learned pro- 
fessions, but became the pupil of Rubens, and studied afterwards 
some time in Rome. While in Italy he was invited by the emperor 
Ferdinand II. to his court, and was much employed by him. He 
eventually returned to his own country, where he died, according to 
Houbraken, in 1650. 

Van Hoeck was admirable in history and portrait, and excelled 
both in light and shade and colour; his figures also are better drawn 
than is the case with those of the pupils of Rubens and the Flemish 
school generally. The ‘Christ on the Cross’ in the church of Saint 
Sauveur, or the cathedral, at Bruges, is one of the finest pictures in 
Belgium. The Christ, which is of the size of life, has extraordinary 
effect and reality, and is certainly superior to the celebrated Christ of 
the church of St. Michael at Ghent, by Vandyck, and it is more real 
and impressive than any of those of Rubens: beneath the cross are 
the Virgin and other saints. There is a print of it by the younger 
Cornelius Galle; this engraver however is not very accurate in his 
drawing. Independent of the Christ, the composition of the picture 
is meagre and formal, and wants dramatic truth. 

VANUNI, LUCI’LIO, was born at Taurosano, in the province of 
Otranto, in 1585. He studied at Naples, Rome, and Padua, and applied 
himself especially to metaphysics. He afterwards travelled about 
Germany, France, and England. He was of a sceptical turn of mind, 
but seems to have had a leaning towards astrology. Cardano and 
Pomponazzi were his favourite authors. He was fond of religious 
polemics, a perilous vocation in that age. He says himself that he 
held disputations in England in favour of the Roman Catholic faith, 
and was imprisoned forty-nine days for it. Returning to Italy, he 
taught philosophy at Genoa; but perceiving that his orthodoxy was 
suspected, he went to France, where he published a curious work, the 
title of which alone gives some insight into the state of his mind— 
‘ Amphitheatrum eterne Providentie Divino-magicum, Christiano-phy- 
sieum, nec non Astrologo-catholicum, adversus veteres Philosophos, 


Atheos, Epicureos, Peripateticos, et Stoicos,’ Lyon, 1615, His next- 


work was ‘De admirandis Nature, Regine Dezque mortalium, Arca- 
nis, Paris, 1616. This work raised a storm against the author, 
because it was considered as savouring of pantheism. The Sorbonne 
condemned the book to the flames. In the mean time Vanini was 
offering his services to the Papal nuncio Ubaldini at Paris, to write a 
defence of the Council of Trent. In 1617 he left Paris for Toulouse, 
where some time after he was arrested by order of the parliament of 
that city; and in February 1619 he was condemned to be burnt as a 
professed atheist. The president of the parliament, De Grammont, 
wrote an account of his condemnation and execution, which is given 
by Brucker, in his ‘ History of Philosophy,’ and by Niceron, in his 
‘Mémoires des Hommes Illustres,’ from which it appears that Vanini 
died making a profession of atheism. But several Roman Catholic 
writers, among others Tommaso Barbieri, in his ‘Notizie dei Mate- 
matici e Filosofi Napolitani,’ have defended Vanini against the charge 
of atheism. 

VANLOO, JEAN BAPTISTE, originally of a noble family of 
Ecluse in Flanders, which had long numbered painters among its 
members, was born at Aix in Provence, in 1684. His grandfather 
Jacques was a clever portrait painter, and his father Louis Vanloo 
excelled in design and was a good fresco painter: he was educated in 
Paris in the French Academy, but settled at Aix in Provence in 1683. 
His two sons, Jean Baptiste and Charles André, both became eminent 
painters. 

Jean Baptiste was instructed by his father, who taught him to draw 
when he was still a child: he set him to copy pictures by the old 
masters, and young Vanloo is said to have made a good copy when 
he was only eight years of age. Jean Baptiste painted portraits and 
history, and first practised at Nice and Toulon, where he married the 
daughter of an advocate. He was obliged to leave Toulon in 1707, 
when it was besieged by Victor, duke of Savoy, afterwards called 
king of Sardinia, and he returned to Aix, where he remained five 
years, during which time he painted many portraits and several 
religious pieces. In 1712 he returned to Nice, and his father dying 
shortly afterwards he finished the works which his father had left 
incomplete, He then went to Genoa and to Turin, where he was 
noticed by the duke of Savoy, whose family he painted as well as a 
portrait of the duke himself. He became acquainted at Turin also 
with the duke’s son-in-law the Prince of Carignano, who took Vanloo 
into his service and sent him to Rome, where he became the scholar 
of Benedetto Luti. In 1719 Vanloo was lodged by his patron the 
Prince of Carignano in his hotel at Paris. On his return from Rome, 
Vanloo visited Turin and painted some pictures for the king of 
Sardinia, who would have retained him in his service but for his 
engagement with the Prince of Carignano. He soon acquired a great 
reputation in Paris, and was in great favour with the regent, the duke 
of Orleans, for whom he repaired in distemper the five cartoons by 
Julio Romano of the Loves of Jupiter, and also the frescoes of Niccolo 
Abati from the designs of Primaticcio at Fontainebleau. In the latter 
he was assisted by his brother Charles André. These works and the 
gallery containing them were destroyed in 1738 to make room for a 
new building. 


In portrait Vanloo had few rivals in Paris. He painted Louis XV. 
and the queen of France; also the king Stanislaus Leczinski and his 
queen. Yet although he was so much occupied with portraits, he 
applied himself constantly to historical pieces, some of which gained 
him great credit. In 1731 he was made a member of the Academy, 
and in 1735 he was appointed professor. He painted a picture of Diana 
and Endymion for his reception into the Academy. Notwithstanding 
Vanloo’s great success, a large family and an unsuccessful speculation 
(he lost 40,000 francs in the Mississippi scheme) rendered constant 
exertion necessary. He came, in 1738, with two of his sons to 
London, with a view of trying his fortune in this country, and he met 
with great success. His first works in London were portraits of 
Colley Cibber and Owen Mac Swinney, “ whose long silver-grey hairs,” 
says Walpole, “ were extremely picturesque, and contributed to give 
the new painter reputation.” He continues—“‘ Vanloo soon bore 
away the chief business of London from every other painter. His 
likenesses were very strong, but not favourable, and his heads coloured 
with force. He executed very little of the rest of his pictures, the 
draperies of which were supplied by Van Aken and Vanloo’s own 
disciples Eccardt and Root. However Vanloo certainly introduced a 
better style; his pictures were thoroughly finished, natural, and no 
part neglected. He was laborious, and demanded five sittings from 
each person. But he soon left the palm to be again contended for by 
his rivals. He laboured under a complication of distempers, and being 
advised to try the air of his own country, Provence, he retired thither 
in October 1742, and died there in April 1746.” He left about 90,000 
francs to his family. 

Vanloo had an extraordinary facility of execution ; he painted three 
well-finished heads in a single day. His colourivg was rich and his 
drawing was correct. He had five sons, two of whom became dis- 
tinguished painters, Louis Michel, painter to Philip V., king of 
Spain ; and Charles Amadée Philippe, painter to Frederic the Great 
of, Prussia. 

Vanloo’s historical pieces are numerous: ‘ Christ entering into Jeru- 
salem,’ at St. Martin des Champs; and ‘St. Peter delivered from Prison, 
at St. Germain des Prés, at Paris, are among his best works. 

VANLOO, CHARLES ANDRE, knight of the Order of St. Michael 
and director of the French Academy of Painting at Paris, the younger 
brother of Jean Baptiste Vanloo, was born at Nice in 1705. He 
learned painting and sculpture when a boy at Rome; he was instructed 
in painting by his brother and by Benedetto Luti, and in sculpture by 
Le Gros. His brother took him with him to Paris in 1719, and he 
commenced his career as a decorative painter in the great Opera- 
house, but he soon forsook this branch for portrait painting. In 1723, 
when only eighteen, he gained the first medal for drawing at the 
Academy, and in 1724 the first prize for painting. In 1727 he went 
again to Rome, and gained one of the prizes of the Academy of St. 
Luke : he also distinguished himself by a picture of the ‘Apotheosis 
of St. Isidore,’ and two or three other works, which attracted the 
notice of the Cardinal de Polignac, then French minister at the 
court of Rome, who procured him a pension ‘from the French 
king; and in 1729 he was honoured with the title of Cavaliere by ~ 
the pope. : 

On his return to Paris he delayed some time at Turin, where he 
painted eleven pictures from Tasso’s ‘Jerusalem Delivered,’ for the 
king of Sardinia ; and he married there the celebrated singer Christine 
Sommis, with whom he arrived at Paris in 1734. Dandre Bardon, 
who wrote a Life of Charles Vanloo, says that Madam Vanloo was 
the first singer who excited the admiration of the French for Italian 
music. In 1735 Vanloo was admitted a member of the Academy; he 
painted as his reception picture Marsyas flayed by Apollo, which is 
one of his best works. Frederic the Great of Prussia wished him to 
enter into his service, and offered him a pension of 3000 dollars (450/.) 
and distinct payment for his works; Vanloo however declined, but 
recommended his nephew Charles Amadée Philippe to Frederic, who 
was appointed the king’s painter. Vanloo himself painted for the king 
a picture of the Sacrifice of Iphigenia. z 

In 1751 Vanloo was presented by Louis XV. with the Order of St. 
Michael; and in the same year was made director of the Academy: 
in 1762 he was appointed principal painter to the king. He died in 
Paris in 1765. 

Charles André Vanloo was considered by the admirers of the old 
French school the last of the great historical painters of France. He 
was an easy and a rapid draughtsman; was true and vigorous in 
colouring, and had a masterly execution: he was however rather 
poor in invention. He was very fastidious, and he often destroyed 
some of his best pieces. He was a man of singular temper; he went 
every night to the theatres, but generally to the Italian comedy, yet 
he always rose early. Diderot. (‘ Essai sur la Peinture’) says that 
Vanloo could neither read nor write. 

VANMANDER, CAREL, or CHARLES, a painter, poet, and bio- 
grapher, born at Meulebeke near Courtray, in 1548, was descended of 
an old noble family of West Flanders. Members of his family had 
held high offices im church and state as early as the thirteenth 
century: his father was a landowner and farmed likewise some 
government estates, Vanmander showed great ability for both poetry 
and painting when very young, and he was placed at an early age with 
Lucas de Heere at Ghent, likewise a poet and painter. He studied 


OE —<<—<—< =<  ~ 


_ considered the best painting at Siena. 


_ Pictures, supposing them to be works of Baroccio. 
_ Single exception of colouring, Vanni was upon the whole inferior to 
_ Baroccio; and in colouring he was sometimes hard. His drawing in 
_ general was excellent, but has less fulness than Baroccio’s; he had 
_ also less vigour of conception and less spirit of execution. 


281 VANNI, CAVALIERE FRANCESCO. 


VAN OS, PIETER GERARD. 282 


painting afterwards with Peter Vlerick at Courtray; and in 1569 he 
returned home. He spent five years in his native place, devoting 
much of his time to povtry and dramatic representations, and he 
superintended a theatre at home, of which he was poet, painter, and 
manager, and which he made extremely popular, He painted also 
some altar-pieces and a few other pictures, In 1574 he set out for 
Rome. In Rome Vanmander became acquainted with Spranger, and 


' was led away from the correct taste which he might otherwise have 


acquired there, by the mannerism of that master and of the period. 
‘He was however very industrious and acquired great distinction. He 
left Rome in 1577 for his own country, and on his way visited Basel 
and Vienna. At Basel he painted some frescoes in the cemetery: at 
Vienna he again met with Spranger, and assisted him in some of -his 
‘works. Vanmander, after his return home, lived some years in peace, 
dividing his time between poetry and painting; but the civil wars 
soon rendered it necessary for him to leave his native place. His 
father’s house was plundered by some Walloons, and he himself only 
escaped hanging by the accidental arrival on the spot of an Italian 
with whom he had been acquainted in Rome, who released him. He 
first went to Courtray, but upon the plague breaking out in that 
place he removed to Bruges; and shortly afterwards, in 1583, he 
went with his wife and two children to Haarlem, where he remained 
twenty years, respected by all who knew him. At Haarlem Van- 
mander established an academy, and had many scholars; here also 
he accomplished many literary labours. He wrote many songs; 
translated the ‘Iliad ;’ the ‘ Bucolics’ and ‘Georgics’ of Virgil; and 


* Ovid's ‘Metamorphoses ;’ and compiled also the greater part of his 


‘Lives of the Painters,’ which he finished, in 1604, at Sevenbergen, 
a castle between Alkmaar and Haarlem, In the same year he removed 
to Amsterdam, where he died in 1606, aged fifty-eight, leaving a wife 
and seven children. Three hundred of his friends and scholars 
followed his body to the grave. 

The world is chiefly indebted to Vanmander for his ‘ Lives of the 
Painters’ (‘Het Schilder Boek’), Haarlem, 1604, 4to., which contains 
notices of the painters of antiquity, and of the most celebrated 
Italian, German, Dutch, and Flemish painters. A modernised edition 
of the Dutch, Flemish, and German painters, with many portraits, 
and some additions, was published at Amsterdam in 1764, under the 
title ‘Het Leven der Doorluchtige Nederlandsche en eenige Hoog- 
duitsche Schilders’ (‘ Lives of the Illustrious Netherland and some 
German Painters’). Vanmander painted a considerable number of 
pictures on religious subjects, many of which have been engraved. 
He was a good landscape painter, both in fresco and in oil: he 
executed at Rome some large landscapes in fresco, which gained him 
great credit. 
also distinguished himself as an historical and portrait painter. He 
was painter to Christian IV., king of Denmark, excelled in portrait 
painting, had a free touch, and. coloured well. He was still living 
in 1665. 

(Vanmander, Het Leven der Schilders, ed. 1764; Schopenhauer, 
Johann Van Eyck und seine Nachfolger ; Fiorillo, Geschichte der Zeich- 
nenden Kiinste, &c.; Fiissli, Aligemeines Kiinstler Lexicon.) 

VANNI, CAVALIERE FRANCESCO, one of the most celebrated 
Italian painters of the latter half of the 16th century, was born at 
Siena, in 1565, of a family long distinguished in the Sienese annals of 
painting. He was first instructed by his father, and after his death, 
for a short time, by his step-father Archanglo Salimbeni: he is then 
said to have studied with Bartolomeo Passarotti at Bologna, which 
Lanzi questions; and in his sixteenth year he went to Rome and 
finished his studies with Giovanni de’ Vecchi. He ultimately adopted 
the style of Baroccio, and became the most distinguished of all that 
painter's imitators; though he copied also some of the works of Cor- 
reggio and Parmegiano at Parma, and it was perhaps more owing to 
his admiration for the works and style of Correggio that he painted in 
the manner of Baroccio, than from any direct imitation of the latter. 
Vanni obtained such reputation at Siena by some of the altar-pieces 
which he executed for its churches, that he was invited by Clement 
VIII. to Rome, and commissioned by that pontiff to paint a picture 
for one of the altars of St. Peter's. He painted Simon Magus rebuked 
by Peter, and gave such satisfaction that he was created cavaliere of 
the order of Christ. This picture is still in good preservation, is 
executed completely in the style of Baroccio, and is one of Vanni’s 
best works. Other celebrated works by him in Rome are—in Santa 
Cecilia in Trastevere, the Flagellation of Christ, and the Death of St. 
Cecilia; and a Dead Christ in Santa Maria della Vallicella. He 
painted also some celebrated works in Siena, at Pisa, and at Pistoia. 
His picture of St. Raimond walking on the Sea, at San Domenico, is 
He was also a skilful architect. 
He died at Siena in 1609, aged only forty-four, according to Baldi- 
nucci, or forty-six, according to D’Argenville, who gives 1563 as the 
date of his birth. 

Vanni’s style was so much like that of Baroccio, that even good 
judges have been misled as to the authorship of some of Vanni’s 
With however the 


His son, Charles Vanmander, born at Delft in 1580,. 


Vanni formed a numerous school, of which his two sons Michel- 
angelo and Raffaelle Vanni were distinguished scholars. Both attained 
the rank of cdvaliere; but according to Lanzi, the younger was the 
more deserving of it. Raffaelle was born in 1596. He painted many 
pictures of merit in Rome ; where, in 1655, he was elected a member 
of the Academy of St. Luke, He painted in the style of Pietro da 
Cortona, 

Many of the works of Francesco Vanni have been engraved by some 
of the most eminent engravers; he himself also etched a few plates. 
His portrait is in the painters’ portrait gallery at Florence. 

VANNI, GIOVANNI BATTISTA, a Florentine painter, or accord- 
ing to others, a native of Pisa, was born in 1599. He was the scholar, 
first, of Jacopo da Empoli, and then of Christofano Allori, in whose 
style he painted, especially in colouring. He excelled in imitating, 
and made some excellent copies after Titian, Correggio, and Paul 
Veronese ; he etched some plates after the two last, in a spirited 
though careless manner: The Marriage at Cana, after Paul Veronese, 
dated 1637, is his best production in this line. The painting of San 
Lorenzo, in the church of San Simone at Florence, is considered his 
best picture; but it is not a work of the highest order. He died 
in 1660. 

VAN OOST, JACOB, the Elder, a celebrated Flemish historical 
painter, was born at Bruges, in 1600, of a good family. He distin- 
guished himself when very young, and even before his twenty-first year 
was accounted one of the best painters of Bruges. He copied some of 
the pictures of Rubens with such fidelity, both of colouring and 
execution, that the copies have passed, and still pass, for originals by 
that master. After painting some time at Bruges, he went to Italy, 
and paid great attention to the works of Annibal Carracci at Rome, 
and endeavoured to appropriate his style of composition and design, 
which he did to a great degree. He returned in 1630 to Bruges with 
the reputation of a great painter, and was solicited for works from all 
quarters. In 1633 he was elected dean of the corporation of painters 
of Bruges, His pictures are very numerous, though on a large scale : 
his design and chiaroscuro were good, and his colouring rich and 
fresh in the carnations; but his draperies are sometimes raw and 
careless. Some of his pictures are executed with such boldness, that 
they are scarcely intelligible except at a considerable distance, when 
their effect is masterly; others, on the contrary, are highly finished 
and the colours are well blended. His pictures have few figures, are 
well composed, and are unencumbered with unnecessary accessories : 
the landscape of his backgrounds was painted by other masters; the 
architecture, in which he excelled, by himself. There are many of 
his works at Bruges; in the Hépital de St. Jean there are several, 
some of which are among his best pieces. In one.of the halls of justice 
at Bruges there is a picture of the condemnation of a criminal, which 
is considered Van Oost’s masterpiece. He was equally excellent as a 
portrait painter. He died in 1691. 

VAN OOST, JACOB, the Younger, son of the elder Van Oost, was 
born at Bruges in 1637. He was first instructed by his father, then 
studied two years in Paris, and afterwards spent some time in Rome, 
After his return to Bruges he for a short time assisted his father ; but 
having determined to establish himself at Paris, he set out for that 
capital in 1673. He however delayed upon his road at Lille to paint 
a few portraits, which brought him so many sitters and other engage- 
ments, that he fixed himself in that place, and remained there forty 
years, until after the death of his wife. He returned to his native place 
in 1713, the year of his death, and the seventy-sixth of hisage. The 
younger Van Oost was also an able painter in history and in portrait, 
but his historical pieces are not numerous. His style was like that of 
his father, but he painted with a better impasto, and his draperies are 
very superior. His figures are correct and expressive. 

VAN OS, PIETER GERARD, a distinguished animal-painter, was the 
son of Jan Van Os, a clever flower-painter, who was born in 1774, and 
died at the Hague in 1808. He was alsoa marine painter and a poet, 

Pieter Van-Os was born at the Hague in 1776, and was taught 
painting by his father. He selected Paul Potter as his model, and 
copied his pictures assiduously, and some of the works of Charles 
Dujardin. He made such an excellent copy of the celebrated young 
bull by Potter, in the gallery of the Hague, that William. V., prince of 
Orange, purchased it and a copy after Dujardin, and placed them in 
his gallery. For a time, owing to the disturbed state of society 
towards the end of the 18th century, which was very unfavourable to 
the arts, Van Os was forced to give up his favourite pursuit of animal 
painting, and to take to portrait painting in miniature and to teaching 
drawing. After a few years however he again commenced painting 
landscapes, with cattle, sheep, &c., by which he acquired a great 
reputation. In 1813 and 1814 he served as a captain of volunteers, 
and was present in some engagements, which induced him to try his 
hand at military subjects, in which he was not unsuccessful. The 
emperor Alexander purchased a picture of him in 1813, of the entrance 
of the Cossaks into Utrecht, and placed it in his palace at St. Peters- 
burg. He died at the Hague in 1839. 

The pictures of Van Os are numerous, and are sold at high prices : 
many of them have been engraved. He himself also etched many 
plates of cattle, &c. in a masterly manner from his own designs, and 
from the pictures of eminent painters, Potter, Berghem, Ruisdael, and 
others. 


233 VANSOMER, PAUL. 


VANVITELLI, LUIGI, 284 


VANSOMER PAUL, a Flemish portrait painter, was born at 
Antwerp about 1576. Hewas instructed by his brother Bernard Van- 
somer, a good painter of conversation pieces and portraits, who had 
studied in. Italy, and lived at Amsterdam. Paul came to England 
about the year 1606, and met with great success here. He painted 
James L, and many of the principal statesmen and noblemen of that 
time. There is a portrait of James I. at Windsor, a view of Whitehall 
in the background; and another at Hampton Court, with some 
armour by his side, painted in 1615, a superior picture according to 
Walpole. There is also at Hampton Court a portrait of the queen of 
James I. with a horse and dogs, by Vansomer; which is imitated, says 
Walpole, in the tapestry at Houghton, The same writer mentions 
likewise the following pictures by this painter :—Lord Chancellor 
Bacon, and his brother Nicholas, at Gorhambury (there is a portrait of 
Bacon by Vansomer, in the collection of Earl Cowper at Pansanger) ; 
the Marquis of Hamilton with a white staff, at Hampton Court; the 
lord chamberlain, William, earl of Pembroke, at St. James’s, an 
admirable portrait; and in Walpole’s opinion, a whole length at 
Chatsworth of the first earl of Devonshire in his robes, though ascribed 
to Mytens, worthy of the pencil of Vandyck, and one of the finest 
single figures he had ever seen. He mentions also a portrait of Anne 
of Denmark, the queen of James I., with a prospect of the west end of 
St. Paul’s. 

Vansomer died in London, and was buried in St. Martin’s in the 
Fields, as appears by the register: “Jan. 5, 1621. Paulus Vansomer, 
pictor eximius, sepultus fuit in ecclesia.” 

VAN SWIETEN. [Swieren, Gerarp Vay.] 

VANUCCHI. [Sarro, ANDREA DEL.] 

VANUCCI. ‘[PERuatIno, PizrRo.] 

VANUDEN, LUCAS, a distinguished Flemish landscape painter, 
was born at Antwerp in 1595. He was instructed by his father, who 
was also a landscape painter; but not satisfied with the precepts of 
art, he was constantly in the fields, from sunrise until sunset, sketch- 
ing all the striking effects of nature, and he made valuable use of his 
studies in his paintings. Rubens was a great admirer of the works of 
Vanuden ; he employed him to paint skies and Jandscapes in many of 
his pictures, which Vanuden adapted admirably to the style of 
Rubens. Rubens also inserted figures in the pictures of Vanuden, 
although he himself was a good figure-painter. 

His paintings are distinguished for their lightness of touch, clearness 
and truth of colouring, and for pure skies and light easy foliage. 
He painted large and small pictures, adapting his touch to the size 
and nature of his composition, but his small pieces are more charac- 
teristic of his style; he was fond of extensive and distant scenes. 
Vanuden also etched some landscapes in a masterly manner, some 
original designs, and some after Rubens and Titian. The date of his 
death is not known, but it occurred after 1662. 

VAN UTRECHT, ADRIAN, one of the most distinguished of 
the Flemish painters of still-life, was born at Antwerp in 1599. He 
painted fruit, flowers, shell-fish, dead game, birds, &c., sometimes 
together and sometimes separately, with such remarkable truth and 
freedom of touch, and elegance of composition, that he received many 
more orders than he could execute. The best of his pictures were 
purchased by the king of Spain, and taken to that country: they are 
very scarce, are rarely met with at auctions, and are sold for high 
prices. He excelled in birds of all descriptions. He died rich, at 
Antwerp, in 1651. With the exception of Snyders, Van Utrecht was 
superior to all other painters in his line. 

VAN VEEN, or VAE’NIUS, OTHO, called also Ottovenius, a dis- 
tinguished painter, was born at Leyden in 1550, according to Hou- 
braken, or 1556, according to De Piles and others; Van Mander says 
he was forty-seven in 1604. His father was burgomaster of Leyden, 
and his mother was of a distinguished family of Amsterdam. Van 
Veen was instructed in letters by Lampsonius, private secretary to 
the bishop of Liége, and was taught drawing by Isaac Claes or Nicolas, 
and painting by Jost Van Wingen. His father sent him to Lidge in 
his fifteenth year, where he remained three years in the house of the 
bishop, Cardinal Groosbeck, who then sent him to Rome with letters 
to Cardinal Maduccio, by whom he was well received. In Rome Van 
Veen studied with Federigo Zucchero; and after spending eight years 
in Italy, he visited Vienna, where the emperor wished to detain him 
in his service: he visited also Munich and Cologne, where he likewise 
had flattering offers to induce him to remain, but which his desire to 
settle in his own country led him to decline. He settled at Brussels, 
in the service of Alessandro Farnese, duke of Parma, and governor of 
the Spanish Netherlands, of whom he painted a full length in armour, 
which obtained him a great reputation. After the death of the Duke 
of Parma, Van Veen removed to Antwerp, established an academy 
there, and painted many pictures for its churches. Rubens attended 
his academy. When the Archduke Albert of Austria, who succeeded 
the Duke of Parma as governor, made his public entry into Antwerp, 
Van Veen designed the triumphant arches which were erected upon 
the occasion ; and the duke was so well satisfied with the devices, 
that he invited Van Veen to Brussels, and appointed him master of 
the mint there. He painted the portraits of Albert, and of his wife, 
the infanta Isabella, daughter of Philip II. of Spain, which were sent 
to James I. of England. Louis XIII. invited Van Veen to Paris, but 
he declined to leave the archduke. 


Van Veen died at Brussels in 1634, aged seventy-eight, or, according 
to Houbraken, in 1629, He left two daughters, Gertrude and Cornelia, 
who both distinguished themselves in painting; Gertrude painted her 
father’s portrait, which has been engraved. : 

There are several paintings by Van Veen at Antwerp; and in the 
cathedral of Leyden there is a Supper of the’ Lord, which is considered 
a good work. He excelled in invention and in chiaroscuro. His 
imagination was very fertile: his designs are very numerous; a list 
of them, with the Life of Van Veen, was printed at Amsterdam in 
1682, in a work entitled ‘ Académie des Sciences et des Arts,’ &e., by 
Isaac Bullart. Among them are emblems of Horace: ‘ Zinnebeelden 
getrokken uit Horatius Flaccus,’ &c., 103 plates, with text illustra- 
tions in Latin, Dutch, and French. Many of the designs are i t Z 
in their invention, and skilful in their composition, but the plates __ 
are badly executed. He designed also emblems of divine and profane 
love; and thirty-two illustrations of the life of Thomas Aquinas. He 
published also a history of the war of the Batavians under Claudius _ 
Civilis against the Romans, from Tacitus, with forty illustrations; and __ 
the history of ‘The Seven Twin Sons of Lara,’ likewise with forty 
illustrations, which were engraved by Antonio Tempesta. Felibien, 
in his ‘ Entretiens sur les Vies des plus célébres Peintres,’ has extracted 
part of this work, relating the story and describing the subject of each 
plate. In the Pinakothek at Munich there are six small allegorical 
paintings of the triumph of the Roman church by Van Veen; curious 
designs, but extremely cold and blue in colouring. Van Veen was 
very fond of allegorical and emblematical representations, and Rey- 
nolds supposes that Rubens acquired his taste for the same subjects 
from him. In the cathedral at Bruges there is a Nativity by Van 
Veen, of which Reynolds observes :—“‘ Many parts of this picture 
bring to mind the manner of Rubens, particularly the colouring of the __ 
arm of one of theshepherds; but in comparison of Rubensitis but 
a lame performance, and would not be worth mentioning here, but 
from its being the work of a man who had the honour to be the master 
of Rubens.” 

VANVITELLI, LUIGI, a very distinguished architect, inasmuch 
as he erected one of the most extensive edifices of the 18th century, in 
which however it must be admitted the greatness of the opportunity 
was not equalled by his talent. Though he may be considered an 
Italian, Luigi was of Flemish origin, his father being a native of 
Utrecht, whose real name was Van Witel, afterwards Italianised by a 
slight alteration. Gasparo, the elder Vanvitelli, was born in Utrecht 
in 1647; and going to Italy for improvement in his profession asa 
painter, fixed his residence at Naples, where he acquired considerable 
repute for his ability in landscape and architectural subjects. He was 
familiarly known as Vanvitelli degli Occhiali, on account of his ape 
wearing spectacles, without which he could hardly see; yet he 
tinued to paint after he had reached a very advanced age, and indeed 
after he had submitted to an unsuccessful operation on one eye, the — 
sight of which he entirely lost. He died in 1736, at the age of 
eighty-nine. a Bax 

His son Luigi was born at Naples in 1700, and began while a child 
to display a strong inclination and considerable aptitude for art, in 
which he was encouraged and instructed by his father. So great was 
his proficiency, that at the age of twenty he was employed by Cardinal 
Acquaviva to- paint some frescoes in the chapel of St. Cecilia; and 
he afterwards made some of the cartoons from celebrated pictures, 
preparatory to their being copied on a larger scale, in mosaic, for St. 
Peter’s at Rome. About this period too he began to study architec- 
ture under Filippo Ivara, one of the most noted in his profession. 
His first architectural work was the restoration of the Palazzo Albani 
at Urbino, for the Cardinal di San Clemente ; besides which he erected 
two churches in that city, 8. Francesco and 8. Domenico, works that 
led to his obtaining the appointment of architect to St. Peter's at the 
age of twenty-six. He was also associated with Niccolo Salvi in the 
undertaking for conducting the water of the Vermicino to Rome. ~ 
About the same time there was a competition of all the most eminent — 
architects of the day for a facade for the church of 8. Giovanni Late- — 
rano at Rome, to which both Salvi and Vanvitelli sent in designs; — 
and, according to a memoir on the subject by the latter, their designs 
were approved : but the first decision was set aside by the pope, who 
decided in favour of that by Galilei; yet not so much, itissaid, on __ 
account of its architectural merit as for private reasons. However 
neither Salvi nor Vanvitelli was overlooked. Salvi was employed 
upon the fountain of Trevi. Vanvitelli was sent to improve the 
harbour and public works at Ancona, where he built the celebrated _ 
lazaretto, a pentagonal structure, and repaired and altered some — 
churches and chapels. He was likewise occupied with many pe > 
ments of a similar nature at Macerata, Perugia, Pesaro, and Siena. ; 
When at Milan, in 1745, he madea design for the fagade of the Duomo, __ 
in which he endeavoured to keep something of the character, if notof __ 
the style, of the rest of the edifice; but it was neither carried into 
execution at the time, nor afterwards followed in the actual i, @ 
begun by Leopoldo Pollak and completed by Zanoja and Amati, At 
Rome his most important work was the convent of 8S. Agostino; but 
he also executed there, for the Portuguese ambassador, a superb 
chapel, which was conveyed to Portugal, and there re-erected in the 
church of the Jesuits at Lisbon. hee. 

Such was the reputation he had now obtained, that when the king 


* 


~ 
=~ 


en 


- mezzanine windows in its frieze. 


235 VARCHI, BENEDETTO. 


VARENIUS, BERNHARDUS. 236 


- of Naples, afterwards Charles III, of Spain, determined to erect a 


palace at Caserta that should be upon a scale hardly inferior to that 
of any other edifice of the kind in Europe, he at once made choice of 
Vanvitelli as the architect, and the first stone was laid, January 28th 
1752. ‘ This vast pile is an unbroken parallelogram of uniform design, 
all its fronts being nearly similar in their elevations: those facing the 
north and south are 730 feet, the others 570 in Jength, and the general 


height of the building is 102 feet, which is however increased to 162 


at the angles, where there is a square pavilion, forming a second order. 
The elevations consist of a very lofty basement, comprising a ground- 
floor and mezzanine; and above that an Ionic order with two series 
of windows, and mezzanine windows in the frieze. Although it may 
be considered in-some respects as the principal front, since it faces a 


a spacious semi-elliptical piazza enclosed by a uniform range of buildings 


for lodgings and stables, the south front is less decorated than that 
towards the gardens, for it has columns only in the centre and at the 
extremities, while in the other the order is continued throughout 
in pilasters as well as columns; yet the degree of unity thus kept up 
is attended with a very great drawback, for the narrower inter- 
columns between the centre and end breaks cause the others to appear 
offensively wide, and those parts of the composition where there 
ought to have been greater richness, to look poor and straggling : this 
is particularly the case with regard to the centre, which is only three 
intercolumns in width; therefore that and its pediment become in- 
significant in comparison with the entire mass, a defect which is further 
increased by the end pavilions being so much loftier. Owing to the 
great height of the basement, the cornice of the order (which is very 
plain and poor in itself) forms no adequate finish to the general eleva- 
tion; and even if the entablature be considered only in relation to 
the order, independently of the basement, it is disfigured by the small 
Internally the general plan is 
divided into four spacious courts by other ranges of building from 
north to south and from east to west, at whose intersection there is a 
large and lofty octagon crowned by a dome; but though this last 
shows itself as an important feature when seen in geometrical eleva- 
tion, where it breaks the outline and gives a towering central mass, it 
is entirely lost in the building, except in a very distant view of it, and 
can be seen only from the inner courts; a circumstance the less to be 
regretted, because it is very ugly. That part of the building forms a 
large octangular vestibule, with the grand staircase on one side and 
the chapel on the other; and these and the upper vestibule are by 
far the most striking and scenic portions of the interior, the rest only 
presenting long enfilades of rooms, with little remarkable in point of 
architecture. With the greatness of mere quantity, Caserta is deficient 
in grandeur of quality: except those pointed out, its faults are few; 
but its beauties also are few: therefore, considering what ample scope 
was afforded the architect, he must be considered to have failed—at 
least comparatively. Vanvitelli published a large folio volume of the 
plans, &e. in 1757, under the title of ‘ Dichiarazione de’ Disegni del 
Reale Palazzo di Caserta.’ 

Besides the palace itself and the subordinate buildings attached to 
it, he executed at Caserta one of the most stupendous works of its 
‘kind undertaken in modern times, namely, the aqueduct, or ranges 
of aqueducts, commenced in 1753, in order to supply the palace with 
water. His labours at Caserta led to his being employed on many 
other works at Naples, the principal of which are the cavalry barracks, 
near the Ponte Maddelena, and the three churches of S. Marcellino, 
Della Rotonda, and La Nunziata. Among those at other places are 
the public hall at Brescia and the bridge at Benevento. Few architects 
have enjoyed a more prosperous career; yet, shortly before his death, 
which happened March 1st 1773, he had the mortification to incur 
a severe stigma upon his professional character, being condemned at 
Rome to pay the sum of 5000 crowns for having estimated the repairs 
of the aqueduct of Acqua Felice at only 2000, though the actual 
expense was 22,000 crowns. 
~ (Milizia, Vite; Quatremére de Quincy, Histoire, &c. des plus Célébres 
-Architectes ; Kunstblatt, 1824.) 

» VARCHI, BENEDETTO, was born at Florence in 1502. He was 
sent by his father, who was an advocate, to Pisa to study law; but at 
his father’s death he gave up the law, for which he had no taste, and 
applied himself wholly to literature. At the time of the fall of the 
Florentine republic, Varchi, who belonged to the losing party, emi- 
grated to Padua and Bologna, where he became intimate with Bembo 
‘and other learned men. Some years after, Cosmo I., being firmly 


established on the ducal throne of Florence, recalled Varchi, and 
| appointed him one of the directors of the New Florentine Academy, 


which he instituted for the purpose of cultivating the Tuscan language 
and illustrating’ its standard writers. The academy frittered away 
much time in pedantic and interminable disputes about mere words, 
‘but it brought forth also some useful works, among which was the 


_ *Ercolano’ of Varchi, a disquisition, in the form of dialogue, on 
_ ‘language in general, and more particularly on the Tuscan language. 
_ Varehi maintained that the Tuscan or Italian language, which he, 
through an excess of nationality, calls Florentine, was suited to any 
_ branch of literature and to every style of writing, and capable of 
expressing all kinds of sentiments and conceptions, however varied. 
_ This he laboured to prove by translations from the Latin. He pub- 
‘lished translations of Seneca, ‘De Beneficiis,’ and of Boethius, ‘De 


Consolatione,’ He wrote Commentaries on Dante and Petrarch, and 
also sonnets and other short poems. But the principal production of 
Varchi is the ‘Storia Fiorentina,’ from the year 1527 to 1538, an 
important period, which embraces the last struggle and fall of the 
republic, the tyrannical and dissolute rule of Alessandro de’ Medici, 
which ended with his assassination, the elevation of Cosmo to the 
ducal throne, and the subsequent inroad of Filippo Strozzi and his 
band of malcontents, which ended in the defeat at Montemurlo and 
the death of the leaders, Varchi wrote it at the desire of Cosmo, and 
he has been charged with partiality towards his patron. Thia parti- 
ality however was probably a matter of feeling and habit, and not a 
servile affectation. Besides, Duke Cosmo was certainly a very superior 
man. Placed when a mere youth in a very critical position, and in 
times of universal corruption, he proved himself stern and even cruel 
towards his enemies; but he effected also much good, and strove to 
heal some of the wounds inflicted by the wars, revolutions, anarchy, 
and misgovernment of nearly half a century. That his public 
character has been represented as worse than it was by the reports of 
his enemies, is an opinion entertained by several reflecting and dis- 
passionate writers. _ Varchi's narrative is very diffuse, and his language 
abounds with popular Florentine forms of speech, which are perhaps 
too colloquial for the gravity of history. His work was not published 
for a long time after his death; yet parts of it transpired in his life- 
time, and drew upon him the vengeance of powerful persons whom 
he had exposed. One night he was attacked and stabbed in several parts 
of his body. He however recovered, and although the guilty parties 
remained unknown or unpunished, Duke Cosmo endeavoured to com- 
pensate him for the injury he had received by making him a gift of 
his pretty country-seat called ‘La Topaja,’ and of the clerical benefice 
of Montevarchi. Pope Paul III. invited him to Rome, but Varchi 
declined the offer. He died of apoplexy in 1565. 

About forty years since a small critical work of Varchi was dis- 
covered in manuscript in the Magliabecchi Library at Florence, and 
published under the title of ‘Errori di Paolo Giovio nella Storia,’ 
Florence, 1821. 

(Corniani, J Secoli della Letteratwra Italiana; Tiraboschi, Storia. 
della Letteratura Italiana. 

VARE’NIUS, BERNHARDUS, author of a treatise on systematic 
geography, of which Newton, when Lucasian professor of mathe- 
matics at Cambridge, published an edition for the use of his students, 
was a native of Ulzen in the territory of Liineburg, now part of the 
kingdom of Hanover. The materials for a Life of Varenius are 
lamentably meagre. Nothing appears to be known of his parentage, 
the time of his birth, or the events of his boyhood. The library of 
the British Museum contains a copy of a Thesis, on Aristotle’s defini- 
tion of motion, printed at Hamburg in 1642, which Varenius under- 
takes to defend, on the 16th of November, in a public disputation 
under the presidency of his tutor Joachim Junge, rector and. professor 
of physics and (pro tempore) of logic in the gymnasium of Hamburg. 
The thesis is dedicated to Albert von Eitzen, burgomaster of Hamburg: 
Conrad Meyer, archdeacon of Celle ; Jodocus Capelle, preacher in the 
St. Catherine’s Church at Hamburg; and Ernst Shele, treasurer to 
the duke of Liineburg and Brunswick. The author calls his thesis 
‘Musarum Philosophicarum Primitie.’ The library of the British 
Museum also contains a copy of a medical thesis ‘De Febri in genere,’ 
printed at Leyden in 1649, which ‘Bernhardus Varenius, Ultza- 
Luneburgensis’ undertakes to maintain in public disputation on the 
22nd of June as part of his trials previous to receiving the degree of 
doctor of medicine. This ‘inaugural thesis’ is dedicated by the 
author to the burgomasters and senators of Liineburg. Varenius’s 
‘Description of Japan’ was published at Amsterdam in 1649; it is 
dedicated to the burgomasters and senators of Hamburg, and the date 
of the dedication is Amsterdam, the calends (1st) of July, about a 
week after he had taken his degree. He assigns as the reason for 
dedicating his book to the magistrates of Hamburg, his having learned 
the first elements of philosophy, mathematics, and physics in the © 
gymnasium of that city. In the preface addressed to the reader he 
mentions that after he had finished his medical studies he was for a 
time deterred from entering upon practice by the small prospect he 
had of obtaining employment; and that in this state of mind he had 
devoted himself to the study of philosophy and the mathematical 
scieqces. During this interval he had composed a treatise on ‘ Conic 
Sections,’ but had been unable to find a publisher for a work so remote 
from popular interest, At last an opening had presented itself for 
entering into medical practice, offering only a slender prospect of remu- 
neration at first, but on the other hand ample opportunities of acquir- 
ing practical knowledge. He had resolved, he proceeds, to embrace 
this opportunity, and to restrict his inquiries in future to medicine, 
and to geometry and physics, which he esteemed important auxiliary 
studies. He thus leaves it to be inferred that the publication of his 
account of Japan, which he describes as an amusement of his leisure 
hours, an attempt to present in a systematic form and in the Latin 
language a compendious view of the information respecting that 
empire contained in Dutch and Portuguese authors, was his farewell 
to general literature. The ‘Systematic Geography’ (‘Geographia 
Generalis’) of Varenius was originally published at Amsterdam, in 
1650. In the dedication of this work to the senators of Amsterdam, 
the author alludes to his account of Japan, published the year before 


287 VARGAS, LUIS DE. 


VARIGNON, PIERRE. 238 


and states as his reason for.dedicating the book to them, that he had 
found in their city an asylum and the meansof pursuing his studies 
when obliged to fly from his native country, laid waste by the ravages 
of war. He intimates his intention, if the Geography is favourably 
received, to follow it up by a work on the food and drink of various 
nations, and on the different kinds of medicines in use among them. 
These incidental notices in the dedications and prefaces of the works 
we have mentioned, appear to establish the identity of their author, 
and supply a faint outline of his history from 1642 to 1650. Of the 
subsequent history of Varenius we have found no trace, except that 
Chalmers asserts, on what authority we have been unable to discover, 
that he died in 1660. Jiécher mentions a Henricus Varenius, a native 
of Hervord in Westphalia, who was at one time chaplain to Duke 
Augustus of Brunswick-Liineburg, and died pastor and superintendent 
of the church at Ulzen in 1636: this may have been a relation 
(father ?) of Bernhardus Varenius. The ‘ Description of Japan’ (‘De- 
scriptio Regni Japoniz’) is, as has been noticed above, a mere com- 
pilation. It was the last of a series of similar monographs of actually 
existing states, published by the Elzevirs, Prefixed is a dissertation 
on what constitutes a state; a list of the states into which the world 
was divided at the time of publication; and a catalogue of the autho- 
rities consulted for the account of Japan. An appendix contains a 
notice of the Dairi of Japan, and some information respecting Siam 
and Persia. Annexed is an account of the religion of the Japanese, 
and a narrative of the introduction into and suppression of Christia- 
nity in Japan, dedicated to Christina, queen of Sweden. Lastly, there 
is a short view of all religions, The ‘Geographia Generalis’ is divided 
into three books, The author treats, in the first and second, of general 
or universal geography; in the third, of special or particular geo- 
graphy. The contents of the first book he calls ‘Absolute Geography, 
including under this designation all that relates to the form, dimen- 
sions, or motion of the world, the general properties of the land, the 
seas, rivers, &c. The second book is devoted to what he terms ‘ Rela- 
tive Geography,’ and in this is comprehended everything relating to 
climates, seasons, the difference of apparent time at different places, 
the lengths of days in different latitudes, temperature, &c. In the 
third book, ‘Comparative Geography’ (by which Varenius means the 
relative positions of places), after some remarks upon the longitude, 
the construction of globes and maps, measurements of distances, and 
the sensible and visible horizons, six chapters are devoted to an expo- 
sition of the theory and practice of navigation. The work is the first 
attempt at a system of physical geography: it is characterised by 
precision, good arrangement, aud lucid expression, The author has 
evidently had extensive acquirements in mathematics, and wider and 
more scientific views in natural history than prevailed for well nigh a 
century after his book was published. Newton’s editions of the 
‘ Geographia Generalis’ (1672 and 1681) contain important improve- 
ments in the mathematical theory and corrections of the tables of 
latitudes and longitudes. Jurin, a fellow of Trinity College, Cam- 
bridge, at the suggestion of Bentley, published a new edition, with an 
appendix containing the most recent discoveries, in 1712. An English 
translation of Jurin’s edition by Dugdale, revised by Shaw, was pub- 
lished in London; the second edition of this translation is dated 1736. 
The coutents of Jurin’s appendix are introduced into the body of the 
work ; and the geographical nomenclature and positions are adapted 
to the best English maps. A French translation from this English 
edition, by Depuisieux, was published at Paris in 1755. The publica- 
tion of Varenius’s ‘Geographia Generalis’ marks an epoch in the 
history of geography. 

(Varenius, De Definitione motus Aristotelica, Hamburgi, 1642; De 
Febri in genere, Lugduni Batavorum, 1649; Descriptio Regni Japonie, 
Amstelodemi, 1649; Geographia Generalis, Cantabrigiw, 1681; Jd. 
Angl., by Dugdale, London, 1736; Jd. Gall., par Depuisieux, Paris 
1755; Philosophical Transactions, vol. vii.; Eloy, Dictionnaire Histo- 
rique de la Médicine; Jicher, Allgemeines Gelehrten Lexicon ; Chal- 
mers, Biographical Dictionary ; Biographie Universelle.) 

VARGAS, LUIS DE, a distinguished Spanish painter of the 16th 
century, born at Seville in 1502. He was the first who established 
a correct and grand style of design in oil and in fresco painting in 
Andalucia, where, until his time, the Gothic taste prevailed generally. 
He exhibited a disposition to excel in design at a very early age, and 
his natural taste disapproving of the style of the artists of his own 
country, he determined upon visiting Italy and studying the works of 
the great masters of that country. He accordingly, in 1527, went to 
Rome, and is said to have become a scholar of Perino del Vaga, the 
beauties of whose style and of the Roman school he fully mastered. 
Vargas remained twenty-eight years in Italy: his first known work in 
Seville is dated 1555. Cean Bermudez contradicts the account of 
Palomino about Vargas returning to Seville after a seven years’ 
sojourn at Rome, and finding himself inferior to Antonio Flores (or 
rather Francisco Frutet, as Bermudez says) and Pedro de Campaiia, 
returning for another seven years to Italy; and he points out other 
inaccuracies in Palomino’s notice of this painter—for example, the 
compliment paid to Vargas’s picture in the cathedral, called La 
Gamba, by Perez di Alessio, at the expense of his own St. Christopher, 
which is an anachronism, as the St. Christopher was not painted until 
1584, sixteen years after the death of Vargas, who died in 1568, and 
not 1590, as is stated by Palomino, Vargas established a greater 


reputation at Seville than any painter that preceded him, and he exe- 
cuted many excellent works there in oil and in fresco, which deservedly 
rank him with the first painters of Italy. His design was correct in 
outline and grand in style; his foreshortenings were admirable, and 
in this respect he is unrivalled in Spain ; and had his works been as 
conspicuous for tone and harmony of colouring as they were for 
brilliancy, composition, character, and expression, Vargas, says Ber- 
mudez, would have been the first among Spanish painters. His prin- 
cipal works, which are all religious, are at Seville—in the cathedral; 
in the Hospital de Santa Marta; in Santa Cruz; in Santa Maria la 
Blanca; in the Merced Calzada; in the Hospital de la Sangre; and in 
the Casa de la Misericordia. Some of these works are nearly totally 


decayed; others have been badly restored: in the last-mentioned 


place is a fresco of the Last Judgment. Vargas is described as having 
been a very amiable man, but he was of a melancholy and superstitious 
turn of mind: he was in the habit of chastising himself, and used to 
lie in a coffin some hours a-day meditating upon death. 

VARIGNON, PIERRE. The common source of all biographies of 
Varignon is the éloge of him inserted by his friend Fontenelle in the 
Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences, and republished in the separate 
collection of éloges by the same author. 

The subject of this article was born at Caen in 1654. His father, 
an architect, destined him for the church, and placed him at the 
college of his native town. He learned to make a sun-dial as well as 
his father’s workmen could teach him, and this gave him a longing to 
know the principles on which such things are done, which he never 
found the way to gratify until, by accident, he met with a Euclid ina 
bookseller’s shop. From this he went on to the writings of Des Cartes, 


much against the wishes of his friends, and became well versed in the ~ 


mathematics of the day. Among his college friends was the Abbé de 
St. Pierre (not Bernardin, the author of the ‘ Studies of Nature,’ but 
Charles), whose regard for Varignon induced him to make over to the 
latter 300 francs a year out of 1800, which was his patrimonial fortune. 
This was his sole provision for many years, and enabled him to pursue 
his studies, The two friends went to Paris in 1686, took up their 
quarters in the same house, and pursued their several researches, It 
was here that Fontenelle, who was also of Normandy, became 
acquainted with them; and he describes Varignon as the most 
laborious of students, glad to go on with what he was doing at two 
o’clock in the morning, under the pretext of its not being worth while 
to go to bed, because he usually rose at four. In 1687 his first work, 
the ‘ Projet d’une Nouvelle Mécanique,’ brought him at once into such 
reputation that he was in the following year elected to the Academy, 
and appointed professor of mathematics at the Collége Mazarin: in 
1690 appeared the ‘ Nouvelles Conjectures sur la Pesanteur.’ By 1705 
he had ruined his health: he was for six months in danger, and for 
three years in a state of debility. His life is a purely literary one, and 
there is nothing more to say, except that he died in the night of 
December 22, 1722, without illness, having performed his usual duties 
at the college the day before. 
We take his works from the ‘ Biographie Universelle :’—1, ‘ Projet 
d’une Nouvelle Mécanique,’ 4to, Paris, 1687; 2, ‘ Nouvelles Conjec- 
tures sur la Pesanteur,’ 12mo, Paris, 1690; 3, ‘ Nouvelle Mécanique,’ 
2 vols. 4to, Paris, 1725; 4, ‘ claircissements sur l'Analyse des Infini- 
ment Petits, 4to, Paris, 1725; 5, ‘ Traité du Mouvement des Eaux 
Courantes,’ 4to, Paris, 1725; 6, ‘ Kléments de Mathématiques,’ 4to, 
Paris, 1732; 7, ‘ Démonstration de la Possibilité de la Présence 
Réele,’ &c., in a collection of pieces on the real presence, by Vernet, 
Geneva, 1730. There is perhaps no better test of real eminence than 
the desire of the surviving contemporaries to have an author’s works; 
and more of Varignon was published after his death than he himself 
gave during life. It is however to be remembered that, besides his 
two separate works, he printed a great deal in the Memoirs of the 
Academy of Sciences, particularly in defence of the new doctrines of 
the infinitesimal calculus. His name is familiar to all who have even 
glanced at the history of his theory as the explainer of its difficulties 
in answer to the earnest and frequently plausible attacks which were 
made upon it. The ‘Elaircissements,’ &c., above mentioned, were 
intended by him as a commentary upon the well-known work of his 
friend De |l’H6pital, the first elementary writing upon the differential 
calculus. The ‘Projet,’ &c., was a most remarkable work, being in 
fact the first in which the great elementary principle of the compo- 
sition of forces is made the basis-of a systematic development of 
statics. Montucla mentions that Stevinus had preceded him in the 
knowledge of the use of this truth; insisting particularly upon his 
having used the most elegant and useful form of the theorem, namely, 
that forces which are as the sides of a triangle balance one another, 
Mr. Hallam (‘ Literature of Europe,’ vol. ii., p. 462) cannot find this 
‘triangle of forces’ in Stevinus, But the fact is that the theorem, 
though not perhaps separately enunciated by Stevinus, is used b: 
him: for instance, in Albert Girard’s edition of Stevinus, p. 449, 
column 2, a look at the second figure with the accompanying text will 
show that LDO and OFC are ‘triangles of forces. The merit of 
Varignon consists in his making the composition of forces a basis for 
everything, in which he has been followed by most writers since his 
time. Stevinus mixed different principles. Mr. Hallam remarks, 
very naturally, “ Had it” (the triangle of forces) ‘been known to 
him” (Stevinus), “we may presume that he would have employed 


289 VARILLAS, ANTOINE. 


VARNHAGEN VON ENSE, KARL AUGUST. 290 


-it, as is done in modern works on mechanics, for demonstrating the 
law of equilibrium on the inclined plane, instead of his catenarian 
hypothesis.” So he would have done had he been reviewing the sub- 
ject: but he was discovering it; and that very inverse order which so 
often takes place in discovery, and which brought out the binomial 
theorem as an ultimate result of a mode of finding the areas of 
certain curves, occurred in the case of Stevinus, who brought out the 

’ mode of using the triangle of forces, rather than the theorem itself, 
from this very catenarian hypothesis; and, as far we can see, partly 
by demonstration, partly by extension. One of the greatest compli- 
ments which Varignon’s memory received was this, that his ‘ Projet,’ 
&c. took such possession of the public mind, that by the time the 
work itself (3 in the above list) appeared, of which it was the ‘ Projet,’ 
it excited very little notice, and added nothing to his fame. 

The conjectures on the cause of gravity show that Varignon was not 
as happy in clear perception of hydrostatical laws as in those of statics. 
He imagines that the gravitation of a body towards the earth is the 
excess of the pressure downwards of the superincumbent column of 
air over the pressure upwards of the column between the earth and 
the body. This is enough for a specimen: even Fontenelle avows that 
he thinks it possible his friend may here have added one to the 
number of proofs of the difficulty of the subject. But notwithstanding 
this, Varignon may be placed among those men whose reputation is 
probably very much below their desert as estimated by their utility. 

VARILLAS, ANTOINE, a native of Guéret, the capital of La 
Marche, was born in 1624. When he had completed his studies, he 

was sent to Paris as private tutor to some of bis young townsmen. 

In 1648 he was appointed historiographer to Gaston, duke of Orleans. 
Dupuy procured for Varillas the situation of sub-librarian in the royal 
library, which he held under more than one of Dupuy’s successors, 
and lost on account of his negligence in collating Brienne’s manu- 
scripts, which had been purchased by Colbert, with the originals in the 
library. He was allowed to retire with a pension of 1200 livres, which 
was withdrawn by Colbert in 1669. In the same year Varillas was 
offered a pension by the States-General of Holland to write the history 
of the United Provinces ; but he declined the task, on the plea that he 
could not serve with his pen the enemies of France. In 1670 the 
archbishop of Paris obtained a pension from the assembly of the 
clergy for Varillas, whom he knew to be engaged on a history of 
heresies. Varillas died at Paris on the 9th of June, 1696. His 
published works are :—1, ‘ Politique de la Maison d’Autriche,’ 12mo, 
Paris, 1658 ; 2, ‘ Histoire de la France,’ Paris, 1683 et seq.; 14 vols. 
in 4to, or 28 in 12mo. The work contains the reigns of the kings of 
France from Louis XI. to Henri IV.; 3, ‘La Pratique de )’Educa- 
tion des Princes, ou |’Histoire de Guillaume de Crecy, seigneur de 
Chiévres, in 12mo, Paris, 1684; 4, ‘Les Anecdotes de Florence, ou 
YHistoire Secréte de la Maison de Médicis, La Haye, 12mo, 1685; 
5, ‘Histoire des Révolutions arrivées in Europe en matiére de Reli- 

' gion,’ 6 vols. in 4to, or 12 in 12mo, Paris, 1686-89. This work extends 
from 1374 to 1569: a continuation to 1650, which would fill 12 quarto 

_ volumes, has remained in manuscript; 6, ‘La Politique de Ferdinand 

le Catholique,’ 3 vols. 12mo, Amsterdam, 1688. A continuation of 

this work by the author exists in manuscript. The style of Varillas’s 
writings is good for his age; but he has distorted facts and neglected 
to verify his quotations, and has even been convicted of alleging 

manuscript authorities which never existed. Indolence and vanity 

__ seem to have been the chief if not the sole motives to his falsifications. 

B VA/RIUS, LU’CIUS, a Roman poet, and a friend and contemporary 

of Virgil and Horace, both of whom speak of him in terms of the 

highest praise. (Virgil, ‘Eclog.,”’ ix. 35; Horat. ‘Carm.,’ i. 6.1, &c.; 

‘Satir.,’ i. 5,40; 6.55; ‘ Hpist.’ ii. 1. 247; ‘Ad Pison.,’ 55, &.) From 

Donatus’ ‘ Life of Virgil, it is clear that Varius survived Virgil, who 

died 3.c. 19; for Varius is there described as one of the heirs of 

Virgil, and as one of the poets who undertook the correction of the 

‘ Aineid. Varius distinguished himself no less as an epic than asa 

tragic poet. We know of two epic poems of Varius: the one was a 

description of the exploits of Augustus and Agrippa, which is com- 

pletely lost ; and the second is called ‘ De Morte,’ and was probably an 
account of the death of Julius Cesar. Macrobius (vi. 1) has preserved 
two lines of this poem. As to his tragic compositions, the ancients 
are unanimous in saying that he excelled all his countrymen; and 
 Quinctilian (x. 1. 98) says that the tragedy ‘Thyestes’ of Varius 

_ would bear comparison with any Greek tragedy. (Compare ‘ Dialogus 

- de Caus. Corrupt, Eloquent.’ 12; Philargyr. ‘ad Virg. Eclog.’ viii. 10.) 
But notwithstanding this general acknowledgment of his merits, no 

_ fragments of his tragedies are preserved which can be attributed to him 

_ With any certainty. 

 (Bothe, Poetarwm Latii Scenicor. Fragm., i., p. 257, &c.; Weichert, 

De L. Vario, Poeta, Commentatio, Grimma, 4to, 1829; Poetaruwm 

 Latinorum Reliquie, p. 156, &c.) 

_ VARLEY, JOHN, an artist who ranks very high as a water-colour 

' painter, was born in London about the year 1777, of parents in rather 

‘moderate circumstances, and was about to be apprenticed to a silver- 

_ Smith, very much against his own inclinations, when the death of his 

" father, who had always opposed what he considered an idle talent for 

_ drawing, left him at liberty to choose a profession. That his family were 

able to further his views may be taken for granted, since he was fain 

‘to content himeelf at first with obtaining employment with an obscure 

_ BIOG, DIV. VOI. VI. 


portrait-painter in Holborn, Afterwards, when about fifteen or six- 
teen, he received some instruction from a drawing master of the name 
of Barrow, with whom he made a sketching excursion, which was of 
material service to him; for a view which he then made of Peter- 
borough Cathedral brought him into notice. He next became ac- 
quainted with Arnold, the landscape-painter, with whom he made 
a tour through North Wales about the year 1799. On his return 
from that excursion, he was for some time employed by Dr. Munro in 
making sketches for him of the scenery in the neighbourhood of his 
residence at Fetcham in Surrey. Two other professional excursions 
through Wales in 1801-2, and similar ones through various parts of 
England, stocked his portfolio with subjects that occupied his pencil 
for many years, and established his reputation as the first in that 
department of art he had chosen, He was certainly among the first, 


-if not the very first, who began to advance the practice of water- 


colour drawing to that of water-colour painting, and to give that mode 
of execution a solidity and force, a freedom and breadth, which it had 
not before attained, nor was even supposed capable of. Up to that 
time, scarcely anything had been produced. beyond washed or tinted 
drawings, very little superior to the coloured prints of the same 
period—raw and feeble in effect. Varley gave to his paintings nearly 
all the vigour of oil-pictures, and by a mode peculiar to himself; for 
he worked with great rapidity, and does not appear to have produced 
his effects by repeated spunging and other processes now in use, or by 
admixture of body colour: his colours look as if they had been laid 
on at once, and hardly retouched. Of late years, his paintings were 
for the most part landscape ‘compositions, very rich and powerful 
in effect, but somewhat monotonous and conventional in manner. 
Although he was not an original member of the ‘ Society of Painters 
in Water-Colours’ (established in 1804), he afterwards joined it, and 
his pictures contributed in no small degree to the attraction of its 
exhibitions. From them and his practice as a teacher he derived a 
considerable income for many years ; but a numerous family, and want 
of either management or economy, kept him almost always in diffi- 
culties. Besides which, he devoted much time to the study of 
judicial astrology, which he may almost be said to have made a second 
profession, for he was in the habit of giving his advice formally to 
those who consulted him respecting their ‘nativities, and is said to 
have received fees on such occasions, or at least to have found a liberal 
purchaser for a drawing in a client of that kind. He certainly mede 
no secret of his pretensions, nor did he show any disinclination 
for the title of ‘ Astrologer’ publicly attached to his name. Of extra- 
ordinary predictions by him many strange anecdotes are told; but if 
he possessed the art of foreseeing events, he did not possess that of 
averting troubles and misfortunes—in his own case at least—which a 
little ordinary prudence would have enabled him-to avoid. Varley was 
married twice : his first wife died in 1824 ; his second was the daughter 
of Wilson Lowry, the celebrated engraver. He himself died November 
17th, 1842, at the residence of a friend, near Cavendish Square. 

*VARNHAGEN VON ENSE, KARL AUGUST, was born at 
Diisseldorf, on February 21st, 1785. His father soon afterwards 
removed to Hamburg, and he was thence sent to study medicine in the 
university of Berlin. A decided inclination for literature and philo- 
sophy there early developed itself, and in 1804, in conjunction with 
Chamisso, he published a‘ Musenalmanach.’ The lectures of A. W. 
Schlegel and the acquaintance of Fichte confirmed him in his study 
of philosophy, and he continued it in Hamburg, Halle, Berlin, and 
Tiibingen. In 1809 he left Tiibingen on the breaking out of the 
Austrian war, and joined the Austrian army by a circuitous route, 
and after the battle of Aspern, received a commission in the Austrian 
army. In this capacity he was present at the battle of Wagram, in 
which he was wounded, and removed to Vienna. When he had again 
joined his regiment in Hungary, he formed an intimacy with Colonel 
afterwards General Prince Bentheim, whom he accompained as adju- 
tant in several journeys after the peace of Vienna, among other places 
to the court of Napoleon at Paris, in 1810, where he formed many 
literary and political friendships, and in Prague he had become ac- 
quainted with the Prussian minister Von Stein and Justus von Gruner. 
When Austria joined in the Russian campaign in 1812, he left the 
service and proceeded to Berlin, where he had hopes of procuring 
employment in the civil service, From the change of circumstances 
he was induced in 1813 to enter again into the military service, and, 
reserving his allegiance to Prussia, accepted a commission as captain in 
the Russian army. With Tettenborn he went first to Hamburg, and 
afterwards accompanied him as adjutant in his march to Paris. Yet 
during the war he wrote a ‘Geschichte der Hamburger Ereignisse’ 
(History of the Occurrences in Hamburg), a succinct relation of the 
recent events, published in 1813; and to this succeeded the ‘Geschichte 
der Kriegszuge Tettenborns’ (History of Tettenborn’s Campaign), in 
1814. While in Paris he was received into the Prussian diplomatic 
service, and accompanied Prince Hardenberg to the Congress of 
Vienna, in 1814; and while here he wrote an official report on the 
affairs of Saxony. After the short war of 1815, he accompanied Prince 
Hardenberg to Paris, and was shortly afterwards appointed resident 
minister at Karlsruhe, where he remained till 1819, when he retired 
from public business, but accepted the title of Privy Legation Coun- 
sellor, and took up his abode at Berlin. In 1829 he was sent ona special 
mission to Cassel, and has been generally active in political affairs, 

Uv 


201 VAROTARI, ALESSANDRO. 


VARRO, MARCUS TERENTIUS. 292 


Of his very numerous writings the earlier productions belong 
chiefly to the romantic poetical species; his later productions are 
chiefly devoted to history, biography, and literary criticism, As a 
prose writer he is considered by his countrymen as among the most 
eminent for his style, which, evidently formed on the model of 
Gothe, is remarkable for a smoothness that gives it a marked 
character; this however, is most noticeable in his historical works, 
such as his ‘Geschichte des Wiener Congresses’ (History of the 
Vienna Congresses) ; but in his biographies it assumes a more lively 
and less studied air. Among his principal works we may mention— 
‘Deutsche Erziihlungen’ (German Tales), 1815; ‘ Vermischte Gedichte’ 
(Miscellaneous Poems), 1816; ‘ Geistliche Spriiche des Angelus 
Silesius’ (Spiritual Apophthegms of A. 8), 1822; ‘Gothe in der 
Zeugnissen der Mitlebenden’ (Géthe from the Testimony of his 
Contemporaries), 1823; ‘ Biographische Denkmale’ (Biographical 
Memorials) in five volumes, 1824-30; ‘ Zur Geschichtschreibung und 
Literatur’ (On the Writing of History, and Literature), 1833; ‘ Leben 
des Generals Seydlitz’ (Life of General Seydlitz), 1835; ‘Leben des 
Generals Winterfeldt,’ 1835; ‘Leben der Kénigin von Preussen 
Sophie Charlotte,’ 1837; ‘Leben des Feldmarschalls Grafen von 
Schwerin,’ 1841; ‘Leben des Feldmarschalls Keith, 1844; * Leben 
des Fiirstens Bliicher yon Wahlstalt,’ 1845; ‘Hans von Held,’ 1845; 
and ‘Denkwiirdigkeiten und vermischte Schriften’ (Memoirs and 
Miscellaneous Writings), in 7 volumes, 1843-6; ‘Karl Miiller’s Leben 
und Kleine Schriften, 1847; ‘Schlichter Vortrag an die Deutschen’ 
(A plain Statement for Germans), 1848; ‘Leben des Generals Grafen 
Biilow von Dennewitz, 1853. He has been in addition a frequent con- 
tributor to collections, periodical works, and to the political journals, 
particularly to the ‘ Allgemeine Zeitung.’ 

RanEL ANTONIE FRIEDERIKE, the wife of the preceding, was born 
of a Jewish family in Berlin, named Levin, or Robert, in June 1771. 
She displayed extraordinary talents almost in her childhood, which, 
though they were not very carefully cultivated, seemed to develope 
themselves the more vigorously. On her father’s death her mother 
gave a free scope to her genius, and in a short time she had assembled 
around her a circle of the most distinguished literary men and artists 
of her time, by whom her extraordinary abilities in conversation 
were highly appreciated. The misfortunes of her country in 1805, 
and the death of Prince Louis Ferdinand, for whom she had a great 
esteem, and which was mutual, caused her much sorrow, but in all 
the mischances of life she ever showed the most lively sympathy with 
her surrounding associates, whether in weal or woe. During the 
war, and also during the ravages of the cholera in Berlin in 1831, 
she dispensed help and consolation to all within her reach. She first 
became acquainted with her husband in 1803, and the acquaintance- 
ship became more intimate in 1807, but they were not married till 
Sept. 27, 1814, after she had relinquished Judaism and become a 
Christian. She accompanied her husband in his various missions, and 
everywhere became the centre of an eminently intellectual conver- 
sational circle, which was frequented by the most distinguished men 
and women of the capital in which she happened to be, and the 
charms of her conversational talent are described as being truly 
extraordinary. She is said to have excited her husband to, and 
afforded him some assistance in, his literary labours; but she did not 
herself aspire to the reputation of an authoress, nor give anything to 
the press during her life. She died at Berlin on March 7, 1833, and 
in 1834 her husband issued a selection from her writings under the 
title of ‘ Rahel, ein Buch des Andenkens fiir ihre Freunde’ (A Book 
of Remembrance for her Friends); and in 1836 in two volumes, 
‘Galerie von Bildnissen aus Rahel’s Umgang und Briefwechsel’ (Gal- 
lery of Portraits from Rahel’s Conversations and Correspondence). 
Both display considerable talent, with keenness and depth of obser- 
vation, but hardly maintain the high reputation she had acquired in 
her social intercourse. 

VAROTA/RI, ALESSANDRO, called Papovantr’Nno, a celebrated 
painter, was born at Padua in 1590. His father Dario Varotari was 
also a distinguished painter and. an architect: he was the scholar of 
Paul Veronese, and established a school at Padua, where he died in 
consequence of a fall, in 1596, six years after the birth of his son, and 
in the 57th year of his age. The instructor of Alessandro Varotari is 
not known, but he went in 1614 to Venice, and devoted himself to the 
study of the works of Titian: he made some copies after Titian, which 
were remarkable for their fidelity, and acquired him a great reputa- 
tion. In his own pictures also he displayed such a mastery over 
many of the characteristic excellencies of Titian, that he is cénsidered 
to approach nearer to him than any other of his imitators, in freedom 
of touch, in mellowness and gradation of tints, and in simplicity of 
composition, The works of Padovanino are seldom seen out of Venice 
and Padua. He excelled in painting women and children, but was 
more succesful in the richness of his carnations and in his impasto 
than in the outlines of his figures, His masterpiece is generally con- 
sidered the. Marriage at Cana, in the Academy of the Fine Arts at 
Venice, formerly in the monastery of San Giovanni di Verdara at 
Padua, This painter had several scholars, who painted in his style, 
and had such facility in copying some of his works, that it is ex- 
tremely difficult to distinguish some of the copies made by his scholars 
from the’ originals painted by Padovanino. He died in 1650. His 
most distinguished scholar was Bartolomeo Scaligero, 


CHIARA VAROTARI, sister of Alessandro, was a distinguished portrait- 
painter; her portrait, by herself, is in the Florentine Painters’ Portrait 
Gallery. She was born at Verona in 1582, and died there in 1639. ~ 

VARRO, MARCUS TERE/NTIUS, was born at Rome in the year 
B.C. 116, and descended from an ancient senatorial family. He was 
instructed by L. Alius, who is spoken of as a most distinguished 
person, and afterwards by Antiochus, an Academic philosopher. The 
whole of his early life must have been spent in the acquisition of 
that prodigious learning which he afterwards displayed in his works. 
But he did not on that account withdraw from publie life altogether ; 
for in A.D. 67 we find him at the head of a part of the fleet of Pompey 


the Great in his war against the pirates. During the civil war between — 


Cesar and Pompey, Varro steadily adhered to Pompey, and was 
appointed one of his generals in Spain. The western part of the 
peninsula was placed under his especial protection, and he had two 
legions at his command. When his colleagues had been compelled to 
surrender, and Cesat marched westward, Varro also surrendered in 
the neighbourhood of Corduba, and after being set at liberty he went 
to Pompey at Dyrrachium, wheré he was staying at the time of the 
battle of Pharsalus. During the absence of Cxsar in Egypt, 8.0. 47, 
Antony destroyed Varro’s villa near Casinum, where a great part of 
his property was lost. After the defeat of Pompey, Varro withdrew 
altogether from public life, and returned to Italy; and when Czsar 
came to Rome Varro became reconciled to him, and was intrusted by 


-him with the purchasing of the books for, and the whole management 


of, the Greek and Latin libraries, which were then established at 
Rome. He now enjoyed for a few years perfect peace, and gave him- 
self up entirely to study and the composition of several works. But 
new troubles arose. 
then a man of upwards of seventy years of age, was put by Antony on 
the list of the proscribed, apparently for no other reason but because 


Varro was a staunch friend of republican freedom. Varro himself 


escaped, as his friends concealed and protected him until the danger 
had passed over, but his libraries were irrecoverably lost. After the 
battle of Actium, B.c. 30, Varro again lived at Rome, and appears to 
liave been highly esteemed by Augustus, who gave him the sup 
intendence of the library founded by Asinius Pollio. Notwithstanding 
the great loss of books and other property which Varro had sustained, 
his literary activity remained unabated to a very advanced age. In 
his eighty-eighth year he was still writing. (Pliny, ‘ Hist. Nat.,’ xxix. 
18.) He died in the ninetieth (B.c, 27), or, according to Valerius 
Maximus, in the hundredth year of hisage. ait 
Varro was one of the most extraordinary men that ever lived. He 
was certainly the most learned of the Romans; but his learning was 
not the learning of the closet only: he had acquired a practical 
knowledge of men and things during his public career, and on the 
basis of this solid knowledge he wrote his works in the retirement of 
his villas. There was scarcely any branch of knowledge with which 
he was not thoroughly conversant : he was an historian, a philosopher, 
a naturalist, a grammarian, and a poet, and in all these branches he is 
spoken of in terms of the highest praise. Varro was for his time and 
for the Romans what Aristotle was to the Greeks. He himself says 
that he wrote 490-books (‘septuaginta hebdomades,’ Gellius, iii. 10), 
but all of them, with the exception of two and a few fragments of 
others, aré now lost. We shall only mention some of the more 
important among his lost works, and then add a few remarks on those 
still extant. 1,‘Rerum Humanarum Antiquitates Libri xxv.; 2, 
‘Rerum Divinarum Antiquitates Libri xvi.;’ 3, ‘De Vita Populi 
Romani,’ consisting of at least eleven books; 4, ‘De Gente Populi 
Romani Libri iv.;’ 5,‘De Initiis Urbis Rome Liber;’ 6, ‘De Re 
Publica,’ consisting of at least twenty books; 7, ‘De Philosophia 
Liber,’ 8, ‘De Scenicis Originibus Libri,’ of which the third book is 
mentioned; 9,‘De Poetis;’ 10, ‘De Plautinis Comeediis ; 11, ‘De 
Bibliothecis,’ &¢. (See the list in Fabricius, ‘ Biblioth. Lat.,’i., ¢. 7.) 
The two extant works of Varro are on the Latin language (‘De 
Lingua Latina’) and on Agriculture (‘De Re Rustica’). The former, 
of which a part only is extant, consisted originally of twenty-four 
books, of which we now possess only books 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10; and 
these are much mutilated and interpolated. The work was written 
between the years B.c. 46 and 44, and was dedicated to his intimate 
friend, M, Tullius Cicero, In the first three of the extant books Varro 
treats on the origin of words, and in the last three on the accidents of 
words, such as declension and conjugation, The subject is of such a 
nature that we cannot judge of him by it; but it is nevertheless of 
great value on account of the philological remarks as well as various 
historical and archeological matters which are mentioned incidentally, 


The first edition of ‘De Lingua Latina’ is that of Venice, 4to, 1498, 


edited by Pomponius Letus and Rholandellus. The best among the 
modern editions are the Bipont (2 vols. 8vo., 1788), that of Spengel 
(Bertin, 8vo., 1826), and especially that of C. O. Miiller (Leipzig, 8vo, 

833). The Bipont edition contains a collection of the fragments of 
Varro’s lost works. 

’The work ‘De Re Rustica’ is complete,+and not in such bad ¢on- 
dition as the ‘De Lingua Latina,’ although ancient authors quote 
passages from it which are not in it now. It consists of three books, 
and is dedicated to his wife Fundania. Although Varro wrote it at 
the age of eighty, it is, at least among the Roman works on agri- 
culture, the best that has come down to us. It is written in the form 


After the murder of Cesar, in B.c, 48, Varro, 


— en elie ee 


: “ 
ix * 
eo 


__. work whatever. 


203 VARRO, PUBLIUS TERENTIUS. 


VATTEL, EMMERICH. 


294 


of a dialogue, and in a pleasing and lively style. Besides the subject 
it professes to treat of, it contains a great number of passages illus- 
trating ancient mythology, archeology, and ethics. It is chiefly based 
upon Greek works, and one written by the Carthaginian Mago, It is 
printed in the collections of Varro’s works published by H. Stephens 
(1569), Popma (Leyden, 8vo, 1601), and others; and also in all the 
collections of the ‘Scriptores Rei Rustice,’ the best of which are 
' those by J. M. Gessner, with notes of Ernesti (Leipzig, 2 vols. 4to, 
1772-74), and J. G. Schneider (Leipzig, 4 vols. 8vo, 1794-97), who has 
also given a very good Life of Varro. Of the Menippean Satires of 
Varro but a few fragments remain; those have been collected, with 
the fragments of the Libri Logistorici, and edited in a very satisfactory 
manner by F. Gibler, Quedlingburg, 8vo, 1844, 
_ (Pabricius, Bibiioth. Lat., i, c.7 3 Orelli, Onemast, Tullianum, under 
*M. Terentius Varro.’ 

VARRO, PU’BLIUS TERE/NTIUS, surnamed ATACI’/NUS, a 
Roman poet, was born, according to Hieronymus, in the Chronicle of 
Eusebius, about the year B.c, 82, at Atax in Gallia Narbonensis, or 
according to Wiillner, at Narbo itself. Respecting his life little is 
known beyond the facts that ‘he learned Greek at the age of thirty- 
five, and died in B.0. 37, at the age of forty-five. Varro distinguished 
himself in epic, elegiac, and epigrammatic poetry; but with the ex- 
‘ception of some fragments and epigrams, his works are now lost. We 
know of three epic poems of Varro—1, ‘An epic on the war of J, 
Cesar against the Sequani,’‘ BellumSequanicum,’ of which Priscian (x., 
p. 877) quotes the second book. 2, ‘ Bellum Punicum Secundum,’ which 
Fabricius attributes to Marcus Terentius Varro, but others, with greater 
probability, to P. Terentius Varro Atacinus. 38, ‘ Argonautica:’ this 
poem was a free translation of the ‘Argonautiea’ of Apollonius Rho- 
dius, and was very celebrated among the Romans. It is frequently re- 
ferred to by contemporary writers, as well as by later grammarians. 

(For a more detailed account of this poet see Wernsdorf, Poet. Lat. 
Minores, v., 3, p. 1885, &e.; and Wiillner, Commentatio de P. Terentti 
Varronis Atacini Vita et Scriptis, Miinster, 4to, 1829. In both of these 
works the remains of the poet are collected.) 

VARUS, QUINTILIUS. [Hzrmann.] 

VASA, GUSTAVUS. [Gustavus EricKson.] 

_ VASA/RI GIO/RGIO, Cavaliere, born at Arezzo in 1512, was a 
celebrated painter and architect in his time, but his reputation now 
rests nearly exclusively upon his Lives of the most excellent Italian 
Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, ‘ Vite de’ pit excellenti Pittori, 
Scultori, e Architetti,’ published in Florence, in 1550, in 2 vols, 8vo., 
and again in a second edition by himself, in 1568, in 3 vols. 4to, with 
portraits cut in wood, likewise in Florence, with many new lives of 
living and deceased artists, up to the year 1567. This work became 
remarkably popular, and many editions of it have been since pub- 
ished: one at Bologna, from 1647 to 1663, with the same portraits ; 
one at Rome, in 1759, with copperplate portraits, and emendations 
and annotations by Bottari; again, at Leghorn and Florence, with 
additional notes by Bottari, in 1767-72; another at Siena, in 1791-94, 
by Della Valle, with some additional information respecting the artists 
of Siena (this edition was reprinted in the Milan edition of Italian 
classics); and complete editions of the works of Vasari were published 
in Florence, in six volumes, 8vo, in 1822-23, in which the biographies 
were reprinted from the edition of 1568, without notes, but with 
copies of the portraits of Bottari’s edition, by Montani of Cremona 
and Giovanni Masselli, Florence, 1832-88 ; and again’in 1846. 

The last life in Vasari’s work is his own, which he traces up to his 
fifth-fifth year. He was instructed in design by his father Antonio 
Vasari, and in painting by William of Marseille; and being taken to 
Florence, in 1524, by Siliro Passerini, cardinal of Cortona, he was there 
further instructed by Michel Angelo, Andrea del Sarto, and others, 
Vasari lost his father, in 1528, of the plague, and in 1529 he turned 
goldsmith in order to be the better able to assist his family, who were 
supported by an uncle. He however the same year took up his former 
profession at Pisa. He afterwards returned to Arezzo, and studied 
with Francesco Salviati, from whom he was taken by Cardinal Ippolito 
de’ Medici, who took him into his service to Rome, and introduced 
him to Clement VII. He returned afterwards to Florence, and 
there, through the eiicouragement and protection of the Medici family, 
he met with all the success he could desire, Few painters have been 
more successful in point of patronage, or have executed more works 
than Vasari; but his paintings are remarkable for no particular 
excellence, though they are generally correctly drawn, and many of 
them are conspicuous for a dignity of character which is not common, 
He was the intimate friend and an enthusiastic admirer of Michel 
Angelo, and he may be almost termed a‘servile imitator of his style, 
The majority of Vasari’s works were executed from his designs or 
cartoons by his scholars, who were very numerous: they painted at 

__ Romea great ceiling with many frescoes for the Cardinal Farnese, in a 
hundred days, but so little to Vasari’s satisfaction, that he determined 
from that time, 1544, not to entrust to them the finishing of any 
E Vasari in his ‘ Life’ relates the origin of his biogra- 
_ phical work; he undertook it in consequence of a suggestion of the 
celebrated Paolo Giovio, and at the request of Cardinal Farnese. It 
ig a vast compilation and a work of great labour, whether the produc- 
tion of one or more persons, and remains even now unrivalled by any 
ork of its kind, notwithstanding its numerous inaccuracies and his 


partiality for the Florentines: the style is excellent for the period, 
and the languagesis both powerful tand eloquent, Vasari died at 
Florence, in 1574, and was buried in Arezzo. There is a German 
translation of Vasari’s Lives by Schorn, which is extremely valuable 
for its notes, and an English translation by Mrs. J, Foster forms 5 
volumes of Bohn’s Standard Library, 

VATER, JOHANN SEVERIN, a distinguished German linguist 
and theologian, was born at Altenburg on the 27th of May 1771, 
After having received his preparatory education in the gymnasium of 
his native town, he went in 1790 to the University of Jena, where he 
studied philosophy and theology, the latter under Griesbach, Doeder- 
lein, and Paulus. From the year 1792 to 1794 he continued these 
studies in the University of Halle, where he also began his career as 
academical teacher. In 1796 however he returned to Jena, where he 
was appointed professor extraordinary in the theological faculty. 
Along with the Hebrew language, the grammatical knowledge of 
which was greatly adyanced by him, he now devoted himself to the 
study of a variety of languages, for the purpose of comparison, and 
of discovering what was then called a philosophical or universal gram- 
mar, which was to develope the great principles common to all 
languages and their respective grammars. In the year 1800 he was 
invited to go to Halle as ordinary professor of theology and Oriental 
literature. Without giving up his linguistic studies, he now devoted 
considerable time to the critical examination of the early books of the 
Old Testament, and of ecclesiastical history. After the death of 
Adelung, in 1806, who left his great linguistic work, ‘ Mithridates,’ 
unfinished, Vater, with the assistance of Adelung’s manuscripts and 
of several distinguished scholars, undertook its completion, Adelung 
had only published one volume, and the other three were published 
by Vater (Berlin, 1808-17). In 1809 he was appointed professor of 
theology and librarian in the University of Konigsberg, where he 
continued his linguistic labours with unabated zeal. His studies 
embraced the languages of civilised nations, as well as those of the 
tribes of America and Africa. In 1820 Vater returned to Halle as 
professor of theology, and although he did not altogether abandon his 
former linguistic pursuits, yet we find him chiefly engaged in eccle- 
siastical history and the exposition of the New Testament. During 
the last years of his life he edited several theological and religious 
periodicals, as the ‘Journal fiir Prediger,’ the ‘ Kirchenhistorisches 
Archiv,’ and the ‘Jahrbuch der Hiuslichen Andacht,’ the last of 
which he himself had set on foot in 1819, He died at Halle on the 
16th of March 1826, 

Vater possessed a more extensive knowledge of languages than 
any of his contemporaries, although he did not enter into their spirit 
so deeply as others. His works however are very valuable on account 
of the immense materials which they contain for the study of com- 
parative grammar. 

The following list contains the most important of his linguistic 
works :—1, ‘Uebersicht des Neuesten was fiir Philosophie der Sprache 
in Deutschland gethan worden ist, in Einleitungen, Ausziigen, und 
Kritiken,’ Gotha, 8yo, 1799; 2, ‘ Versuch einer Allgemeinen Sprach- 
lehre,’ &c,, Halle, 8vo, 1801; 3, ‘Lehrbuch der Allgemeinen Gram- 
matik, besonders fiir Hohere Schulklassen, mit Vergleichung iilterer 
und neuerer Sprachen, Halle, 8vo, 1806; 4, ‘Handbuch der Hebrii- 
sehen, Syrischen, Chaldiiischen, und Arabischen Grammatik, fiir den 
Anfang der Erlernung dieter Sprachen bearbeitet,’ 2nd edit., Leipzig, 
8vo, 1817; 5, ‘Literatur der Grammatiken, Lexica, und Worter- 
Sammlungen aller Sprachen der Erde, in Alphabetischer Ordnung,’ 
Berlin, 8vo, 1815 (this work is printed in German and Latin); 6, 
‘Analekten der Sprachenkunde, mit einer Sprachenkarte von Ostin- 
dien,’ Leipzig, 2 parts, 1820 and 1821; 7, ‘ Vergleichungstafeln der 
Europiischen Stammsprachen und Siid-west Asiatischer; R. K. Rask, 
Ueber die Thrakische Sprachclasse; Albanesische Grammatik nach 
Fr, Mar, de Lecce; Grusinische Grammatik nach Maggio, Ghai und 
Firalow, und Galische Sprachlehre von Ch. W. Ahlwardt,’ Halle, 
8yo, 1822. 

VATTEL, EMMERICH, the celebrated writer on international 
law, was born at Couret, in the principality of Neufchatel, in 1714. 
The family was of considerable antiquity in the principality. Hmme- 
rich’s father David, a clergyman, had been ennobled by the king of 
Prussia. John Frederick, an elder brother of Emmerich, entered the 
French service, and rose to the rank of lieutenant-colonel and knight- 
hood, Charles, a younger brother, entered the Sardinian service, and 
fell at the passage of the Tanaro. Jacob Vattel, who represented 
gt7r) line of the same family, was burgomaster of Neufchatel 
in 1762. 

Emmerich was educated for the church, He was sent to the uni- 
versity of Baile to study the classics and philosophy. Having com- 
pleted the usual curriculum of the Faculty of Arts, he returned to 
Neufchatel, and passed with distinction the preliminary examinations, 
which all who proposed to enter the chureh had to undergo before 
commencing their theological studies. He then repaired to Geneva, 
to deyote himself to those strictly professional pursuits. The writings 
of Leibnitz and Wolff had however more attractions for him than the 
‘ Institutes’ of Calvin. It was an age in which literary men were 
caressed and promoted at courts, and young Vattel felt a greater 
vocation for such worldly advancement than for the charge of a rural 
parish. In 1741 he proceeded to Berlin, in the hope that the court 


295 VATTEL, EMMERICH. 


VAUBAN, SEBASTIEN. 296 


_ of Frederick II., who had recently ascended the throne of Prussia, and 
whose taste for literature was’general, might afford a field for his 
talents. At Berlin Vattel contracted an intimacy with Jordan. In 
1742 he published a defence of Leibnitz’s system, which he dedicated 
to Frederick. His wish was to enter the diplomatic service of Prussia, 
but no vacancies occurred, and his fortune was too limited to admit 
of a lengthened attendance at court. In 1743 some overtures from 
the court of Dresden, which sought to rival that of Berlin in a reputa- 
tion for the patronage of art and literature, induced Vattel to visit 
that city. The gracious teception he experienced from Count Briihl 
decided his resolution to enter the service of the king of Poland and 
elector of Saxony. 

It is extremely doubtful in what capacity Vattel was attached to 
the Saxon court in 1744-45. In 1746 he obtained the appointment of 
diplomatic counsellor (conseiller d’ambassade), with a pension, and 
was sent to Berne as the king of Poland’s minister with that republic. 
The duties of a Polish ambassador at Berne were not very onerous : 
Vattel was able to spend the greater part of his time with his family 
at Neufchitel, and to devote himself to literary pursuits. In 1746 he 
published a collection of essays. In 1747 it was reprinted, under the 
title of ‘ Philosophic Leisure,’ and dedicated to Count Briihl. Some 
of them have the appearance of having been previously published in 
some periodical—possibly the ‘Journal Helvetique.’ The subjects are 
sufficiently diversified :—‘ Essai sur le fondement du Droit Naturel ;’ 
‘Sur les Moyens de répondre aux Manichéens;’ and ‘Sur la Nature 
d'Amour, i Mademoiselle de M.’ They evince a cultivated taste for 
French literature, with an easy play of good-natured but not very 
brilliant wit. The discourse upon love’ is dated 1741. In 1757 he 
published ‘ Poliergie,’ a collection of miscellanies in prose and verse. 
But the chief employment of Vattel during the ten years which 
elapsed between the appearance of the two volumes, was the prepa- 
ration of his work on the law of nations. The first edition was 
published at Neufchatel (the title-page has the fictitious place of pub- 
lication ‘ Londres’) in 1758. 

About the time that the work appeared he was called to Dresden, 
and received an appointment in the diplomatic bureau. He gave so 
much satisfaction as a practical diplomatist, that he was soon raised to 
the rank of a privy counsellor. His intense application to business 
undermined his constitution, and in 1766 he was obliged to visit his 
native country in search of health, The favourable symptoms pro- 
duced by relaxation and the mountain air encouraged him to resume 
his labours before his health was quite re-established. His complaint 
returned with increased violence soon after he reached Dresden, and 
a second visit to Neufchatel proved unavailing. He died on the 28th 
of December 1767. He had married at Dresden in 1764, Marianne de 
Chéne, by whom he left one son. 

The work by which Vattel is best known is his ‘ Droit des Gens.’ 
It is the work of a scholar, not of a practical diplomatist; for the 
almost nominal charge of Polish envoy to the republic of Berne could 
afford but scanty experience. It evinces no very extensive acquaint- 
ance on the part of the author with treaties or negociations, or even 
with political history: his principal authorities are the systematic 
writings of Grotius, Puffendorf, and Wolff. According to the custom 
of the period, an imaginary law of nature is substituted for the real 
practice of nations. In respect to its doctrinal merits, the work has 
all that speciousness and superficiality which characterise the moralists 
of the ‘ Encyclopédie.” The work however obtained an extensive 
reputation. It had the fashionable tone of the age, and was therefore 
more relished than Grotius and Puffendorf; and its systematic arrange- 
ment was found useful by practical diplomatists, as it enabled them 
to classify the fruits of their own experience. It became a,text-book 
in the universities, and was quoted by negociators when it favoured 
their views and other authorities were wanting. The original French 
text has gone through many editions: 4to, Londres (Neufchitel), 
1758; 4to, Neufchatel, 1773; 4to, Amsterdam, 1775; 12mo, Bale, 
1773; 4to, Nimes, 1783; 12mo, Lyon, 1802; 8vo, Paris et Lyon, 
1820 (a bad edition); 8vo, Paris, 1820 (the worst edition); 8vo, 
Paris, 1830 (an indifferent edition) ; 8vo, Paris, 1838 (a good edition) ; 
8vo, Paris, 1839 (the best edition). There have been three Spanish 
editions :—Madrid, by Hernandez, 1820; Burdeos, by J. B. J. G., 
1822; Paris, by Atarena, 1824. The last two translations are mere 
plagiarisms of the first. An English translation was published in 4to 
in 1760, and reprinted in 8vo in 1793. Mr. Chitty, in 1833, repub- 
lished the edition of 1798, with valuable notes, containing the most 
modern rules and decisions. A German translation by Schulin was 
published at Frankfurt-on-the-Main, in 1760. 

Next in importance among the works of Vattel is that entitled 
‘Questions de Droit Natural, et Observations sur le Traité du Droit 
de la Nature de M. le Baron de Wolff, 12mo, Berne, 1762; 12mo, 
Paris, 1763. This is a critical examination of Wolff's treatise, charac- 
terised by that talent for arrangement and lucid expression which is 
the chief merit and source of attraction in Vattel’s writings, 

The remaining works of this author are of little consequence :—1, 
‘Pidces Diverses, avec quelques Lettres de Morale et d’Amusement,’ 
12mo, Paris, 1746. This collection was republished at Geneva and 
Dresden, in 1747, in 12mo, under the title ‘Le Loisir Philosophique, 
ou Piéces Diverses de Philosophie, de Morale, et d’Amusement;’ and 
again at the Hague, in 1765, in 8vo, under the title ‘ Amusements de 


Litérature, de Morale, et de Politique.’ 2, ‘ Poliergie, ou Mélanges de 
Litérature et de Poésies, par M. de V***,’ 12mo, Amsterdam (Paris), 
1757; 8, ‘Mélanges de Morale, de Litérature, et de Politique,’ 12mo, 
Neufchiatel, 1770. 

(Helvetische Lexicon, von Vattel; Sketch of Vattel’s Life, prefixed to 
the edition of 1773; Quérard, La France JLittéraire; Biographie 
Universelle.) 

VA’TTIER, PIERRE, was born near Lisieux in Normandy, and 
lived about the middle of the 17th century. He was physician to 
Gaston, duke of Orleans, and devoted a great part of his time to the 
translation of Arabic writers on history and medicine. The titles of 
his published works are as follows:—1l, ‘ L’Histoire Mahometane, ou 
les quarante-neuf Chalifes du Macine,’ 4to, Paris, 1657; 2, ‘ L’ Histoire 
du Grand Tamerlan,’ 4to, Paris, 1658, from the Arabic of Achamed, 
son of Gueraspo; 8, ‘Portrait du Grand Tamerlan,’ 4to, Paris, 1658 ; 


4, *‘L’Onirocrite Mussulmap, ou Interpretation des Songes,’ 8vo, | 


Paris, 1664, from the Arabic of Gabdorrachaman, son of Nasor; 5, 
‘Merveilles d’Egypte selon les Arabes,’ 12mo, 1666, Paris, from the 
Arabic of Murtadi. This was translated into English by John Davies, 
and published, 8vo, London, 1672; 6, ‘ La Logique, traduite d’Arabe,’ 
8vo, Paris, 1658, from Avicenna; 7, ‘De Morbis Mentis Tractatus,’ 
8vo, Paris, 1659, also translated from Avicenna, of the whole of whose 
works he promised a translation, which he is said to have completed, 
but which was never published; 8 ‘ Elegie de Thograi,’ 8vo, Pavis, 
1660; 9, ‘Nouvelles Pensées sur la Nature des Passions,’ 4to, 1659, 
which appears to be the only work of hisown composition, His trans- 
lations are said to be inaccurate, and in many parts incomplete. 
VAUBAN, SEBASTIEN LE PRESTRE DE, was born May 1, 
1683, at St. Leger de Foucheret, near Saulieu in Burgundy, His 
family had been in possession of the lordship of Vauban for more than 
two hundred and fifty years, but from misfortune or otherwise the 
estate became incumbered with debts; and both his father, Urbain le 
Prestre, who had spent his life in the service of his country, and his 
mother, Aimée de Carmagnol, dying while he was young, he was left 
to the care of M. de Fontaines, prior of St. John, at Semur, who gene- 
rously supported him, and besides teaching him to read and write, 
gave him the only instruction in arithmetic and geometry which he 
ever received from a preceptor. Unwilling probably to remain a 
burden to his benefactor, and stimulated by the example of his uncles 
and brothers, all of whom were in the army, he entered at seventeen 
years of age into the regiment of Condé, which was then in the service 
of Spain, and he was received as a cadet in the company of Arcenai. 
In this situation his good conduct soon procured for him a commission ; 
and joining to the experience acquired in the field a knowledge of the 
mathematics as far as they are connected with the military art (for he 
had then studied trigonometry and mensuration), having probably also 


read the writings of the Italians on fortification, he was_qualified to — 


undertake the duties of an engineer. 

In the beginning of the year 1652, when only nineteen years of age, 
he was employed on the fortifications of Clermont in Lorraine, and in 
the same year he was sent from thence to serve at the siege of Ste, 
Menehould. Here he superintended the construction of the lodg- 
ments, and durifg the assault of the place he performed the daring 
exploit of swimming across the river under the fire of the enemy. In 
the following year he was taken prisoner by a party of French royalists 
and brought before Cardinal Mazarin, who, having heard of his gal- 
lantry, received him kindly and solicited him to enter the king’s service. 
Vauban readily consented to take this step, having had no other motive 
in following the standard of Condé than the desire of studying the art 
of war under that great general; and he was immediately appointed to 
a lieutenancy in the regiment of Burgundy. In that year (1653) he, 
served under the Chevalier de Clerville at the second siege of Ste, 
Menehould, and after the taking of that place he was appointed to 
superintend the repairs of its fortifications. In the following year he 
assisted at the siege of Stenay, and three months afterwards at that 
of Clermont. Both of these places were taken, and in 1655 he received - 
the commission which placed him in the corps of engineers. -During 
that year he directed the sieges of Landrecies, Condé, St. Guislain, and 
Valenciennes ; and in 1657 that of Montmédi, where he received three 
wounds. In 1658 he had the chief direction of the attacks at the 
sieges of Gravelines, Ypres, and Oudenarde. The Maréchal de la Ferté, 
under whom he served, and who in 1656 had given him a company in 
his own regiment, as an acknowledgment of his superior merit gave 
him then one in another regiment, and ventured to predict that if the 
life of the young officer were spared he would attain the highest digni- 
ties. Cardinal Mazarin also sent him a present, accompanied by 
flattering expressions of esteém, which stimulated the ingenuous mind 
of Vauban to still greater acts of zeal for the public service ; in fact, 
so much does he appear to have been occupied by his duties, that only 
it is said by the accounts given of his exploits in the government papers 
his relatives obtained any knowledge of his existence, 

Hitherto Vauban had to make his way without any of the advan- 
tages which wealth or the patronage of the great procures; but from. 
this time he enjoyed the confidence of the government, and his history 
may be said to be connected with that of his country. 

In 1661 occurred the peace of the Pyrenees; and then Dunkirk, 
Fort Louis, and Mardike having been ceded to France, the king 
(Louis XIY.) determined to strengthen their fortifications, so that 


~~, 


207 VAUBAN, SEBASTIEN, 


VAUBAN, SEBASTIEN, 


298 


they might constitute a bulwark against the Spaniards, who then pos- 
sessed Artois. He committed this important duty to Vauban, who 
accomplished the proposed end to his satisfaction, and at the same 
time conciliated the inhabitants by causing a canal to be cut, which 
was to allow, in case of necessity, a commercial communication between 
those places. At this time also it is said that he gave plans for im- 
proving the fortifications of Cherbourg. 

When the war recommenced in 1667, Vauban had the direction of 
the sieges which the king conducted in person; and at Douay he 
received in his face a musket-ball, the scar from which he carried to 
his ve. Notwithstanding his wound he conducted the siege of 


Lille, and succeeded in taking the town after nine days from the open- 


ing of the trenches, The king, who was present, gave him on this 


-- occasion the appointment of lieutenant in the French guards, together 


with a pension, and the more flattering distinction of a public 
eulogium. ; 

After the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle (1668) he was occupied in super- 
intending the repairs of the fortifications of Flanders and Artois ; and 
in the same year he was made governor of Lille, the citadel of which 
town he had constructed. He also gave plans for executing new works 
in Provence and Roussillon; and he went with M. de Louvois to 
Piedmont, where he visited Verrua, Vercelli, Turin, and Pinerola, and 
suggested projects for improving their fortifications. At his departure 
the Duke of Savoy presented him with his portrait enriched with 
diamonds; and on his return from Italy he went to superintend the 
-works which were being executed at Dunkirk, where 30,000 men were 
constantly employed. with admirable regularity. 

In 1672, the Dutch having united themselves under the Prince of 
Orange in opposition to France, Louis XIV. proceeded in person to the 
seat of war; and under the direction of Vauban several places were 
besieged and taken ; in the following year Maestricht was invested; and 
here Vauban made a great improvement in the mode of conducting the 
attack, by executing long trenches connecting at intervals the several 
lines of approach, and forming covered communications by which the 
different divisions of the attacking force were enabled to support each 
other. In or near the fronts of these trenches he placed the batteries 
destined to silence the fire from the place, Vauban immediately 
afterwards reconnoitred the fortifications of Tréves, and having given 
directions for the prosecution of the siege, France being at that time 
threatened on all sides, he proceeded to visit the fortifications on the 
coast, After giving orders for the construction of new works for the 
defence of the Isle of Ré, he returned to Flanders, and subsequently 
he rejoined the king, who was then carrying the war into Franche 
Comté. But the allies having in the meantime invested Oudenarde, 
he entered that place, and conducted the defence so vigorously that 
they were obliged to raise the siege ; and for these services he was in 
1674 made brigadier of the French infantry. 

During the following year the armies of France were compelled to 
act on the defensive ; but in 1676 Vauban besieged Valenciennes, and 
took the place after an assault made by daylight, in opposition to the 
opinions of the generals of the army, who gave the preference to a 
night attack, During this campaign he was made maréchal de camp, 
and received a pension, besides a present from the king of 25,000 
crowns. In the following year he conducted the siege of St. Guislain 
under Marshal d’Humiéres, and the fall of that place was followed by 
that of Ghent., Ypres was immediately invested, and soon afterwards 
taken. At this time the death of the Chevalier de Clerville, who was 
director-general of the fortifications, left that post vacant, and the king 
immediately conferred it on Vauban. It is said that at first he declined 
it on the ground that it would bring him into close intimacy with the 
ministefs : these were Louvois and Colbert, men jealous of each other; 
and Vauban probably felt that. it would be difficult to give satisfaction 
to both. He was at length induced to accept the post, and he appears 
by the uprightness of his conduct to have succeeded in acquiring their 
esteem. 

The peace of Nimuegen (1678), which relieved Vauban from the 
duty of taking fortresses from the enemy, enabled him to direct all the 
energies of his mind to the improvement of those which belonged to 
his country. He first went to Dunkirk, where, by cutting through 
the sand-bank which closed the entrance, and providing the means of 
keeping the channel open by directing through it a current of water, 
he rendered the harbour one of the most important in the north of 
France : from hence, proceeding to the south, he gave plans for enlarg- 
ing the fortifications of Toulon, and for the construction of its arsenal ; 
and making Perpignan the centre of the defences of the Eastern Pyre- 
nees, he caused the fortress of Mount Louis to be constructed. Return- 
ing to the north, he was employed in improving the chain of fortresses 
along the frontiers on that side: with this view he completed, near 
Calais, the fort of Neulay and that of Lakenoque, by which the com- 
munication between Ypres and Menin was protected, and Cassel 
covered. The construction of the works of Mauberge and the repair 
of those of Charlemont served to secure the line between the Scheldt 
and the Meuse, which was before imperfectly protected by Philippe- 
ville; and a chain of new fortresses closing up the Vosges secured the 
conquest of Alsace. The fort of Huninguen near Basel protected the 
frontier of the Rhine and the Jura; and the new forts which he caused 
to be built at Fribourg served to render that important place nearly 
impregnable, 


While the execution of these works was in progress, Vauban went 
again (1680) to the south, where he formed a plan of defence for the 
Western Pyrenees, improving the port of Bayonne and making that 
place the grand depét, while St. Jean Pied-de-Port served to connect 
the line of defence with the mountains; he also caused the fort of 
Andaye to be constructed for the purpose of defending the mouth of 
the Bidassoa. In 1681 Vauban was employed in adding new works to 
Brest, Rochfort, and other places for the protection of the coast; but 
these works were scarcely traced when he was called upon to strengthen 
those of Strasbourg, a free city which had fallen into the hands of the 
French. He constructed the citadel of that place, and connected the 
fortifications of the city with the right bank of the Rhine by means of 
Fort Kehl, and by several strong redoubts ; facilitating the arrival of 
materials for the works by cutting a canal with sluices, the construc- 
tion of which he superintended in person. 

Hostilities breaking out in 1683, Vauban proceeded in the following 
year with the French army into Belgium, where in four days he took 
Courtray, and immediately laid siege to the strongly fortified city of 
Luxembourg: this place was also taken, but not till all the resources 
of the art of attack had been displayed; and it is said that on this 
occasion he first constructed trench-cavaliers for the purpose of dislodg- 
ing the defenders from part of the covered way previously to an assault 
being made. In reconnoitring by night for the purpose of ascertaining 
the height of the glacis, being accompanied only by a few men at a 
distance, he was discovered by the sentinels; but he was fortunately 
enabled to retire in safety, having first deceived them by walking 
coolly towards them as if he had been one of their own officers. _ 

The war being suddenly terminated in 1684, Vauban strengthened 
the fortifications of Luxembourg by the addition of a crown, anda 
horn-work beyond the ravine on the western side of the town; and in 
order to become completely master of the course of the Moselle, he 
then constructed the fort called Mount Royal. About the same time 
he was enabled to display his talents as a civil engineer by executing 
in part the magnificent aqueduct of Maintenon, by which the waters of 
the Eure were to be conveyed to Versailles. In 1686 he visited the 
great canal of Languedoc, which had just then been executed ; and he 
is said to have suggested some improvements which were afterwards 
adopted. 

Two years afterwards the war again broke out, and Vauban was 
immediately employed under the Dauphin, in conducting the sieges of 
Phalsbourg, Manheim, and Frankenthal: the first of these places, 
whose fortifications he had strengthened in 1676, held out twenty-two 
days from the time of opening the trenches ; and most of the engineers 
under his orders being killed or wounded, the duty of superintending 
the operations fell almost wholly on himself. This year he was made 
lieutenant-general, and the king in a complimentary letter recom- 
mended him to be careful of his life for the good of the service. The 
Dauphin, as a token of regard, presented him with four pieces of cannon 
for his Chateau de Bazoche. It is said to have been at the siege of 
Phalsbourg that Vauban first put in practice ricochet firing; and that 
he proposed the organisation of a corps of sappers expressly for siege 
duties. In this year he began the fortresses of Landau and Befort. 

The following year (1689) Vauban had the command at Dunkirk, 
Bergues, and Ypres, with orders to enter into and conduct the defence 
of any of these places, should it be besieged , but no investment took 
place. During the year 1690 Vauban was rendered incapable of doing 
any military duty in consequence of a severe illness which he con- 
tracted while superintending the repairs of the fortifications of Ypres ; 
he recovered however, and next year he besieged and took Mons. In 
1692 the siege of Namur was formed under the orders of the king, 
and the first attacks were directed against Fort Guillaume, a strong 
work which had been constructed by the celebrated Coehorn, who 
then commanded it: the fort was obliged to surrender to the superior 
fortune of Vauban, who succeeded in cutting off its communication 
with the town, and the latter was soon afterwards taken, The siege 
of the fort and town lasted twenty-nine days from the opening of the 
trenches, during which time five strong sorties were made by the gar- 
rison, In 1693 he conducted the siege of Charleroi. 

The Duke of Savoy threatening to invade Brittany, Vauban was sent 
into the south of France to ascertain the state of the fortresses on that 
side, and he gave plans for improving the works at Besangon, for 
fortifying Fenestrelles, and constructing Fort Dauphin. In 1694 the 
sea-ports being frequently bombarded by the English fleets, application 
was made to Vauban, who suggested the formation of magazines and 
casemates which should be proof against the destructive effects of 
shells and red-hot shot. In 1697 he besieged and took Aeth in a few 
days from the opening of the trenches. After the peace of Ryswick 
Vauban was employed for several years in visiting the frontiers and in 
forming projects for the defence of the country ; and in 1698 he com- 
menced the important fortress of New Brisach. 

The War of the Succession commencing in 1703, Vauban proceeded 
to Namur, in order to superintend the repairs of the fortifications ; 
and at this time the king, as a recompense for his many services, 
elevated him to the dignity of a marshal of France: this honour he at 
first declined, urging that it would put it out of his power to serve the 
country by directing any future siege, as he could not with that rank 
act under a general of the army. He at length however accepted it; 
and he readily consented soon afterwards to conduct the siege of Old 


. 


299 VAUCANSON, JACQUES. 


VAUCHER, JEAN PIERRE. 300 


a 


‘Brisach, under the orders of the young Duke of Burgundy, the pupil 
of Fénélon. This was one of the places which Vauban had constructed, 
and it surrendered on the fourteenth day, 

In 1706, after the battle of Ramilies, Marshal Vauban was sent to 
command at Dunkirk and on the coast of Flanders, where his presence 
served to support the energies of the people, who were much discou- 
raged by the reverses which the armies of the country had sustained 
during the war. He succeeded in dissuading them from executing 
their project of inundating the district in order to prevent the enemy 
from besieging that town; and he immediately commenced an in- 
trenched camp, extending from Dunkirk to Bergues, by which the town 
was more effectually secured. 

This was his last public work, for he died March 30, 1707, after an 
illness of eight days, in the seventy-fourth year of his age. He had 
married Jeanne d’Annoi (of the family of the Barons d’Espiri, in Niver- 
nois), who died before him; and he left two daughters, the Countess 
of Villebertin and the Marquise d’ Ussé, 

During the intervals of his services in the field he employed his 
leisure in composing his three principal works: these are entitled 
‘Traité de l’Attaque des Places,’ ‘Traité des Mines, and ‘ Traité de la 
Défense des Places.’ The last was finished only a short time before 
his death. Several editions of these works have been published, and 
the best is that of Foissac, Paris, 1796. During his life he also found 
time to write a great number of memoirs on various subjects; and 
near the end of his days he collected them in twelve folio volumes 
(manuscript). He entitled them his ‘ Oisivetés ;’ and among them is 
a paper on the abuses practised in collecting the ‘dixme royale ;’ one 
on the limits of ecclesiastical power in temporal matters, one on the 
cultivation of forest-lands, and several on finance, on geography, and 
on different parts of the mathematics : there is also a memoir concern- 
ing a project for joining the canals of maritime Flanders with the Lys, 
the Deule, the Scarpe, and the Scheldt, and one concerning the defence 
of Paris. In consequence of the disasters experienced during the 
campaign of 1706, the king contemplated abandoning his capital and 
retiring behind the Loire; and on this occasion Vauban wrote the 
memoir last mentioned, in which he pointed out the importance of 
preserving Paris, and the possibility of defending it, adding a plan of 
the fortifications which he proposed to construct for its defence. This 
memoir was published in 1821. 

Fontenelle, in summing up the military actions of Vauban, observes 
that he superintended the repairs of 300 old fortresses and executed 
33 new ones; that he conducted 53 sieges, many of them under the 
eye of the king, and that he was present at 140 vigorous actions. He 
was much beloved by his soldiers, who obeyed him willingly, both 
from the confidence which they placed in him, and from the knowledge 
that he avoided exposing them as much as the good of the service 
would permit. At the siege of Cambray the king, by the advice of 
the persons about him, was on the point of ordering that an assault 
should take place, and that the garrison should be put to the sword : 
Vauban alone opposed this advice, observing that it would be preferable 
to save one hundred French troops than to destroy three thousand of 
the allies; and the king had the good sense to abandon the idea. 
The humanity of Vauban’s character is also manifest in the effort 
which he made to induce the king to re-establish the Edict of Nantes; 
unhappily, the bigotry of the king or the influence of the priesthood 
rendered his representations on this point fruitless. He had no con- 
stant system in fortifying places, and he appears to have followed in 
some respects the method of the Italian engineers: what are called 
his three systems have been formed since his death from a diligent 
study of the works which he executed at different times. In 1693 the 
order of St. Louis was founded, chiefly by the advice of Vatban, who 
was immediately invested with the dignity of Grand Cross of the 
Order, he being one of the seven to whom that dignity was at first 
confined. When the Académie des Sciences was renewed in 1699, 
Vauban was appointed one of its honorary members; and Fontenelle 
observes that no one better deserved this distinction, since no one had 
more completely rendered science subservient to the benefit of mankind. 

Besides the ‘ Eloge’ by Fontenelle, in his ‘ Histoire du Renouvelle- 
ment de l’Académie,’ we have an account of Vauban’s life in an ‘ Eloge’ 
by Carnot, and another by M. Noel in 1790; the former gained the 
prize proposed by the Académie de Dijon in 1783, and the latter that 
which was proposed by the Académie Francaise in 1785. 

It is remarkable that little is known of the collateral branches of 
the family of Vauban: one of his grand-nephews was a lieutenant- 
general and governor of Bethune; and the son of this officer, after 
having served in America under Rochambeau, and subsequently in 
La Vendée, died at Paris in 1816, 

VAUCANSON, JACQUES, DE, the mechanician, was born on the 
24th of February 1709, at Grenoble, in the present department of 
Isére, in France, of a noble family. His predilection for the mechanical 
arts developed itself early, While yet a boy he was accustomed to 
attend his mother, a woman of strict piety, to a Sunday conversation 
with some other religious women, at which he amused himself by 
observing through the chinks of a partition a part of the movements 
of a clock in an adjoining chamber. He endeavoured earnestly to 
understand the principles of the movement he saw, and at the end of 
‘several months he discovered the principle of the escapement. From 
this moment his taste was fixed. He constructed with rude tools a 


clock in wood, which marked the hours with great exactness; and he> 
made for a miniature chapel the figures of some little angels which 
waved their wings, and of some priests which performed several eccle- 
siastical movements. Chance fixed his residence for a time at Lyon, 
where a project was being discussed for bringing water to the town 
by a hydraulic machine, and he invented one which his modesty pre- 
vented him from offering, but when he arrived in Paris he was 
delighted to see that the same idea had there been carried into effect. 
He perceived then that for the completing of his schemes he required 
a better knowledge of anatomy, music, and mechanics, and he et er 
studied those arts for several years. The statue of the Flute-player 
in the gardens of the Tuileries gave birth to the desire of making a 
similar one that would play. ‘The reproaches of an uncle, who con- 
sidered the notion as extravagant, suspended its execution ; but after 
an interval of some years, and during a long illness, he succeeded in 
its construction. It was exhibited in Paris in 1738, where it was seen 
by d'Alembert, who described it in the article ‘ Androide’ in the 
‘Encyclopedie Méthodique.’ It really played on the flute, that is, 
projected the air with its lips against the embouchure, producing the 
different octaves by expanding and contracting their opening, forcing 
more or less air in the manner of living performers, and i 
the toues by its fingers. It commanded three octaves, the 

scale of the instrument, containing several notes of great difficulty to 
most performers. It articulated the notes with its lips. Its height 
was nearly six feet, with a pedestal, in which some of the machinery 
was contained. In 1740 he declined accepting an invitation from 
Frederic of Prussia, who was desirous of assembling all the most dis- 
tinguished men of Europe, to take up his residence at Berlin. In 
1741 he produced a flageolet-player, who beat a tambourine with one 
hand. The flageolet had only three holes, and some notes were made 
by half stopping them: the force of wind required to produce the 
lowest note was equal to one ounce; for the highest it was fifty-six 
pounds (French). The construction was altogether different from 
that of the Flute-player. In the same year he produced a duck, 
which has been considered as the most ingenious of his automata : it 
dabbled in the water, swam, drank, and quacked like a real duck, and 
the peculiar motions of the animal were very successfully imitated. 
It raised and moved its wings, and dressed its feathers with its bill ; 
it extended its neck, took barley from the hand, and swallowed it, 
during which the natural motion of the muscles of the neck was 
perfectly perceptible. It digested the food it had swallowed by means 
of materials provided for its solution in the stomach. The inventor 
made no secret of the machinery, which excited great admiration at 
the time. Another of his-inventions was an asp, which he prepared 
for the tragedy of ‘Cleopatre,’ by Marmontel, that hissed and darted 
at the bosom of the actress; and he commenced a figure, at the sug- 


gestion of Louis XV., that was to contain an imitation of the cireu- 


lation of the blood, but he abandoned it in disgust at the slowness 
with which the workmen provided him executed the king’s orders. 

But Vaucanson did not confine his mechanical inventions to these 
ingenious but comparatively useless objects. About 1741 Cardinal de 
Fleury had appointed him inspector of the silk manufactories, and he 
was not long before’ he introduced a great improvement in the mill 
for thrown-silk, an improvement which excited the anger of the 
workmen of Lyon against him, who, thinking it would reduce the 
value of their labour, on one occasion pelted him with stones. His 
only revenge was the inventing of a machine for weaving flowered 
silks, in which, as a kind of sarcasm, the moving power was an ass. 
He also invented a machine for giving a dressing to the silk, so as to 
render the thread of each bobbin or skein of an equal thickness 
throughout, with several other improvements in the manufacture. In 
the journal of the Académie des Sciences, of which he was a member, 
he gave a description of his silk-throwing mill, and of many other 
useful mechanical inventions, in several papers, which display a 
remarkable talent for description, being alike clear and precise. After 
a long illness, by which he was confined to his bed for eighteen 
months, he died on the 21st. of November 1782. He had formed a 
collection of machines and objects relating to arts and manufactures, 
which he bequeathed by his will to the queen, who appears to have 
set small value on the legacy. It was proposed to transfer it to the 
Académie des Sciences, but the intendants of commerce claimi 
some of the manufacturing machines, disputes arose, and the resul 
was the dispersion of a most curious and valuable storehouse of 
mechanical inventions. 

VAUCHER, JEAN PIERRE, professor of historical theology at 
Geneva. Although a preacher and a teacher of theology, he is better 
known for his works on botany. The first work on botany published 
by Vaucher was on the family of ‘ Conferve,’ the phenomena of whose 
sporules excited his attention. This was published at Paris in 1800, 
and entitled ‘Mémoire sur les Grains des Conferves,’ 4to. He con- 
tinued his researches upon the family. of plants, to which he had 
already directed his attention, and in 1803, published his history of 
fresh-water Confervee (‘ Histoire des Conferves d’Eau Douce,’ &c.), a 
work which has long been held in the highest estimation, and which 
laid the foundation of all subsequent labours in this department of — 
botany. His remarks on the reproduction and growth of the various 
species of Conferve that fell under his observation were correct, nor 
has much advance been made in this department of botany since 


301 VAUGHAN, REV. ROBERT, D.D. 


VAUVILLIERS, JEAN FRANCOIS. 302 


his day. For although subsequent algologists have added greatly to 
the lists of species of Algew, they have done much less towards the 
elucidation of their functions. Vaucher subsequently pursued his 
researches on the structure and functions of several of the genera 
and species of Cryptogamic plants. The result of his observations 
was published in several papers in the ‘Memoirs of the Society of 
Natural History and Physics of Geneva.’ He also published at Paris, 
in 1827, a work on the structure and functions of the Orobatches, 
which was illustrated with 15 lithographs of dissections of these 
lants. In 1828 he published a monograph on the natural order 
Becdsttaree. Although his published observations on plants up to 


_this time had been for the most part confined to the lower orders, 


he had all his life been more or less preparing for a great work on 
the physiology of plants in general. The first part of this work was 
published in 1830, but finding that the plan on which he had com- 
menced it was too extensive, he deferred any further publication of 
the work till it was completed in 1841, when it appeared in Paris, in 


’ 4 vols. 8vo, entitled ‘ Histoire Physiologique des Plantes d’Hurope, 


ou Exposition des Phenoménes qu’elles présentent dans les diverses 
Périodes de leur Développement.’ He received the first complete 
copy of this work on his death-bed, and he employed the few 
remaining days that his strength permitted in sending some copies to 


‘his friends. The work was dedicated to Charles Albert, Prince of Carig- 


nano, afterwards king of Sardinia, who was one of his former pupils. 

The design and execution of this work are novel. In describing 
the structure and functions of plants, species, or small groups of 
species are taken, and are studied independently of other plants, for 
the purpose of arriving at their individual peculiarities. His leading 
idea in the observations contained in this work is, that the species, 
genera, and families of plants have distinctive physiological as well 
as structural characters. The labour required for this work was 
immense, and only a long life could have enabled him to do it; but 
it was with Vaucher a labour of love, and he appears to have pursued 
it without regard to fame or reward. His observations are of course 
confined to plants which he had observed in a living state, and 
which could only comprehend a small portion of the vegetable 
kingdom. His general views in this work are not always free from 
error, nor is his terminology so correct as is required at the present 
day; but whatever may be the faultiness of his generalisations, or 
want of accuracy in the use of terms, his observations are entitled 
to the confidence of the botanist. Many parts of the work however 
were finished when botany was much less advanced than at the time 
of its publication, and consequently display deficient knowledge of 
modern observation. Vaucher, with De Saussure and others, was one 
of the founders of the Geneva Society of Natural History and Physics. 
He died at a very advanced age in the year 1841, beloved and respected 
by all who knew him. A genus of confervoid plants was named in 
honour of him ‘ Vaucheria,’ by De Candolle. 

(Bischoff, Lehrbuch de Botanik ; Alphonse de Candolle, On the Life 
and Writings of Vaucher, translated in the ‘Annals of Nat. Hist.,’ 
vol. x., from the Bibliotheque Universelle.) 

*VAUGHAN, REV. ROBERT, D.D., a leading minister of the 
Congregationalists or Independents, was born near the close of the 
last century, and was educated for the ministry at Bristol. For some 
years he was Professor of History in London University (now Univer- 
sity College), and while minister of the Independent Chapel at Ken- 
sington occupied a prominent position among the dissenting ministers 
of the metropolis, his pulpit oratory being regarded as of a more 
than commonhly intellectual chaaacter, His historical works had also 
secured him a considerable reputation in literary circles and with the 
general public. On the removal, in 1842, of the Lancashire Inde- 
pendent College from Blackburn to Manchester, where a spacious and 
handsome building was erected for it, Dr. Vaughan was invited to 
become president of the extended establishment, and having accepted 
the invitation, he removed to Manchester. He has continued to fill 
the office of president of the college in conjunction with the chair of 
theology up to the present time with great advantage to the inatitu- 
tion; but in consequence of failing health he has recently (August 
1857) tendered his resignation. : eng 

Omitting single sermons, lectures, and addresses, of which he has 
published several, the following is a tolerably complete list of Dr. 
Vaughan’s literary works published with his name :—‘The Life and 
Opinions of John de Wycliffe, D.D., illustrated principally from his 
unpublished manuscripts. With a preliminary view of the Papal 
System, 2 vols. 8vo, 1828, of which a 2nd edition was published ; but 
some twenty years later he recurred to the work, recast the old and 
added new materials, and published in one vol. in 1853 ‘John de 
Wycliffe, D.D., A Monograph: with some account of the Wycliffe 
MSS ;’ * Memorials of the Stuart Dynasty, including the Constitutional 
and Keclesiastical History of England from the Decease of Elizabeth 
to the Abdication of James II..’ 2 vols. 8vo, 1831; ‘The Causes of the 
Corruption of Christianity,’ 8vo, 1834; ‘Thoughts on the past and 


i : present State of Religious Parties in England,’-12mo, 1838; ‘ The 


Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell, and the State of Europe during the 
early Part of the Reign of Louis XIV.,’ 2 vols. 8vo, 1838 ; ‘ History 
of England under the House of Stuart,’ published in the ‘ Library of 


Useful Knowledge? 2 vols. 8vo, 1840; ‘Congregationalism, or the 
- Polity of Independent Churches, viewed in relation to the State, and 


the tendencies of Modern Society,’ 12mo, 1842; ‘The Modern Pulpit 
viewed in its relation to the State of Society,’ 12mo, 1842; ‘The 
Age of Great Cities, or Modern Society viewed in its relation to 
Intelligence, Morals, and Religion,’ 12mo, 1843; ‘The Age and Chris- 
tianity,’ 12mo, 1849. Several of these works have passed through 
more than one edition. Shortly after his settlement at Manchester 
Dr. Vaughan projected the ‘British Quarterly Review,’ and since its 
establishment in 1844 to the present time he has been its editor; and 
during these thirteen years he has enriched its pages with a large 
number of essays on historical, political, theological, social, and educa- 
tional subjects. A selection from his essays was published in two 
volumes in 1849. 

VAUQUELIN, NICOLAS-LOUIS, a distinguished French analy- 
tical chemist, was born about the middle of the last century, of 
parents in an humble station in Normandy. Fourcroy, accidentally 
meeting with him, was so much pleased with his quickness and inte- 
grity, that he took him to Paris and made him superintendent of his 
laboratory, in which he speedily became an expert experimenter, and 
on many occasions which were acknowledged, and probably on some 
which were not, he performed experiments published by Fourcroy. 

He was a professor of chemistry in Paris, and eventually became 
chemist to the School of Mines, and a member of the Institute. He 
was extremely industrious, and has published many memoirs on 
mineral, vegetable, and animal analysis: in performivg his varied 
researches, he not only improved the methods of analysis previously 
in use, but also discovered some elementary bodies, of which the chief 
and most remarkable were chromium, existing in the red lead of 
Siberia, as an acid combined with oxide of lead, and glucina, a new 
earth, or rather metallic oxide, which he found in the emerald and 
beryl. The discovery of chromium has been of vast importance to 
the arts; for having been since found in enormous quantity combined 
with iron, and in various parts of the earth, it has been extensively 
used in the state of oxide for giving a green colour to porcelain, and 
chromic acid combined with oxide of lead, forming chromate of lead, 
is a fine yellow pigment. 

Vauquelin died in 1829, at an advanced age: his character and 
conduct were most excellent and exemplary, and he passed through 
the bloody stages of the French revolution uncontaminated by its 
violence or vices. 

VAUVILLIERS, JEAN FRANCOIS, a French scholar, was born, 
in 1737, at Noyers in Burgundy, and received a careful education from 
his father Jean Vauvilliers, a scholar of considerable merit. Jean 
Frangois had searcely finished his studies when he was appointed one 
of the librarians of the Royal library at Paris, and in 1766 he became 
professor of Greek in the Collége de France. After having distin- 
guished himself by several works on Greek literature and history, he 
was elected, in 1782, a member of the Academy of Inscriptions. The 
storm of the Revolution carried him away from his learned pursuits, 
He was successively president of the quarter of St. Genevieve at Paris, 
first ‘ député suppléant’ of Paris in the assembly of the états géné- 
raux, president of the communauté, lieutenant to the maire of Paris, 
and lastly, ‘ prévét des marchands,’ in which capacity he had the care 
of the provisions necessary for the supply of the capital. The people 
of Paris at that time believed that it was the secret intention of the 
court to starve them, and they opposed by armed force the export of 
provisions from the capital into the provinces. Vauvilliers acted in 
these cases with great energy, and he more than once succeeded in 
making the mob desist from their predatory disturbances. In his 
political opinions he was rather royalist ; he supported the proposition 
of Brissot for the abolition of slavery in the colonies, but he also 
defended the rights of the Roman Catholic church. When he was 
summoned to take the oath of allegiance to the new democratic 
system, Vauvilliers declined taking it, laid down his professorship in 
the Collége de France, and afterwards justified himself in a pamphlet, 
‘Questions sur les Sermens, en particulier sur celui de Haine & la 
Royauté.’ He was arrested by order of the revolutionary committee, 
but he obtained his liberation, and then became a member of the 
council of the Five Hundred. He published several pamphlets on 
political questions, and expressed his opinions with so little reserve, 
that he was at last sentenced to deportation, in September, 1797. 
However he escaped to Switzerland, and afterwards went to Russia, 
whither he was invited by the emperor Paul. The Academy of Sciences 
of St. Petersburg eleeted Vauvilliers a member. He died at St. 
Petersburg on the 23rd of July, 1801. 

Vauvilliers is the author of numerous works and treatises, partly on 
Greek literature, and’ partly on modern politics, legislation, and ad- 
ministration. The most important among them are, 1, ‘Essais sur 
Pindare, contenant une Traduction de quelques Odes de ce Poéte,’ 
&c., Paris, 12mo, 1772; 2, ‘Examen Historique et Politique du Gou- 
vernement de Sparte,’ Paris, 12mo, 1769; 3, A number of papers 
concerning the Manuscripts of Pindar, Aischylus, and Sophocles, in 
the ‘ Notices et Extraits;’ 4, An edition of Sophocles, which had been 
prepared by Capperonnier. It contains some notes and a preface by 
Vauvilliers, Paris, 2 vols. 4t0, 1781. His notes. are severely attacked 
by Brunck; but Harless, in Fabricius’s ‘Bibliotheca Greca,’ speaks 
highly of their merit. : 

(Quérard, La France Littéraire, where a complete list of his works is 
given; Biographie Universelle ; Fabricius, Biblioth. Grae. ii., p. 224.) 


" 


803 VECCHI, GIOVANNI DE’. 


VEGA CARPIO, FRAY LOPE FELIX DE. 304 


- VECCHI, GIOVANNI DE’, a distinguished Italian painter, born at 
Borgo San Sepolcro, in 1536. He was the scholar of Raffaellina del 
Colle, and painted in oil and in fresco. His works are very numerous 
in the churches of Rome and its vicinity: he made the cartoons for 
the two great mosaics of the evangelists Luke and John in St. Peter’s 
on the Vatican. He died in 1614, His portrait is in the Academy of 
St. Luke at Rome. , 

VE'CCHIA, PIE’TRO, a distinguished painter of the Venetian 
school, was born at Venice in 1605. He was the scholar of Alessandro 
Varotari, but painted in a different style. His real name appears to 
have been Mattoni, and he acquired the name of Vecchia from his 
skill in imitating and restoring old pictures. Vecchia painted many 
pictures so exactly in the style of Giorgone, that it is almost impossible 
to decide between the works of these painters: he painted also some 
pictures in the styles of Pordenone and Titian. He made the designs 
of. many of the mosaics in the church of San Marco at Venice, but his 
easel pictures were generally of inferior subjects, and his talent was 
more for the ludicrous than the serious. Some of his efforts in illus- 
tration of the Passion of Christ were signal failures as regards a proper 
feeling for the subject. His touch was bold, his drawing and colouring 
excellent, and some of his effects of light and shade strikingly powerful 
and masterly. He died at Venice in 1678, 

VECELLIO TIZIANO. [Trrtay.] 

VECELLIO, FRANCESCO, the brother of Titian, was born at 
Cadore in 1483; commenced life as a painter, and imitated the style 
of his brother. He afterwards took to a military life, returned again 
to painting, and then again forsook it in 1531 for the life of a mer- 
chant, as is reported, by the advice of Titian, who is said to have been 
jealous of him: he was a painter of great ability, There are several 
excellent pictures by him in the Venetian state. He died in 1560. 

VECELLIO, ORA/’ZIO, the son of Titian, was born at Venice in 
1515. He was an excellent portrait-painter, accompanied his father to 
Rome, and assisted him in most of his works. Many of Orazio’s por- 
traits are said now to be attributed to his father. He died at the same 
time as his father, in 1576, likewise of the plague. He is said to have 
wasted much money in the study of alchemy. 

Titian’s property wasinherited by his eldest son, PompoNrIO VECELLIO, 
a priest, who, according to report, soon squandered it away. Besides 
these two sons Titian had a daughter named Cornelia. 

VECELLIO, MARCO, called Marco pr Tiztano, was the nephew 
of Titian, and was born at Venice in 1545. He was a great favourite 
with Titian, painted in a similar style, and executed many good works. 
He died in 1611. 

VEGA CARPIO, FRAY LOPE FELIX DE, was born at Madrid 
on the 25th of November 1562. His father, as he informs us in his 
‘Laurél de Apolo,’ p. 45, was also a poet, to which circumstance may 
perhaps be ascribed Lope’s early taste for poetry. According to 
Montalvan (‘Fama Posthuma,’ p. 15), before Lope had attained the 
age of five he could read Spanish and Latin; and before his hand was 
strong enough to guide the pen he recited verses of his own composi- 
tion, which he had the address and good fortune to barter for prints 
and toys with his playfellows. At the age of twelve he had, by his 
own account, not only written short poems, but composed dramas in 
four acts; and during the intervals which his studies at school 
afforded him, he was always rhyming. Having lost his father when 
he was about thirteen, he was soon after impelled by so strong a 
desire of seeing the world, that he resolved to escape from school. He 
concerted his project with a schoolfellow, and they actually left 
Madrid together, without the knowledge of their relations or their 
masters. Being however detected in their flight, Lope and his school- 
fellow were brought back to their relations. Upon his return to 
Madrid, young Lope ingratiated himself with the Bishop of Avila by 
several pastorals, and a comedy in three acts, called ‘ La Pastoral de 
Jacinto,’ which is justly considered as a prelude to the reform which 
he meditated in the Spanish stage. It is moreover probable that 
during this interval, between school and the university, which he was 
enabled to enter through the liberality of his patron the bishop, he 
composed several poems, which he retouched in afterlife, After 
spending four-years at the University of Alcaldé, Lope became attached 
to the Duke of Alva, at whose request he wrote his ‘ Arcadia,’ a 
mixture of prose and verse, romance and poetry, pastoral and heroic, 
the design of which is avowedly taken from Sannazaro, though its 
execution has been pronounced by Spanish critics to be far superior to 
the model. The ‘Arcadia,’ though written perhaps as early as 1580, 
was not published till 1598. Some time after Lope had executed.the 
command of his illustrious patron he left his service, and married a 
lady of rank, Dofia Isabel de Urbino. He continued to cultivate 
poetry with increased enthusiasm, until being involved ina duel with a 
gentleman of rank, he wounded his antagonist, and was obliged to 
separate himself from his wife, whom he loved tenderly, and leave 
Madrid. Lope fixed upon Valencia as the place of his retreat; but 
some years after, having previously ascertained that he would not be 
prosecuted, he returned to the capital, and was reunited to his family. 
He did not however long enjoy this new-found happiness: his wife, 
whose health had been for some time on the decline, died shortly 
after his return. To fly from such painful recollections, Lope became 
a soldier, and joined the ‘invincible Armada.’ The fate of that expe- 


dition is well known; and Lope, in addition to the difficulties and 


dangers of the voyage, had the misfortune of seeing a beloved brother 
expire in his arms. During this unfortunate voyage Lope composed 
his ‘ Hermosura de Angelica,’ a poem which professes to take up the 
story of that princess where Ariosto left it, and which Marini, one of 
his Italian admirers, has not hesitated to pronounce superior to the 
‘Orlando.’ On his return from the Armada, Lope quitted the career 
of arms, and entered the service, first, of the Marquis of Malpica, and 
afterwards of the Count of Lemos, with whom he remained until his 
second marriage, to Dojia Juana de Guardia, a lady of Madrid: he was 
then twenty-eight years old. About eight years after this event, in 
1598, on the occasion of the canonisation of St. Isidorus, a native of 
Madrid, Lope entered the lists with the best poets of the day, and 
surpassed them all in the number and merit of his performances, 
Prizes had been assigned for every style of poetry, but no more than 
one could be obtained by the same person. Lope succeeded in the 
hymns ; but not contented with this, he produced besides, in an 
incredibly short space of time, a poem of ten cantos, in short verse, 
as well as several sonnets and romances, and two comedies, which he 
published together under the feigned name of Tomé de Burguillos. 

This was perhaps the most fortunate period of Lope’s life: he had, 
by his own statement, written already no less than nine hundred 
dramas for the stage, besides twelve volumes of other poetry; and 
although the remuneration then given to authors was very moderate, 
he wrote so much, and had so many presents conferred upon him by 
men of rank, who were anxious to become his patrons, that he was 
enabled to live in affluence. He hada son named Carlos, on whom he 
doated, and who promised to be the heir of his talents. The period 
of his domestic happiness did not last long: his son died; his wife 
soon followed her child to the tomb, and Lope was left with two 
daughters. The spirit of the poet seems to have sunk under such 
repeated losses; and he resolved to soothe it by the exercise of 
devotion. Accordingly, having become secretary to the Inquisition, 
he shortly afterwards became priest, and in 1609 a sort of honorary 
member of the brotherhood of St. Francis. Meanwhile the reputation 
of Lope as an author was rising to that height which it afterwards 
reached, and he worked as assiduously as ever. He seldom passed a 
year without giving some poem to the press; and scarcely a month, or 
even a week, without producing some play upon the stage. In a very 
short space of time, ‘Los Triumphos de la Fé,’ ‘Las Fortunas de 
Diana,’ three novels in prose, ‘Circe,’ an heroic poem, and ‘ Philo- 
mena,’ a singular but tiresome allegory, were the fruits of his 
prolific pen. 

Such was his reputation, that he himself began to distrust the 
sincerity of the public, and wishing to ascertain whether the extra- 
vagant applauses heaped upon him were the result of fashion or a 
homage paid to his merit, he published a poem without his name. 
But either the number of his productions had gradually formed the 
public taste to his own standard of excellence, or his fertile genius 
was so well adapted to the taste of the times, that his ‘ Soliloquies of 
God,’ though printed under a feigned name, secured him as many 
admirers as his former productions. Emboldened probably by this 
success, he dedicated his ‘Corona Tragica,’ a poem on Mary Queen of 
Scots, to Pope Urban -VIIL., who wrote him a letter of acknowledg- 
ment in his own hand, and conferred on him the degree of doctor of 
theology. About the same time Cardinal Barberini, the pope’s nuncio, 
followed him with veneration in the streets; Philip III., himself a 
poet, would stop to gaze at sucha prodigy; the people crowded round 
him wherever he appeared; the learned and the studious of Europe 
made pilgrimages from their country for the sole purpose of con- 
versing with Lope, So associated was the idea of excellence with his 
name, that it was used in common conversation to signify anything 
perfect in its kind; and a Lope diamond, a Lope day, or a Lope 
woman, became fashionable and familiar modes of expression, Lope 
had dangerous rivals in Gongora and Cervantes, with neither of 
whom he seems to have lived on good terms. Indeed, if we are to 
judge from the many satirical allusions contained in his writings, 
Gongora and Lope were sworn enemies to each other. As to Cer- 
vantes, it is probable that the immense popularity which Lope de 
Vega enjoyed, and the honours which he received from all parts of the 
country, may have awakened a sentiment of jealousy in his breast; 
whilst Lope was living in prosperity and splendour, the author of 
‘Don Quixote’ was actually starving in the same street; Lope con- 
tinued to publish plays and poems, and to receive every reward that 
adulation and generosity could bestow, till the year 1635, when his 
health gradually declined, and he expired on Monday, the 26th of 
August, in the seventy-third year of his age. He was buried at the 
convent of nuns in the Calle de Cantarranas, whence his remains haye 
lately been removed to the National Pantheon of Madrid. 

Notwithstanding his undisputed talent, Lope is better known for 
the prodigious number than the quality of his writings. According to 
a calculation made by one of his panegyrists, twenty-one million three 
hundred thousand of his lines were actually printed, and no less than 


eighteen hundred plays of his composition acted upon the stage, 


“Were we to give credit to such accounts,” says Lord Holland, 
‘allowing him to begin his compositions at the age of thirteen, we 
must believe that upon an average he wrote more than nine hundred 
lines a day; a fertility of imagination, and a celerity of pen, which, 
when we consider the occupations of his life as a soldier, a secretary, 


ee 


in 1819. 


VEGA, GEORGE. 


VEIT, PHILIPP. 306 


a master of a family, and a priest; his acquirements in Latin, Italian, 
and Portuguese; and his reputation for erudition, become not only 
improbable, but absolutely, and one may almost say physically im- 
possible.” Yet there can be no doubt that Lope was, even in prolific 
Spain, the most prolific of writers. Montalvan tells us, that when 
Lope was at Toledo he wrote fifteen acts in fifteen days, making five 
plays in a fortnight. He himself informs us in the eclogue to Claudio, 
one of his last works, that he had written upwards of fifteen hundred 
dramas, one hundred of which had been composed in as many days: 


** Pues mas de ciento en horas veinte quatro 
Pasaron de las Musas al theatro,” 


In addition to the works mentioned in the course of this notice, 


_ Lope wrote several epic poems, as ‘La Jerusalem Conquistada;’ ‘La 


Circe ;’ ‘La Dragontea’ (on the ‘Death of Sir Francis Drake’); ‘La 
Andromeda ;’ numerous pastorals; ‘Los Pastores de Belen;’ ‘La 
Dorothea,’ &c. &c.; a burlesque poem, entitled ‘La Gatomachia;’ 
several epistles, and other short poems, which were collected and 
printed at Madrid, 1776-79, 21 vols. 4to. But it is not on any of 
these productions that the réputation of Lope really rests: that was 
founded on his dramas, in which he showed himself master of his art. 
The number and merit of his plays, at a period when the Castilian 
language was generally studied throughout Europe, directed the 
attention of foreigners to the Spanish theatre, and probably induced 
them, more than the works of any one writer, to form their compo- 
sitions upon the model which Corneille and others afterwards refined. 
His plays have always been popular in Spain. Even now, when the 
introduction of the French dramatic school has considerably lessened 
the taste for the old drama, ‘La Moza de Cantaro,’ ‘La Noche 
Toledana,’ and others of Lope’s plays are still acted on the Madrid 
stage. 

Lord Holland has given, after Huerta, a list of all the dramas 
attributed to Lope de Vega, which exist in print. There are 497 
plays, and 21 ‘Autos Sacramentales,’ in all 518, to which number 
may be added many which have been lost, and many more which, 
though acted on the stage, were never printed, besides those which 
are preserved in manuscript. 

VEGA, GEORGE, a German mathematician, and colonel in the 
Austrian artillery, was born at Sagoritz in Carniola, in 1754. His 
family name is said to have been Veha, but this he transformed into 
Vega. His parents, though in reduced circumstances, gave him the 
benefit of a good education, and sent him to prosecute his studies at 
Laubach, where, under the tuition of Maffei, who was afterwards 
bishop of Buntzlau in Bohemia, he made great progress in the mathe- 
matics: for this prelate he entertained the highest esteem and grati- 
tude, which, but two years before his death, he testified by dedicating 
to him a second edition of his principal work. 

Vega commenced his military career by entering into a corps of 
engineers, with which he served, first in Carniola, and afterwards in 
Hungary: here his merit and his knowledge of the military sciences 
soon procured for him the notice of the Emperor Joseph II., who 
gave him the appointment of mathematical instructor in the imperial 
artillery, with the rank of lieutenant in its second regiment. 

Though engaged in the duty of giving lessons, and in the compo- 
sition of his works, he served with the Austrian army in Flanders at 
the commencement of the wars arising from the French Revolution, 
and distinguished himself on several occasions by his gallantry: he 
was raised in 1796 to the rank of major, and subsequently to that 
of lieutenant-colonel; and, with the dignity of a baron of the empire, 
he was made Chevalier of the order of Maria Theresa. While thus 
enjoying the prospect of attaining the highest military honours, he 
was suddenly deprived of life, in the forty-eighth year of his age, by 
the hand of an assassin. In 1802, while at Rusdorf, near Vienna, 
having made an agreement with a miller of that place for the purchase 
of a horse, he set out in company with the man, intending to proceed 
to the stable where the horse was kept. On the way, while passing a 
bridge, the colonel, who went first, was struck to the ground by a 
blow on the head from behind, and before he could recover he was 


a despatched by repeated strokes:,his body, from which the murderer 
___ took a watch, a purse of money, and a case of drawing instruments, 


was then thrown into the Danube. Nine years afterwards a pro- 
tractor, having on it the name of the unfortunate colonel, and which 
was one of the instruments in the case, being found in the possession 
of the miller, was the cause of detection, On being examined, the 
man prevaricated, and having at length confessed his crime, he was 
condemned and executed. 

Vega is known as a mathematician by several useful works: the 
first of these is entitled ‘Logarithmische-trigonometrische und andere 


4am gebrauche der mathematik tafeln und formeln,’ 8vo, Vienna, 1783. 


Of the others, the principal are  Vorlesungen iiber die Mathematik,’ 
Vienna, 1786. This work contains treatises on arithmetic and algebra, 


eoetry, trigonometry and the infinitesimal calculus, mechanics, 


ydrostatics and pneumatics; and an edition was published at Vienna 
‘Thesaurus Logarithmorum completus ex arithmetica loga- 
rithmica et ex trigonometria artificiali Adriani Vlacci collectus, etc.,’ 
Latin and German, Leipzig, 1794; ‘Manuale logarithmico-trigonome- 


_ tricum, matheseos studiosorum commodo in minorum Vlacci, Wolfii 


que hujus generis tabularum logarithmico-trigonometricarum 
‘BIOG, DIV. VOL. VI, 


mendis passim quam plurimis scatentium, locum substitutum,’ Leipzig, 
1800, This is a second edition with additions, It is divided into 
four parts: the first contains an explanation of the properties of loga- 
rithms; the second and third contain tables of the logarithms of 
numbers, sines, tangents, &c.; and the fourth is a treatise of plane 
and spherical trigonometry. Besides the above works, Vega published 
an introduction to chronology (Vienna, 1801); and in 1803 there was 
published at the same place a tract on weights, measures, and coin, 
which he had written. He was a member of several learned societies ; 
among others, those of Gottingen, Erfurt, and Berlin. 

VEGE’TIUS, FLA’VIUS RENA’TUS, a Latin writer on the military 
art, concerning whom nothing is known beyond what can be gathered 
from his work itself. In the manuscripts the titles ‘ Vir Illustris,’ 
or ‘ Vir Illustris Comes,’ are added to his name. He must have lived 
and written about the year .D. 885, in the reign of the emperor 
Valentinian II., to whom the work is dedicated: it consists of five 
books, and bears the title, ‘Epitome Institutorum Rei Militaris,’ 
There are several expressions in the work which leave no doubt that 
the author was a Christian. It is written in a plain and easy style, 
and considering the late period to which it belongs, the language is 
purer than might be expected. Vegetius himself appears to have had 
a practical knowledge of the subject on which he wrote; but he 
derived most of his materials from earlier writers, among whom he 
mentions Cato Censorius, Cornelius Celsus, Frontinus, Paternus, and 
the constitutions of Augustus, Trajan, and Hadrian, concerning military 
affairs. Considering the loss of earlier and better works on the 
military regulations of the Romans, the work of Vegetius is a valuable 
relic of antiquity; but it is to be regretted that the author did not 
use sufficient discretion in keeping the different periods apart: for 
he sometimes mixes indiscriminately institutions and regulations of 
the early times with those existing in his own days. The first book 
treats of the formation and training of soldiers; the second, of the 
divisions and subdivisions of an army, and the arrangements of a 
camp; the third, of military discipline, the care to be taken of the 
welfare of the soldiers, and of the drawing up of an army in battle 
array: the fourth, of sieges, military engines, and of the mode of 
attacking and defending fortified places; and the fifth, on maritime 
warfare. The first edition appeared without place or date, about the 
year 1472. There is a good edition by P. Scriverius, with commen- 
taries by G. Stewechius and F. Modius, Antwerp, 4to, 1607. It 
contains also some other ancient works on military affairs. The best 
edition is that of N. Schwebel (Bipont, 8vo, 1806), with notes by the 
editor, and some of those of his predecessors. A German version of 
Vegetius was printed as early as 1474, and one in French in 1488. 
From the French version Caxton published in 1489 a translation by 
desire of Henry VII., ‘The Fayt of Armes and Chyvalry from 
Vegetius.’ 

* VEIT, PHILIPP, was born at Berlin on the 13th of February 
1793. Having finished his preparatory studies in Dresden, and served 
in the army of deliverance, he proceeded in 1815 to Rome, where he 
joined with Cornelius, Overbeck, Schadow, and the other young German 
painters who banded themselves together with the avowed purpose of 
restoring German art to the religious purity and earnestness of 
medizval times, and of whose proceedings and intentions we have 
elsewhere spoken. [CorNELIUS;, OvERBECK; ScHaDOW; WILHELM; 
ScunorR.] The views on art which the young painters adopted were 
those which had been enunciated by Frederick Schlegel, and which 
Philipp Veit had to the fullest extent imbibed. Veit’s mother, the 
daughter of Moses Mendelssohn, had married Frederick Schlegel as her 
second husband, and with him renounced the Protestant for the 
Roman Catholic church, her son followed in their steps, and be- 
came a devoted pupil of his step-father. More almost than any of 
his colleagues in the art-movement Veit adopted the mystical and 
symbolical method of treating religious subjects, and he did not, like 
some of them, subsequently fall into a more realistic style. Of the 
famous frescoes of the ‘ History of Joseph,’ painted at the Villa Bar- 
tholdy, Rome, by the associated artists, Veit executed the ‘Seven 
Years of Plenty’ as a companion to Overbeck’s ‘Seven Years of 
Dearth,’ and its exuberant richness of treatment, fertility of invention, 
and skilful composition and execution, won for it an amount of admi- 
ration quite equal to that of its great rival. Subsequent works—in- 
cluding a scene from the Paradisi of Dante in the Massimi Villa, a 
‘Triumph of Religion,’ &c.—maintained his reputation, and he was 
called to take the post of Director of the Stiidelsche Art Institute at 
Frankfurt-am-Main. Here he produced a great number of important 
works, and sustained the character of the Institute at ahigh point. His 
most celebrated work is the large fresco at the Institute representing 
‘Christianity bringing the Fine Arts to Germany,’ with heroic-sized 
figures on either side of Germania and Italia. This is one of the most 
ambitious pictures of the new school of German religious art, and 
though possessing the coldness and ambiguity of most symbolical 
designs is admitted on all hands to display great mental power, beauty 
of drawing and composition, and very considerable technical skill; 
and as a whole to be grand and impressive in effect. Other works are 
‘The two Maries at the Sepulchre ;’ ‘St. George,’ in the church at 
Bensheim, and many other scriptural, historical, and allegorical pieces, 
and numerous portraits. Lithographic prints have been published 


of the greater portion of his chief works, As has been eee Veit isa 


307 VELAZQUEZ, DIEGO RODRIGUEZ. 


VELAZQUEZ, DIEGO RODRIGUEZ, 303 


‘man of strong religious feeling, and this, in its excess, led in 1843 to 
the termination of his connection with the Stidelsche Institute. The 
council having purchased Lessing’s picture of ‘John Huss, before 
the Council of Constance,’ [Lussrne, K. F.} to place in the building, 
Veit protested against its admission, and eventually resigned his 
directorship. He then removed his atelier to Sachsenhausen in Hesse- 
Cassel. He has since painted for Frankfurt Cathedral an important 
picture of the ‘ Ascension of the Virgin ;’ and for the King of Prussia, 
among others, ‘The Maries at the Sepulchre,’ ‘The Parable of the 
Good Samaritan,’ and ‘The Egyptian Darkness,’ which he has rendered 
in an entirely original manner. 

VELA’ZQUEZ, DIE’GO RODRIGUEZ DE SILVA Y, was born 

at Seville, and baptized there June 6, 1599. His parents, on the 
father’s side, were of Portuguese origin. Having manifested, while 
yet a child, a decided turn for drawing, he was placed under Francisco 
Herrera el Viejo. This master, harsh, violent, and extravagant as a 
man, was an artist of great native power, boldness and originality ; 
his paintings were true exponents of his character. He first broke 
down the timid and conventional style of the Sevillians, who hitherto 
had followed in the manner of the Italians: to obtain effects true to 
nature was his ambition, and for this end he despised means and 
materials alike, working with the coarsest colours, and using brushes 
of an unusuallength. The principles of his method and handling are 
to be traced in all the works of his pupil, improved indeed by a 
higher quality of touch and intention. Veldzquez, who was of a 
gentle disposition, was driven by ill usage from this studio, and entered 
that of Francisco Pacheco, who was the very opposite of Herrera. 
This feeble creature of rules was cold in colour and commonplace in 
conception, yet learned in the theory of art, and better known by the 
works of his pen than of his pencil: he exercised no influence what- 
ever over the style of his scholar, who soon discovered that his new 
master could not give him that which he felt was wanting. After 
five years’ nominal instruction, Veldézquez married Juana, Pacheco’s 
daughter; and this explains his long continuance under an otherwise 
unprofitable roof. Disappointed in his master, and thrown on him- 
self, the young artist turned to Nature for his guide, and he followed 
her faithfully to the end. He procured a peasant lad for a model and 
painted him—his commonplace forms, rags, and nakedness, under 
every aspect and attitude. Necessity thus did for him what choice 
had done for Caravaggio, the leader of the naturalist school in Italy; 
who, in opposition to the classicists, painted men and things as they 
were, rather than as they ought to be; preferring the forcible, effective, 
and even the low, if real, to the refined, ideal and poetical. The early 
impression made on Velazquez was deep and indelible: it became the 
blemish of his style; it biassed the man throughout life, and warped 
him from Raffaelle and Michel Angelo to Ribera and Stanzioni. The 
study of this plebeian model was moreover cognate to the process 
which Herrera first adopted for himself, and then pointed out to all 
~his scholars. It forms a peculiarity in the system of the great school 
of Seville, and especially in Velazquez and Murillo, two of its brightest 
ornaments; they were taught to draw and to colour at the same time, 
beginning with subjects of still-life, and those the most ordinary, such 
as meat, vegetables, and kitchen utensils: hence the generic term 
Bodegones, by which they are still known. Thus Veldzquez obtained 
an early mastery over bis materials, a habit of close imitation, and a 
marvellous power of representing nature and texture. His first at- 
tempts at pictures, properly speaking, were either copies from Ribera, 
or compositions painted with his decided and hard outline, and his 
strongly contrasted lights and shadows. His pictures of this period 
‘are very scarce; many probably exist, but remain unknown from 
being ascribed to other artists. The ‘Adoration of the Shepherds,’ 
now in the Louvre, is the earliest of his undoubted productions, and 
it is nothing more than a copy from Spagnoletto. 

Arrived at the age of twenty-three, some paintings of Luis Tristan, 
whose style was a compound of Titian and El Greco, inspired Ve- 
ldzquez with a burning desire to see the works of these and other 
masters, and he left Seville for Madrid in the spring of 1622: he was 
welcomed by Don Juan Fonseca and other Sevillians, who were settled 
in the capital, who befriended their countryman with that spirit of 
localism and clanship which is the characteristic of all Spaniards. 
Velazquez, having painted the portrait of the poet Gongora, which 
was a commission from Pacheco, returned to Seville; meanwhile the 
influence of Fonseca was not idle, and the young man was recalled 
to Madrid, the next year, by the Conde Duque de Olivares, the ruler 
of Spain, who was to Philip [V. what Buckingham was to our Charles 
k, prime minister of the tastes and pleasures of his master. Veldzquez, 
having painted the great man’s portrait, stepped at once into fame and 
fashion, which never deserted him during his long career of prosperity. 
He maintained by merit the start which was procured by favour; nor 
can there be a greater proof of the high degree of excellence to which 
he had already arrived than his immediate success. 

Philip 1V., a true judge of art, on seeing the fortrait of the 
favourite, sat at once for his own. At this the critical moment of his 
fortunes the young artist put forth all his strength. The picture was 
exhibited in Madrid, near the steps of San Felipé; and there, in the 
open air, did Veldzquez, like the painters of Greece, listen to the 
praises of a delighted public. He was forthwith appointed the court 
painter; and Philip, apeing Alexander, according to the story in 


Horace, ordained that none but this new Apelles should portray him. 
The necessity of frequently painting the “foolish hanging of the 
nether lip” of this dull ungainly Austrian and his family was little 
calculated to correct a tendency to unworthy form, which was 
engendered by the ordinary model of his early studies. This 
was again fixed by the constant introduction of hideous dwarfs, 
by o abortions of nature, and playthings of the kings and princes 
of Spain. 

Meanwhile the more he painted, the more Veldézquez was honoured 
by his own and foreign princes, and among others by our Charles L, 
who was at Madrid in 1623. His portrait begun by Veldzquez, was 
never finished, and has unfortunately been lost. Another illustrious 
visitor soon after became his friend, Rubens, who arrived at Madrid, 
August 6, 1628, rather in the character of a diplomatist than a painter: 
indeed he associated with none of the artists except Velazquez, with 
whom alone he went to the Escurial. Rubens left Madrid, April 
26th, 1629, and although he was constantly painting during his 
sojourn, he wrought no change either in composition or colouring in 
Veldzquez, who was accustomed to look at nature with his own eyes 
and not through those of other men; nor indeed had the gorgeous 
tints and fleshiness of the Fleming anything in common with the 
sober draperies of the sinewy Castilian, 

Veldzquez at last obtained the royal permission to go to Italy, and 
he embarked at Barcelona, August 10, 1629. He visited Venice, 
Ferrara, and Rome, being everywhere received in an artistical triumph. 
Urban VIII. assigned to him an apartment in the Vatican, where he 
diligently copied Raffaelle and Michel Angelo; but neither the 
grandiose design and sublimity of the one, nor the sentiment and 
ideal beauty of the other, ever produced the slightest change in the 
Spaniard’s style: he felt and studied their brightness without ever 
reflecting in his own works one single ray. Velazquez, like his friend 
Lope de Vega, held up the mirror to his own age alone: he called 
up no recollections of the past, borrowed from no other period or 
country, and none can claim anything back from him; all was his 
own, original, national, and idiosyncratic; and he shrunk from any 
change by which loss might be risked. The Spaniard is neither a 
friend to the foreigner nor to hisinnovations. Nor was Italy then what 
she had been; the préstige of her example had passed away with 
the age of Leo X., and the vitality of her soil for new excellence was 
dull when compared to the fierce energy of unexhausted Spain, then 
starting into a life of her own. Veldzquez and Murillo were 
destined to revive the arts, which declined in Italy, as Seneca, 
ee and Lucan had renewed the literature of Rome in her period 
of decay. . 

From the Vatican Veldézquez removed to the Villa de’ Medici, but 
falling a victim to malaria, was soon carried down an invalid to the 
Piazza de Spagna below, and lodged in the palace of the Condé de 
Monterey, the ambassador of Spain. The ambassador was a patron 
of art and artists, both from real taste and the diplomatic anxiety to 
second the ruling object of his king. He watched over his patient 
and restored him to health. Veldzquez remained a year in Rome; 
he only sent home two original pictures, his ‘ Jacob with the Garment 
of Joseph,’ and ‘Apollo at the Forge of Vulcan;’ both are now at 
Madrid, and in spite of much truth, character, and powerful painting, 
are singularly marked with the most ordinary forms. The children 
of Jacob are the kinsmen of the model peasant, and Vulcan is a 
mere farrier, and his assistants brawny Gallicians. It would seem 
that the Spaniard, to prove his independence, had lowered his lowest 
transcript of nature to brave the ideal and divine under the shadow of 
Raffaelle himself. 

From Rome he passed to Naples, then a Spanish possession, where 
he felt at home amid the works of Caravaggio, Stanzioni, and Ribera. 
With Ribera, his countryman, he lived in the closest intimacy, pre- 
ferring however to his harder style and coarse subjects the flowing 
touch and cheerful composition of Stanzioni, between whose style 
and his own the resemblance cannot be mistaken. This arti 


artist, 
called in Spain el Caballero Maximo, was the type of the Hispano- | 


Neapolitan school; many of his finest pictures were purchased by 


Veldzquez for Philip 1V., and, hung as they are near his own in the — 


gallery of Madrid, abound in analogies of touch and method. 
Velazquez returned to Madrid early in 1631, and being necessary to 
the amusement of his patron found himself not forgotten: the king, 
with a fidelity which was no part of his nature, had never during his 
absence sat to any other painter. Philip, imitating Urban VIII, 
gave him a painting-room in the palace, and came daily to watch his 
rogress. 
. It is to the credit of the Austrian dynasty that they relaxed in 
favour of the fine arts the rigid ceremonial of Spanish etiquette. 
Charles V. made a friend of Titian; and Philip II., of Herrera the 
architect. Veldzquez now painted the magnificent equestrian portrait 
of Philip IV., from which the great carver Montaiiez made a model 


in wood, in order to be sent to Florence, where it was cast in bronze _ 


by Pedro Tacea, and now exists in the gardens of Buen Retiro. The 
success led to new honours: Veldézquez was appointed to an office 
about the king’s person, and in that capacity followed Philip into 
Aragon and Catalonia in 1643 and 1644. The former of these years 
witnessed the disgrace of the Conde Duque, to whom, although 


iallen, Veldézquez had the boldness to continue to show respect; nor 


Se aes ae 


VELAZQUEZ, DIEGO RODRIGUEZ. 


309 VELAZQUEZ, DIEGO RODRIGUEZ. 210 
did Philip IV. resent this uncourtier-like gratitude. In November, His portraits baffle description and praise ; they must be seen: he 


1648, Veldzquez made a second journey into Italy, in order to purchase 
modern pictures for the king, and to procure moulds from the best 
antique statues for a projected academy. He embarked at Malaga, 
landed at Genoa, passed rapidly to Milan, Venice, Florence, and Par- 
ma, and thence hastened to embrace his well-beloved Ribera at Naples. 
Returning to Rome he was presented to Innocent X., whose portrait 
he painted, which is now the gem of the Doria collection, and the 
only real specimen of his art in Rome. He was elected a member of 
the Academy of St. Luke. He remained in Italy almost a year, 
purchasing rather than painting pictures, and busy with his casts 
from Greek sculpture. He fully felt the value of exquisite form, of 
which he had known the want; and ever in after-life strongly urged 


all. young artists, Murillo particularly, to complete their studies in 


Italy. Spain always was, and is, very deficient in fine antique marbles, 
for which the Spaniards have little taste. The church preferred the 
relic of a monk to a statue by Phidias, in which they only saw a 
pagan idol. Their Inquisition persecuted nudity, the essence of Greek 
art, and employed artists toa clothe the least exposure either in 
painting or sculpture; hence the draped character of the Spanish 
school, of which the clergy have been the best patrons, not for the 
sake of art, but as a means of extending their own influence. Painting 
took the veil of the nun, Sculpture the cowl of the monk; but 
Philip, lax and voluptuous, protected the licence of Greece and Italy, 
and Veldzquez felt that the chance might never recur: the casts 
were made, which after the king’s death were neglected, injured, and 
finally lost. ' 

Veldzquez returned to Madrid in June 1651. He was now in his 
full power, and painted his finest pictures. In 1656 he received the 
much-coveted cross of Santiago, which the king drew in with his own 
hand on a portrait of Velésquez, painted by the artist himself. The 
nobles resented this profanation of a decoration given hitherto only 
to high birth ; nor were the difficulties removed without a papal dispen- 
sation and a royal grant of Hidalguia. 

About this time Velézquez was raised to the lucrative and honour- 
able post of Aposentador Mayor. His duties were to superintend the 
personal lodgment of the king during his frequent migrations. This 
much-envied office robbed Veldézquez of his time, precious to art, and 
eventually of life itself. He was sent in 1660 to prepare the royal 
quarters during the journey from Madrid through the ill-provided 
Castiles to the Bidassoa. He erected on the Island of Pheasants the 
temporary saloons wherein the conferences were held which termi- 
nated in the marriage of the Infanta Maria Teresa with Louis XIV., a 
union fatal to the future weal and independence of Spain as to 
Veldzquez, who here appeared almost for the last time, remarkable 
among the noble crowd for his tasteful costume and arrangement of 
diamonds. He returned to Madrid, July 31, worn with over-fatigue 
in preparations which any lord. of the bedchamber might have super- 
intended. He died one week afterwards, on the 7th of August, 1660, 


and was buried with great pomp in the church of San Juan. In seven 


days his wife, broken-hearted at his loss, followed her gentle and 
excellent husband, and was laid by his side in the same grave. No 
monument has ever been erected to her greatest artist by Spain, 
always ungrateful to those who have served her the best ; nor did the 
influence of Veldzquez survive him; his pupils and imitators were 
few. Spain was hastening rapidly to her fall, which was consummated 
by the Bourbon succession, when French tastes were substituted for 
Spanish in art and literature. 

Such is the unimportant biography of a man whose name is now 
immortal, of whom, like Lope de Vega, all talk familiarly, although 
most imperfectly acquainted with his real works. His genuine and 
finest works remain at Madrid : in other cities of Spain they are quite 
as rare as in every other part of the world: and the reasons are obvious, 
Veldzquez commenced his career as painter to the king; he rarely 
condescended to work for the church or private patrons; all his great 
pictures were thus monopolised, and hung in the royal palaces, and 
these were inaccessible to purchasers, and seldom seen even by the 
few travellers who visited Spain. Neither were they scattered abroad 
in the wreck which ensued at the French invasion. In the universal 
rapine, by which the works of many Spanish artiste, whose names 
previously were almost unknown in Europe, were first ushered into 
notice, Veldizquez formed an exception. His paintings hanging in 
royal residences were respected even by marshals, as passing with the 
crown from the legitimate dynasty to the intrusive. Two only were 
sent to Paris, and these were the Jacob and the Philip IV. on horse- 
back, pictures selected more from their historical than intrinsic 
interest. In truth the French never have appreciated Velazquez; a 
taste depraved by the vain tinsel of the empirical, unnatural David, 
could not feel the grave repose and sober simplicity of the proud 
Spaniard. It is impossible to estimate Veldzquez without going to 
Madrid ; on seeing him in this, the richest gallery in the whole world, 
the first impression of his masculine power and universality of talent 
is irresistible : it is the reality more than the imitation of life and 
nature, and in every varied form. Grievous is the error of those who 
‘suppose him only to be the portrait-painter of sallow mustachioed 


; s _ Spaniards in black cloaks. There is no branch of the art, except the 


‘Marine, which he has not pursued, and he attained almost equal 


excellence in all. 


elevated that humble branch to the dignity of history. He drew the 
minds of men : they live, breathe, and seem ready to walk out of the 
frames. His power of painting cireumambient air, his knowledge of 
lineal and aérial perspective, the gradation of tones in light, shadow, 
and colour, give an absolute concavity to the flat surface of his 
canvas; we look into space, into a room, into the reflection of a 
mirror. The freshness, individuality, and identity of every person 
are quite startling; we can hardly doubt the anecdote related of 
Philip IV., who, mistaking for the man the portrait of Admiral Pareja 
in a dark corner of Veldézquez’s room, exclaimed (he had been ordered 
to sea), “ What! still here?”” After afew days spent in the gallery of 
Madrid, we fancy that we have actually been acquainted with the 
royal family and court of that day, and that we have lived with them. 
None perhaps but a Spaniard could so truly paint the Castilian. 
Veldézquez was the Vandyck of Madrid. He caught the high-bred 
look of the Hidalgo, his grave demeanour and severe costume, with 
an excellence equal to his Flemish rival, differing only in degree; he 
was less fortunate in model. Vandyck, like Zeuxis, had the selection 
of the most beauteous forms, faces, and apparel, in the English court 
of Charles, which he was created expressly to delineate, with his 
clear, silvery, and transpareat tones, his elegant aristocratic air, those 
delicate skins, and tapering fingers which are never seen in coarse, 
tawny Spain; nor did Veldzquez ever condescend to flatter even 
royalty :—honesty was his policy. 

Courts could not make a courtier of bis practical genius, which saw 
everything as it really was, and his hand, that obeyed his intellect, 
gave the exact form and pressure: he rarely refined. He did not 
stoop to conciliate and woo his spectator. ,Thus even when displeased 
with repulsive subjects, we submit to the power of a master-mind dis- 
played in the representation. 

His Infantes are often booby-faced, and his Infantas mealy ; for the 
royal originals were made, not by him, but by Nature’s journeymen ; 
still they are real beings, not conventional; they are flesh and blood, 
our fellow-creatures, and with them therefore we sympathise. Their 
costume, whether of the court or the chase, is equally true ; and they 
wear their clothes with ease and fitness, not like the fancy masque- 
rade of an imaginative painter, stuck on a stiff lay-figure, but the 
every-day dresses of living flexible bodies underneath. Veldzquez was 
inferior to Vandyck in representing female beauty; for he bad not 
his advantages: the Oriental jealousy of the Spaniard revolted at any 
female portraiture, and still more at any display of beauteous form : 
the royal ladies, almost the only exception, were unworthy models, 
while the use of rouge disfigured their faces, and the enormous petti- 
coats masked their proportions. Veldzquez was emphatically a man, 
and the painter of men. He was aware of his strength and weakness: 
his greatest works—Las Lanzas, Los Bebidores—have no women in 
them whatever; and in the ‘ Hilanderas,’ a group of females, he has 
turned aside the principal head in the foreground, leaving it, like 
Timanthes, to be supplied by the imagination of the spectator. He 
was moreover a painter only of the visible tangible beings on earth, 
not the mystical glorified spirits of heaven: he could not conceive the 
inconceivable, nor define the indefinite. He required to touch before 
he could believe—a fulerum for his mighty lever: he could not escape 
from humanity, nor soar above the clouds: he was somewhat deficient 
in ‘creative power :’ he was neither a poet nor an enthusiast ; Nature 
was his guide, truth his delight, man his model. No Virgin ever 
descended into his studio; no cherubs hovered around his pallet: 
he did not work for priest or ecstatic anchorite, but for plumed kings 
and booted knights; hence the neglect and partial failure of his holy 
and mythological pictures—holy, like those of Caravaggio, in nothing 
but name: groups rather of low life, and that so truly painted, as 
still more to mar, by a treatment not in harmony with the subject, 
the elevated sentiment: his Mars is a mere porter; his demigods, 
vulgar Gallicians; his Virgin, a Maritornes, without the womanly 
tenderness of Murillo, the unspotted loveliness of Raffaelle, or the 
serenity, unruffled by earthly passions, of the antique. He rather 
lowered heaven to earth, than raised earth to heaven. His pictures 
however of this class are very few, and therein is his marked difference 
from all other Spanish artists, who, painting for the church, com- 
paratively neglected everything but the religious and legendary. 

In things mortal and touching man Veldzquez was more than 
mortal ; he is perfect throughout, whether painting high or low, rich 
or poor, young or old, human, animal, or natural objects. His dogs 
are equal to Snyders; his chargers to Rubens—they know their rider. 
When Velazquez descended from heroes, his beggars and urchins 
rivalled Murillo. He is by far the first landscape-painter of Spain: 
his scenes are full of local colour, freshness and daylight, whether 
verdurous court-like avenues or wild rocky solitudes: his historical 
pictures are pearls of great price; never were knights and soldiers so 
painted as in his surrender of Breda. : = Ae 

His style was based on Herrera, Caravaggio, Ribera, and Stanzioni; 
a compound of all, not a servile imitation of any. His drawing was 
admirable, correct, and unconstrained ; his mastery over his materials 
unequalled; his colouring was clear and clean ; he seldom used mixed 
tints; he painted with long brushes, and often as coarsely as floor- 
cloth; but the effects when seen from the intended distance were 


magical, everything coming out into its proper place, form, and tone. 


311 VELLY, PAUL-FRANCOIS. 


VENDOME, DUCS DE. 312 


Yet no man was ever more sparing of colour; he husbanded his 
whites and even his yellows, which tell up sparkling like gold on bis 
undertoned backgrounds: these, especially in his landscapes, were 
cool grays, skies, and misty mornings—nature seen with the inter- 
vention of air. He painted with a rapid, flowing, and certain brush, 
with that ease, the test of perfection, that absence of art and effort, 
which made all imagine that they could do the same—until they tried, 
failed, and despaired. The results obtained are so true to nature, 
that first beholders, as with Raffaelle at the Vatican, are sometimes 
disappointed that there is nothing more. He was above all tricks. 
There is no masking poverty of hand or mind under meretricious 
glitter ; all is sober, real, and sterling. He conceived his idea, worked 
it rapidly out, taking advantage of everything as it turned up, correct- 
ing and improving as he went on, knowing what he wanted and— 
which few do—when he had got it: then he left off, and never 
frittered away his breadth or emphatic effect by superfluous finish to 
mere accessories ; these were dashed in ‘con quatro botti’—but true, 
for he never put brush to canvas without an intention and meaning. 
No painter was ever more ‘ objective.’ There is no showing off of the 
artist, no calling attention to the performer’s dexterity : his mind was 
in his subject, into which he passed his whole soul; loving art for 
itself, without one disturbing thought of self. He was true through- 
out to Nature, and she was true to him, and has rewarded him with 
immortality, which she confers only on those who worship with 
undivided allegiance at her shrine. 

In the National Gallery are two large pictures by Veldzquez— 
‘Philip IV. hunting the Wild Boar, which has however unfortunately 
been extensively repainted; and a ‘ Nativity,’ known as ‘The Manger ;’ 
neither isan adequate specimen of his péncil, There,is also a portrait 
piece, ‘Ferdinand IL, duke of Tuscany, and his Wife, which is 
eeeed to Veldzquez, but there can be little doubt that it is not 
by him. 

VELLY, PAUL-FRANCOIS, a French historian, was born at 
Crugny, near Reims, on the 9th of April 1709. He studied in the 
Jesuits’ College at Reims, and was received a member of their frater- 
nity in 1726. In 1740 he quitted the society, but remained ona 
friendly footing with many of its members. His first publication— 
a translation of Swift’s ‘ History of John Bull’—appeared in 1753. 
In 1755 he published two volumes of a ‘ History of France.’ The first 
volume brings down the narrative to the death of Charlemagne; the 
second to the death of Philippe I. (1108). The third volume, the 
preface of which contains a reply to the censures pronounced by 
critics on the two former volumes, reaches to the death of Philippe- 
Auguste in 1223. The three following volumes contain the reigns of 
Louis VIII., St. Louis, Philippe III., and Philippe-le-Bel. Velly had 
nearly finished the eighth volume, when he died of the bursting of a 
blood-vessel, on the 4th of September 1759. He was of a full habit 
of body, and careless of his health. It is not known whether he was 
in easy or straitened circumstances; the booksellers, Desaint and 
Saillant, are said to have paid him 1500 francs for each volume of his 
history. A 12mo edition of the eight volumes of Velly’s history was 
published by the same booksellers in 1761-62. A third edition 
(1770-89), in 15 vols. 4to, contains a continuation by Villaret to the 
year 1429; and by Garnier to 1564. This edition also contains the 
‘ Avant Clovis’ of Laureau, and a Table by Rondonneau, and is accom- 
panied by a collection of portraits, and a geographical atlas in two 
folio volumes, The 12mo edition (in 35 volumes) wants these accom- 
paniments. Fantin des Odoards has compiled a continuation of 
Garnier, in 26 vols. 12mo, Velly’s style is respectable, though 
monotonous. His narrative betrays but a slender acquaintance with 
the original sources of the ancient history of France. He confuses 
the manners of different eras, and retains the bad custom of 
putting imaginary speeches into the mouths of historical characters. 
His history appears to have owed its temporary success to the style 
being better and more modern than that of any other history of 
France that existed at the time when he published, and to the general 
remarks interspersed, which evince considerable familiarity with the 
writings of Montesquieu. 

VENDOME, DUCS DE. The county of Vendéme was erected 
into a dukedom by Francis I. in favour of Charles de Bourbon, grand- 
father of Henri IV. In the person of the latter the dukedom of 
Vendéme, along with the other titles and territories of that branch of 
the Bourbon family, was united to the crown. The history of the 
first three dukes of Vendéme is part of the history of the families of 
Bourbon and Navarre. The dukedom of Navarre was alienated from 
the crown by Henri IV. in favour of his illegitimate sons by Gabrielle 
d’Estrées, Cesar and Alexander. This second family of Vendéme 
became extinct in 1712, and the peerage again lapsed to the crown. 

The dukes of Vendéme of the second family are—Cusar, eldest 
son of Gabrielle d’Estrées by Henri IV. ; born in 1594, legitimated in 
1595, created duke of Vendéme in 1598. In 1610 Henri gave the 
Duke of Vendéme precedence over all the peers of France, except the 
princes of the blood. After the death of Henri the duke placed him- 
self at the head of the discontented nobles, who maintained that the 
marriage of Louis XIII. with a Spanish infanta was incompatible with 
the good of the state. Ho was arrested in 1614 by orders of the 
queen-mother, but escaped to his government of Bretagne, and took 
up arms against the court. He was obliged, by the desertion of his 


retainers, to submit. In 1622 he sided with the court against the 
Huguenots, from whom he took Clerac. He defended Montauban 
and assisted at the taking of Montpellier. In 1626 he was involved by 
his brother in a conspiracy against Richelieu: for this he was impri- 
soned, and only purchased his liberty at the end of four years by 


revealing everything and giving up his government of Bretagne. In. 


1631 he commanded at the siege of Lillo the volunteers in the Dutch 
service. In 1641 he was accused of having conspired to poison 
Richelieu, and fled to England, from which he did not return till 
after the death of the cardinal. In 1650 he was appointed governor 
of Burgundy. He contributed to the pacification of Guienne, and 
took Bordeaux from the malcontents in 1653; he dispersed and put 
to flight the Spanish fleet before Barcelona in 1655 ; he was soon after 
forced by his growing infirmities to retire from active service, but 
survived till October 1665, when he died at Paris, in his seventy-first 
year. Some letters of Cesar duke of Vendéme, relating to the dis- 
turbances in Brittany, were published in 1614. By his marriage with 
Francoise de Lorraine (to whom he was affianced in 1598), he had 
three children—1, Louis, who succeeded him; 2, Francois, created 
duke of Beaufort; and Elizabeth, married to Charles Amadeus of 
Savoy, duke of Nemours. 

ALEXANDER, brother of Cesar, was born in 1598, and legitimated in 
1599, on which occasion he received, like his brother, the rank and 
title of Duke of Vendéme. He was admitted a knight of Malta, and 
in 1612, fearing the enmity of the Maréchal d’Ancre, he took refuge in 
the island. In 1618 he was created grand-prior of the order in France. 
In the quarrel between Louis XIII. and his mother, the grand-prior 
embraced the party of the queen; but in 1622 he served the king 
against the Huguenots. He was arrested, along with his brother, for 
conspiring against Richelieu, on the 13th of June 1626, and died in 
prison on the 8th of February 1629, not without suspicion of poison. 

LovIs, son of Cesar, was called Duke of Merccour during the life- 
time of his father. He was born in 1612; made his first essay of 
arms in the campaign in Picardy, in which Louis XIII. commanded in 
person; served under his father at the siege of Lillo; distinguished 
himself at the sieges of Hesdin and Arras, and was wounded in the 
attack upon the French lines on the 2nd of August 1640. He 
returned to France after the death of Richelieu; raised in 1649 the 
cavalry regiment of Mercceur ; was appointed viceroy and commander- 
in-chief of the French troops in Catalonia, but not being properly 
supported by the minister, resigned in disgust. He made his peace 
with the court in 1651, when he married Laura Mancini, the elder of 
Mazarin’s nieces, - On his restoration to favour he was appointed 
governor of Provence; in 1656 he was appointed, in conjunction with 
the Duke of Modena, to command the army of Lombardy. His wife 
dying in the course of that year, he took priest’s orders, and in 1667 
was created a cardinal. Clement IX. nominated him legate & Latere 
in France. Cardinal Louis, duke of Vendéme, died at Aix-en-Provence 
in 1669. By his wife Laura Mancini he had two children—1, Louis 
Joseph, who succeeded him; 2, Philippe, also called duke of Vendéme, 
grand-prior of the order of Malta in France. ; 

Louis JosrrH, born in 1654, was known previous to his father’s 
death by the title of duke of Penthiévre. His education was neg- 
lected. He made his first campaign in Holland in the suite of 
Louis XIV. in 1672. He served in the last campaigns of Turenne, 
and was wounded in the combat of Altenheim during the retreat of 
the French army, which followed the death of that commander. He 
was created brigadier in 1677, and served in that capacity in Flanders 
under the Maréchal de Crequi. After the peace of Nimuegen the 
Duke of Vendéme retired to his castle of Anet, and gave himself up 
entirely to pleasure. In 1681 he was nominated to the government of 
Provence, and refused to accept the money which the states were in 
the habit of presenting to every new governor. He was created 
lieutenant-general in 1688, and distinguished himself in the four suc- 
ceeding campaigns, in particular at the sieges of Mons and Namur, 
and the combats of Leuse and Steinkerque. In 1693 he was sent to 
Italy, where Catinat commanded in chief. In 1695 he was appointed 
to succeed Noailles in the command of the army of Catalonia. He 
raised the siege of Palamos, invested Barcelona, defeated by a prompt 
and brilliant attack the army under Velasco which was marching 
to release the city, and received its capitulation on the 10th of August 
1695. These victories paved the way to the peace of Ryswick, after 
which Vendéme hastened back to Anet and its licentious and not 
very refined pleasures. He was roused from his inactivity by the 
Spanish War of Succession. He was sent to Italy to repair the mis- 
takes of Villeroi. In Italy he was joined by Philip V. with a strong 
force from Naples.. The united troops far outnumbered the Impe- 
rialists ; but the inferior force was commanded by Prince Eugene. 
Vendéme opened the campaign with spirit : he discomfited the rear- 
guard of the Austrian army at Ustiano, and again at Vittoria, and 
raised the blockade of Mantua. But his habitual indolence soon 
resumed its empire, and his army was surprised at Luzara on the 15th 
of August 1702, in the act of encamping, by the forces of Prince 
Eugene. Vendéme’s presence of mind and the impetuous courage of 
his army so far redeemed his fault that the victory remained undecided. 
Philip V. returned to Spain after this action, and Vendéme with the 
united army penetrated into Tyrol, where he defeated Stahremberg 
on several occasions. From Tyrol he was recalled to Piedmont by 


- 


EF — Ee 


were Marlborough and Eugene, 


_Marie-Anne of Bourbon-Condé, who survived him six years. 


_ of his pictures to be engraved. 


513 VENEZIANO, AGOSTINO. 


VENEZIANO, DOMENICO, 314 


the defection of the Duke of Savoy. He obtained several advantages 
over that prince; but on the 16th of August 1706 he again found 
himself—and again by surprise—in the presence of Prince Eugene on 
the banks of the Adda near Cassano. Here, as at Luzara, Venddme’s 
presence of mind and the bravery of his army retrieved his negligence, 
In 1708 Vendéme was sent to supersede Villeroi in Holland, who had 
been as unsuccessful in that country as in Italy. 

The reputation of Vendéme was obscured by the disastrous defeat 
of Oudenarde, In his defence it may be said that he had been recently 
placed at the head of the army broken up and dispirited by the defeat 
of Ramilies ; that the country was new to him; and that his opponents 
But after every allowance has been 
made for these disadvantages, it seems now to be generally admitted 


that the want of a proper understanding between the Duke of Burgundy 


and Vendéme was a main cause of the loss of thé battle of Oudenarde, 
and that the fault was Vendéme’s. His previous reputation, and the 
partisan spirit in which the question was canvassed in France, enabled 
Vendéme to escape with less disgrace than could have been antici- 
pated. In 1710, Philip V., driven from his capital, and mindful of the 
battle of Luzara, implored the assistance of his old general. Louis XIV. 
lost no time in despatching the duke to Spain. The defeated and dis- 
banded soldiers of Spain rallied round him from all parts of the king- 
‘dom ; the imperial army was obliged to evacuate Madrid; and on the 
8rd of December 1710 Vendéme restored Philip in triumph to his 
capital. The king and his general quitted Madrid again in three days, 
overtook the rearguard of the enemy, and obliged Stanhope, with four 
thousand soldiers, to. surrender at Brituela. This advantage was fol- 
lowed by the well-disputed battle of Villa-Viciosa, in which Stahrem- 
berg was, after an obstinate contest, entirely defeated. On their return 
to Madrid, Philip raised Vend6éme to an equality with the princes of 
the blood, and would have heaped wealth as well as honours upon 
him, had not Vendéme steadily refused to accept it, Some corps of 
insurgents who still held out for Austria having occasioned disquiet in 
Catalonia in the early part of 1712, Vendéme repaired to that province 
to tread out these last sparks of internal war. While thus engaged, 
he died suddenly at Tignaroz on the 11th of June, 

Vendéme possessed no small share of the genius, bravery, and good- 
humour of his grandfather; but these virtues were shaded by more 
than that prince’s voluptuousness, and a besetting indolence which 
was no part of the character of HenrilV. He married, in 1710, 
There 
was no issue by this marriage. The younger brother of Louis-Joseph 
having -entered the order of Malta, the duke’s estates at his death 
reverted to the crown. 

PuiuiePe, younger brother of the preceding, the last of his family 
who bore, the title of Duke of Vendéme, was born on the 28rd of 
August 1655. He was received, while yet a child, into the order of 
Malta, in which he eventually rose to the rank of grand-prior, and 
made his first campaign under his uncle, the Duke of Beaufort, in the 
ranks of the Venetian army, in Candia, in 1669. He accompanied his 
brother in all his campaigns, and was looked upon as a distinguished 
soldier till the battle of Cassano in 1706. His inactivity was the cause 
of the French troops being obliged to give way before the Austrians. 
For this misconduct he was deprived of all his benefices, and retired 
to Rome, where he subsisted on a pension allowed him by Louis XIV. 
After an exile of five years he was allowed to return to France, and 
reinstated in his benefices. 
abandoned himself to pleasure. In 1715 he went to Malta to take the 
command of the troops assembled to repel an attack apprehended from 
the Turks. The attack was not made, and the grand-prior returned to 
the Temple, where he died on the 24th of January 1727. His mind 
was more cultivated than that of his brother: he had a taste for litera- 
ture and the arts, and patronised their professors. In other respects 
there was a great resemblance between the characters of the brothers ; 
both were brave and both were dissipated. The grand-prior was dis- 
tinguished for his licentiousness in the licentious times of the regency. 

VENEZIA’NO, AGOSTI’NO, one of the most celebrated of the 
early Italian engravers, was, as his name implies, a native of Venice, 
but the date of his birth is not known; he was however born near the 
close of the 15th century. He is called also Augustinus de Musis, and 
on his celebrated print of the Skeletons he has signed himself Augus- 
tinus Venetus de Musis; his family name was probably Muzi. 
Agostino was the scholar of Marcantonio Raimondi, for whom, in 
conjunction with Marco di Ravenna, he engraved many works at 
Rome, chiefly after Rafiaelle: he remained with Marcantonio until 
the death of Raffaelle in 1520, when he worked for himself. He does 
not appear to have been altogether with Marcantonio from the first 
time that he engraved, nor is it anywhere stated that he was first 
instructed by him; he may have joined him at Rome in the year 
1516, after he engraved a plate for Andrea del Sarto, which so dis- 
pleased that painter that he determined upon not allowing any more 
This print, of which there is an 
impression in the British Museum, represents a Dead Christ supported 
by Angels: it is perfectly flat and extremely hard in outline, and it is 
not at all surprising that Andrea del Sarto should have been dissatisfied 
with such a production. There are prints marked with Agostino’s 
initials A. V., bearing dates from 1509 to 1536; they are executed 


q touch in the style of the prints of Marcantonio, but are very inferior 


He took up his abode in the Temple, and’ 


in design and in chiaroscuro. Agostino’s outline is generally very 
hard, and his chiaroscuro bad; he was inferior also to Marco di 
Ravenna in design, and to Bonasoni in chiaroscuro, He was, according 
to Strutt, the first who had recourse to stipple engraving. His prints 
are not few, yet not numerous; they were often copied, and his 
plates retouched, and original impressions are very scarce. His por- 
traits are superior to his other pieces. The following are among his 
best works :—large portraits of Pope Paul III., Francis I. of France, 
Charles V. of Germany, and Barbarossa of Tunis, all finely-drawn 
heads, and full of character: there are impressions in the British 
Museum. The Israelites gathering the Manna, after Raffaelle, sup- 
posed by some to have been commenced by Marcantonio, on account 
of the outlines being better drawn than in the majority of Agostino 
Veneziano’s figures. ‘The Four Evangelists, and a Nativity after Julio 
Romano: the Nativity, which is dated 1531, is one of this engraver’s 
best prints as regards chiaroscuro; in drawing it is not good, but he 
engraved also after Julio Romano a Hercules strangling the Serpents, 
which is very finely drawn. ‘The large print of the Skeletons or 
Burying-place, after Baccio Bandinelli, is Agostino’s masterpiece: it 
contains many emaciated figures, two skeletons, and a figure of Death 
holding a book; he has marked it with his name in full, “ Augustinus 
Venetus de Musis. Faciebat 1518.” He engraved also, after Bandi- 
nelli, a Cleopatra, and a Massacre of the Innocents, which according 
to Vasari was the largest plate that had been then engraved; an 
interesting plate of the School of Baccio Bandinelli at Rome, marked 
“Academia di Bacchio Brandin. in Roma, in luogo detto Belvidere. 
1531. A. V.;’ part of Michel Angelo’s Cartoon of Pisa, called the 
Climbers ; and a group from Raffaelle’s School of Athens. He 
engraved many plates after Raffaelle, but some of them are very 
indifferent ; Vasari says that Agostino and Marco di Ravenna engraved 
nearly all the designs of Raffaelle. Agostino copied also on copper 
some of the wood-cuts of Albert Diirer: there is one in the British 
Museum of the Last Supper, in which Agostino has perfectly 
preserved the character of the original, and yet has produced a 
much more elegant work as regards execution, There is in the 
British Musewm a very good collection of the works of Agostino 
Veneziano. 

VENEZIA’NO, ANTO’NIO, one of the best Italian painters of the 
14th century, was born, according to Vasari, at Venice, in about 1309, 
although Baldinucci has concluded from certain documents that he 
was a Florentine. He studied with Angelo Gaddi at Florence, and 
acquired his style of painting. After living some time in Florence, 
he returned to Venice, and was employed by the Signory to paint one 
of the walls of the council-hall in fresco, which he did with great 
credit to himself, but owing to the influence of the jealousy of some 
of his contemporaries he was not properly rewarded for his work, and 
he left Venice in disgust. He returned to Florence, and executed 
some very good works there in the convent of Santo Spirito and 
other places, but they are all now destroyed. From Florence he was 
invited to Pisa, to complete the series of the life of San Ranieri, in 
the Campo Santo, which had been commenced by Simone Memmi. 
Antonio’s frescoes in the Campo Santo are, in the opinion of Vasari, 
the best paintings there; the works of Benozzo Gozzoli were executed 
later. Vasari praises the purity of his colouring, which he partly 
attributes to his never retouching his works when dry. He returned 
again to Florence, and painted in the Torre degli Agli an Adoration of 
the Kings, a Dead Christ, and a Last Judgment, but they have all now 
perished. In later life he turned physician, and Vasari says that he - 
acquired as great reputation in one capacity as in the other. He died 
of the plague at Florence in 1384, the victim of his desire to save 
others. His portrait is in the Campo Santo at Pisa, painted by him- 
self. Gherardo Starnini and Paolo Uccello were his scholars. 

Vasari praises the chiaroscuro of Antonio, and seems to have con- 
sidered him the best in this respect of his time. His design was also 
correct and graceful, and he was distinguished likewise for the choice 
of his attitudes and for the truth and variety of his expression. 

VENEZIA’NO, DOME’NICO, a celebrated painter of the 15th 
century, whose melancholy fate is recorded by Vasari in the Life of 
the infamous Castagno, as he is called. He was born at Venice, about 
1406, acquired the art of painting in oil from Antonello of Messina, 
obtained a good reputation in several parts of Italy, particularly in 
Perugia, and was invited to Florence, where he was employed in 
various places, and also, together with Andrea del Castagno, to paint a 
chapel in Santa Maria Nuova. Castagno, who could not paint in oil, 
was jealous of the skill and reputation of Domenico, and, says Vasari, 
made up his mind to get rid of him. He however pretended to have 
a greatesteem for him, and he courted his friendship, which he had 
very little difficulty in acquiring, as Domenico was a very simple man. 
Domenico became strongly attached to Castagno and taught him his 
method of painting in oil; and they spent their evenings generally 
together and appeared to be sincere friends; Domenico was fond of 
music, and was a good performer on the lute. As the works advanced 
the jealousy of Castagno increased, for though a better-draughtsman 
than Domenico, he was inferior in colouring. The works of Domenico 
attracted too much attention to please Castagno, and he determined to 
put his malicious design into execution. Upon a summer's evening, 
about the year 1462, Domenico went out as usual with his lute from 
his work in Santa Maria Nuova, and Castagno refused to accompany 


315 VENIERO, DOMENICO, 


VERE, SIR FRANCIS. 316 


him, urging that he still wished to work. However, as soon as 
Domenico was gone, he started by another route, waylaid him, killed 
him by striking him on the head with a piece of lead, and returned 
immediately afterwards to his work, as Domenico had left him, where 
he was found by those who came to tell him of the accident, Castagno 
accompanied them to the spot, before Domenico was quite dead, and 
the murdered man breathed his last in the arms of his murderer, who 
pretended to be deeply afflicted. It should be mentioned that these 
facts depend apparently entirely upon a reported confession of Cas- 
tagno on his death-bed. Domenico was fifty-six years of age when he 
died, and he was buried in Santa Maria Nuova. His works in this 
church were never completed, and they have now long since been 
destroyed, but there is still a picture by him in Santa Lucia de’ 
Magnoli. He excelled in colouring and in perspective: in fore- 
shortening he was very skilful, and good also in design. 

(Vasari, Vite de’ Pittori, &c.; Lanzi, Storia Pittorica, &e.) 

VENIE/RO, DOME’/NICO, was born at Venice in 1517, of a patri- 
cian family. He applied himself to literature, and especially to 
poetry; and was a friend of Bembo and other learned contempora- 
ries. At the age of thirty-two he was attacked by a nervous disease 
which rendered him an invalid for the rest of his life, Confined to his 
apartments for many years, he found comfort in the society of learned 
men, who resorted thither to converse, debate, and compose extempore 
poetry. These meetings were the origin of the ‘ Academia Veneziana,’ 
instituted in 1558, of which Veniero, Federico Badoaro, and Paolo 
Manuzio were the leading members. 

Veniero wrote a number of poems, rernarkable for their lively con- 
ceptions and power of expression :—‘ Rime di Domenico Veniero Sena- 
tore Veneziano raccolte ed illustrate dall’ Abate Pier Antonio Serassi,’ 
Bergamo, 1751, with a biography of the author. Veniero however 
indulged at times in strained rhetorical figures and conceits. He was 
one of the first to introduce acrostics into Italian poetry. He trans- 
lated several Odes of Horace, which were published by Narducci, 
together with translations from the same Roman writer by Annibal 
Caro, Trissino, Giulio Cavalcanti, and others: ‘Odi Diverse di Orazio 
volgarizzate da alcuni nobilissimi Ingegni,’ Venice, 4to, 1605, a very 
rare edition. 

Veuiero died in 1582. His brother Lorenzo was a friend of Pietro 
Aretino, and like him wrote obscene compositions. Maffeo Veniero, 
son of Lorenzo, born at Venice in 1550, was an elegant poet both in 
the Italian language and in his native Venetian dialect. His Venetian 
poems are of the erotic kind, and very free, although the author held 
the dignity of archbishop of Corfu, which he obtained at an early age 
through family and personal interest, but it does not appear that he 
ever resided in his see. He died in 1586, at.the early age of thirty-six 
years. Among his Venetian poems, one of the most successful was a 
canzone entitled ‘ La Strazzosa,’ or ‘The Ragged Beauty, which is a 
very humorous parody of one of Petrarch’s canzoniin praise of Laura. 
There is a very obscene poem entitled ‘ La Zaffeta,’ falsely attributed 
to Maffeo Veniero, but which was published in 1531, long before he 
was born, and, it appears, by his father Lorenzo. (Gamba, ‘ Col- 
lezione di Poeti Antichi nel Dialetto Veneziano ;’ Haym, ‘ Biblioteca 
Ttaliana.’) The Italian poems of Maffeo and his brother Luigi have 
been inserted in the edition of the poems of their uncle Domenico. 
(Tiraboschi, ‘ Storia della Letteratura Italiana.’) 

VENUSTI, MARCELLO, a celebrated painter of the 16th century, 
was born at Mantua, but in what year is unknown. He studied in 
Rome under Perino del Vaga, for whom he executed many works. He 
was selected by Michel Angelo to paint a small copy in oil of his Last 
Judgment, in the Sistine Chapel, for the Cardinal Farnese, and he 
executed it so entirely to the satisfaction of Michel Angelo, that he 
gave him many other designs to paint. This excellent picture of the 
Last Judgment is now in the Royal Museum at Naples: there is a 
copy of it in the Aguado Collection at Paris, Venusti painted many 
pictures for various churches in Rome; Baglione has given a long list 
of his works: but he acquired a greater reputation by his pictures 
from the designs of Michel Angelo. He died at Florence, in the 
pontificate of Gregory XIII. (1572-1585.) 

* VERDI, GIUSEPPE, is the most popular Italian composer of the 
day, though his popularity may be regarded as being of an ephemeral 
description. The occurrences of his life have been without interest, 
as they have not been recorded by any biographer ; his name being 
known only as the author of a number of Italian operas, rapidly pro- 
duced within the last twenty years, and attended with a degree of 
success which must be ascribed to the degeneracy of the present Italian 
school, and the total absence of competition; for Verdi, such as he is, 
has the field entirely to himself. He is the last remnant of the once 
splendid race of Italian musicians, and has not even the shadow of a 
rival, Among his numerous operas the following may be mentioned, 
as possessed of the greatest merit, and the most generally known :— 
The ‘ Lombardi,’ ‘ Ernani, the ‘Due Foscari,’ ‘ Nabucodonassar,’ or 
*Nabuco’ (performed in England under the title of ‘ Nino’), ‘ Rigo- 
letto,’ the ‘ Trovatore,’ and the ‘ Traviata.’ From his productions it 
may easily be gathered that Verdi's musical education has been slight. 
They show the natural vein of melody with which the Italians are pre- 
eminently gifted; but they also betray great poverty in the resources 
of art. He is a shallow contrapuntist, and in his use of the orchestra 
he endeavours, by inordinate use of the most noisy instruments, to 


make up for the want of the varied and delicate combinations which 
we find in the works of Mozart and Rossini. Even in his melody he 
has sacrificed the smooth and graceful style of the older Italian masters 
to a loud, violent, exaggerated manner; and many singers of the day 
have learned by sad experience that of all the music of the Italian 
stage Verdi's is the most destructive to the vocal powers. It is im 
sible, nevertheless, that so much popularity could be gained without a 
certain amount of merit, In addition to Verdi's gift of melody he has 
considerable knowledge of dramatic effect; and he has generally been 
happy in the subjects of his pieces, most of which are interesting, and 
some of them deeply tragic. It must be added, too, that however 
defective his education seems to have been, he bas made progress as an 
artist by the cultivation of his art. His latest works are his best; and 
in ‘ Rigoletto’ and the ‘ Trovatore’ there are scenes of concerted musi¢ 
constructed with a degree of skill of which his earlier compositions 
show no trace, On the whole, notwithstanding the present vogue of 
Verdi's operas, no sound critic has ever esteemed him a great musician, 
or even raised him to the level of Bellini and Donizetti, his immediate 
predecessors. 

VERE, SIR FRANCIS, a distinguished English military com- 
mander in the reign of Elizabeth, was born in 1554. His father, of 
whose four sons he was the second, was Geoffrey de Vere, third son of 
John de Vere, fifteenth earl of Oxford; his mother was Elizabeth, 
daughter of Sir Richard Hardekyn of Colchester. Of the first thirty 
years of his life nothing appears to be known: he began his career of 
active service as one of the captains of the force sent, under the com- 
mand of the Earl of Leicester, to the assistance of the Dutch in the 
latter end of the year 1585. Here he soon made himself conspicuous 
both for bravery and conduct; and he had a leading part in most of 


the chief passages of the war between the Dutch and the Spaniards — 


throughout the next fifteen years. In 1587 he was one of the defen- 
ders of the town of Sluys against the prince of Parma, to whom how- 
ever the place was eventually forced to surrender. In 1588 he was 
one of the garrison who successfully defended Bergen-op-Zoom against 
the same assailant; and for his services on this occasion he was 
knighted by Lord Willoughby, who had succeeded Leicester in the 
command of the English auxiliaries. In 1589, being put in command 


of a small corps of six hundred of his countrymen, and left to defend —— 


the Isle of Bommel against Count Mansfeldt, he so strengthened the 
place by his active and judicious measures, that the enemy, though in 
great force, retired without attacking it. The same year he twice 
threw a ‘supply of provisions, and the second time also a reinforce- 
ment of troops, into the town of Berg, while besieged by the Marquis 
of Warrenbon. In the latter of these attempts he nearly lost his life 
in an encounter with a party of the enemy; his horse having been 
killed by a pike, fell upon him, and he received several thrusts and 
hurts before he could be extricated. In 1590 he in like manner 
relieved the castle of Litkenhooven; and in the same year he recap- 
tured the town of Burick. His services in 1591 were, the surprise of 
a fort near Zutphen, which materially facilitated the reduction of that 
town; the important assistance which he rendered Count Maurice at 
the siege of Deventer; and the share he had in the signal discomfiture 
given to the Duke of Parma before Knodzenburg fort, near Nimeguen, 
which is stated to have been brought about mainly by his management 
and exertions. In 1592 he obtained a seat in the House of Commons 
as one of the members for Leominster; but he is supposed to have 
remained nevertheless in the service of the States of Holland, although 
it does not appear how he was employed for the next three or four 
years. When the first expedition against Cadiz was resolved upon, in 
the beginning of 1596, Sir Francis Vere was sent for to England, and 


thence despatched back immediately to intimate the design to the — 


States; and having then joined the expedition as one of the com- 
manders of the land forces, and one of the council of war appointed 
to advise the commanders-in-chief, Lords Essex and Howard of 
Effingham, he greatly distinguished himself, both in the action with 
the Spanish fleet, on the 20th of June, and in the successful attack 
upon the town of Cadiz two days after. The latter part of this year 
he spent in England; but in the beginning of 1597 we find him 

in Holland, where he and Sir Robert Sidney commanded the English 
auxiliaries in the engagement near Turnhout on the 24th of January, 
in which the Spaniards were defeated with great slaughter by Count 
Maurice. In the summer of this year he again accompanied his 
patron the Earl of Essex on his second expedition against Spain, 
which was attended with no result; and after his return home he 
received from the queen the government of Briel (the Brill), which 
was one of the cautionary towns, as they were called, given up for a 
time by the Dutch to their English allies. He also held under the 
States the command of the English troops in the service of Holland; 
and although he resided principally at his government, he made 
repeated visits to England, and both attended at court and was 
occasionally employed in negociating affairs of state between Elizabeth 
and the Dutch government. In August 1599, when a Spanish inya- 
sion was apprehended, he was sent for home in great haste, and con- 
stituted lord-marshal ; and it is said that it was at one time proposed 
to make him lord deputy of Ireland. He appears to have been per- 
sonally a favourite of Elizabeth, and Essex also seems to have been 
his steady friend, although he himself imagined at one time that he 
had not been well used by that nobleman; but he had drawn upon 


ae os 


ad, 
See ae 


r 
. a 4 i “ ‘ 
a ee 


~~ —e 


i 


PS Sy se 


~~ 


————————SS ee 


317 VERE, HORACE, LORD. 


VERGENNES, COMTE DE. 313 


himself the rivalry and jealousy of Raleigh and the enmity of 
Burleigh. In 1600 he was joined with Count Ernest of Nassau and 
Count Solmes in the command of the army which the Dutch sent into 
Flanders ; and to his exertions was principally owing a great victory 
obtained over the Spaniards, near Nieuport, on the 5th of July, Sir 
Francis received two shots in the thigh in this battle; but he kept 
the field till his horse fell dead under him, when he was with diffi- 
culty rescued. The following year, on the Archduke Albert sitting 
_ down before Ostend, at the head of an army of 12,000 men, he was 
appointed by the States general of all their forces in and about that 
important place, and immediately threw himself into the beleaguered 


_ town. Here, with very inadequate resources, he held out for about 


eight months, having succeeded in repelling a general attack of the 
enemy on the 7th of January 1602; and then, on the 7th of March, 
he resigned his government to Frederick Dorp, who had been appointed 
by the States to succeed him. Ostend capitulated at last in 1604, 
after the siege had lasted more than three years and three months, 
and had cost the lives, it has been asserted, of above 100,000 men. 
His defence of Ostend, in the course of which he had received a wound 
in the head by the accidental bursting of a cannon, was Vere's last 
service. He was reappointed to the government of the Brill on the 
accession of King James; and he died in England on the 28th of 
_ August 1608. He is styled Governor both of the Brill and of Ports- 
- mouth on his monument in Westminster Abbey, erected by his widow, 
Elizabeth, second daughter of John Dent, citizen of London. By this 
lady (who afterwards became the wife of the Hon. Patrick Murray, a 
son of the Earl of Tullibardine, in Scotland) he had three sons and 
two daughters, all of whom died before him. His military achieve- 
ments have been recorded by his own pen in ‘The Commentaries of 
Sir Francis Vere, being divers pieces of service wherein he had 
command, written by himself in way of Commentary ;’ which were 
published, from his original manuscript, in folio, at Cambridge, in 
1657, by William Dillingham, D.D. 

VERE, HORACE, or HORATIO, LORD VERE, was the youngest 
of the three brothers of Sir Francis Vere, and was born at Kirby 
Hall in Essex, in 1565. He accompanied his brother to Holland in 
1585, and shared in most of his exploits and enterprises there, as well 
as in the first expedition to Cadiz, for his valour on which last occa- 
sion he received the honour of knighthood. He particularly signalised 
himself both in the battle of Nieuport and in the defence of Ostend. 
In 1603 he joined the army under Prince Maurice, and in 1604 was 
greatly instrumental in the reduction of the town of Sluys. In the 
campaign of the following year, a retreat which he succeeded in 
effecting, with 4000 men, from the Spanish general Spinola, acquired 
him much reputation, and extorted the highest praise from Spinola 
himself. On the death of his brother, he succeeded him both as 
governor of the Brill, and as general of the English forces in the 
service of Holland; but the twelve years’ truce between the Dutch 
and the Spaniards kept him out of the field for the remainder of the 
time that he held the former of these appointments. The town of 
Brill being delivered up to the Dutch in 1616, Sir Horace Vere 
was allowed a pension by the king in consideration of his services. 
In 1618 he assisted the Prince of Orange in putting down the 
Arminians, or Remonstrants, at Utrecht, a measure of violence, one 
of the results of which was the destruction of the grand pensionary 
Barneveldt, who had been the attached friend of Sir Francis Vere. 
In 1620, when forces were raised in England for the assistance of the 
elector palatine, Frederic V., in his attempt to secure the crown of 
Bohemia, Sir Horace Vere was appointed to the command of them; 
and he behaved with his usual spirit in the disastrous contest which 
ensued, keeping the enemy at bay as long as’ it was possible, till he 
was obliged to surrender Mannheim, the last place of strength into 
which he threw himself, to the Austrian general, Count Tilly, in 
January 1623. After his return home, he was, 20th of July 1624, 
nominated by King James one of the council of war appointed to 
manage the business of the palatinate: and immediately after the 

accession of Charles I. he was, on the 25th of July 1625, raised to 
the peerage, by the title of Baron Vere, of Tilbury, in the county of 
Essex. He was the first peer made by Charles. In March 1629, on 
the death of the earl of Totness, Lord Vere was made master of the 
ordnance for life. Still retaining his post of commander-in-chief of 
the English forces in the Netherlands, he continued occasionally to 
visit that country, and to take part in the war: but nothing further 
_ that is memorable is related of his military career. The last two 
years of his life were spent in England, where he died suddenly on 
the 2nd of May 1635, being struck with apoplexy as he sat at dinner 
in the house of Sir Henry Vane at Whitehall. Fuller, who knew 
Lord Vere, describes him, in his ‘ Worthies, as having “more meek- 


___ ‘Xess and as much valour as his brother;” and as “so pious, that he 


_ first made his peace with God before he went out to war with man,” 
Sir Francis, he says, was more feared, Sir Horace more loved, by 
_ the soldiers. By his wife Mary, third daughter of Sir John Tracey, 
_ of Toddington, in the county of Gloucester, who had been previously 
Married to Mr. William Hoby (and who long survived her second 
husband also, dying, in 1671, at the age of ninety), Lord Vere had 

_ five daughters: Anne, married to John Hollis, second earl of Clare; 
Mary, married first to Sir Roger Townshend, father of the first 
_ Viscount Townshend, secondly to, Mildmay Fane, earl of Westmore- 


land ; Catherine, married to Oliver St. John, Esq., ancestor of Lord 
Bolingbroke ; Anne, married to Thomas, Lord Fairfax ; and Dorothy, 
married to John Wolstenholm, Esq., by whom however she had no 
issue. In 1642 an octavo volume was published at London, dedicated 
to Lady Vere, entitled ‘ Elegies, celebrating the happy Memory of Sir 
Horatio Vere,’ &e. 

VERE’LIUS, OLA’US, a celebrated Swedish antiquary, whose real 
name was OLAF WR, was born on the 12th of February 1618, in 
the village of Ragnildstorp, in the diocese of Linképing. He received 
his first education from his father, Nicolaus Werl, who was pastor 
at Ingatorp. After the completion of his preparatory education in 
the public school at Linképing, he went to the university of Dorpat, 
in Livonia, which was then a Swedish province. After a stay of four 
years, he returned to Sweden, and finished his studies at Upsala. In 
1644 he became private tutor to two young Swedish barons, whom he 
accompanied in 1648 on a tour through Denmark, Germany, Holland, 
Switzerland, Italy, and France. At Paris the party stayed a whole 
year. On his return to Sweden in 1651, Queen Christina appointed 
him professor of eloquence in the university of Dorpat, and the year 
after he received the same office in the university of Upsala, in 
addition to which he was made questor of the university. In 1662 
he became professor of Swedish antiquities, and in 1666 antiquary to 
King Charles XI., and Assessor Antiquitatum in the king’s privy- 
council. In 1679 he was appointed chief librarian of the library of 
Upsala, which was a kind of sinecure, and was only given to eminent 
scholars “‘as a comfort in their old age, after they had achieved Her- 
culean labours.” Verelius died on the Ist of January 1682. In the 
Swedish epitaph on his tombstone he is called a real ‘ Runic stone,’ 
to express his immense antiquarian knowledge. 

Verelius is the author of numerous works, chiefly on Scandinavian 
antiquities, of which he ‘possessed a most extensive knowledge. His 
historical statements must be received with great caution, as he was 
biassed by certain opinions respecting the Swedish origin of the Goths, 
which were then common among the Swedish historians. In addition 
to this, Verelius was very tenacious in his opinions, however extra- 
vagant they might be, and of very irritable temperament, as we see 
especially in his polemical writings against his old friend John 
Scheffer of Strasburg, about the meaning of the name Upsala. But 
Verelius is nevertheless one of the best writers on the early history 
and antiquities of Scandinavia. His principal works are: 1, ‘ Goth- 
rici et Rolfi, Westrogothie Regum, Historia, &c., accedunt note 
Joannis Schefferi, (Argentoratensis,) Svo, Upsala, 1664. This is the 
first edition of an old work written in the old Scandinavian language, 
or, ag the editor calls it, the Gothic language. It contains the original 
text and a Swedish translation, together with a vocabulary in which 
the meaning of Scandinavian words is explained in Latin. 2, ‘Itt 
Stycke af Konung Olaf Tryggiason’s Saga hwilken pa Gammal Gotska 
Beskrifwit hafwa Oddur Munk,’ &c., 8vo, Upsala, 1665 (i. e. ‘A frag- 
ment of King O. Tryggiason’s Saga, written in old Gothic by Monk 
Oddur.) 8, ‘Herrands och Bosa Saga,’ 8vo, Upsala, 1666, with 
a Swedish translation. 4, ‘Manuductio compendiosa ad Runogra- 
phiam,’ &c., fol., Upsala, 1675. This is written in Swedish, and 
dedicated to the celebrated Axel Oxenstierna, and contains thirty 
beautiful Runiec inscriptions. 5, ‘Note in Epistolam defensoriam 
clarissimi viri, J. Schefferi, Argentoratensis, de situ ac vocabulo Upsa- 
liz,’ fol., Upsala, 1681. This work is written with such bitterness and 
vehemence, that it was prohibited two months after its publication. 
After his death appeared—6, ‘Index Linguz veteris Seytho-Scandize 
sive Gothic,’ &e., edited by Olaus Rudbeck, fol., Upsala, 1691. 7, 
‘Epitomarum Historie Suio-Gothice libri iv., et Gothorum extra 
patriam gestarum libri ii.,” edited by P. Schenberg, 4to, Stockholm, 
1730. There are also two orations of Verelius, viz., 8, ‘Oratio Panegy- 
rica de Pace Suio-Germanica, habita Lugduni-Batavorum,’ fol., Leyden, 
1649. 9, ‘Memorize illustrissimi Comitis Axelii Oxenstierna Oratio 
Funebris,’ fol., Upsala, 1655, 

(Claudius Arrhenius Ornhielm, ‘ Vita Olai Verelii,’ in the Zpitomarum 
Historice Suio-Gothice Lib. IV., where also a complete list of the works 
of Verelius is given: Compare Jécher, Allgem. Gelehrien-Lexic., and 
Gley, in the Biographie Universelle.) 

VERGENNES, CHARLES GRAVIER, COMTE DE, the son of a 
president ‘& mortier’ of the parliament of Dijon, was born in that 
town on the 28th of December 1717. His family had only recently 
been admitted among the ‘ noblesse de la robe.” M. de Chavigny, who 
had been envoy in Spain and England, and whose niece had married a 
brother of Vergennes, undertook to initiate the young man into the 
diplomatic career: he took him as attaché to Lisbon in 1740. 

In 1743 the French court exerted itself to procure the imperial 
crown for the elector of Bavaria. Chavigny was sent to Frankfurt to 
manage the electoral diet, and Vergennes accompanied him. After 
the death of Charles VII., Chavigny returned with his pupil to Lisbon. 
Here Vergennes found for the first time an opportunity to display his 
capacity for business. The rival claims of Spain and Portugal to the 
territory of Monte Video were referred to the arbitration of the court 
of Versailles. Vergennes is said to have condensed into a memoir of 
four pages the substance of the voluminous pleadings of the parties. 
The Marquis d’Argenson was delighted with the abridgment; and in 
1750 the young diplomatist was appointed minister to the electoral 
court of Trier. The meddling occupant of that ecclesiastical princi- 


319 VERGENNES, COMTE DE. 


VERGILIUS, POLYDORUS. $20 


pality had contrived to make his court the centre of the political 
intrigues of Germany. He held, in addition to the electoral arch- 
bishopric of Trier, the bishopric of Worms, was co-director of the 
circle of the Upper Rhine, provost of Ellwangen, and senior of the 
ecclesiastical bench in the diet of the circle of Suabia. His inter- 
ference was felt everywhere. The empress-queen was, in 1750, 
anxiously pressing the election of her son Joseph, still a child, as 
King of the Romans. The failure of her canvass was attributed to the 
influence acquired by Vergennes over the Elector of Trier. 

A visit paid by George II. of England to his paternal estates in 
Germany was seized upon by Maria Theresa to renew her intrigues. 
The Duke of Newcastle, who wished the imperial dignity to remain 
in the House of Austria, assembled a congress of the ministers of all 
the electors at Hanover. The discussions of this assembly ended in 
nothing; and Vergennes, who had been sent to it by his court, 
obtained the credit of having foiled the English minister. Newcastle 
shifted the scene to Mannheim, and Vergennes (1753) was immediately 
sent in pursuit of him. He detached the elector-palatine from a con- 
vention he was about to conclude with the elector of Hanover in sup- 
port of the projects of Maria Theresa, and Wrede, the minister of the 
palatinate, was obliged to repair in person to Paris to apologise for his 
dealings with England and the empress. 

From Germany Vergennes was sent to Constantinople. Count 
Desalleurs, ambassador to the Porte, died suddenly on the 21st of 
November 1754. <A secret correspondence had been carried on 
through his instrumentality between the Ottoman court and Louis 
XYV., unknown to the king’s ministers. It was a matter of con- 
sequence therefore to the king and his favourites that the papers of 
the deceased ambassador should not fall into indiscreet hands, 
Vergennes was deemed trustworthy, but his birth and his youth 
were obstacles to his appointment to the charge of ambassador. 
Chavigny is said to have helped the courtiers in this dilemma by 
persuading the Marquis de Puysieux, minister for foreign affairs, 
that an envoy extraordinary, or a minister plenipotentiary, was 
perfectly competent to transact all the business of France at Con- 
stantinople ; and that as an agent of that rank would receive a lower 
salary, and might live at less expense than an ambassador, the 
difference might be employed to pay off the debts contracted by 
Count Desalleurs. Vergennes was accordingly appointed, and em- 
barked in a merchant-vessel for Constantinople, where he arrived in 
company with the Baron de Tott in May 1755. The Porte received 
him under the designation of minister plenipotentiary; but after a 
few months, in consequence of a representation from the sultan, 
Vergennes received the title of ambassador. 

He had a difficult game to play. England and Prussia urged the 
Porte to declare war against the empresses of Austria and Russia. 
Vergennes represented that these princesses being on friendly terms 
with France, must necessarily be well disposed to Turkey, the ally 
of France. The peace of 1763 put an end to these intrigues, but 
more serious difficulties ensued. Catherine II, invaded Poland on 
account of the opposition offered to Poniatowski, whom she had been 
instrumental in placing on the throne. The Porte, which had 
guaranteed the integrity of Poland, was disposed to interfere, Ver- 
gennes believing that ‘Turkey was too weak to thwart the designs of 
- the empress, and that it would only draw down upon itself a partici- 
pation in the disasters of Poland, counselled neutrality. The Duke 
de Choiseul exclaimed loudly against the apathy of the Divan and 
the timidity of Vergennes. Money was remitted to the ambassador 
with strict injunctions to spare no efforts to engage Turkey in 
hostilities against Russia. The minister was preparing reluctantly to 
obey, when an accident brought about what he had hesitated to under- 
take. Some Cossaks made a predatory irruption into the Crimea, 
and De Tott, who had been accredited by Choiseul to the khan, 
induced him to make reprisals. This led to a formal declaration of 
war against Russia by the sultan, on the 30th of October. 

Vergennes’s despatch containing the intelligence of this event was 
crossed on the way by the courier who brought his recaJl. He carried 
back with him to Paris the money sent to bribe the Divan to under- 
take a war, into which circumstances had precipitated them unbought. 
The Duke de Choiseul assigned the marriage which Vergennes had 
contracted with the widow of a surgeon of Pera as the reason for 
recalling him. Vergennes’s recall was much regretted by the French 
residents at Pera, who presented him with a gold-hilted sword (une 
épée d’or) on the occasion. On his return to France he took up his 
abode on a property he possessed in Burgundy, and remained in 
retirement until the fall of the Duke de Choiseul. 

La Vrilliére, who held the portfolio of foreign affairs for a short time 
after Choiseul’s retirement, sent Vergennes to Sweden, allowing him 
to draw up his own instructions. He remained at that court till the 
death of Louis XV. It was during his residence that Gustavus III. 
accomplished the revolution which converted Sweden into an absolute 
monarchy. Gustavus had made the French minister the confidant of 
his designs, and the minister imparted them to his own court, but 
represented them as romantic visions, The cabinet of Versailles 
however directed him to assist the king of Sweden with money ; and 
when Gustavus carried his schemes into effect, the credit of directing 
him was attributed at Versailles to Vergennes, who was asa reward 
enrolled among the noblesse de l’épée, 


On the accession of Louis XVI. (July 1774), Vergennes was made 
minister for foreign affairs. He remained minister till his death, in 
1787, having held along with the portfolio of his department that of 
president of the Council of Finance during the last few years of his 
life. The leading achievements of his ministry were as follows :—In 
May 1777 he concluded a treaty with the Swiss cantons in lieu of the 


separate treaties which it had been customary to enter into with each. 


On the 6th of February 1778 he signed the treaty of alliance with 
the United States of North America, He contributed materially 
towards the establishment of the armed neutrality of the northern 
maritime powers, and assisted in persuading Spain and Holland to 
commence hostilities against England. And by these means he became 
an instrument in bringing about the recognition of the independence of 
the United States by the mother-country in 1783. In 1779 he obtained 
favourable conditions for the elector of Bavaria from Joseph IL; and 
in 1785 he persuaded the emperor and the United Provinces to submit 
their differences to the arbitration of Louis XVI. His last labour was 
the negociation of a treaty of commerce with England in the years 
1785 and 1786; and a similar convention with Russia in 1787, 
surviving the conclusion of the latter only fourteen days. He died on 
the 13th of February 1787, after having served his country twenty- 
four years in the capacity of ambassador and thirteen as minister of 
state. He left a large fortune. 

As a diplomatist, Vergennes, except in the case of his Turkish 


mission, appears to have received credit for accomplishing arrange- | 


ments which in some cases had been brought about without his inter- 
ference, and in others against his wishes. It ought however to be 
mentioned at the same time that the course he wished to see adopted 
in the case of Turkey would have been the most prudent for that 
country, and that had Gustavus III. deferred to the wishes of Ver- 
gennes, he would have acted more in consonance with the dictates of 
justice and for the permanent advantage of his country. ‘The part 
taken by Vergennes in the American contest, and in the arrangement 
of the commercial treaty with England, is equally creditable to his 
liberality and to the soundness of his economical opinions. Here too 
however, as in his diplomatic missions, he appears rather to have left 
what was inevitable to happen of itself, than to have exerted himself 
to accomplish what he considered desirable. He appears to have pos- 
sessed in a high degree the diplomatic talent of looking wise, doing 
nothing, keeping his own secret, and taking credit for any good that 
was done. He carried diplomacy into private life, and was always on 
his guard: on the other hand, he was of an affectionate disposition, 
extremely fond of children, and an honest man. It was a thorough 
conviction of the integrity of Vergennes that made Maurepas recom- 
mend him to Louis XVI. for the portfolio of foreign affairs; and it 
was the king’s conviction to the same effect that enabled Vergennes to 
overcome all the cabals and intrigues of the court. 

VERGI’/LIUS, or VIRGILIUS, POLYDO’RUS, was a native of 
Urbino in Italy. Polydore Vergil first made himself known by a 
small collection of Adagia, or proverbs, which he published in 1498, 
and which was several times reprinted in the course of the next 
half century. Bayle, quotes an edition of it in his possession printed 
at Basel, in 8yo, in 1541, which professed to be according to the 
author’s fourth revision. There is a great deal about this book of 
proverbs in the Letters of Erasmus, who, according to the notion of 
Vergil, had behaved unfairly in omitting all mention of it in his own 
subsequent work of the same kind. Erasmus, very characteristically, 
when the booksellers wanted to suppress a preface of Polydore’s to a 
new edition of his book in which he laid his complaint before the 
public, would not hear of such a thing; and the two authors continued 
excellent friends, as they had been before. Polydore at last of his 
own accord withdrew the obnoxious preface; and we find him in 
after-years one of the various persons by whom Erasmus was supplied 
with money to buy a horse—an article which the great scholar was 
constantly in want of. Polydore also suppressed, at the request of 
Erasmus, a reiteration of his complaint, which he had put intoa 
dedicatory epistle prefixed to his next work, entitled ‘De Rerum 
Inventoribus,’ first published in three books in 1499, and again at 
Strasbourg in 1509. Being in holy orders, he was before 1503 sent 
over to England by Pope Alexander VI. to collect the tax called 
Peter-pence ; and he spent the greater part of the remainder of his 
life in this country, continuing his residence long after he lost his 
office, of which he was the last holder. In 1517 he republished at 
London his work ‘De Rerum Inventoribus,’ extended to eight books. 
A fourth edition of it was brought out at Basel, in 12mo, in 1536, 
and another in 8vo, in 1554; and there is a 12mo edition of it, printed 
at Amsterdam by Ludoy. Elzevir so late as 1671, along with another 
work by Vergil, three books of dialogues entitled ‘De Prodigiis,’ 
against divination, which he appears to have finished at London in 
1526, although the first edition mentioned by Gesner is one printed at 
Basel in 1531. Bayle had another printed at Basel, in 8vo, in 1545, 
and containing also two books ‘ De Patientia,’ one ‘De Vita Perfecta,’ 
and one ‘De Mendaciis, ali by this author. Erasmus, in one of his 
Letters, also speaks of a translation of the ‘ Monachus’ of St, 
Chrysostom, which Vergil had printed at Paris in 1528, and dedicated 
to him, 

Soon after he came to England, Vergil obtained the rectory of 
Church Langton in Leicestershire, and in 1507 he was made arch- 


_— ———S -_w 


" 


=: 


$21 VERHEYEN, PHILIPPUS. 


VERNET, CLAUDE JOSEPH, 


deacon of Wells, and was also collated in the same year, first to the 
prebend of Nonnington in the cathedral of Hereford, and then to that 
of Scamelsby in the cathedral of Lincoln; which last he exchanged, in 
1513, for that of Oxgate in St. Paul’s. In 1525 he published at 
London, in 8vo, but from a very imperfect and corrupt copy, the 
first edition of the fragment of Gildas, entitled ‘De Calamitate, 
Excidio, et Conquestu Britannie.’ He dedicated it to Bishop Tonstall; 
and, according to Nicolson, the same bad text was reprinted in 8vo 
at Basel in 1541, in 12mo at London in 1568, and in the 5th volume 
of the Paris ‘ Bibliotheca Patrum’ of 1610, folio. Vergil finished his 
principal work, his ‘ Historia Anglica,’ a history of England from the 
earliest times to the end of the reign of Henry VIL, in twenty-six 
books, in 1533; the dedication to Henry VIII. is dated in August of 
that year, and the first edition appears to have been published at 

Basel, in folio, in 1534. It was reprinted at Basel in the same form 
in 1536, 1556, 1570, and 1583; and in octavo at Leyden, under the 
eare of Antonius Thysius, in 1549, and again in 1557. For clearness 
of narrative and neatness of style Polydore Vergil is perhaps the first 
of our Latin historians, and there are also a good many things in his 
work which are not to be found elsewhere; but he does not stand 
high as an authority. It is alleged that he destroyed numerous 
original documents which he had made use of in preparing his work, 
or, according to another version of the story, sent them off to Rome. 
His ignorance of the language and customs of the country has also no 
doubt betrayed him into some mistakes. He is charged however with 
having been principally misled by bis prejudices in favour of the 
old religion, although he was hardly accounted a good Roman Catholic 
in all points. Various passages in his work ‘De Rerum Inventoribus’ 
are condemned in the ‘Indices Librorum Prohibitorum et Expurga- 
torum ;’ and John Bale states that he approved of the marriage of 
ecclesiastics, and was opposed to the worship of images. Nor was 
he deprived of his preferments either by Henry VIII. or even by 
Edward VI. 

He left England in 1550. Burnet, in his ‘ History of the Reforma- 

‘tion,’ Part ii., says under that date, ‘This year Polydore Vergil, who 

had been now almost forty [fifty?] years in England, growing old, 
desired leave to go nearer the “sun, which was granted ; and, in con- 
sideration of the public service he was thought to have done the 
nation by his History, he was permitted to hold his archdeaconry of 
Weils and his prebend of Nonnington, notwithstanding his absence 
out of the kingdom.’ He is understood to have returned to Urbino,, 
and is commonly stated to have died there in 1555. An opinion 
expressed by M. de la Monnoye, in a note upon Baillet’s ‘Jugemens 
des Savans,’ ii. 160, that he must have died before 1540, appears to be 
refuted by the above statement from Burnet, who quotes as his 
authority the ‘Rot. Pat.’ 4 Ed. VI., 2 part. The English versions of 
Polydore Vergil’s History have been reprinted by the Camden Society 
under the editorial care of Sir Henry Ellis, 

VERHE’YEN, PHILIPPUS, was born at Verbrouck in the province 
of Waas, in 1648. His father was an honest agricultural labourer, 
who gave him a homely education, and with whom he worked in the 
fields till he was twenty-two years old. At this time the pastor of the 


parish, discerning in the young Verheyen the marks of a superior 


intellect, undertook to teach him Latin during the winter vacations 
from his agricultural work; and in 1672 he had made such progress 
that the pastor obtained for him admission into the College of the 
Holy Trinity at Louvain, where, at the end of five years’ study, he 
gained, in 1677, the highest place in the general examination of the 
four chief colleges. After this he studied theology for a short time: 
but he was diverted from his intention of entering the ecclesiastical 
order by losing his leg, in consequence of some acute disease which 
rendered amputation necessary. On his recovery from the operation, 
Verheyen applied himself to medicine. In 1681 he received, with 
especial marks of honour, his licentiate’s degree; in 1689, having 
spent nearly all the intervening time in the study of anatomy and 
medicine at Louvain, he was appointed professor of anatomy there; 
and in 1693 professor of surgery also, but he did not, for some un- 
known reason, take his doctor’s degree till1695. He became by study, 
diligently continued to the end of his life, one of the most eminent 
anatomical teachers of his time, and his books were very widely read, 
especially his Anatomy of the Human Body. He was engaged on a 
large work, ‘De Tuend4 Valetudine,’ when he died in 1710. 
Verheyen’s works are as follows: 1, ‘ Anatomie Corporis Humani, 
Liber primus,’ Louvain, 4to, 1693; a short compendium of anatomy 
which was several times reprinted and was completed after his death, 
in 1710, by the publication of a ‘Supplementum, seu Liber secundus,’ 
and of many additions to the original work. The two together, in 
two. volumes 4to, were often printed; as, at Brussels, 1710 and 1726; 
Naples, 1717, 1734 ; Leipzig, 1731, &c. They contain no important 
anatomical discoveries, but were good useful books at the time of 
their publication. The second volume, which is the more interesting 
of the two, contains many analyses of animal fluids, and accounts of 
numerous experiments on living animals, chiefly having relation to 
development and respiration; but a great part of it is filled by the 
author's portion of a controversy with Méry in defence of the Harveian 
doctrine of the circulation. 2, ‘ Dissertatio de Thymo,’ Louvain, 4to, 
1706. 3, ‘Compendium Theorix Practice,’ Cologne, 8vo, 1683. The 
first and second parts alone of this work were published, They treat 
BIOG. DIV. VOL VI. 


of affections of the head and chest, and support the chemical doctrines 
of Willis. 4, ‘ Vera Historia de Sanguine ex Oculis, Auribus, Naribus, 
&e.,’ Louvain, 12mo, 1708. 

(Life, prefixed to the Anatomia, edition of Brussels, 1710; Haller, 
Bibliothece.) 

VERMIGLI, PIETRO MA’RTIRE, was born at Florence in 1500. 
He studied for the church, and entered early the order of the Regular 
Canons of St. Augustine, in which he became distinguished for his 
learning, and rose to offices of trust. Being at Naples he became 
acquainted with Juan Valdes, a Spaniard, who had become a convert 
to the doctrines of the Reformation. [Vatpzs, Juan.] Vermigli 
adopted some of those tenets, but concealed them foratime. Being 
sent by his superiors to Lucca, as prior of San Frediano, he there 
publicly avowed his new doctrine, and was soon after compelled to fly 
to Switzerland, in 1542. He thence went to Strasburg, where he was 
appointed Professor of Divinity. In 1547, at the invitation of Bishop 
Cranmer, he repaired to England, where he was graciously received by 
King Edward VI. and was appointed Lecturer upon the Holy Serip- 
tures at Oxford, where he met with much opposition from the heads of 
colleges and the higher graduates, and ran some personal risk. In 
1553, after the accession of Queen Mary, being obliged to leave Eng- 
land, he returned to Strasburg, where he resumed his chair as Professor 
of Divinity, and likewise of Aristotelian philosophy. In 1556 he was 
invited by the senate of Ziirich to fill the chair of theology in that 
‘university, which he accepted. In 1561 he repaired, with other Pro- 
testant divines, to the conference of Poissy, in France. In the follow- 
ing year Vermigli died at Ziirich, much regretted. He wrote on 
dogmatic and ethical subjects, commentaries on parts of the Scripture, 
besides numerous epistles to ‘ His Brethren of the Protestant Church 
of Lucca,’ to the Protestant Churches in Poland, to the English 
church, to Calvin, Bullinger, Beza, Melanchthon, and other reformers, 
to Queen Elizabeth, and to several English prelates and noblemen. 
Tiraboschi, a zealous Roman Catholic, acknowledges that Vermigli was 
free from the arrogance and virulence of Luther and other reformers, 
that he was deeply acquainted with the Scriptures and the Fathers, 
and was one of the most learned writers of the reformed communion. 
His works were translated from the Latin into English. ‘The Com- 
mon Places of the most famous and renowned Divine Doctor Peter 
Martyr, divided into four principal parts by Anthony Marten,’ dedicated 
to Queen Elizabeth, in 1583, with a biography of Vermigli by Josias 
Simler, of Ziirich: this collection contains a complete course of 
Christian ethics, and may be read with advantage even now. 

VERNET, CLAUDE JOSEPH. This celebrated landscape ang 
marine painter was born at Avignon, on the 17th of August 1714, and 
received his first instruction in painting from his father, Antoine 
Vernet, and Andrian Manglard, an historical painter. Fiorillo states, 
Vernet is said, even in his fifth year, to have had great skill in draw- 
ing. At the age of eighteen, in 1732, he went to Italy with the inten- 
tion of perfecting himself as an historical painter; but the beautiful 
views of sea and shipping at Genoa, Naples, and other parts of Italy 
are said to have induced him to fix upon marine landscape as his prin- 
cipal study. He studied with Fergioni at Rome, and his future 
pictures justified his choice; for he executed works which acquired 
him a name, comparatively early in life, that rivalled those of both 
Claude and Backhuyzen. But he for some time in Italy lived in great 
poverty; he was glad to paint in any style and for the slightest remu- 
neration; at the sale of the collection of M. de Julienne, a piece was 
sold for 5000 francs, which Vernet had painted in Rome for a suit of 
clothes. He painted also several panels of carriages for coachbuilders 
at low prices; they were afterwards taken out and framed as works of 
great value. He remained in Italy twenty years, including some time 
spent in Greece and the Greek islands; and during this period he 
made elaborate sketches of many of the most beautiful and most 
interesting spots in both countries, and painted also several elegant 
pictures in Genoa, in Naples, and in Rome. Those which he painted 
in Rome for the palaces Rondanini, Borghese, and Colonna, are 
among his best works: the pictures he painted for the Rondanini 
palace were executed much in the style of Salvator Rosa, whom 
Vernet imitated with great success ; but he afterwards entirely forsook 
Salvator’s manner for one as conspicuous for its delicacy of colouring 
as the other was for its force. One of his first patrons in Rome, 
according to Pilkington, was Mr. Drake of Shardeloes in Buckingham- 
shire, who commissioned him to paint six pictures, leaving the subjects 
to his own choice, and he produced six excellent pieces. 

In 1743 he was made a member of the Academy of St. Luke; and 
about the same time he married Miss Parker, the daughter of an 
English Roman Catholic, who was an officer in the Pope’s marine. 
Vernet’s reputation as a marine painter at length reached his own 
country; and in 1752 he was invited by Louis XV., through M. de 
Marigny, to Paris, after an absence of twenty years. 

Vernet lost no time in complying with the invitation of his king, 
and embarked as soon as possible at Leghorn in a small felucca for 
Marseille, During the passage there happened a violent storm, which 
terrified some of the passengers; but Vernet, struck with the grandeur 
of the effect of the sea, requested one of the sailors to bind him to 
the mast-head, that he might view it to the greatest advantage; and 
there he remained, lost to the dangers of his position, absorbed in 
admiration of the grand effect around him, endeavouring S transfer 


323 VERNET, ANTOINE-CHARLES-HORACE. 


VERNET, HORACE. 


it to his sketchbook. His grandson, the celebrated Horace Vernet, 
painted an excellent picture of this scene, and exhibited it in 1816 in 
the Louvre. In 1752 or 1753 Vernet was elected a member of the 
French Academy of Arts; his reception picture was a Seaport at 
Sunset, which is now in the Louvre. In 1753 he was commissioned 
by the government to paint pictures of the principal seaports of 
France, of which he painted fifteen views; an arduous task, which 
oceupied him nearly ten years, or twelve, according to the Catalogue 
of the Louvre: but it contributed more to his fame than to his 
fortune; for he was paid, including his travelling expenses, only 7500 
francs each ; and the pictures are of large dimensions, measuring eight 
French feet long by five high: they are now in the Louvre. He was 
however in consequence of these works elected in 1706 one of the 
council of the Academy, and Louis XV. gave him apartments in the 
Louvre. From 1752, when he returned to France, until the year of 
his death, 1789, Vernet painted upwards of 200 pictures, most of 
which have been engraved. The best prints after him are by Balechou, 
Lebas, Aliamet, and Flipart. He was without a rival in France, and 
there was only one landscape painter in Europe who disputed the palm 
with him: this was Richard Wilson, with whom Vernet had become 
acquainted in Rome, and for whom he had a great esteem. They ex- 
changed pictures, and Vernet kept Wilson’s in his studio at Paris, and 
he is said to have remarked to English connoisseurs who visited him, 
that they had no occasion to come to him for pictures when they had 
such a painter at home. Vernet’s landscapes are good in almost every 
respect, but he was most excellent perhaps in his management of light 
and shade, and aérial perspective : his figures also are remarkably well 
drawn, and he introduced a great number of them in some of his pieces ; 
he excelled also in moonlight effects, and in representing water in any 
state, but particularly when disturbed and boisterous. He was least 
successful in shipping: he was deficient in a competent knowledge of 
the rigging and construction of ships; and his colouring is forced 
and artificial. Many of his best pictures are in the Louvre. In the 
National Gallery are two paintings by him—‘ A Seaport, with Shipping,’ 
and ‘ The Castle of St. Angelo.’ 

In 1826 the Atheneum of Vaucluse determined upon giving a prize 
for the best eulogy in verse upon Vernet: it was decided in favour of 
M. Bignan, in 1827, in the presence of the son and grandson of the 
painter, Carle and Horace Vernet, who, in gratitude to the city of 
Avignon, each presented a picture to the museum of that place. Carle 
Vernet’s was a horse-race at Rome; Horace’s, his well-known picture 
of Mazeppa. The Municipal council of Avignon, and the directors of 
the museum, presented to the painters in return two large silver urns 
embossed with two of their own designs respectively. 

VERNET, ANTOINE-CHARLES-HORACE, commonly called Carle 
Vernet, a French historical, genre, and battle painter, was born at 
Bordeaux, August 14th 1758, and was the pupil of his father, Claude 
Joseph Vernet, the celebrated marine and landscape painter. He 
studied also in the French Academy at Paris, where he gained the 
second prize for painting when in his eighteenth year, and in 1782, six 
years afterwards, he obtained the grand prize, and with it the privilege 
of studying for a certain period in the French academy at Rome. 

In 1787 he was elected a member of the French Royal Academy of 
Painting for a large picture of the Triumph of Paulus Aimilius, and 
he was subsequently, after the remodelling of the academy, nominated 
a member of the Institute of France. 

His principal works are :—The large picture of the Battle of Marengo, 
and a battle against the Mamelukes, exhibited in 1804; the Morning 
of the Battle of Austerlitz, with the Emperor giving orders to his 
Marshals, and an equestrian portrait of Napoleon, in 1808 ;'the Bom- 
bardment of Madrid, the Battle of Rivoli, and another picture of the 
Emperor, in 1810; John Sobieski forcing the Turks to raise the Siege of 
Vienna, in 1683, exhibited in 1819; the Taking of Pampeluna in 1824; 
the Entrance of Napoleon into Milan; and the Battle of Wagram. 

Carle Vernet has painted also an immense number of pictures of 
small dimensions, chiefly of military subjects, but also many of the 
chase, of scenes of familiar life, aud from the imagination. He was 
also a celebrated painter of horses, and by some considered the best 
of his time ; among his pictures are many small equestrian portraits. 
In 1806 he was appointed painter to the Dépét de la Guerre; and he 
was made subsequently Chevalier of the orders of St. Michel, and of 
the Légion d’Honneur. He died September 27, 1836. 

*VERNET, HORACE, is the son of Antoine-Charles (commonly 
called Carle) Vernet, and was born on the 30th of June 1789, in: the 
Louvre, where his grandfather Claude-Joseph Vernet had an official 
residence as painter to the king, and where his father also resided. 
The state of anarchy through which Paris passed during his childhood 
and early youth caused his education to be somewhat neglected and 
irregular; but his father instructed him in art, for which he early 
evinced the hereditary fondness and talent. Art was however during 
those years far from a lucrative profession, and Carle Vernet had little 
ability to indulge his son in the luxurious appliances of study. While 
yet a boy he was compelled to use his pencil as a means of support, 
and he made drawings for ladies’ fashions, bill-heads, and indeed all 
kinds of designs for booksellers and others. He thus acquired the 
astonishing facility in drawing every kind of object which has in his 
mature years enabled him to furnish paintings, sketches, and drawings 
with an almost unparalleled profusion. 


tor 


In deference to the wishes of his father, Horace was a competi’ 


for the prize of the travelling pension to Rome given by the Académie 


des Beaux Arts, but was unsuccessful. He consoled himself with a — 
wife—though only twenty—and throwing off the trammels of pupil- 
age, boldly opened his atelier; and, in 1809, sent a picture to the 
Exposition. At this time the Classic school, of which David was the 
head and representative, was in the undisputed ascendant, and what- 
ever were the subjects chosen by French painters, a certain conven- 
tional ‘ classic’ character was regarded as indispensable. Carle Vernet 
was a painter of battle-pieces, but even he was careful to preserve ‘ the 

roprieties.’ Horace determined to paint his figures as he saw them. 
t was a time when the French soldiers seemed to be rapidly subverting 
Europe, and the whole nation was intoxicated with visions of the glory 
of France. Horace Vernet had served for a while in the ranks, and — 
sharing to the fullest extent in the popular feeling, set himself the 
task of representing the victories of the French armies, and the inci- 
dents of military life and adventure: he undertook to show French- 
men their military brethren in their toils, their pleasures, and their 
triumphs; and he has in the opinion of all Frenchmen thoroughl 
succeeded. From the first the popularity of Horace Vernet’s military _ 
pictures has been beyond rivalry. His early ‘Capture of the Redoubt, 
‘Halt of French Soldiers, ‘Trumpeters,’ ‘Barriére de Clichy,’ and 
the like, were received by the public as faithful delineations of the 
events, and placed him at the head of his branch of the profession and 
in general estimation. In 1812 he was awarded the first-class medal 
(History), and the emperor in 1814 created him a Chevalier of the 
Legion of Honour. The restoration of the Bourbons did not check 
his career of prosperity, In 1817 he sent to the Exposition his 
‘Defence of Paris, 1814,’ and ‘The Battle of Tolosa,’ which are now 
in the Luxembourg. The battles of Jemmapes, Montmirail, Valmy, 
and others, succeeded, as well as ‘The Soldier of Waterloo,’ ‘The 
Defence of Saragossa, ‘The Death of Poniatowski,’ &. ; and in 1819 
he painted his celebrated ‘Massacre of the Mamelukes,’ now in the 
Luxembourg. 


The refusal to admit a work of his to the Exposition of 1822, proved r 1 


the occasion of a great triumph instead of a mortification to him. He 
collected his pictures, and had an exhibition to himself which proved 
very successful, In 1825 he was raised by Charles X. to the rank of 
Officer of the Legion of Honour, and in 1826 he was elected a member 
of the Institute. Two years later he was appointed Director of the 
Academy at Rome, and he held that post till the close of 1838. 


During his tenure of office the system of instruction at the Academy ~ 


underwent a considerable. change; but the school was regarded as 
being well conducted and successful, and the Director was extremely 
popular with the students. Horace Vernet lived at Rome in a style 
of great splendour, and the saloons of the French Academy became a 
centre of the cultivated society of the place. On the occurrence of 


the revolution of 1830 the French legation having quitted Rome, M. — 
Vernet was nominated representative at the court of Rome, and heis 


said to have executed his diplomatic functions with as much éclat as 
did Rubens in earlier days. 

Louis Philippe was a liberal patron of Vernet. To him was intrusted 
the task of covering the walls of the Constantine gallery at Versailles 
with a series of battle-pieces, some of which—as the capture of the 
Smala of Abd-e!-Kader—are we believe among the largest canvasses ever 
painted over. The Gallery of French History at Versailles, as well 
as the galleries of the other palaces, were also adorned with examples 
of his facile pencil. The Constantine Gallery at Versailles is devoted 
to representations of the successes of the French arms in Algiers, to 
which country Horace Vernet has paid more than one prolonged pro- 
fessional visit, and the scenery, costume, and character of which he is 
considered to have rendered with great fidelity as well as spirit. But 


during the years of the Orleans dynasty he by no means confined his _ q 


pencil to battles, or even to mili subjects. He had visited the 
Holy Land, and his ‘Judith and Holofernes,’ ‘Rebecca at the 
Fountain,’ ‘Hagar driven out by Abraham,’ ‘The Good Samaritan,’ 
and other Biblical subjects, were the result of his studies there; he 
also painted various historical works, such as ‘The Arrest of the 
Princes at the Palais-Royal by order of Anne of Austria,’ and nume- 
rous genre pictures, including his famous ‘School of Raffaelle’ (well 
known by Jazet’s engraving), ‘Combat between the Pope’s Riflemen 
and the Brigands;’ ‘Confession of the Dying Brigand,’ and the like. 
But the class of subjects in which he has of late seemed most to 
delight are those illustrative of Eastern life and adventure—‘ Prayer 
in the Desert, ‘Council of Arabs,’ ‘The Lion Hunt,’ ‘ Arab 


Mother rescuing her Child from a Lion,’ and a multitude more, which — a 
his rapid and daring pencil has struck off with amazing facility and 


spirit. He has continued however to paint battles and military pic- — 
tures—his ‘ Taking of Rome by Oudinot in 1849, being of very large 
size—without any abatement of his former vigour. Within the last 
year or two M. Vernet has again visited the East ; is still said to be 
meditating more “great works;” and still retains unimpaired 


Universal Exposition of 1855. He has refused to be made a baron. 
He is said to have painted more pictures and larger pictures than any 


contemporary artist in Europe; and if they are not pictures me ‘at a 


highest class, they have produced probably a far more = 


his 
immense popularity. He was made a Commander of the Legionof 
Honour in 1842; and he received the great medal of honourat the 


._a.: ~ 2 
= 


- parliament, which lasted from 1734 to 1741. 


925 VERNON, EDWARD. 


VERONESE, ALESSANDRO. $26 


more powerful impression.on his countrymen than pictures of a higher 
order would have done. 

VERNON, EDWARD, a distinguished English admiral, was born 
at Westminster, 12th of November 1684, and was the son of James 
Vernon, Esq., the descendant of an ancient Staffordshire family, who 
was secretary of state from 1697 to 1700. Young Vernon was care- 
fully educated, and is said never to have forgotten his Greek and 
Latin; but nothing that his father could say or do would keep him 
from the sea, and it was at last found necessary to allow him to 
exchange his classical studies for navigation and gunuery. He first 
served under Admiral Hopson in the Prince George, on the expedi- 
tion which resulted in the destruction of the French and Spanish 
fleets at Vigo on the 12th of October 1702. In 1704 he was present 


- in Sir George Rooke’s squadron at the sea-fight with the French off 
Malaga. 


The next year he wasappointed commander of the Dolphin ; 
and he was afterwards transferred, in 1707, to the Royal Oak; in 
1708 to the Jersey, in which he was sent to the West Indies as rear- 
admiral, under Sir Charles Wager; tothe Assistance, of 50 guns, in 
1715; and to the Grafton, of 70 guns, in 1726. He was returned as 
one of the representatives for Penryn to George IL.’s first parliament, 
which met in November 1727 ; and he sat for Portsmouth in the next 
It was the part which 

e took in the House of Commons which is said to have occasioned 
his being sent, with the rank of vice-admiral of the blue, on the most 
memorable expedition with which his name is connected. He had 
rendered himself considerable in the House, according to Smollett, 
“by loudly condemning all the measures of the ministry, and bluntly 
speaking his sentimerts, whatever they were, without respect of per- 
sons, and sometimes without any regard to decorum.” This writer 
proceeds :—“*He was counted a good officer, and his boisterous 
manner seemed to enhance his character. As he had once commanded 
a Squadron in Jamaica, he was perfectly well acquainted with those 
seas; and in a debate upon the Spanish depredations, he chanced to 
affirm that Porto Bello, on the Spanish Main, might be easily taken ; 
nay, he even undertook to reduce it with six ships only. This offer 
was echoed from the mouths of all the membersin opposition, Vernon 
was extolled as another Drake or Raleigh, he became the idol ofa 


“party, and his praise resounded from all corners of the kingdom. 


The minister, in order to appease the clamours of the people on this 
subject, sent him as commander-in-chief to the West Indies. He was 
pleased with an opportunity to remove such a troublesome. censor 
from the House of Commons, and perhaps he was not without hope 
that Vernon would disgrace himself and his party by failing in the 
exploit he had undertaken.” Vernon however, who set sail from 
Spithead with his six ships on the 28rd of July 1739, completely suc- 
ceeded ; Porto Bello was taken on the 22nd of November, and was 
afterwards only abandoned for want of a sufficient land-force to keep 
it, after all the fortifications had been blown up. Vernon’s next enter- 
prise was the disastrous attempt on Carthagena in the spring of 1741, 
made famous by the graphic details given by Smollett, who was 
present in the fleet as a surgeon or surgeon’s mate, in the concluding 
chapters of the first volume of his ‘Roderick Random,’ (See also his 


_* History of England,’ iv., 608, &c., 4to edition.) This failure however 


did not affect the adwiral’s popularity in England; to the new par- 
liament, which met this year, he was returned at once for Penryn, for 
Rochester, and for Ipswich. He made his election for Ipswich, and 
he was returned for the same borough to the two next parliaments, 
which met in 1747 and in 1754. During the rebellion of 1745 
Admiral Vernon was employed in guarding the coasts of Kent and 
Sussex, a service in which he acquitted himself with his usual zeal 
and ability ; but soon after this he got into a quarrel with the Admi- 
ralty about the appointment of a gunner, the result of which was that 
he was struck off the list of admirals. In the course of this contro- 
versy, or after it was over, he is stated to have written several 
pamphlets in his own defence; but their titles are not given in the 
common accounts. He died at his seat, at Nacton in Suffolk, on the 
29th of October 1757. Vernon appears to have been a brave, high- 
spirited, and honourable man, with an impetuous temper, which he 
could not or would not rein in. 

VERNON, ROBERT. Though possessing personally no title to an 


enduring name, yet as the founder of the National Gallery of British Art, 


Mr. Vernon claims an honourable place in an ‘ English Cyclopedia of 
Biography.’ The so-called ‘ National Gallery’ of paintings was founded 
in 1824 by the purchase by Lord Liverpool's government of the collec- 
tion formed by Mr. Angerstein, This collection included nine pictures 
by British painters— the ‘Marriage-d-la-Mode’ of Hogarth ; that painter’s 
portrait; Lord Heathfield by Sir Joshua Reynolds; and Wilkie’s 
* Village Festival.’ In the course of the next twenty-three years there 
were occasional bequests or presentations of English pictures, but not 
a single English picture was added to the national collection by pur- 
chase ; the entire number of British pictures in the National Gallery in 
1847 was only forty-one, and several of these were portraits of unknown 
or insignificant persons by second-rate artists, or works of little artistic 
excellence or general interest. In every other country the possession 
of worthy specimens of the pencils of the chief painters of that country 
had been deemed the essential feature of a national collection; here 
the National Gallery, according to the official estimate, was to be a 
gallery of the works of the ‘ Old Masters’ of Italy and Holland. 


Tt. is to Mr. Vernon that the country is primarily indebted for what 
has been done towards placing matters on a more rational and satis- 


‘factory footing. Born in 1774, he by diligence, perseverance, and 


skill during a long commercial career, raised himself from very 
humble into very affluent circumstances ; earning at the same time a 
high character for liberality, and enlarged though unostentatious 
benevolence. Having a great fondness for pictures he began, as soon 
as his means permitted, to indulge his inclination by purchasing some, 
and following his own taste he selected the works of English artists. 
In the course of years his collection grew till every room in his house 
was filled. He now conceived the design of presenting his pictures to 
the nation, in the hope that if kept together they might serve as the 
nucleus of a gallery of British art, With this view he sold such of his 
pictures as he deemed undeserving of such a destiny, and purchased or 
commissioned (in nearly every instance direct from the painter) fresh 
examples of the masters he most admired. Then—not waiting to 
make it a posthumous gift—he offered his collection to the government, 
requesting that all those pictures might be selected which were con- 
sidered worthy of national acceptance; and that being done, he made 
them over by a deed of gift, dated December the 22nd, 1847, to the 
Trustees of the National Gallery. The collection so transferred com- 
prised 157 pictures, all but two by British artists, and a large propor- 
tion by living.artists. The pictures having been selected in the first 


-instance fora private residence of moderate dimensions, are mostly of 


cabinet size, and to a considerable extent of homely subjects ; but they 
include favourable specimens of a large proportion of the chief deceased 
and living English painters. Mr. Vernon lived long enough to see 
that his munificent gift was warmly appreciated by the great bulk of 
his countrymen ; but not tosee it provided with a fitting repository. 
He died May 22nd, 1849. Since his decease the Vernon collection 
has found a temporary resting place in Marlborough House. To it 
has been added the splendid bequest of Mr. Turner [Turnen, J. M, W.] ; 
and Mr. Sheepshanks has also presented to the nation his noble col- 
lection of 233 paintings in oil by English artists; but his gift is 
clogged with stipulations as to the place where they are to be deposited, 
which prevent them from being—for the present at least—placed along 
with the Vernon and Turner pictures. It is however greatly to be 
desired that some arrangement may be made by which these collec- 
tions may be brought together, and thus form the commencement of 
a National Gallery of British Art worthy of the nation. 

A marble bust of Mr. Vernon, purchased by subscription, is placed 
in the hall at Marlborough House; where also are a marble group by 
Gibson of Hylas and the Nymphs, and about half a dozen marble 
busts, presented with his pictures by Mr. Vernon—the somewhat 
sorry commencement of a National Collection of the works of British 
Sculptors. N 

VERONE’SE, ALESSANDRO, a celebrated painter of the Venetian 
school, was born at Verona about 1582. His family name was Turchi 
or Turco; he was called also L’Orbetto, according to Pozzo, from the 
circumstance of his having as a boy led about an old blind beggar, said 
to have been his own father. Alessandro used to amuse himself with 
drawing with charcoal upon walls, and some of his efforts having been 
seen by the painter Felice Brusasorci, he was taken by him as a 
colour-grinder in his studio, and was encouraged to cultivate his 
ability for drawing, He soon made great progress in drawing, and in 
painting surpassed his master; and, after the death of Brusasorci in 
1605, completed some of his unfinishedworks. He afterwards went to 
Venice, and obtained employment there from Carlo Saracino, who 
soon discovered his ability and value as an assistant; be paid him a 
ducat a day, whilst he paid his other assistants only a quarter of that 
amount. After spending some time in Venice, Alessandro returned to 
Verona ; but not meeting with the encouragement he expected, he set 
out for Rome in company with Antonio Bassetti and Pasquale Ottino, 
and ultimately established himself there, though he spent some time 
subsequently at Verona. In Rome he studied the works of Raffaelle 
and the Carracci, and forming a style for himself which combined many 
of the beauties of the Roman and the Venetian schools, entered success- 
fully into competition with Sacchi and Pietro de Cortona in the ehurch 
Della Concezione and elsewhere; and he acquired the reputation of 
one of the best painters of his time. His principal works are in 
Verona, where there are two of his masterpieces, a Pieti in the church 
Della Misericordia, which, though it contains only a dead Christ, the 
Virgin, and Nicodemus, is considered one of the best pictures in 
Verona: the other is the Passion of the Forty Martyrs, in the church 
of San Stefano; a picture, says Lanzi, which in impasto and fore- 
shortening reminds us of the Lombard school, in design and in ex- 
pression of the Roman, and in colouring of the Venetian; and it con- 
tains a selection of heads worthy of Guido. There is a very fine 
collection of his works in the possession of the Ghirardini family, all 
of which were painted by Alessandro for the Marquis Gasparo Ghirar- 
dini, who was a most generous patron to him, and, according to some 
existing documents, supported him when he first went to Rome. 
Alessandro married a Roman lady, and lived in great state in Rome, 
but died poor in 1648, without issue, according to Pozzo. Passeri says 
he died in 1650; and Passeri’s account differs in some other respects 
from that of Pozzo: he says he was the scholar of Carlo, the son 
of Paolo Veronese, and that he left two sons and a daughter by his 
wife : the elder son followed the profession of the law; the second, 


337 VERONESE, PAUL. 


VERRIUS FLACCUS. $28 


Giacinto, was a painter, but he died in the flower of life, in 1673. 
Lanzi states that Passeri says that Alessandro was called L’Orbetto from 
a defect in the eye; but Passeri does not assert this, he simply mentions 
the fact of a defect in the eye, and says that he was called L’Orbetto 
because when a boy he used to lead his father about, who, he had 
heard, was blind. The works of this painter are admirably coloured ; 
they appear not to have suffered any change of tint whatever from 
their original state, owing probably to the great care with which he is 
known to have mixed his colours and selected and prepared his oils. 
The National Gallery contains one small picture—a ‘Cupid and 
Psyche’ by Alessandro Veronese. 

VERONESE, PAUL. [Cactrart, Paoto.] 

VERRI, PIE’TRO, was born at Milan, of a noble family, in 1728, 
He studied at Rome and at Parma, after which he obtained a com- 
mission in an Italian regiment in the Austrian army, and served in 
Saxony in the war between Austria and Prussia. After the peace he 
returned to his native country, and was made a member of the Council 
of Economy instituted by Maria Theresa for the duchy of Milan, in 
1765. He took an active part in the administrative and financial 
reforms which were effected about that time, and especially in abolish- 
ing the practice of farming to private individuals or companies the 
various branches of the revenue of the state, a system which was 
injurious both to the people and to the treasury; and also in drawing 
the plan of a new tariff or scale of duties, which proved a great relief 
to industry and commerce. His principal works are:—1, ‘Memorie 
sull’ Economia Pubblica dello Stato di Milano,’ in which he shows the 
decline of that country during the two centuries of Spanish dominion, 
and ascribes it to the ignorance of its rulers and the absurdity of the 
laws; 2. ‘Riflessioni sulle Leggi Vincolanti principalmente sul Com- 
mercio dei Grani,’ in which he advocated the principle of absolute 
liberty ; 3, ‘ Meditazioni sull’ Economia Politica,’ which were published 
in 1771, and have been translated into several languages; it is an 
elementary but useful book. He besides wrote ‘ Storia di Milano,’ 
down to the conquest of Charles V. in the 16th century, the publica- 
tion of which was completed after the author’s death. He also 
published ‘ Osservazioni sulla Tortura, e singolarmente sugli effetti 
che produsse all’ occasione delle unzioni malefiche alle quali si attribui 
la pestilenza che devastd Milano anno 1630,’ an historical episode 
which has been since treated by Manzoni in his ‘Promessi Sposi.’ 
Verri has contributed greatly to illustrate the history of his native 
country, Milan. He continued in office in the economical adminis- 
tration of the duchy of Milan till 1786, when he retired to private 
life. He was made a knight of St. Stephen, and was a leading member 
of the ‘Patriotic Society,’ instituted at Milan in 1777, by Maria 
Theresa, for the encouragement of agriculture, arts, and manufactures. 
When the French invaded Lombardy in 1796, Verri was appointed 
member of the municipal council of Milan, but he died of apoplexy 
in June of the following year. His biography has been written 
by Isidoro Bianchi, Professor Ressi, Pietro Custodi, and lastly by 
Camillo Ugoni. He was one of the most distinguished and estimable 
Italians of the generation that preceded the French revolutionary 
invasion, 

VERRI, ALESSANDRO, younger brother of Pictro, is chiefly 
known for a work, partly imaginative and partly historical, entitled 
‘Le Notti Romane al Sepolero dei Scipioni.’ The author evokes the 
souls of the leading political men of various ages of ancient Rome to 
appear before him in the newly discovered vaults of the tombs of the 
Scipios, and makes them hold dialogues about the deeds of their 
earthly career. He tears down the veil of blind admiration, so long 
held sacred by Italian tradition and Italian vanity, and reveals the 
vices, the crimes, and the mistaken patriotism of ancient Rome. The 
style and language of the work are powerful and impressive. Ales- 
sandro Verri died in 1816, Both Pietro and Alessandro were the 
chief contributors to a literary journal of considerable merit, entitled 
* Tl Caffe,’ published at Milan. 

VE’RRIO, ANTO’NIO. This Neapolitan painter was born at Lecce 
about 1639; and after he had made some progress in painting, for 
which he had displayed a great ability at a very early age, he visited 
Venice, to study the colouring of the Venetian school. After making 
a stay sufficient for his purposes in Venice, he returned to his native 
place, and the success which attended the execution of some gay 
works there induced him to try his fortune at Naples, where, in 1660, 
he painted a large composition in fresco of Christ healing the Sick, 
in the college of the Jesuits, which was conspicuous for its bright 
colouring and forcible light and shade. Dominici says that Verrio 
had such a love for travelling that he could not remain in his own 
country. He went to France and painted the high altar of the 
Carmelites at Toulouse. Shortly after this, Charles II. wishing to 
revive the manufacture of tapestry at Mortlake, which had been 
interrupted by the Civil War, invited Verrio to England; but when 
he arrived, Charles changed his mind, and intrusted to him the 
decoration in fresco of Windsor Castle, Verrio executed a series of 
extensive frescoes in that palace, with as much facility of execution 
as insipidity of invention. He painted most of the ceilings, one side 
of St. George’s Hall, and the chapel; but few of his works are now 
left. The following instances may serve as illustrations of the taste, 
character, and judgment of Verrio:—On the ceiling of St. George’s 
Hall he painted, Antony, earl of Shaftesbury, in the character of 


action dispersing libels; in another place he borrowed ‘the ugly 
face’ of Mrs. Marriott, the housekeeper, for one of the furies, in 
revenge for a private quarrel he had had with her; and in a compo- 
sition of Christ healing the Sick, he introduced himself, Sir Godfrey 
Kneller, and Mr. May, surveyor of the works, in long periwigs, as 


spectators. The painter of these works was recorded in the following 
inscription, written over the tribune at the end of the hall: ‘Antonius — 


Verrio Neapolitanus non ignobili stirpe natus, ad honorem Dei, 
Augustissimi Regis Caroli Secundi, et Sancti Georgii, molem hane 
felicissimi manu decoravit.’ 

Verrio was paid enormously for these and many other works he 
painted in England. Vertue found a paper containing an account of 
moneys received by Verrio for works executed in Windsor Castle 
from 1676 to 1681, not including those in St. George’s Hall, amounting 
to 55451. 8s. 4d. The king also gave him the place of master-gardener, 
and a lodging in St. James’s Park. Verrio was of very expensive 
habits, and kept a great table, and “ often,” says Walpole, “ pressed 
the king for money with a freedom which his majesty’s own fran 
indulged. Once at Hampton Court, when he had but lately received 
an advance of a thousand pounds, he found the king in such a circle 
that he could not approach. He called out, ‘Sire, I desire the fayour 
of speaking to your majesty.’ ‘ Well, Verrio,’ said the king, * what 
is your request?’ ‘Money, Sir: I am so short in cash, that I am not 
able to pay my workmen, and your majesty and I have learned by 
experience that pedlars and painters cannot give credit long.” The 
king smiled, and said that he had but lately ordered him 1000/. * Yes, 
Sir,’ replied he, ‘but that was soon paid away, and I have no gold 
left.’ ‘ At that rate,’ said the king, ‘you would spend more than I do 
to maintain my family.’ ‘True,’ answered Verrio, ‘but does your 
majesty keep an open table, as I do ?’” : 

After the accession of James II. Verrio was again employed at 
Windsor in ‘ Wolsey’s Tomb-house,’ then destined for a Roman 
Catholic chapel. He also painted James and several of his courtiers 
in the hospital of Christchurch, London: he painted likewise at 
Bartholemew’s hospital. 

After the Revolution he gave up his place of master-gardener, and 
refused to paint for William III. He executed however at this time 
the extensive works for Lord Exeter at Burleigh-house, which are 
considered Verrio’s best productions, and they are among the best 
specimens of the prevailing style of that age. For these paintin 
alone, says Dr Waagen, Verrio was paid more money than Raffaelle 
or Michel Angelo received for all their immortal works. He was 
occupied over them about twelve years, with a salary of 1500/. a year, 
besides his keep, and an equipage at his disposal. He painted also 
at Chatsworth and at Lowther-hall. Walpole says that the altar- 
piece of the Incredulity of St. Thomas, in the chapel at Chatsworth, 
is the best piece he ever saw by Verrio: it is a very bad one. Verrio 
was eventually persuaded by Lord Exeter to serve William IIL, and 
he was sent to Hampton Court, where, besides other things, he 
painted the great staircase so badly, that it has been supposed that 
he did it so designedly: but that is very improbable. Towards the 
end of his life he began to lose his sight, and Queen Anne granted 
him a pension of 200/. a year, but he did not enjoy it long: he died 
at Hampton Court in 1707. The statement of Dominici that he was 
drowned in Languedoc is evidently an error. 

Walpole has described Verrio’s style with great piquancy, but with 
as much truth; he says he was “an excellent painter for the sort of 
subjects on which he was employed, that is, without much invention, 
and with less taste: his exuberant pencil was ready at pouring out 
gods, goddesses, kings, emperors, and triumphs, over those public 
surfaces on which the eye never rests long enough to criticise, and 
where one should be sorry to place the works of a better master—I 
mean ceilings and staircases. The New Testament or the Roman 
History cost him nothing but ultramarine ; that, and marble columns, 
and marble steps, he never spared.” 

Scheffers of Utrecht worked twenty-five years for Verrio, and he 
employed a painter of the name of Lanscron seven or eight years at 
Windsor. 

VE’RRIUS FLACCUS, a Roman grammarian of the time of 
Augustus. He was a freedman, but distinguished himself so much 
by his learning and his method of teaching, that Augustus appointed 
him instructor to his two grandsons Caius and Lucius, the sons of 
Agrippa, and transferred him with his whole school to the Palatium, 
on condition however that he should not admit any additional pupils 
to the number he had already. He had an annual salary of one 
hundred sestertia. He died in the reign of Tiberius at an advanced 
age. At Preneste a statue was erected to him in the lower part of the 
forum, opposite the Hemicyclium, which contained on large marble 
plates the Fasti, which Verrius Flaccus had drawn up for the Pra- 
nestines. ‘ (Sucton., ‘ De Illustr. Grammat.,’ 17.) These Fasti are the 
so-called Fasti Preenestini, of which considerable fragments were 
discovered in 1770, and published by P. F. Foggini, under the title 
‘Fastoram anni Romani & Verrio Flacco ordinatorum reliquie, ex 
marmorearum Tabularum Fragmentis Preeneste nuper effosis collect 
et illustrate,’ &¢., Rome, 1779, fol. They are also printed in F. A. 
Wolf’s edition of Suetonius, vol. iv., p. 321, &¢., and in Orelli’s ‘Col- 
lection of Roman Inscriptions’ (c. xxii, vol. ii, p. 379, &c.). Before 
the discovery of these Fasti, which are of the highest value, some 


. 
; 
4 
: 
{ 
‘ 
d 
_ 


eee Re 


~ heavy florins). 


329 VERROCCHIO, ANDREA. DEL. 


VERTOT, RENE AUBERT DE. 330 


scholars believed that the Fasti Capitolini, which were discovered in 
1547, were the Fasti of Verrius Flaccus, referred to by Suetonius ; 
but this opinion is now shown to be untenable. Flaccus was also the 
author of several other antiquarian and grammatical works, which 
were very highly valued for the vast quantity of information they 
contained, as well as for the purity of their style: 1, ‘ Libri Rerum 
Memoria Dignarum, in which among other things he treated on 
Etruscan antiquities. It is frequently referred to by Pliny (Gellius, 
iv. 5); 2. ‘De Verborum Significatione,’ consisting of at least twenty- 
four books. It gave explanations of words in alphabetical order; 
and besides its philological value, it seems to have been an inexhaust- 
ible treasure of antiquarian knowledge. An abridgment of this work 
was made by the grammarian 8, Pomponius Festus, and this was 


. again abridged in the time of Charlemagne, in such a manner that 


the original character of the work was altogether destroyed. These 
wretched abridgments have, as in many other instances, caused the 
loss of the original work. (K. O. Miiller, ‘ Peefatio ad Festum,’ p. 
12, &e.) 3. ‘Saturnus’ (Macrob., ‘Sat.,’ i. 4 and 8) was, according to 
Miiller’s conjecture, only a part of a greater work, ‘De Rebus Sacris;’ 
4, ‘De Orthographia,’ which was attacked by Scribonius Aphrodisius 
(Sueton., ‘De Illustr. Grammat.,’ 18); 5. ‘De Obscuris Catonis, a 
linguistic work, in which he explained the antique words and phrases 
of Cato, which had become unintelligible (Gellius, xvii. 6); 6. ‘ Epi- 
stole ;’ and, 7. Poems. We still possess numerous fragments of the 
works of Verrius Flaccus, independent of the ‘ Fasti Preenestini’ and 
the abridgment of his ‘De Verborum Significatione. They are 
collected in the work of Foggini above referred to; in Dacier’s edition 
of Festus (i, pp. 14-27, ed. London, 1826); in E. Egger’s ‘ Scriptorum 
Latinorum nova Collectio, vol. ii.; and in Lindemann’s edition of 
Festus, pp. 298, 299. 

VERRO'CCHIO, ANDRE’A DEL, a celebrated Italian painter, 
sculptor, goldsmith, and architect of the fifteenth century, was born 
at Florence in 1432, Vasari says he had little genius, but was the 
most laborious man of his time: he was, according to Baldinucci, a 
scholar of Donatello. He first distingished himself as a goldsmith, 
both at Florence and at Rome; he then devoted himself solely to 
sculpture in bronze and in marble. His first marble work was a 
monument in the Minerva at Rome, to the wife of Francesco Torna- 
buoni; it is nowin the Florentine gallery. The expression of the 
figures is good, but the execution is very imperfect. His next work 
was a colossal bronze figure of David, now also in the Florentine 
gallery. He executed several other works in metal, by which he 
acquired a great reputation: the principal of them were the monu- 
ment in San Lorenzo, of Giovanni and Pietro, the sons of Cosmo de’ 
Medici; and the Incredulity of St. Thomas, in the church of Or San 
Michele, at Florence, finished in 1483; it is a colossal group of two 
figures, weighing 3981 pounds, and for which, according to Baldinucci, 
he was paid 476 gold florins (Manni, in a note to Baldinucci, says 800 
In this work, says Vasari, Verrocchio left nothing to 
be wished for; and having attained perfection in sculpture, he began 
to turn his attention to painting. Some modern critics have differed 
from Vasari with regard to its great excellence. Van Rumohr speaks 
of the Winged Boy with a Dolphin, of the fountain of the first court 
of the Palazzo Vecchio, also by Verrocchio, as a very superior work: 
it is praised likewise by Vasari. 

Vasari mentions many designs and cartoons by Verrocchio, some of 
which were copied and imitated by Lionardo da Vinci. Nothing is 
known of these designs at present; it has been conjectured that 
many of them now pass as the works of Lionardo. Verrocchio 
painted very few pictures; he gave up painting upon. finding himself 
surpassed by his scholar Lionardo da Vinci, whom he had ordered to 
paint the figure of an angel in one of his works. [Vincr, Lionarpo 
pA.| The fame of Verrochio reached Venice, and he was called to 
that place to cast an equestrian statue of Bartolemeo Colleoni, the 
celebrated general; but when he had just finished the model of the 
horse, he was told that Vellano of Padua was to make the figure of 
the general, with which he was so much offended that he immediately 
broke the head and feet of his horse, and left Venice without giving 
the slightest intimation of his determination to his employers. This 
so exasperated the signory of Venice in their turn, that they wrote 
to Verrocchio, and told him that he had better not return to Venice 
if he valued his head; to which Verrocchio answered, that he would 
be mindful of their admonition, for they were as little capable of 
restoring him his head as they were of finding another head sufliciently 
beautiful for his horse. This answer pleased them greatly ; and they 
now earnestly solicited Verrocchio to return, promising him twice the 
remuneration formerly agreed to. Verrocchio returned and cast his 
model, but he caught cold in the casting, and died a few days after- 
wards, before the statue was quite completed. This work was finished 
by Alessandro Leopardi, who cast the pedestal, and fixed it in its 
place in the Piazza di Santi Giovanni e Paolo, in the year 1495, and 
it stands there still. Cicognara, who has given an outline of this 
monument in his ‘ Storia della Scultura,’ supposes that Leopardi recast 
the statue itself, but he gives a very insufficient reason for this 
opinion. Verrocchio’s remains were taken by his favourite scholar 
Lorenzo di Credi to Florence, and were deposited in the vault of 
Michele di Cione, in the church of Sant’ Ambrogio. Over the vault 
is the following inscription: —‘§. Michaelis de Cionis et Suorum 


et Andre Verrocchi, filii Dominici Michaelis, qui obiit Venetiis 
-M.cOOc.Lxxxvil.’ The §. signifies Sepulchrum., 

Verrocchio had many scholars, of whom the following were the most 
distinguished :—Lionardo da Vinci and Pietro Perugino, painters, and 
Lorenzo di Credi, Nanni Grosso, and Francesco di Simone, sculptors. 

Bottari says that Verrocchio was one of the first who made plaster 
casts from living and dead subjects; but not the first, as Vasari states. 
This art was practised likewise by the ancient artists of Greece: it was 
invented by Lysistratus, the brother of Lysippus, in the time of Alex- 
ander the Great. (Pliny, ‘ Hist. Nat.,’ xxxv. 12, 44.) Verrocchio also 
assisted Orsino in his wax figures; they made together three figures of 
Lorenzo de’ Medici, after the conspiracy of the Pazzi in 1478, which, 
says Vasari, appeared to be living men: they were differently dressed ; 
one, which was placed in the church of the Monarche di Chiarito, was 
clothed in the dress which Lorenzo wore when he was wounded by. the 
conspirators, These figures are all now lost. 

Verrocchio cast the first copper ball which supported the cross at 
the cathedral of Florence ; it was thrown down by lightning, and the 
present ball, which is somewhat larger than Verrocchio’s, was put up 
in its place. That of Verrocchio was four ells in diameter, and weighed 
4368 pounds. This celebrated artist, with his other accomplishments, 
combined a good knowledge of geometry and great practical skill in 
music. 

VERSTEGAN, RICHARD, was the grandson of Theodore Rowland 
Verstegan, the descendant of a family of ancient respectability in 
Guelderland, who came over to this country a young man towards the 
end of the reign of Henry VII., and dying soon after he had married 
an Englishwoman, left a child not more than nine months old, whom 
his mother, when he grew up, bound apprentice to a cooper. Verste- 
gan the cooper, who, when he became his own master, carried on his 
trade in the parish of St. Catherine, London, appears to have been in 
good circumstances:. Richard was his son, and after having been 
instructed in the classics at school, was sent by him to the University 
of Oxford, where he soon came to distinguish himself, especially by 
his proficiency in Saxon literature and the knowledge of the national 
antiquities, studies then much in vogue. He left the University how- 
ever without taking a degree, objecting, it seems, to the oaths; and 
soon after, openly delaring himself a Roman Catholic, he left England 
and took up his residence at Antwerp. Here he published his first 
work, a thin quarto, now of great rarity, entitled ‘ Theatrum Crudeli- 
tatum Hereticorum nostri Temporis.’ It is a violent attack upon 
Queen Elizabeth and her government, especially in reference to the 
executions of Jesuits and other Popish recusants; but it is chiefly 
curious for a number of copper-plate engravings it contains, repre- 
senting the hanging, beheading, and quartering of these martyrs, as 
they are styled, after drawings made by the author. This appears to 
have been before 1585, although the only edition of the book that is 
now known is dated 1592; for in 1585 Verstegan is stated to have 
gone to Paris, and to have been there thrown into prison by order of 
the king, Henri IIL, on the English ambassador’s representation of 
the abusive nature of the work. However he was not long detained 
in custody; and upon his release he returned to Antwerp, where he 
set up as a printer, and is said to have prospered in that business, and 
soon acquired the means of living in good style. In 1605 appeared at 
Antwerp the first edition, in small quarto, of his best-known work, 
entitled ‘A Restitution of Decayed Intelligence concerning the most 
noble and renowned English Nation.’ This performance, which is 
adorned, like his other book, with engravings from drawings by the 
author, and which was reprinted at London in 4to, in 1634, and in 8vo 
in 1653 and 1674, contains a few curious facts and remarks; but it 
had been nearly superseded before it came from the press by Camden’s 
‘ Britannia,’ the first edition of which appeared in the preceding year. 
It is now considered as of hardly any authority. Verstegan is also 
supposed to be the author of ‘ Odes in imitation of the Seven Peniten- 
tial Psalms,’ professing to be by R. V., and some other tracts in English 
with the same initials, printed abroad in the first years of the 17th 
century, of which a list is given in Wood’s ‘ Athenze Oxonienses.’ He 
married some years before his death, which is believed to have taken 
place about 1635. Sir Egerton Brydges has given a short account of 
the rare volume of ‘Odes’ attributed to Verstegan in his ‘ Censura 
Literaria,’ ii. 95-97 (1st edition). 

VERTOT, RENE AUBERT DE, was the second son of a poor 
Norman gentleman, who claimed kindred with every family of distinc- 
tion in his province. René was born on the 25th of November 1655, 
He studied in the Jesuits’ College at Rouen. He was characterised 
from childhood by an earnest spirit of piety. Towards the close of 
the second year of his collegiate studies he disappeared, and although 
an active search was immediately instituted, it was not till after the 
lapse of six months that he was discovered in the Capuchin convent at 
Argentan. All efforts to divert him from his intention of joining that 
order were fruitless; he took the vows, and adopted the conventual 
name of Brother Zachary. The rigour of the order undermined a 
constitution naturally delicate; he was obliged to visit his family for 
the restoration of his health. The opinions of medical men and of the 
doctors of the Sorbonne persuaded him, with some difficulty, to join a 
less ascetic order; and the pope's dispensation having been obtained, 
he entered in his twenty-second year the Premonstrant Abbey at 
Valsery, 


331 VERTOT, RENE AUBERT DE. 


VERTUE, GEORGE. 332 


The Abbé Colbert was at this time general of the Premonstratensian 
order. Hearing a favourable account of the talents and acquirements 
of young Vertot, he appointed him his secretary. Soon after he pre- 
sented him with the priory of Joyeueral. By the canon law, any regu- 
lar priest who had obtained a licence to quit one order and join another 
was declared incapable of holding any charge or dignity in his new 
fraternity. The order opposed the promotion of Vertot on this ground. 
The appointment was confirmed by a papal bull: still the monks were 
refractory. A royal injunction was obtained to corroborate the decree 
of the pope, but at this stage of the business Vertot withdrew his claim. 
Probably he anticipated little comfort in an abbey where the inmates 
had so stoutly opposed his admission. He applied for the cure of 
Croissy-la-Carenne, near Marly, the presentation to which belonged to 
the order; and retiring to it, devoted himself to the discharge of his 
spiritual duties and literary pursuits. 

Hitherto Vertot’s name had been unknown beyond the circle of his 
private friends and his ecclesiastical brethren. At the instigation, it 
is said, of Fontenelle, St. Pierre, and other friends, he undertook his- 
torical compositions. His first publication was his ‘ Histoire de la 
Conjuration de Portugal,’ which was published in 1689. The recent 
revolution in England rendered the title attractive; the work became 
fashionable ; and judges, such as Madame de Sevigné and Pére Bou- 
hours, expressed highly favourable opinions of the work. Vertot 
might have become a lion in the circles of Paris; but although in the 
immediate vicinity of the city, he stood aloof. His chief desire was to 
return to his native province, With this view he asked and obtained 
a cure in the Pays de Caux. Not long after he was transferred to a 
richer living near Rouen, which, not being dependent on his order, in 
a great measure released him from their control. 

Increase of wealth seemed but to increase his industry. Seven years 
after the publication of his first work he gave to the world his ‘ Histoire 
des Révolutions de Suéde.’ This work has more of personal adventure 
and interest than the former, and its success was proportionably 
greater. Five editions followed each other in rapid succession. The 
work was translated into several languages. The Swedish envoy at 
the court of France was instructed to engage Vertot to compose a 
general history of Sweden—an overture which led to nothing. 

In 1701 the king re-organised the Academy of Inscriptions and 
Belles-Lettres, Vertot was nominated Académicien Associé. The 
appointment was embarrassing. He could not afford to relinquish his 
cure and reside in Paris, and by the new regulations the Academicians 
were required to be resident. The strict rule was relaxed in his favour, 
and he did not take his seat in the Academy till 1703, when he had 
been long enough a resident clergyman to entitle him to a retiring 
pension. His arrival in Paris was the close of a retired life, which 
however had been marked by stormy passages. The wits among his 
acquaintances said, “ Here ends the revolutions of the Abbé de Vertot.” 

In 1705 he was appointed Académicien Pensionnaire. From this 


date his contributions to the ‘ Annals’ and ‘ Memoirs’ of the Academy . 


are frequent. They turn chiefly upon historical topics, A discussion 
in which he was engaged in the Academy led to his next publication. 
The assertion of the ancient independence of their province by the 
Bretons appeared to Vertot, as salaried Academician, in the light of a 
rebellion against the royal authority. He undertook to disprove their 
claims. The arguments swelled to such a bulk that in 1710 he pub- 
lished them in a separate volume entitled ‘ Traité de la Mouvance de 
Bretagne.’ The continuance of the controversy ultimately extended 
this essay into his ‘Histoire complete de I’Rtablissement des Bretons 
dans les Gaules.’ 

These occupations did not divert Vertot from his favourite topic— 
the revolutions of the Roman republic. This work is no result of a 
philosophical and critical examination of the Roman authorities. Its 
merit is simply artistical—the elegant and agreeable narrative of state- 
ments taken for granted at the hands of the classical authors. It was 
Vertot’s favourite work : he was accustomed to read fragments of it 
as he advanced, at the meetings of the Academy, and was known to 
burst into tears at his own pathos. This history, which appeared in 
1719, was still more favourably received than its predecessors. 

The reputation of Vertot induced the Order of Malta to invite him 
to become its historian. He complied with the request, and published 
in 1726 his ‘ Histoire des Chevaliers Hospitaliers de St. Jean de Jeru- 
salem, appelés depuis les Chevaliers de Rhodes, et aujourd’hui les 
Chevaliers de Malte. Vertot was advanced in years when he under- 
took this work, and he did not sympathise with the heroes and exploits 
of the middle ages as with those of the classic ages of Rome. The 
* History of Malta’ is inferior in point of finish and picturesque energy 
to his earlier writings, but infinitely more valuable on account of its 
originality. His access to authentic information rendered it valuable, 
and might have done so to a greater extent had he possessed more the 
spirit of an historian and less that of a mere narrator. 

Besides the works already mentioned and his contributions to the 
‘Memoirs’ of the Academy, two works by Vertot have been published : 
the first, an account of the negociations of the brothers De Noailles in 
1755-57, in England, compiled from documents placed in his hand by 
the family. The author of the notice of Vertot in the ‘ Biographie 
Universelle’ speaks of this work as unpublished : this is a strange 
oversight in an otherwise able article; the book was deposited in the 
archives of the Noailles family, and published, after the author’s death, 


in four volumes 12mo, at Leyden, in 1763. Two tracts, one on the 
‘ Origin of the Papal Sovereignty,’ the other on the ‘ Election of Bishops 
and Abbots,’ were published twenty years after his death. Their 
authenticity has never been questioned, They appear to have been 
compiled at the request of a minister, on the occasion of some quarrel 
with the court of Rome. 
Vertot died in the Palais Royal on the 15th of June, 1735. His 
works are more valued for their style—for a certain power of dramatic 
portraiture—than for any other recommendation, with the exception 
of the ‘ History of Malta’ and the ‘ Account of the Negociations of the 
two De Noailles,’ which contain materials for history not to be found 
elsewhere. The excessive enthusiasm of his youth appears to have 
sobered down into a tempered habitual piety. He was a zealous 
royalist, The controversy respecting the ancient history of Bretagne 
was carried on by him less as an antiquarian than a political discussion. 
He went so far in his zeal as to denounce Freret to the government 
for some opinions expressed in that author's ‘ Origine des Frangais.’ 
In his private conduct Vertot was irreproachable; the only trace of 
passion in his life was the ardent platonic attachment he conceived for 
Mademoiselle de Launay (better known as Madame de Stael) in his 
sixtieth year. There was a vein of effeminacy both in the intellect and 
character of Vertot; yet it is impossible not to respect him, 
VERTUE, GEORGE. This celebrated English engraver and anti- 
quary was born in London in 1684, of parents more honest than 
opulent; yet, “if vanity had entered into his composition,” says 
Walpole, “he might have boasted the antiquity of his race. Two of 
his name were employed by Henry VIII. in the Board of Works; but 
I forget—a family is not ancient if none of the blood were above the 
rank of ingenious men two hundred years ago.” At about the age of 
thirteen Vertue was placed with a Frenchman, who was the principal 
engraver of arms in London at that time; but being of extravagant 


habits he “broke,” and returned to his own country three or four 


years after Vertue was bound to him. Vertue, in his memoir, has 
concealed his name; Walpole questions whether Scaliger would have 
been so tender. After this he spent two years at home, which he 
devoted to the study of drawing; he then engaged himself for three 
years with the engraver Michael Vandergucht, which term he pro- 
tracted to seven; and in 1709 he set up for himself. He was intro- 


duced to Sir Godfrey Kneller; an acquaintance which proved of great — 


service to him shortly afterwards, upon the death of his father, when 
the support of his mother and brothers and sisters devolved entirely 
upon him. The patronage of Sir Godfrey procured him much 
employment, and in a very short time his own merit procured him 
much more. Lord Somers commissioned him to engrave a portrait of 
Archbishop Tillotson, and this print, for which he was richly rewarded, 
was the foundation of his future fortune. Walpole says nothing like 
this print had appeared for some years, and Vertue stood without a 
competitor in any country. Edelinck of France, White of England, 
and Van Gunst of Holland, were dead. 

In his leisure hours Vertue practised drawing and music, and 


studied French and Italian, and later he acquired also Dutch. In ~ 


1711 an Academy of Painting was instituted in London, of which Sir 
Godfrey Kneller was placed at the head, and Vertue was one of its 
first members: he drew a little in water-colours, and painted a few 
portraits; but his productions in this style consisted chiefly of copies 
of old or interesting works which he intended to engrave. 

During the reign of Anne, Vertue was chiefly employed over 
portraits after Kneller, Dahl, Richardson, Jervase, Gibson, and others ; 
and at the accession of George I, he engraved a large head of the king 
after Kneller, of which several thousands were sold, and which brought 
him a great increase of business, though by no means a very excellent 
performance. He commenced early in this reign to make his researches 
for his ‘History of the Arts in England.’ In this undertaking he 
found two valuable patrons in Robert Harley, second earl of Oxford, 
and Heneage Finch, earl of Winchelsea; the latter, who was president 
of the Society of Antiquaries in 1717, appointed Vertue, who was a 
member, to be its engraver; and he executed nearly all the prints 
which were published by that society during the remainder of his 
life. Lord Coleraine was also one of his patrons; and Vertue made 
many journeys in various parts of England in furtherance of his 
researches in company with these noblemen, by whom his expenses 
were paid. Many other noblemen also encouraged him in a less 
degree, In 1728 he was invited by the Duke of Dorset to Knowle, 
where he copied several portraits of the poets, of which he published 
a set of twelve in 1730, namely, Gower, Chaucer, Spenser, Shakspere, 
Ben Jonson, Beaumont, Fletcher, Milton, Butler, Cowley, Waller, and 
Dryden, It is one of his best works, and was the first collection of 
illustrious heads published in England. His next work of this class 
was ten plates of the heads of Charles I. and the loyal sufferers in his 
cause, with their characters subjoined from Clarendon. These were 
followed by his portraits of the kings of England, &c., for the trans- 
lation of Rapin’s ‘History of England,’ published in numbers, in 
folio, of which, says Vertue, thousands were sold every week (pro- 
bably without the prints). Over these works he was occupied three 
years. In 1734 he renewed his journeys about England; he made a 
tour with Roger Gale the antiquary,; one in 1737 with Lord Oxford ; 
another with the same nobleman in 1738 ; and in 1739 one in the east 
of England with Lord Coleraine, 


Coa, 


7 
oY 


i) 
AT 


——* I, 


z 
“= 
i 


883 VERUS, LUCIUS. 


VESALIUS, ANDREAS. 334 


In 1737 he was employed by the Knaptons, the publishers of the 
translation of Rapin, to engrave some of their series of illustrious 
heads, the greater part of which were engraved by Houbraken. The 
portraits of Houbraken are very superior to those by Vertue; yet, 
says Walpole, his by no means deserved to be condemned, as they were, 
and himself set aside. Vertue’s fault was his scrupulous veracity, 
which could not digest imaginary portraits, as are some of those 
engraved by Houbraken, who, living in Holland, engraved whatever 
was sent to him. The heads of Carr, Earl of Somerset, and secretary 
Thurloe, by Houbraken, are not only not genuine, but do not in the 
least resemble the persons they are meant to represent, says Walpole. 


“ Vertue was incommode; he loved truth.” 


In 1740 he published proposals for the commencement of a series 
of historic prints, of which he published only two numbers, containing 
each four prints with explanations. In the first number there is a 
print of Queen Elizabeth's procession to Hunsdon House ; the original 


‘picture, of which Vertue made an exact copy in water-colours for 


rd Oxford, was, in Walpole’s time, at Sherborne Castle, Dorsetshire. 
In 1741 he lost his patron the Earl of Oxford, which so depressed 
him, that “for two years,” says Walpole, “there is an hiatus in his 
story.” In 1743 however he was a little revived by the notice of the 
Duke of Norfolk, for whom he engraved the large plate of the Earl 
of Arundel and his family, and performed other services. Butin 1749 
he found a more valuable patron in the then Prince of Wales, whose 
taste coincided with his own, and whose patronage was all he could 
desire. ‘ He saw his fate,” says Walpole, “linked with the revival of 
the arts he loved; he was useful to a prince who trod in the steps of 
the accomplished Charles—but a silent and unexpected foe drew a 
veil over this scene of comfort.” The prince died in March 1751: 
Vertue, after speaking of his character and accomplishments, alludes 
to his death in the following words :—“ But alas, Mors ultima linea 
rerum! O God, thy will be done! Unhappy day, Wednesday, March 
20th, 1751!” 

“Vertue lost his friends,” says the same writer, “but his picty, 
mildness, and ingenuity never forsook him.” He worked almost to 
the last, anxious to leave a competent support to his wife, with whom 
he had lived many years in happiness. He died on the 24th of July 
1756, and was survived by his wife nearly twenty years. He was 
buried in the cloisters of Westminster Abbey. His collection of books, 
prints, and drawings was sold by auction in 1757: Walpole purchased 
several of his drawings. 

Vertue was a strict Roman Catholic; yet he has preserved more 
monuments of the reign of Queen Elizabeth than of any other, but 
that of Charles I. was his favourite period. Walpole describes him as 
“simple, modest, and scrupulous—so scrupulous that it gave a peculiar 
slowness to his delivery; he never uttered his opinion hastily, nor 
hastily assented to that of others. Ambitious to distinguish himself, 
he took but one method—application. Acquainted with all the arts 
practised by his profession to usher their productions to the public, he 
made use of none.” 

Walpole’s well-known work, entitled ‘Anedotes of Painting in 
England,’ was written entirely from manuscripts which he bought of 
Vertue’s widow, although he recurred to the original sources when 
Vertue drew his information from books, Vertue commenced his 
compilations in 1718, and they amounted in the whole to nearly forty 


’ volumes large and small. He visited and made catalogues of every 


collection, attended sales, copied all papers he found relative to the 
arts, searched registers, examined all English authors, and translated 
many of other countries which related to his subject. And Walpole 
observes in his preface :—‘ One satisfaction the reader will have, in 
the integrity of Mr. Vertue ; it exceeded his industry, which is saying 
much. No man living, so bigoted to a vocation, was ever so incapa- 
ble of falsehood. He did not deal even in hypothesis, scarce in 
conjecture.” 

The prints of Vertue are very numerous: Walpole has given a 
complete list of them in his ‘Catalogue of Engravers.’ He has divided 
them into eighteen classes, as follows: royal portraits; noblemen ; 
ladies; bishops and archbishops, of whom he engraved thirty-eight ; 
clergymen; chancellors, judges, and lawyers; ministers and gentle- 
men ; physicians, &c. ; founders, benefactors, &c. ; antiquaries, authors, 
and mathematicians ; poets and musicians ; foreigners; historic prints, 
and prints with two or more portraits ; tombs ; plans, views, churches, 
buildings, &c.; coins, medals, busts, seals, charters, gems, and shells ; 
frontispieces, head- and tail-pieces; and, lastly, miscellaneous pieces; 
besides many plates for the Society of Antiquaries, and a series of 
Oxford almanacs. 

(Walpole, A Catalogue of Engravers who have been born or resided in 
et aay &c., constituting a fifth volume to the Anecdotes of Paint- 
ing, &e. 

VERUS, LU’CIUS, a Roman emperor who reigned as the colleague 
of Marcus Aurelius, from A.D. 161 to 169. He was born at Rome, 
and was a son of Alius Verus, who had been adopted by the 
emperor Hadrian and raised to the rank of Ceasar. After the death of 
flius Verus, in a.D. 138, Hadrian adopted TT’. Aurelius (Antoninus 
Pius), on condition that he should adopt Marcus Verus (Marcus 
Aurelius), the son of Annia Faustina, and Lucius Verus, the son of 
#ilius Verus. After the death of Antoninus Pius, in A.D. 161, Marcus 
Aurelius, who succeeded him, and was of a weakly constitution, volun- 


tarily shared his imperial dignity with his adoptive brother L. Verus, 
who was then about thirty-two years old, and whose complete name is 
Lucius Ceianus Atlius Commodus Verus Antoninus. Up to this time 
L. Verus had lived as a prince in a private station, with the title of 
‘Augusti filius’ and without either the honours or burdens of 
government. He had been educated by the most distinguished gram- 
marians and philosophers of the time, but he had no taste for in- 
tellectual occupations. So long as he remained at Rome and was 
under the direct influence of M. Aurelius, his vicious character did not 
fully disclose itself. Soon after his accession the Parthians had cut to 
pieces a Roman legion stationed in Cappadocia, with its leader Servi- 
lianus. L. Verus took the field against them, in a.p. 162, but instead 
of conducting the war in person, he left it to his generals, who gained 
brilliant victories, while the emperor revelled in the luxuries and 
debaucheries with which he became familiar in the towns of Asia, 
especially at Antioch. In a.D, 164 he went to Ephesus, where he 
celebrated his marriage with Lucilla, the daughter of his adoptive 
father, or, according to others, of his adoptive brother. After the 
close of the war he returned to Rome, accompanied by hosts of 
actors, freedmen, and other low persons who ministered to his vulgar 
pleasures, and in a.D, 166 he and Marcus Aurelius solemnised a 
triumph over the Parthians. Soon after this Rome was visited by a 
fearful pestilence, and at the same time the Marcomanni and Quadi 
invaded the empire from the north. Both the emperors at the head 
of their armies marched to Aquileia. Verus again took scarcely any 
part in the war, but as usual gave himself up to his pleasures. At last 
when hostilities had ceased, the two emperors returned to Rome. On 
his way thither L. Verus was seized by a fit of apoplexy at Altinum in 
the neighbourhood of Venice, where he died a.p. 169, in the forty- 
second year of his age, 

A long catalogue of his vices is given by Julius Capitolinus in his 
‘Life of Verus.’ Indeed Verus was one of the most contemptible 
persons that have disgraced regal power. The only thing that can be 
said in his praise is, that he did not oppose his adoptive brother in his 
administration, and that he did not, like most effeminate and licentious 
rulers, aggravate his vices by acts of cruelty. The good understanding 
between him and the noble Marcus Aurelius is almost unaccountable ; 
but it appears to have been considerably diminished after the Parthian 
war, There is a marble bust of Lucius Verus in the Townley Gallery 
of the British Museum. [AvuRreEtius, Marcos.] 

VESA’LIUS, AN’DREAS, the greatest anatomist of the 16th cen- 
tury, was born at Brussels in 1514. His father, Andreas Vesalius the 
elder, was apothecary to the Emperor Maximilian; and his uncle 
Everardus was a physician, and the author of some commentaries on 
the works of Rhazes. He received from an early age his classical 
and philosophical education at Louvain, and gained a degree of know- 
ledge in physics which was unusual even with the best educated of 
the time. From Louvain he proceeded, to study medicine, to Mont- 
pellier, and thence to Paris, where he had for instructors Guntherus 
ab Andernach, Sylvius, and Fernelius. In 1526, distinguished already 
by extraordinary zeal in the pursuit of anatomy, and exposing him- 
self even to great personal danger in the obtaining of bodies for dis- 
section, Guntherus made him his chief assistant; and in the same 
year he discovered the origins of the spermatic blood-vessels. After 
a long residence in Paris, he returned to Louvain, where he was soon 
appointed to teach anatomy; but in 1535,in order that he might 
obtain better opportunities for learning it himself, he joined the army 
of the emperor of Germany, who was then at war with France, In 
1538 he was at Bologna, and in 1539 at Pavia, where in the following 
year he was appointed professor of anatomy, having not long before 
published his celebrated ‘Epistola docens yenam axillarem dextri 
cubiti in dolore laterali secundam,’ Basel, 4to, 1539, in which he gave 
an improved though imperfect anatomy of the vena azygos, and main- 
tained that blood should always be drawn from the right arm, because 
of the near connection between its vessels and that vein. Vesalius 
remained professor at Pavia for nearly four years; in 1543 he held 
the same office at Bologna; and not long afterwards he was appointed 
professor of anatomy, with an annual stipend of 800 crowns, at Pisa. 
His knowledge at this time is said tohave been so unusual, that the 
best anatomists of the day left his demonstrations silenced. He had 
in 1539 published some anatomical plates; and for the four succeeding 
years he gave a great portion of his time to the preparation of a com- 
plete work of the same kind, employing as his assistants some of the 
most skilful artists of the day. Mochsen says that Titian was among 
those whom he employed, but this is not certain; for the name of 
that great artist is not mentioned in Vesalius’s works, and yet is not 
likely to have been willingly suppressed. In 1542 a part of the work 
was published, with the title ‘Suorum librorum de Corporis Humani 
fabrica Epitome,’ Basel, folio; and in 1543 the whole appeared. It 
was called ‘De Corporis Humani Fabrica Libri Septem,’ Basel, folio, 
1543. Another and somewhat enlarged edition was published by 
Vesalius at Basel, folio, 1555; and, after his death, numerous editions 
appeared at various times and places. Haller calls it ‘an immortal 
work, by which all that had been written before was almost super- 
seded.’ Senac speaks of it as the discovery of a new world; and 
eens nothing has been written, either before or since which has 

ad so great on influence on the progress of anatomy. The boldness 
with which Vesalius attacked the accepted and long-reverenced 


VESALIUS, ANDREAS, 


335 


VESPASIANUS, TITUS FLAVIUS. 326 


opinions and statements of Galen and the other ancient writers ; the 
completeness of the evidence with which he supported his own de- 
scriptions and arguments; the number of discoveries of structures 
which he announced, and the more accurate accounts which he gave of 
nearly all that had before been known; the extent of the work, and the 
number-and unusual excellence of the plates, were enough to mark 
the commencement of a new era in the science of medicine. 

But instead of the honour which Vesalius has received, and while 
anatomy is studied will never fail to receive from his successors, his 
contemporaries, or at least the most distinguished of them, heaped on 
him the most virulent reproaches; for the authority of Galen in the 
schools was at that time supreme, and to question was to destroy the 
credit of all the learning to which the teachers pretended. Sylvius 
said that Vesalius ought henceforth to be called ‘ Vesanus, and 
declared perpetual hostility against him, Piccolomini more craftily 
mantained that all the truth Vesalius had written was taken from the 
Galen and Hippocrates whom he calumniated ; and Driander, Putzeus, 
Eustachius, and Fallopius, though with less virulence, each in his way 
assailed him. Their attacks appear to have greatly irritated Vesalius, 
who seems to have been disposed to resist the authority of the 
ancients, not less by his temper than by his conviction that they had 
often been in error. In 1546 he wrote ‘De radicis Chinz usu Epistola,’ 
Basel, folio 1546 ; a work in which he attacked Galen with much more 
virulence than before, but which he rendered of great interest by 
proving, by numerous examples, that Galen’s descriptions must have 
been drawn from the dissections of monkeys and other animals, and 
very often from the works of his predecessors without any dissections 
at all. 

In spite of the opposition of his contemporaries, the fame of Vesa- 
lius, both for skill in practice and for learning in the science of medi- 
cine, greatly increased after the publication of these works; and 
anatomy soon suffered much more from the honour than from the 
abuse which was lavished upon him. About 1544 the Emperor 
Charles V. appointed him his chief physician; and he was gradually 
obliged to be so constant in his attendance on the court of that prince, 
and afterwards of Philip II. of Spain, that anatomy was entirely 
neglected, except in the occasional opportunities which were afforded 
by the examination of the bcdies of those who died of strange 
diseases. In 1561, when he wrote his ‘Anatomicarum Gabrielis Fal- 
lopii Observationum Examen,’ which was published at Venice in 1564, 
he was at Madrid, where, he says, he could not even procure a skull 
to examine in order to settle some point on which he was in doubt; 
and both this.work and the ‘ Examen Apologic Fr. Putei pro Galeno,’ 
which was published, under a feigned name, at the same time and 
place, prove, Haller says, that since he left Pisa, in 1544, he had added 
scarcely anything to his anatomical knowledge. His knowledge of 
practical medicine and surgery however appears to have greatly 
increased ; and many wonderful stories are recorded of the skill with 
which he treated those about the court, 

In 1563, or the beginning of 1564, Vesalius left suddenly Madrid 
and the court, and went on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The circum- 
stances which led to this strange step are very doubtful. The story 
commonly received is, that having obtained leave from the friends of 
a Spanish gentleman, who had apparently died under his care, to 
examine the corpse,-he proceeded to the dissection, and the heart, on 
removing it from the body, quivered in his hand. The friends, hear- 
ing of this, accused him, not of murder only, but of impiety, before 
the Inquisition ; and it was only by the intercession of Philip II. that 
he was permitted to expiate his error by a pilgrimage. There is no 
other evidence for this tale than that it was current not long after 
Veealius’s death ; and, on the whole, it seems more probable that he 
left Spain in consequence of being mixed up in some of the political 
or court plots which were at that time very numerous, and of the 
results of which, as he was of a melancholy disposition, he might 
very well be in fear. Whatever led to his pilgrimage, its end was 
most disastrous. While he was at Jerusalem, in 1564, Fallopius died, 
and the Venetian senate invited him to the vacant professorship of 
anatomy. On his voyage to Padua, his vessel was wrecked on the isle 
of Zante, and there the great Vesalius died of starvation, according 
to the accounts of some, but as it seems more probable of the fatigue 
and exposure which he had suffered. 

Besides the works already mentioned, the only others that can cer- 
. tainly be ascribed to Vesalius are some ‘Consilia,’ published in the 
collections of Montanus, Garetius, Ingrassias, and Scholzius; and a 
paraphrase and translation of some of Rhazes’s works, The ‘ Chirur- 
gia Magna in septem Libros digesta,’ which Prosper Borgaruccius pub- 
lished at Venice, in 1568, and ascribed to Vesalius, was probably not 
written by him, but collected by the editor from the works of Fal- 
lopius and others. 

Vesalius left a half-brother Francis, who refused to study the law, 
for which his parents had destined him, and commenced the pursuit 
of anatomy, that he might defend the memory of his brother from 
the attacks which were made on it, not less virulently for some time 
after his death than they had been during his life. But an early death 
prevented his design. 

The whole of Vesalius’s works and his Life were edited by Boer- 
haave and Albinus, at Leyden, in 2 vols. folio, in 1725. Portal’s 
‘Histoire de Anatomie et de la Chirurgie,’ t. i. p. 394, and Haller’s 


‘Bibliotheca Anatomica,’ t. i, p. 180, contain, together with the Life 
of Vesalius, analyses of his chief works. 

VESPASIA/NUS, TITUS FLAVI’US, was born near Reate, in the 
Sabine country, on the 17th of November, a.D, 9. The Flavian gens 
had never obtained distinction, though some of its members were 


mentioned in the history of the later period of the republic and the 


commencement of the empire. (Sueton., ‘ Vesp,, i) Vespasian was 
educated by his paternal grandmother Tertulla, at her estate near 
Cosa in Etruria, and when emperor he displayed his affection for the 
place, and instituted rites in honour of his grandmother's memory. 
He served in Thrace as military tribune; and having held the magis- 
tracies of edile and quzstor, in the latter of which he had for his 
province Crete and Cyrenaica, he became pretor. He had great dif- 
ficulty in obtaining the edileship or the questorship (the uncertain 
of the text of Suetonius leaves it doubtful to which of the two magis- 
tracies this statement refers), but the pretorship was conferred on him 
at his first petition, probably through the influence of Caligula, who 
honoured him with a seat at his table. For this favour Vespasian 
thanked the emperor in the senate. He called for extraordinary games 
at Caligula’s mock triumph over the Germans, and proposed that the 
bodies of conspirators against the emperor should be left unburied. 
These statements fix his pretorship at the third year of Caligula, 
A.D. 89. 

At this time he married Flavia Domitilla, by whom he had two 
sons, who afterwards became the emperors Trrus and Domrtranus, and 
a daughter, Domitilla. 


Vespasian distinguished himself as a soldier in the reign of Claudius, — 


first in Germany, where he obtained the station of legatus, by the 
influence of Claudius’s freedman Narcissus (a.p. 41-42). Thence he 
was transferred to Britain (a.D. 43), where he served as legatus in the 
expedition under Aulus Plautius, and under Claudius himself, with 
such distinction that the triumphal honours were granted to him, and 


after receiving two priestly offices within a short time, he was advanced — 


to the consulship, which he held as Consul Suffectus during the last 
two months of the year a.p. 51. During the interval between this 
time and his proconsulship he remained quiet through fear of Agrip- 
pina, who was bitterly hostile to the friends of Narcissus. It was 
therefore probably after her murder (a.p. 59) that he governed Africa 
as proconsul. He returned, after an upright and honourable adminis- 
tration, in such pecuniary embarrassment that, after mortgaging all 


his landed property to his brother, he was compelled to trade in 


slaves in order to support his rank. From this circumstance he 
obtained the nickname of Mulio. He accompanied Nero in his tour 
through Greece (a.D. 67) ; but having offended the emperor by falling 
asleep or leaving the room in the midst of his poetical performances, 
he was banished from the court, and had retired to an obscure 
city, when Nero appointed him to command in: the war against the 
revolted Jews with an army of three legions. 
years he had conquered the whdle of Judea except Jerusalem, when 
he was persuaded by his son Titus, and by Mucianus, the pro-consul 
of Syria, to assert his claim to the imperial throne, which had been 
already marked as his by repeated omens. (Sueton., ‘Vesp.,’ v.) 
The interval during which Galba, Otho, and Vitellius were struggling 
for the purple was spent by Vespasian in secret preparations, so that 
when he was proclaimed emperor at Alexandria, by Tiberius Alexan- 
der, the prefect of Egypt, on the Ist of July, a.p. 69, his cause was 
immediately espoused by the legions of Judea and Syria, by three 
legions in Meesia, and by two in Pannonia, The legions of Masia 
and Pannonia were brought over by Antonius Primus, who, without 


waiting for the commands of Vespasian, or for the aid of the Syrian — 


legions, marched at once into Italy. The councils of Vitellius were 


betrayed by Cecina, the Consul Suffectus, and his army, though 


superior in numbers to that of Antonius, was completely routed by 
the latter in a nocturnal battle between Bedriacum and Cremona. 
Antonius now advanced slowly towards Rome, receiving by the way 
the submission of the Italian cities, while Vitellius, in a state of the 
utmost indecision, left his cause in the hands of the populace of 
Rome, who compelled Vespasian’s brother Sabinus, the prefect of the 
city, to take refuge with his adherents in the Capitol, which they then 
burnt. The arrival of Antonius at once subdued the mob; Vitellius 
was dragged from his hiding-place, and cruelly put to death on the 
24th of December, and the authority of Vespasian was established in 
Rome. [Vr1vreLwtus.] 

The emperor now proceeded to Rome, leaving the reduction of 
Jerusalem to his son Titus. He arrived in the city at the end of the 
summer of the year A.D. 70, the Senate having in the mean time 
appointed him, with his son Titus, to the consulship, and conferred 
upon him all the accustomed imperial honours, His government has 
obtained the highest praise. He restored the privileges of the Senate, 
reformed the courts of justice, restored discipline to the army and 
order to the finances. He repaired the devastations which Rome had 
suffered in the recent civil wars, and adorned the city with many 


new buildings. Among the buildings which he began or completed 


were the restoration of the Capitol, the temples of Peace and of 
Claudius, and, above all, the Amphitheatre, which has become cele- 
brated under the name of the Coliseum. 

Temperate in his own habits, he exerted himself to restrain luxury 
in his subjects, and himself discharged the duties of the censorship. 


In less than two — 


J alt 


337 VESPUCCI, AMERIGO. 


VICI, ANDREA. 338 


He was affable to his friends, and even suffered severe strictures on 

_ his conduct to pass unpunished, The banishment and death of Hel- 

vidius Priscus are said to have been executed against the will of the 

emperor. He was fond of money, but what he exacted from his 

subjects he spent on public works, not on his own pleasures. He was 
a liberal patron of literature and art. 

The reigu of Vespasian was signalised by great military successes, 

of which the most important were the victories of Petilius Cerealis 


_ over the Treviri (A.D. 70), those of Agricola in Britain, and the con- 


quest of Jerusalem, for which the emperor and his son Titus triumphed 
in the year 71, when the temple of Janus was shut, and that of Peace 
was built. In the following year the kingdom of Commagene was 
taken from Antiochus and added to the Roman empire. 

In the last year of his reign a conspiracy was formed against him 


' by Aulus Cecina and Epirus Marcellus, who were detected and put 


to death. Not long after this Vespasian died of a fever, June 23rd, 
A.D, 79, in the seventieth year of his age and the 10th of his reign. 
(Tacitus, Histor. ; Suetonius, Vespasian.) 
VESPUCCI, AMERI’GO, was born fifteen years later than Columbus, 
on the 9th of March 1451, at Florence. He was the third son of 
Anastasio Vespucci, a notary of Florence. The family had been 


-. enriched by commerce’ some generations earlier, and possessed landed 


property at Peretola near Florence. Giorgio Antonio Vespucci, uncle 
of Amerigo, a monk of the congregation of St. Mark, was a friend of 
the Platonician Ficini of Florence. Giorgio Antonio took charge of 
the education of his nephew, who appears however to have profited 
little by his classical studies, Bandini has published a Latin letter 
written by Amerigo to his father in 1476 (when the writer was 
twenty-five years of age), in which he confesses that he had been 
obliged to consult his Latin grammar while writing, and that he was 
afraid to venture on a few lines of Latin in his uncle’s absence, 

Amerigo resided at Florence in 1489. Before this time however 
mercantile avocations had led him to Spain. Documents published 
by Muiioz show that Amerigo was a factor in the wealthy Florentine 
house of Juanoto Bernardi, at Seville, in 1486. In 1493 we find him 
again in Spain, and anxious to quit the country. On the death of 
Juanoto Bernardi, in 1495, he was placed at the head of the factory. 
His name occurs in the Spanish archives for the first time on the 
12th of January 1796. 

In the narrative attributed to Vespucci, published at St. Di¢é in 
Lorraine, in 1507, and republished at the same place in 1509, he is 
said to have made four voyages: two under the auspices of the king 
of Castile, in 1497 and 1499; two by command of the king of Por- 
tugal, in 1501 and 1503. The first has been alleged to be apocryphal 
by some warm supporters of the claims of Columbus to be the original 
discoverer of the mainland of America, as well as of the islands, who 
have not scrupled to attribute to Vespucci a fraudulent attempt to 
arrogate to himself the honour due to Columbus. Humboldt in the 
fourth volume of his ‘ Histoire de la Géographie du Nouveau Con- 
tinent,’ has successfully vindicated Vespucci from this imputation and 
proved that there is every reason to believe that the voyage really was 
made, though at a later date than appears in the printed book. M. 
Humboldt has by a minute and exact analysis identified the four 
voyages of Vespucci: the first, with the voyage of Alonso de Hojeda, 
commenced on the 20th of May 1499, terminated on the 15th October 
1499; the second, with the voyage of Yafiez Pinzon, commenced in 
the beginning of December 1499, terminated on the 30th of September 

-1500 ; the third, with the voyage of Pedro Alvarez Cabral, commenced 
on the 10th of May 1501, terminated 7th of September 1502; the 
fourth, with that of Gonzalez Coelho, commenced on the 10th of May 
1503, terminated on the 18th of June 1504. 

These dates remove all doubts as to the priority of Columbus's dis- 
covery. The expedition of Hojeda coasted in 1499 the shores of 
Paria, which had been discovered by Columbus in the preceding year. 
For the mistake of substituting the year 1497 for 1499, M. Humboldt 
has shown that Vespucci cannot be held responsible. The brief and 
unsatisfactory narrative in which the error occurs was printed in 
Lorraine, without his knowledge and consent. It is evident from 
authentic documents that Amerigo was in the later years of Colum- 
bus’s life an attached and trusted friend of the admiral; and from the 
footing on which he stood with the family and friends of Columbus, 
years after the publication of his narrative, that they did not suspect 
him of any attempt to arrogate to himself the honours due to their 
parent. The accident of the new continent receiving its name from 
Amerigo has been attributed by M. Humboldt with great plausibility 
to ignorance of the history of the discovery (at that time jealously 
guarded as a state secret), leading the publisher of Vespucci’s narra- 
tive to propose that it should be called after him, and to the musical 
sound of the name catching the public ear. 

Vespucci appears to have served, in all the expeditions he was 
engaged in, in the capacity of astronomer. It is evident from the 
letters of that age, that, owing to want of confidence in the astro- 
nomical knowledge of the practical pilots, it was customary to associate 
with them some person of scientific acquirements in the great voyages 
of discovery. Vespucci himself tells us that his taste for adventures 
of discovery was contracted while engaged as a merchant in the out- 
fit of exploring squadrons. As early as 1593 he had expressed dis- 
satisfaction with his position at Seville; a dissatisfaction probably 

BIOG, DIV, VOL. VI. 


originating in aversion to mercantile pursuits, His writings, frag- 
mentary and ill-printed though they be, evince scientific tastes and 
acquirements. _ 

From the service of the crown of Spain in which Vespucci made 
his earliest voyages, he was allured into that of Portugal, in which he 
wade the third and fourth. Disappointed in his expectations, he 
returned to Spain, and appears to have been soliciting employment at 
the time of Columbus’s death. In 1507 he was intrusted with the 
victualling and furnishing of a royal fleet fitted out in that year. On 
the 22nd of March 1508, he obtained the appointment of piloto-major, 
which he retained till his death. His commission contains bitter 
complaints of the ignorance of pilots, and charges him, before licensing 
any person to exercise the employment, to examine him strictly in the 
use of the astrolabe and the quadrant, and to ascertain whether he 
understands the practice as well as the theory of the instrument. 

Amerigo Vespucci died at Seville, on the 22nd of February 1512. 
He died poor; his widow found considerable difficulty in obtaining 
payment of a miserable pension of 10,000 maravedis, with which the 
emoluments of his successor were burdened in her favour. An acci- 
dent has given notoriety to the name of Amerigo Vespucci, at the 
expense of suspicions which he deserved as little as his chance-medley 
distinction. He appears to have been a skilful astronomer for his age ; 
an able manager of the commissariat department; an enthusiastic 
adventurer in the career of discovery; a warm-hearted, honest man, 
But he is far inferior to Columbus, Cabot, Diaz, or Gama, men who 
combined originality of conception with their enterprising spirits, and 
who belong to the class of heroes and men of genius; 

(Humboldt, Hxamen Critique de 0 Histoire de la Géographie du 
Nouveaw Continent, Paris, 1839; Cosmographie Introductio, inswper 
Quatuor Americit Vespucci Navigationes, Strassburg, 1507 and 1509; 
Bandini, Vitae Lettere di Amerigo Vespucci, Florence, 1745; Irving, 
A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, London, 
1828.) 

VETTO’RI, PIE’TRO, born of a noble family at Florence, in 1499, 
studied classical literature in his native town, and afterwards law at 
Pisa. He went to Rome with his relative Francesco Vettori, on a 
mission to Pope Clement VII. On his return to Florence he joined 
the republican party which drove away the Medici in 1527. His 
relatives Francesco and Paolo Vettori acted a vacillating and even 
false part in those transactions. When the arms of Charles V. subdued 
Florence and gave it to Duke Alessandro de’ Medici, Pietro Vettori 
retired to the country and applied himself entirely to study. He 
afterwards went to Rome, until he was recalled to Florence by the 
Duke Cosmo I., who appointed him professor of Latin and Greek 
literature. Heremained many years in that chair, which he filled 
with great reputation. He published editions of Cicero, Terence, 
Varro, Sallust, of the Roman writers on agriculture, as well as the 
Greek text of /®schylus, of the ‘Electra’ of Euripides, of several 
dialogues of Plato and Aristotle, and other Greek writers. He wrote 
commentaries, in Latin, on the works of Aristotle, and on the book on 
elocution of Demetrius Phalereus. He wrote in the same language 
‘Varie Lectiones, in thirty-eight books, in which he explains and 
comments upon numerous passages of ancient writers, and also several 
orations. In Italian he wrote orations on the occasion of the death of 
Duke Cosmo I. and of the Emperor Maximilian I]. He also wrote 
several small poems in Italian, and a didactic treatise on the culti- 
vation of the olive-tree, ‘Trattato delle Lodi e delle Coltivazione 
degli Ulivi,’ Florence, 1574, often reprinted and much valued. Many 
of his letters are inserted in the collection of the ‘ Prose Fiorentine’ 
and in other collections. Vettori was one of the most accomplished 
scholars ofa learned age. He died at Florence in December, 1585. 

(Tiraboschi, Storia della Letteratwra Italiana ; Corniani, ZI Secolt 
della Letteratwra Italiana.) 

VICENTE, GIL. (Gi Vicenrs.} 

VICI, ANDRE’A, architect to the grand-duke of Tuscany, was 
born at Arcevia in the Marca d’Ancona, 1744. Having gone through 
the usual course of education at Perugia, he was sent to Rome to 
study painting and architecture, the first under Stefano Pozzi, the 
other under Carlo Murena; and it was the second of these two arts 
which he decided upon following as his profession. That he gave 
early promise of more than ordinary talent appears from the cir- 
cumstance of Vanvitelli engaging him as his assistant when he was 
about, it is said, to begin the palace of Caserta: yet the last part of 
this statement is evidently incorrect, because at that time Vici could 
not have been more than eight or nine yearsold. That he was how- 
ever for some time with Vanvitelli is certain, for he was commissioned 
by him to attend to matters of business connected with the Mola di 
Pontano; in consequence of which he became known at Rome as 
a skilful engineer. In 1780 the court of Tuscany appointed him 
hydraulic architect and engineer for the Val di Chiana, and in 1787 he 
was employed in a similar capacity by the papal government in the 
work. of draining the Pontine marshes, and preventing the inundations 
of the Teppia. At a later period (1810) he erected the ‘ muraglione’ or 
embankment at Tivoli, to support the left bank of the Anio. Of his 
architectural works, though they were neither inconsiderable nor few 
in number, the names alone are recorded, and those have no dates 
attached to them. Yet one of them at least would seem to deserve 
some little notice, for it is spoken of as ‘la superba er di 


339 VICO, GIOVANNI BATTISTA. 


VICQ-D'AZYR, FELIX. 840 


Camarino.”’ The others which are enumerated as by him, are—the 
church and monastery ‘ Delle Salesiane,’ at Offagna; the seminary at 
Osimo; the villa and casini at Monte Gallo, the Palazzo Lepri at 
Bevagna: the church of §, Francesco at Foligno; and the Cappella 
Gozzoli at Terni. Vici died September 10th, 1817. 

VICO, GIOVANNI BATTISTA, one of the most acute thinkers of 
the first half of the last century, was born in 1668, at Naples, where 
his father was a bookseller in rather limited cireumstances. Respecting 
his early youth nothing is known, except that at the age of seven he 
fractured his skull by a fall, which caused him great sufferings, and 
which, as he himself says, produced in after-life an inclination to 
melancholy. His education was nominally conducted by the Jesuits ; 
but as he was not of a disposition to yield to the influence or follow the 
rules of others, he worked out his own education for himself. He 
devoted himself chiefly to the study of philosophy, languages, and 
jurisprudence, and in the last of these branches his proficiency was 
such that at the age of sixteen he successfully defended an action 
which had been brought against his father, But Vico was neither 
inclined, nor had he sufficient strength to follow the profession of a 
lawyer ; and as he had not the means of living in independence, the offer 
which was made him to instruct the nephew of Rocco, bishop of 
Ischia, in jurisprudence, was gladly accepted. In this quiet and re- 
tired position, in which he remained for nine years, he gradually 
recovered his strength, and devoted all his leisure to the study of 
canon law, theology, and the ancients; and it was here that he con- 
ceived the plan of his great work, of which we shall speak presently. 
His taste grew more and more severe: the literature of his own time 
lost all attractions for him. Among the writers of his own country 
were chiefly Petrarch, Boccaccio, and Dante, in whose works he sought 
and found instruction; and among the ancients Plato and Cicero, 
though the latter chiefly on account of his style, which he himself 
took great pains to imitate. Soon after his return to Naples he 
married. His mind had hitherto been wrapped up in the ancients and 
in the development of his own ideas; and the servile adherence of the 
philosophers of the time to the system of Des Cartes, together with 
the then prevailing taste in poetry, confirmed him still more in his 
partiality for the ancients. Vico had now, as before, to work his own 
way, and in order to be free from all bias, he read the ancients without 
the assistance of any commentaries. The French language he dis- 
dained altogether, and so strong was his desire to acquire a pure 
Latin style, that for a time he even abandoned Greek literature, and 
gave himself up entirely to reading the best Latin authors. In 1697 
he was appointed professor of rhetoric in the university of Naples, 
with the scanty salary of 100 scudi per annum. In order to maintain 
himself and his family he was obliged to give private lessons in Latin. 
But he now had an opportunity of expressing on various occasions in 
public his opinions on matters of the highest importance. He en- 
deavoured to point out the common bond of all the sciences, and how 
superior the ancients had been in not dividing and separating the 
sciences from one another, but cultivating all in common, as Aristotle 
had done; and that it was impossible successfully to cultivate one 
without knowing the rest. By his public orations on such subjects, 
and still more by the publication of some works of great originality, 
he acquired a high reputation, and when the chair of jurisprudence 
in the university had become vacant, he applied for it. In respect of 
knowledge and ability none could enter into competition with him; 
but as he would not condescend to have recourse to the means which 
were usually employed by candidates for such offices, he saw little 
prospect of his gaining his object, and withdrew from the contest. 
The disappointment caused him deep grief; but neither this nor 
several domestic afflictions by which he was visited could break down 
his spirit, and with renewed ardour he now set about completing the 
work which had for many years occupied all his thoughts. This 
work, entitled ‘ Principi di una Scienza nuova d’intorno alla Com- 
mune Natura delle Nazioni,’ appeared at Naples in 1725. A second 
and third edition appeared in the author’s lifetime, and the seventh 
appeared at Naples in 1817. After the completion of this work his 
mind was at rest; and had his outward circumstances been more 
favourable, his happiness would have been perfect. On the accession 
of the house of the Bourbons to the throne of Naples in 1735, better 
flays seemed to dawn upon him; for he was appointed historiographer 
to the king, and his son, Gennaro Vico, obtained the professorship of 
rhetoric. But his mental powers were broken down, both by intense 
study and by domestic cares and anxieties. He feil into a state of 
insensibility, which lasted for fourteen months, during which he knew 
neither his friends nor his children. In this state he died, on the 20th 
of January, 1744. 

The ‘ New Science’ (‘ Principi di una Scienza Nuova’) is the prin- 
cipal work of Vico; but although three editions appeared in his 
lifetime, it seems to have been nearly forgotten for more than fifty 
years after his death. This is probably owing to the extraordinary 
obscurity of the work, which was increased by the additions published 
in the third edition (probably by Gennaro Vico) from the author's 
manuscripts, which are frequently inserted in places where they in- 
terrupt and destroy the argument. But notwithstanding this great 
defect, the work is one of the most remarkable phenomena of modern 
literature. In England the work seems to have been unknown, until 
a French exposition of Vico’s system, by Michelet, attracted attention 


to it, and induced a writer in the ‘ Philological Museum’ (ii., p. 626) to 
give a sketch of his life and his philosophy to the English public. 
The great truth which he endeavours to establish in this ‘ Scienza 
Nuova’ is that the history of the human race is determined by laws 
which are as certain in their operation as those by which the material 
world is governed. He sets forth these laws or principles in the form 
of aseries of broad assertions, which he endeavours to demonstrate 
and explain. He set out from the conviction that as the idea of the 
material world existed in the Divine intellect previous to the creation 
of the world, so there must also have existed in it an eternal idea of 
the history of mankind; and this idea is realised and manifested in 
the actual events of history. He endeavours to prove that notwith- 
standing all the apparent confusion and incoherence in human affairs, 
that eternal idea is never departed from; or, in other words, that a 
Divine providence is discernible throughout the history of mankind, 
It is a philosophy of history which he endeavours to establish. After 
having laid down his principles, he proceeds to divide history into great 
cycles or periods, to show the characteristic features of each, and the 
organic progression and transition from the one to the other. He 
accomplishes this partly by appealing to the facts of history, and 
partly to general principles ; and while on the one hand he o 8 
results which are profound and true, on the other hand he makes 
assertions which are visionary and fanciful. It is a remarkable cir- 
cumstance that Vico has stated in broad outlines things which FP. A. 
Wolf and Niebuhr afterwards reached by totally different ene 
and without having any knowledge of the views of Vico: Wolf, in 
regard to the Homeric poems; and Niebuhr, in regard to the early 
history of Rome, It betrays a want of the knowledge of facts to 
assert, as some do, that Montesquieu, or Wolf, or Niebuhr adopted 
the views of Vico: they could not adopt what they did- not know. 
Besides the ‘Scienza Nuova,’ Vico wrote some other works, which 
bear the impress of his original genius :—1, ‘ De Antiquissma Italoram 


Sapientia,’ Naples, 1710, translated into Italian by Monti, Milan, 1816. — 


2, ‘De uno Universi Juris Principio et fine uno,’ Naples, 4to, 1720. 3. 
A Life of himself, which is prefixed to the first edition of his ‘New 
Science,’ and is reprinted, with additions by himself and his son, in 
the subsequent editions of the same work. A collection of all his 
works was edited by the Marquis de Villa Rosa, at Naples, in 1818, 
and a second edition appeared in 1835. A clear and able exposition 
of the ‘New Science’ has been given by Michelet, ‘Principes de la 
Philosophie de I’Histoire, traduits de la “Scienza Nuova” de G, B. 
Vico,’ Paris 1827. 

VICQ-D'AZYR, FELIX, was born at Valogne in 1748, His father, 
who was a physician of good repute, sent him to study philosophy at 
Caen and medicine at Paris. He received his licence to practise in 
1773, and directly after began to deliver lectures on comparative 
anatomy, during the vacation from the regular courses of lectures of 
the faculty. In consequence however of some dispute with the 
authorities of the faculty, he was obliged to discontinue his course, 
though already he had become a very popular teacher, Upon this, 
Antoine Petit, who had been Vicq-d’Azyr's instructor in anatomy, 
resigned the professorship of anatomy at the Jardin des Plantes, 
hoping to secure the appointment of his pupil to be his successor, 
this however he was disappointed. Portal, through the influence of 
Buffon, was elected, and Vicq-d’Azyr was obliged to limit himself to 
the delivering of lectures in his own house. These were well attended, 
but the greatest assistance to his advancement was furnished by his 
marriage with a niece of Daubenton, who fell in loye with him in 
return for his politeness in assisting her when she once fainted in the 
street. Daubenton furnished him with all that was necessary for the 
prosecution of comparative anatomy and natural history, in which he 
was actively engaged, and the results of which he published in 
numerous essays in the Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences. 

In 1774 Vieq-d’Azyr was elected a member of the Academy of 
Sciences; and in 1775, through the influence of Lassonne, he was 
sent to investigate and endeavour to exterminate a murrain which was 
raging among the cattle in the south of France. On his return he 
formed with Lassonne the scheme of establishing a society for 
carrying on at all times similar investigations of epidemics, &c., by 
correspondence with provincial physicians; and upon their plan the 
Royal Society of Medicine was founded in 1776, and Vieq-d’Azyr was 
chosen perpetual secretary. This engaged him for a time in an 
dispute with the faculty of medicine, who appear to have done their 
best to destroy his reputation; but his activity, and the general excel- 
lence of the numerous essays, éloges, and other works which he was 
constantly publishing, as well as the spirit and care with which the 
society was managed, obtained for him a constantly increasing cele- 
brity, and in 1788 he was chosen to succeed Buffon in the French 
Academy. His oration in honour of his predecessor is the 
remarkable of all (and they were very numerous) that Vicq-d’Azyr 
delivered in honour of men of science. In 1789 he sueceeded 
Lassonne as first physician to the queen, and it is said that his deyotion 
to her gave him reason to fear the rage of the revolutionary arty so 
much that, through continual anxiety, his health began to hail To 
avoid suspicion he took part with the followers of Robespierre, and 
having accompanied the citizens of his district to the impious mocker 
of the festival of the Supreme Being, he returned home seriously i, 
next day became delirious, and died on the 20th of June 1794,_ 


341 


VICTOR I. 


? 


VICTOR-AMADEUS IL 


342 


Vicq-d’Azyr’s works are very numerous, and were nearly all pub- 
lished together by Moreau de la Sarthe, with the title ‘@uvres de 
Vicq-@’Azyr,’ 6 vols. 8vo, Paris, 1805, with a quarto volume of plates. 
The chief of them are as follows :—1, ‘Observations sur les Moyens 
. +. pour préserver les Animaux sains de la Contagion,’ 12mo, Bor- 
deaux, 1774, 2, ‘La Médecine des Bétes b cornes,’ 2 vols. 8vo, Paris, 
1781: this was published by order of the government, and contains 
the substance of several previous works on veterinary medicine, and 
especially on epizootic diseases. 3, ‘ Traité d’Anatomie et de Physio- 
logie, avec des planches colorides,’ folio, Paris, 1786. This, had he 
been able to complete it, would have been a truly magnificent work. 
Vieq-d’Azyr proposed to illustrate the whole of physiology by a series 
of plates of natural size, but the work did not go beyond this first 
* part, containing the plates of the brain, which are executed well, 
though they are not without anatomical errors. His other principal 
writings are contained in essays in the Memoirs of the Academies of 
Sciences and of Medicine. In the Memoirs of the former academy he 
published, in 1774, the first part of his Memoirs on the Comparative 
Anatomy of Fish and Birds, and on the Conversion of Muscle into 
Fat during Life; in. 1774 the conclusion of these Memoirs, and 
another on the Structure and Physiology of the Extremities of Man 
and Quadrupeds; in 1776 a Memoir on the Comparative Anatomy of 
the Ear; in 1779 one On the Organ of the Voice; in 1781, the 
Anatomy of the Mandril and some other Apes; in 1784, Observations 
on the Comparative Anatomy of the Clavicle. All these contained 
many new and important facts; but they do not prove that Vicq-d’Azyr 
was eapable of working out the great general truths of physiology. In 
the Memoirs of the Society of Medicine his essays are also very nume- 
rous, but less important than those in comparative anatomy : in these 
also are published his numerous éloges delivered on the deaths of 
members of the society, all of which are well written, and some are 
even eloquent. He edited the two volumes of the anatomical portion 
of the ‘Encyclopédie Méthodique,’ to which he contributed several 
articles; and he also edited the first volumes of the medical portion 
of the same work, in which there are also several articles by him, 
including one of considerable length and importance with the title 
‘ Anatomie Pathologique.’ Many other essays were published in other 
collections, which need not be enumerated ; the last which he wrote 
were, Observations on the Changes of the Vitellus during Incubation, 
and a Description of the Genital Organs of the Duck, which appeared 
in the ‘Bulletin de la Société Philomathique’ for 1793. 

(Eloge of Vicq-d'Azyr, read at the Society of Medicine of Paris, 
1798; Deziemeris, Dictionnaire Historique de Médecine, &e.) 

VICTOR L, a native of Africa, sueceeded Eleutherius as bishop of 
the Christian congregation at Rome, about a.p., 185. During his 
episcopacy Theodotus was expelled the Christian congregation of 
Rome, for asserting the mere humanity of Christ. Victor hada warm 
controversy with the churches of Asia, and especially with Polycrates, 
bishop of Ephesus, concerning the proper time for celebrating the 
Faster festival. Irenzous, bishop of Lyon, remonstrated in a letter to 
Victor upon his intolerance upon this occasion. Victor died about 
197, and was succeeded by Zephyrinus. Some say that he dieda 
martyr, but the word martyr was often used by the early Christian 
writers to signify a person who had in any way suffered on account of 
the Christian faith. , : 

VICTOR IL, GrBuarp, bishop of Hichstadt, and a friend and 
adviser of Henry III. of Germany, was chosen by the clergy of Rome 
to succeed Leo IX. in 1055. The monk Hildebrandus (afterwards 
Gregory VIL.), who had suggested the choice, was sent by the Romans 
to pi i for the purpose of obtaining the emperor’s assent to the 
election, which is said to have been given with some reluctance, as 
Henry was unwilling to part with his adviser. Victor, having pro- 
ceeded to Italy, assembled a council at Florence, in which several 
abuses in the discipline of the clergy were condemned, and the ordi- 
nances against alienating the property of the Church were renewed. 
Another council was held in the same year at Tours, at which Hilde- 
brand presided as legate. Berenger appeared before the council, and 
was challenged to defend his opinion against transubstantiation. 
Berenger however declined doing so, and he professed to submit to 
the general belief of the Church upon the matter in question. 
[Brruncrr.] The year 1055 was a busy year for councils: a council 
was held at Lyon against simony; another at Rouen to enforce conti- 
nenée among priests; and another at Narbonne, in which the usurpers 
of certain possessions of the Church were excommunicated. In the 
following year, 1056, Pope Victor went to Germany at the desire of 
Henry III., and was there present at the death of the emperor, which 
took place in that year. Victor remained in Germany with the 
dowager empress Agnes and her infant son Henry IV. till the next 
spring, 1057, when he returned to Italy. Pope Victor died at Florence 
in the same year, and was succeeded by Stephen IX. 

VICTOR IIL, Dustpzrius, abbot of Monte Casino, was elected by 
the cardinals assembled at Salerno, after the death of Gregory VIL, 
in compliance with the wish expressed by that pope on his death-bed, 
in 1085. Desiderius however declined the proffered dignity, and the 
Church remained without a pontiff till Easter of the following year, 
1086, when Desiderius, having gone to Rome, was invested with the 
papal garments by the assembled cardinals, and proclaimed by the 
name of Victor Ill, But the prefect of the emperor Henry IY., who 


had possession of the Capitol, aud who supported the antipope 
Guibert, who had been already set up in opposition to Gregory VIL, 
opposed the consecration of the new pope. After four days Desiderius 
left Rome and returned to Monte Casino, having deposed his pontifical 
robes at Terracina and renounced his dignity. During the Lent of 
the next year, 1087, a council was held at Capua, in which Desiderius 
was prevailed upon to resume the papal office for the good of the 
Church, The new pope then proceeded towards Rome, accompanied 
by the cardinals and many of the Roman nobility, and by a body of 
troops given to him by the Prince of Capua, and by Roger, duke of 
Apulia. On arriving outside of Rome they defeated the troops of the 
antipope, and drove him away from the Vatican. On the Sunday after 
the Ascension, Pope Victor was solemnly crowned in St. Peter’s 
church, after which he returned to Monte Casino, as the city of Rome 
was still occupied by the partisans of the antipope. Soon after how- 
ever the Countess Matilda arrived near Rome from Tuscany with a 
large force, and invited Pope Victor to a conference, which took place 
in the Vatican in the beginning of June. On St. Barnabas’-day, 11th 
of June, the pope and the countess, having forced the passage of the 
Tiber, entered Rome amidst the acclamations of the people. 

On the eve of St. Peter’s-day, 28th of July, a messenger from 
Henry IV. having threatened the consuls and senators of Rome with 
the displeasure of the emperor if they continued to adhere to Victor, 
the Romans turned against the pope, and drove him and his friends 
out of the town. Pope Victor however retained possession of the 
Vatican, and celebrated mass on the next day in St. Peter's church. 
A few days after Pope Victor thought proper to abandon Rome alto- 
gether, and withdrew to Monte Casino, and thence to Beneventum, 
where he held a council in the month of August, in which he anathe- 
matised the antipope Guibert, as well as Hugo, archbishop of Lyon, 
who had declared himself for the antipope, and had written a violent 
letter to the Countess Matilda, in which he strove to blacken the 
character of Pope Victor, charging him with ambition, cunning, and 
other vices. This letter, which is. inserted in Labbe’s ‘Concilia,’ 
probably gave rise to the several accusations against the memory of 
Pope Victor, which are found in the Chronicle of Augsburg and other 
compilations. Whilst the council was sitting, Pope Victor fell danger- 
ously ill of dysentery. He hastened back to his favourite residence of 
Monte Casino, where he died on the 16th of September 1087, after 
having recommended the cardinals who were about him to choose 
Otho, bishop of Ostia, for his successor, who was accordingly elected 
by the name of Urban II. (Muratori, ‘Annali d'Italia, and the 
authorities therein quoted.) 

Pope Victor III. is better known in the history of learning as 
Desiderius, abbot of Monte Casino. In his convent he was a great 
collector of manuscripts; he employed amanuenses to copy the works 
of the classics ; he restored or rather rebuilt from the foundations 
the church and part of the convent upon a much larger scale than 
that of the former structure, and he sent to Constantinople for skilful 
workmen in mosaic and joinery to assist in adorning the church. 

(Peregrinius, Series Abbatwm Cassinensium ; Tiraboschi, Storia della 
Letteratura Italiana.) 

VICTOR IV., antipope. OcTAVIAN, cardinal of St. Clement, was 
set up by a small faction of cardinals, supported by the Emperor 
Frederick I., in opposition to Pope Alexander III., in 1159, This 
created a schism in the Church, which continued even after the death 
of the antipope Victor, which took place in 1164, [Fsepenicx I., 
Emperor. ] 

VICTOR-AMADEUS I, Duke of Savoy, was born at Turin, on 
March 8th, 1587. He was educated in the court of Spain, whence he 
was called by his father, Carlo-Emmanuel, in 1614, to act with him 
in the war against France. In July, 1630, on his father’s death he 
succeeded to the sovereignty, and early in 1631 concluded a treaty 
at Cherasco, by which he not only restored peace to the duchy, but 
acquired possession of Montferrato and Alba, in exchange for 
Pinerolo and one or two other towns. On the establishment of peace 
his first care was to improve his dominions, and among other things 
he re-established the university of Turin, for which he provided a 
handsome building, and drew to it a number of eminent masters. 
In 1635 he was forced by the threats of Cardinal Richelieu to join 
the French in their contest with Spain, on account of the Italian 
possessions. After having gained two victories over the Spaniards, 
he died at Verceil on October 7, 1637, leaving the war still raging, 
and two infant sons by his wife Christine, daughter of Henri IV. of 
France; the elder of whom, Francesco-Giacinta, reigned nominally for 
& year, when he died, and was succeeded by Carlo-Emmanuel IL., on 
October 4, 1638. 

VICTOR-AMADEUS IL., the son of Carlo-Emmanuel, was born on 
May 14, 1666, and succeeded his father in June 1675, the government 
being carried on under the regency of his mother, Frangoise, daughter 
of Gaston, duke of Orleans, On arriving at age he found himself 
harassed between Louis XIV. of France on the one side and the 
house of Austria oa the other. The imperious Louis sent him 
commands as if he were his vassal. In 1666 he compelled him to 
subdue the Valdenses, a task effected not without difficulty, and with 
great cruelty; the sufferings of the poor people occasioning the 
intervention of Cromwell, and the production of Milton’s noble 
sonnet. Louis also ordered him to send several regiments to join 


843 


VICTOR-AMADEUS IIL. 


VICTOR, CLAUDE PERRIN. BES! 


his army in Flanders, and lastly to give up to him the citadel of 
Turin. Victor-Amadeus in June 1690 entered into a treaty with Spain 
and Austria against France, restored the Valdenses to their homes 
and their privileges, summoned round him the nobles of Piedmont, 
and declared war. Being joined by an Austrian force, he disputed 
every inch of ground against the French. The war lasted till 1695, 
when Louis XIV., by fair promises, succeeded in detaching the duke 
of Savoy from the emperor. The peace of Ryswick restored peace 
to Italy, and the French evacuated all the territories of the Duke, 
including Pinerolo, which they had possessed for about a century. 
In the war of the Spanish succession, Victor-Amadeus sided first 
with the French, but afterwards joined the emperor, because he con- 
sidered it extremely dangerous for his dominions to allow the house 
of Bourbon to become possessed of the Milanese and the other 
Spanish territories in Italy, The consequence was that the French 
armies again overran and devastated Piedmont, and in 1706 besieged 
Turin, which made a noble defence, Victor-Amadeus, being joined by 
the Austrian army under his relative Prince Eugene of Savoy, defeated 
the French besieging army on the 7th September 1706, and delivered 
Turin. By the peace of Utrecht, 1713, he obtained the Valsesia, the 
territory of Lomellina, the remainder of Montferrato, and other 
districts, and above all the island of Sicily with the title of king, and 
he was crowned at Palermo, in December 1713. By the subsequent 
treaty of London, Victor-Amadeus gave up Sicily to the emperor, 
and received in exchange the island of Sardinia with the title of a 
kingdom. Thus through his gallantry and perseverance the house 
of Savoy became numbered among the royal houses of Europe. 
Victor-Amadeus employed the peaceful period which followed to 
improve the administration, to recruit his finances, and to encourage 
agriculture and industry. Through his care the cultivation of the 
mulberry-tree and the rearing of silkworms attained in Piedmont 
that perfection which they still maintain. He also reformed the 
university of Turin, founded several colleges, and built the palace of 
the Superga. On September 2, 1730, Victor-Amadeus abdicated in 
favour of his son Carlo-Emmanuel III. and retired to the villa of Monca- 
lieri. In 1731, having made an attempt to remount his throne, he was 
arrested and confined for some time, but at length remitted to his 
residence at Moncalieri, where he died in 1732. He was distinguished 
both as a general and a statesman, and was well worthy of being 
the first king of his dynasty. King Victor-Amadeus was married 
to Anne Marie of Orleans, daughter of Philip, duke of Orleans, 
brother of Louis XIV., and of Henrietta Maria, daughter of Charles I. 
of England, This alliance is the origin of the connection between the 
house of Savoy and the royal family of Great Britain. 
VICTOR-AMADEUS IIL, son of Carlo-Emmanuel III., was born 
on June 26, 1726, and succeeded his father in February 1773. He 
early displayed a fondness for military parade and exercises, and he 
increased his army in time of profound peace. The finances became 
exhausted, the public debt increased, and fresh taxes were laid on 
the people. The king greatly favoured the nobles, giving to them 
almost exclusively the public offices, civil, military, and ecclesiastical, 
At the same time Victor-Amadeus encouraged useful studies; he 
_ re-organised the public colleges and schools after the expulsion of 
the Jesuits; and he appointed fit professors to the chairs of the 
university of Turin. The storms of the French revolution rendered 
the end of his reign calamitous; he lost Savoy and Nice in 1792, 
Oneglia in 1794, and after two years more of a desultory but sangui- 
nary warfare along the line of the Alps, in which the Piedmontese 
troops displayed their accustomed valour and discipline, the line of 
defence formed by the Alps was turned by the French passing through 
the Ligurian Apennines, and the revolutionary torrent poured down 
into the plains of the Po. [Bonapartr, Napotzon.] King Victor- 
Amadeus was induced to conclude a hasty peace, which left his 
dominions at the mercy of the French. He died soon after, on 
October 16, 1796, and was succeeded by his son Carlo-Emmanuel IV. 
VICTOR, CLAUDE PERRIN, Duke of Belluno and Marshal of 
France, was born at La Marche, in the department of the Vosges, on 
the 7th of December 1764. He was seventeen years of age when, on 
the 16th of December 1781 he enlisted as a private soldier in the 4th 
regiment of artillery, at that time in garrison at Auxonne. He had 
obtained his discharge when the first events of the Revolution of 1789 
occurred; but, animated with the warlike spirit which then pervaded 
the French nation, he again eagerly sought for military employment, 
and entered as a volunteer the third battalion of the department of 
the Dréme. A few months sufficed for this young and intrepid soldier 
to raise himself from the lowest rank to that of adjutant-major and 
chef de bataillon, With the battalion under his command he distin- 
guished himself at Coarara, by foiling the attack of three thousand 
Piedmontese and a regiment of emigrants. At the head of the same 
battalion he obtained considerable success, in 1793, at the siege of 
Toulon ; under the orders of General Lapoye, he gained the important 
heights of Pharon, and afterwards, with similar good fortune attacked 
the fort L/Aiguillette, the capture of which greatly contributed to the 
favourable issue of the siege. These brilliant actions, in which he was 
twice wounded, were rewarded by his promotion to the rank of adju- 
tant-general. ‘Transferred to the army of the Eastern Pyrenees, with 
the rank of general of brigade, he rendered himself conspicuous for 
his skill and bravery at the sieges of Collioura (June 5, 1794) and 


Rosas (January 2,1795). After the termination of the war between 
France and Spain by the treaty of peace signed on the 22nd of July 
1795, Victor joined the army of Italy. The courage which he dis- 
played in the several battles of that campaign, and particularly in the 
action at Borghetto (May 30, 1796), brought him under the favourable 
notice of Bonaparte, who gave him every opportunity for further dis- 
tinction by entrusting him with the management of mancouvres as 
honourable as they were perilous. His conduct during the sanguinary 
engagements which took place at Cossaria and Mondovi (April 5 and 
16, 1796), justified the high estimation in which he was held by his 
chief, and were recognised by the government at Paris in a flattering 
letter which they sent him. The following year, by a series of skilful 
manceuvres, he greatly contributed to the success obtained by Masséna 
(Massena, MarsHat] over the Austrian general Wurmser at Corona 
(August 11, 1797). It was on account of his successes during this 
campaign, of which we have enumerated a very small portion, that he 
was raised to the rank of general of division. In this capacity he 
powerfully seconded the operations directed by General Lannes against 
the Papal States [Lannes]. After defeating the Roman troops on the 
riyer Serio, he occupied with the troops under his command the towns 
of Faenza and Cesena; he afterwards marched against Ancona with a 
detachment of twelve hundred men, and captured it without a shot 
being fired, though it was defended by one hundred and twenty pieces 
of cannon, and a garrison of five thousand degenerate Romans. 
“General Victor,” says Napoleon, “crossed the Po at Borgo Forte, at 
the head of four thousand infantry and six hundred horse, and formed 
a junction at Bologna with the Italian division of four thousand men, 
under General Lahoz. These nine thousand men were quite sufficient 
to conquer the States of the Church.” (Montholon, ‘ History of the 
Captivity of Napoleon at St. Helena,’ vol. ii, p. 56.) 

After the peace of Campo Formio, General Victor was appointed to 
the difficult command of the province of La Vendée. By his skilful 
dispositions, and by his conciliatory but firm and decisive conduct, he 
maintained the tranquillity of that country. Being recalled in 1798 
to the army of Italy, he was placed at the head of a division. In the 
following year he acquired fresh renown at the engagement of Santa 
Lucia (March 80, 1799). Shortly after this battle he received orders 
to cross the Apennines, and to facilitate the retreat of the French 
army of Naples through the valley of the Bormida; in effecting this 
movement his division was attacked by a large body of Piedmontese 
insurgents in the narrow and difficult passes of those mountains; his 
troops however bravely repelled this attack at the point of the bayonet, 
and, after surmounting great dangers, he was enabled to effect a 
junction with the army under the commarfd of General Macdonald. 
[MacponaLD, MarsHal.] Victor bore a distinguished part in the 
engagement on the banks of the Trebbia, which proved disastrous to 
the French. He was afterwards sent to Paris by General Moreau, to 
solicit from the Directory reinforcements for the army in Italy. On 
the failure of bis mission, he returned to Italy, and resumed the com- 
mand of his division, which acquired fresh laurels at the battle of 
Bassano, where it formed part of the centre under the command of 
General Championet. - 

At the memorable battle of Marengo, the division of Victor formed 
part of the advanced guard; to the bravery and perseverance which 
he displayed on this occasion may in a great measure be ascribed the 
favourable issue of this long-disputed engagement. His services were 
rewarded by the presentation of a sabre of honour, on which was 
inscribed a flattering testimonial to his merit. He was afterwards 
transferred to the Batavian army, with the rank of second in command; 
his conduct in that campaign, though unmarked by any brilliant 
exploit, was such as to maintain the high reputation he had acquired. 

After the peace of Amiens he was sent to the court of Denmark as 
ambassador from the First Consul. He held this office till 1806, when, 
on the breaking out of the war with Prussia, he was appointed to the 
command of the tenth corps of the grand army. A wound, which he 
received at the battle of Jena, did not prevent him from directing in 
person the operations of the corps under his command during this 
short but brilliant campaign; and he powerfully contributed to the 
victory obtained over the combined forces of the Prussians and 
Russians at Pulstuck (December 26, 1806). In this campaign he was 
taken prisoner by a body of partisans, but by means of an exchange he 
speedily recovered his liberty. The following year was marked by the 
great battle of Friedland (June 14), in which Victor, at the head of the 
first corps of the grand ee so greatly distinguished himself, that 
Napoleon, on the field of battle, raised him to the dignity of marshal 
of the empire. , 

After the treaty of Tilsit (July 6-9, 1807), Marshal Victor was 
appointed governor of Berlin, a government including the greater part 
of Prussia. This office, which he held for fifteen months, was one 
which afforded many temptations to an abuse of power, but he appears 
to have exercised his authority with dignity and moderation. 

In 1808 he was intrusted by Napoleon with the command of the 
first corps of the French army in Spain. Shortly after his arrival in 
that country he obtained important advantages over the Spaniards in the 
engagements of Epinosa (November 10 and 11, 1808), Sommo Sierra 
(November 30), and Madrid (December 4). On the 13th of January 
1809 he routed the remnants of the Spanish army which had been 
defeated at Tudela, but which, reinforced by fresh levies from the 


345 VICTOR, CLAUDE PERRIN. 


VICTOR-EMMANUEL II. 346 


provinces of Murcia and Valencia, had taken up a menacing position 
at Ucles. In this engagement upwards of three hundred officers, 
including two generals, and twelve thousand soldiers, were made 
prisoners ; all the enemy’s artillery and thirty standards were captured 
by the French, According to the Spanish accounts, this victory was 
stained by the exercise of wanton cruelty towards the prisoners, in 
retaliation for similar cruelty exercised on former occasions by the 
Spaniards towards the French, (Napier, ‘ History of the Peninsular 
War, vol. ii, p. 16). At Medelin (March 28, 1809), Marshal Victor 
obtained another important victory over the Spanish army under 
General Cuesta, in which six thousand Spaniards are said to have 
fallen, and three thousand to have been taken prisoners. He was 
afterwards sent with his division to the support of the army of Marshal 
Soult in Portugal; but he had scarcely entered that country when he 
was obliged to effect a retreat. Having formed a junction with the 
troops of Joseph Bonaparte, Marshal Jourdan, and General Sebastiani, 
he was induced to attack the army of Sir Arthur Wellesley, which was 
advancing into Spain. The issue proved disastrous to the French 
arms; after a long-contested and sanguinary engagement, Victor was 
defeated at Talavera de la Reyna (July 28, 1809). Victor having 
however united his forces with those of Marshal Ney and Mortier, and 
the British army being obliged to retire before the superior numbers 
of the enemy, the French were again enabled to occupy the town of 
Talavera. ‘T'o the credit of the French commander of Talavera, it may 
be stated that a large number of sick and wounded English soldiers 
were treated with the greatest kindness. 

On February 4, 1810, the duty of investing Cadiz was assigned to 
Marshal Victor, whom Napoleon had created Duke of Belluno; he 
conducted the operations of this siege with skill and perseverance, but 
though protracted for a considerable length of time, they finally proved 
unavailing. In 1812 he was summoned from the blockade of this town 
to-join the grand army destined for the expedition to Russia, and was 
appointed to the command of the ninth division. His name stands 
conspicuous in ‘the annals of this disastrous campaign. During the 
retreat he rendered the most important services to the French army, 
and in particular at the perilous passage of the Beresina (November 28, 
1812), where, with six thousand men, he successfully resisted the 
efforts of General Wittgenstein [WirrcensrEIN] and thirty thousand 
Russians. His courage in this action was rendered more remarkable 
by his humanity. Being recalled, on the approach of evening, from 
the position which he occupied at Stoudziancka, he took upon himself 
to disobey his orders, and remained there during the whole night, for 
the purpose of giving every assistance to the remnants of the French 
army which had not yet effected the passage of the river. At daybreak 
he skilfully managed to evacuate this position, without loss of either 
baggage or artillery, taking with him the wounded and a large number 
of camp followers, who, without his humane aid, must have fallen into 
the hands of the pursuing enemy. 

The following year, Marshal Victor commanded the second division 
of Napoleon’s army ; to the conduct of that division at the battle of 
Dresden (August 26, 1813) the victory the French there obtained has 
generally been attributed. With the same division he likewise greatly 
distinguished himself at the battles of Wachau (October 16, 1813), 
Leipzig (October 18, 19), and Hanau (October 30). After the passage 
of the Rhine had been effected by the French army, Marshal Victor 
was actively employed in putting in an efficient state of defence the 
strong places of Alsace and the Franche Comté; he also for a long 
time bravely opposed the entrance of the Russian army into France. 
Compelled at length to fall back upon the Meuse, he effected this 
movement with his usual skill. He afterwards dislodged the allies 
from the position they had taken up at St. Dizier (January 27, 1814), 
and drove them out at the point of the bayonet from the village of 
Brienne. During the whole campaign he zealously seconded the 
efforts of Napoleon and the French army in checking the advance of 
the allies, On the 9th of February he marched his troops towards the 
Seine, for the purpose of more effectually co-operating with the move- 
ments of his chief, and sustained his high character as a soldier in the 
defence of the bridge of Nogent (February 11, 1814) and in the actions 
of Nangis (February 17) and Villeneuve le Roi. His failure in dis- 
lodging the allies from Montereau, where he had the misfortune to 
lose his son-in-law, General Chateau, exposed him to the displeasure 
of the emperor, who deprived him of his command. The marshal, it 
is said, refused to leave the service, and observed with emotion to his 
chief, that “he had once been a private soldier, that he had not for- 
gotten the use of the musket, and would again take his place in the 
ranks,” The emperor, moved by this proof of his fidelity, put him at 
the head of two brigades of his guard, with which he distinguished 
himself a few days after at the battle of Craonne, where he was severely 
wounded, and was obliged to retire from the field. 

When the success of the allies and the abdication of Napoleon had 
replaced the Bourbon dynasty on the throne, he was among the first 
to offer them his allegiance, and was rewarded by an appointment to 
the command of the second military division. On the return of Napo- 
leon from Elba, he issued a proclamation, in which he allowed himself 
to speak of the creator of his fortunes in terms which reflect high 
discredit upon his character: he describes him as “the man who has 
tyrannised, desolated, and betrayed France during twelve years ;” and 
he urges every Frenchman to pursue to the utmost not only this 


tyrant, but “ his satellites who have accompanied him on his plundering 
excursion.” Independently of the ingratitude which this language 
betrays, it evinces a singular want of discernment, coming from one 
who had once been among the most conspicuous of these satellites, 
He afterwards followed the examples of Marshals Berthier and Mar- 
mont in accompanying Louis XVIII. to Ghent, [Louis XVIIL] On 
the second restoration, he was created a peer of France, and appointed 
one of the four major-generals of the royal guard. He was also 
unfortunately conspicuous as the president of the commission charged 
to inquire into the conduct of his former brethren-in-arms during the . 
Hundred Days. [Ney, Marsnat.] In that capacity he is reported to 
have displayed an unnecessary and pertinacious severity. In 1816 
Marshal Victor was appointed to the command of the sixteenth mili- 
tary division of France. In 1821 he was named by Louis XVIII. 
minister of the war department. In this capacity he altogether disap- 
pointed the expectations to which his military talents had given rise ; 
he alienated the affections of the new army as effectually as he had 
done those of the old, and lost the little popularity he had hitherto 
enjoyed. He actively promoted the expedition to Spain of 1823 
(Sucuer], and having retired from the ministry, accompanied the army 
as second in command to the Duke of Angouléme. After the revolu- 
. tion of 1830 [CHARLES X.] he ceased to take any active part in public 
affairs; though he gave in his adhesion to the government of Louis 
Philippe, he attached himself to the legitimist party, and appears on 
one occasion to have been seriously compromised, with several of the 
leading men of that party, in espousing the cause of the Bourbon 
claimant to the throne of France, He died on the 8rd of March 
1841. 

The position occupied by Marshal Victor among the generals of 
Napoleon is not a very high one. Though his services to the Imperial 
cause were numerous, and many of his exploits were brilliant, he is 
rather distinguished as a brave soldier than as a skilful commander, 
At the head of a division he executed with boldness and precision the 
movements indicated to him by his chief, but he was devoid of the 
military genius requisite to originate a skilful plan of battle. Hence, 
in a separate command, as in many instances in the Peninsular War, 
he was generally unsuccessful. He does not however appear to have 
merited the very harsh remark made concerning him by Napoleon, 
which O’Meara records : “ Victor était une béte sans talens et sans 
téte.” (* Napoleon in Exile,’ vol. i, p. 511.) Such a judgment proba- 
bly escaped Napoleon under the influence of the feelings which Victor's 
conduct, on his return from Elba, had excited. It is indeed scarcely 
possible that it was the real estimate he had formed of this general’s 
military character, since he had raised him from the position of a 
private soldier to the highest dignities of his empire; dignities which 
were in every case the reward of some species of merit, and not the 
mere fancy of favouritism. 

VICTOR-EMMANUEL I, King of Sardinia, was born on July 24, 
1759, the second son of Victor-Amadeus III., and during his father’s 
life bore the title of Duke of Aosta. He took an active part in the 
war undertaken by his father against the French revolutionists, and 
gained some advantages over them, but was at length compelled to 
retreat before their power. When his father concluded a peace with 
Bonaparte in 1796, he refused to agree to it, and withdrew to Southern 
Italy. Carlo-Emmanuel IV., who succeeded Victor-Amadeus III, 
abdicated in 1802, and Victor-Emmanuel assumed his brother’s 
titles, but remained at Cagliari in the island of Sardinia under 
British protection, till 1814, when he returned to Turin. The treaty 
of Paris in 1814, restored to him Nice and the half of Savoy; by 
that of 1815 he obtained the remainder of Savoy ; and the Congress 
of Vienna gave him the sovereignty over Genoa. The Piedmontese 
expected now an adoption of the French institutions to which they 
had been for some time accustomed, but the government by degrees 
replaced them by the old laws. This occasioned discontents, to which 
the persecutions commenced against the Valdenses and the Jews 
added fresh cause. The contests between the supporters of the old 
and the new ideas of government, occasioned the formation of a 
number of secret societies, and at length on March 21, 1821, a 
revolution took place. As Victor-Emmanuel could not make up his 
mind to take the oaths to the new constitution adopted by the 
military, he abdicated on March 23, and was succeeded by his brother, 
Carlo-Felix, who was followed by Carlo-Alberto. Victor-Emmanuel I, 
died at Moncalieri on January 10, 1824, 

*VICTOR-EMMANUEL II. was born on March 14, 1820, the son 
of Carlo-Alberto, Carefully educated by his father he took as crown- 
prince an active share in all the political movements of 1848, and by his 
father’s side witnessed the campaign against Austria, until the loss of 
the fatal battle of Novara occasioned his father to abdicate the throne. 
On March 23, 1849, he formally assumed the crown under the most 
trying circumstances, with an unsuccessful war in progress, and 
bitter political domestic factions in active existence. He however 
succeeded in effecting a treaty of peace with Austria without any 
humiliating concessions, and in setting bounds to the wishes of the 
extreme democratic party by carrying out strictly and with a rare 
conscientiousness the provisions of the constitution given by his 
father, and by endeavouring to uphold and advance the formation of 
a liberal public opinion. Alike against the requisitions of foreign 
powers, and the efforts of the ultra-Romanist portion of the ecclesias- 


347 VICTOR, SEXTUS AURELIUS, 


- VICTORIA. 348 


tical party at home, he has maintained a government, by constitutional 
means, by which a large amount of freedom has been secured. 
Austria, it is said, proffered him the possession of Parma, if he would 
annul the constitution, which offer he unhesitatingly rejected; but 
when Genoa revolted, expelled his garrison, and established a pro- 
visional government, he at once adopted the most vigorous measures 
for the suppression of the insurrection. General della Marmora was 
sent with a large force to besiege it; he redygéd it to submission ; 
and then Victor-Emmanuel endeavoured to conciliate the inhabitants 
by justice and mildness, and by efforts to increase their trade and 
prosperity. The kingdom was suffering from the many misfortunes 
of the past period, and particularly from those inflicted by the last 
war; he took the best means for repairing them by adopting and 
carrying into practice many of the principles of free trade, and the 
construction of railroads, in order to promote the industry of his 
people, His efforts have been remarkably successful; and while all the 
rest of Italy has been the scene of continually recurring conspiracies 
and insurrections, his dominions have been latterly exempt from them, 
if we except an impotent attempt in Genoa, in 1857, to seize a fort, in 
which strangers were chiefly concerned. His greatest difficulty has 
arisen from the priestly party, who have opposed themselves to the 
toleration he has introduced, and by whose efforts the kingdom has 
been placed under a species of excommunication by the see of Rome ; 
a measure that has produced little or no ill effect on his subjects, 
Tn 1854, when Genoa was attacked by cholera, the example he set in 
his efforts for the relief of the suffering won him the esteem of all 
parties, and indeed his most extreme political opponents are forward 
in their acknowledgments of his excellent qualities as a monarch. 
In January 1855 he signed a convention with France and England 
by which he became a partaker in the war against Russia for the 
defence of Turkey. A Sardinian force was despatched to the Crimea 
under General della Marmora, where it greatly distinguished itself 
in several actions, and particularly at the battle of Tchernaya. Sar- 
dinia has in consequence taken an active part in all the negociations 
for the settlement of the Turkish affairs; and at the Conference at 
Paris, the ambassador laid before the assembled representatives of 
the various states an able paper on the troubled state of Italy. 
The Sardinian states, from the wise use they have made of their 
constitutional freedom, are looked up to by the real patriots of Italy, 
as their guide in the acquisition of a beneficial liberty. In 1842, he 
married an arch-duchess of Austria, who died in January 1855, several 
children still surviving her. In November 1855 he visited England, 
where he met with a cordial reception from the public as well as 
from the royal family. 

VICTOR, SEXTUS AURELIUS. [Avretivus Vicror.] 

* VICTORIA, ALEXANDRINA, Queen of the United Kingdom of 
Great Britain and Ireland, was born at Kensington Palace, May 24, 
1819. The Queen is the only child of Edward, Duke of Kent, the fourth 
son of George IIL, and of Maria Louisa Victoria, a daughter of Francis, 
Duke of Saxe-Coburg Saalfeld. The Duchess of Kent, who is the sister 
of Leopold, King of Belgium, was the widow of the Prince of Leiningen, 
on whose death in 1814, she had been left the guardian of her youthful 
sons and the ruler of their territory, both which duties she fulfilled 
with remarkable care and prudence. The Duke of Kent died on 
January 23,1820, leaving his widow in charge of their infant daughter. 
From the earliest age the young princess was taught to seek health 
by exercise and temperance ; to acquire fearlessness even from her 
amusements, such as riding and sailing; to practise a wise economy 
united to a discriminating charity ; to cultivate a self-reliance that 
_ should render her independent of and superior to mere favourites 
and flatterers. As she advanced in years her intellectual development 
was provided for with equal care, under the additional superintendence 
of the Duchess of Northumberland. A knowledge of music, languages, 
and some science, especially botany, was imparted to her; and her 
father having during the latter years of his life belonged to the Whig 
party, her political instruction was chiefly derived from that source, and 
Viscount Melbourne has had the credit of grounding her thoroughly 
in the principles of the British constitution. On the accession of 
Victoria to the throne on June 20, 1837, she found Lord Melbourne at 
the head of the government, and she willingly continued him in that 
post. On February 10, 1840, the Queen was married to Prince Albert- 
Franz-August-Karl-Emmanuel, the second son of Ernst-Anton-Karl- 
Ludwig, Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. On November 21, the Princess 
Royal was born, who is now (September 1857) betrothed to the 
presumptive heir of the Prussian monarchy. On November 9, 1841, 
was born Albert Edward, Prince of Wales; on April 25, 1848, Alice 
Maud Mary; on August 6, 1844, Alfred Ernest Albert; on May 25, 
1846, Helena Augusta Victoria; on March 18, 1848, Louisa Caroline 
Alberta; on May 1, 1850, Arthur William Patrick Albert; on April 
7, 1853, Leopold George Dunean Albert; and on April 15, 1857, 
Beatrice Mary Victoria Feodore. In her private life Queen Victoria 
has uniformly practised the virtues inculeated in her childhood. She 
has always displayed a considerate kindness, her name appearing as a 
contributor to every beneficent project; a wise economy alike removed 
from meanness and extravagance; a love for the beauties of nature, 
as shown by her selection of her residences at Osborne, in the Isle of 
Wight, and of Balmoral, in the Highlands of Scotland, and by her 
repeated excursions by land and sea, to visit the most remarkable 


spots of her own kingdom as well as those of others; and a patronage 
of the fine and industrial arts, 


We have considered -it desirable, in the instance of our presetit 
queen, when the public events of the reign so completely belong to 
our own immediate times, to deviate from the plan which has been — 
pursued in the biographies of the other English sovereigns. A 
connected historical sketch could scarcely be given without some 
expression of opinion ; and we therefore prefer to notice, in the dry 
form of a chronological table, the most prominent circumstances of 
the past twenty years. The historian of this remarkable period will 
point to it as an epoch of unparalleled progress in all that makes a 
nation prosperous and great. He will describe the steady advance of 
the most enlarged principles of political action, without the slightest 
disturbance of that respect for law and order, in the absence of which 
no accession of freedom can be permanent, He will mark a growth 
of industrial prosperity so mighty and so fapid, that it could only be 
accomplished by a people living under the stability of a monarchy and 
the liberty of a representative government. He will see the happiest 
development of the aim at an universal social improvement, not to be 
effected by sudden changes, but with an accelerated energy at every 
step, which gives the hope that the inequalities in the condition of the 
people may become far less onerous than in any previous period, and 
eventually produce a community more united by common interests 
than any other in the world. He will dwell upon the progress of the 
civilising Arts—how Music has again become an enjoyment for all; 
how Painting has received a more important impulse in the extension 
of taste, than it ever derived from mere patronage; how the higher 
branches of Art have come to the aid of manufactures; how, if 
Literature has become less bold and original, it has applied itself to 
the advance of the knowledge and amusement of a body of readers, 
who have increased tenfold since Queen Victoria came to the crown. 
Above all, it will record the growth of the domestic virtues; the 
universal contempt with which the low indulgences of a former 
generation are regarded; and with some differences upon minor 
points of doctrine and ceremonial observance, how the great religious 
principle which has ever distinguished Protestant England prevails 
throughout the land in companionship with that spirit of free inquiry, 
derived from our scientific progress, from which truth has no reason 
to shrink, How large a portion of the great characteristics of our 
time have been derived from the influence of the personal character 
of Queen Victoria, the future historian will feel it his duty to set 
forth. It is impossible for any thinking man, who has had the happi- 
ness to live under her benignant rule, not to feel how essentially that 
rule has contributed to the welfare of his country. It is a great 
feature of this reign, that during seventeen years it was a reign 
without the excitement of foreign warfare. A prince with martial 
propensities might have plunged the country into Euro and even 
trans-Atlantic quarrels, But let it not be forgotten that, when the 
sword was to be drawn in a just cause, a more animating example 
was never presented than that derived from the patriotic spirit of 
Victoria ; and that the world felt that, after forty years’ peace, Great 
Britain, under a queen, was as warlike as under the most chivalrous 
leader, and far more just and considerate towards other nations, than 
in the days when war was held the greatest glory. In the chrono- 
logical table which follows, will be*found the record of some events 
which have a natural bearing upon the great characteristics of the 
reign of this queen. But there are others, far more numerous, and 
some more important, which cannot be indicated in such a form. 
We only attempt to offer an aid to the memory of the reader when 
he desires to know the date of some remarkable occurrence which 
belongs to the public history of the period. For more precise 
details he will consult the lives of the statesmen and warriors of the 
reign; and, incidentally, of those eminent men who, in various — 
have most essentially contributed to its intellectual and industri 
progress. 


1837. June 20, Queen Victoria succeeded to the throne, and was 
proclaimed on June 21. The Duke of Cumberland succeeded his 
brother as King of Hanover, as the succession is restricted to males, 
and thus the connection of the royal family with the Continent was 
sundered after continuing for 123 years. July 6, William IV. was 
buried at Windsor. July 17, the Queen went in state, and dissolved the 
parliament. On November 9, the Queen dined with the Lord Mayor 
of London, at Guildhall, and the day was kept as a general holiday. 
November 20, she in person opened the new parliament, and in her 
speech called attention to the insurrection in Canada, December 14, 
the Canadian rebels were defeated at St. Eustace in Lower Canada, 
their chiefs saving themselves by flight. December 29, the American 
United States steamboat Caroline, which had brought assistance to the 
rebels, was attacked and burnt, on the territories of the United 

tes, 

1838. January 5, the Canadian insurgents, under Dr, Mackenzie, 
surround Toronto, but are repulsed by the governor, Sir Francis 
Head; and a proclamation of the President of the United States 
forbids the attacks of its citizens on neighbouring states. January 10, 
the London Royal Exchange was burnt down, January 16, the Earl 
of Durham was appointed governor-general of her majesty’s posses- 


_ of whom about twenty were left dead on the spot. 


849 VICTORIA. 


VICTORIA. 860 


sions in North America, with pr eohiega’ powers, in order to effect 
the adjustment of the disputes there. April 23, the Sirius (which 
left April 4) and Great Western (April 8) steam-ships arrived at New 
York from England, being the first vessels which crossed the Atlantic 
by steam power alone. May 31, a lunatic named Thom, who assumed 
the name of Sir William Courtenay, and proclaimed himself king 
of Jerusalem, having excited a number of deluded followers against 
the Poor-Law Act, a contest ensued with the military, and Thom 
having shot two men. was himself shot by one of the soldiers. 
June 28, the coronation of Queen Victoria took place, which was 
attended by Marshal Soult, the old opponent of the Duke of Welling- 
ton, as ambassador from the King of the French. July 81, the new 
Trish Poor Law and the International Copyright Acts were passed. 


On August 10 and 15, the Hackney and Stage Coaches and the Irish 


Tithe Compositions Acts were passed. August 16, the Queen pro- 
rogued parliament. On September 17, the London and Birmingham 
Railway was opened throughout its entire length. October 9, the 
Earl of Durham declared his intention of resigning the governorship 
of Canada, in consequence of some of his proceedings being disap- 
proved. November 1, the rebels were defeated at Napierville. On 
November 4, there were riots at Montreal. In November intelligence 
was received that Dost Mohammed Khan, the chief of Cabul, had 
joined Persia with an intention of attacking the British possessions in 


India, whereupon the governor-general had adopted the cause of Shah» 
‘Soojah in his claims on the throne of Afghanistan. 


November 17, 
the rebels in Canada were again defeated near Prescott in Upper 
Canada, and the insurrection wholly suppressed. December 12, a pro- 
clamation was issued against illegal Chartist assemblies, several of 
which had been held at night in various parts of the country, those 
attending them being armed with guns, pikes, &c. 


1839, January 7, the Académie des Sciences at Paris made a report 


on the invention of M. Daguerre, the originator of the daguerreo- 
type process, which has been followed by the photographic process, 
January 20, the troops of the East India Company occupy Aden. 
February 5, parliament opened by the Queen. April 7, the Chinese 
government arrested Captain Elliot, the superintendent of the British 
trade in China and compelled him to deliver up opium to the value of 
8,000,0007, May 6, the government having been defeated in the 
House of Commons on a bill for suspending the constitution of 
Jamaica, where the House of Assembly had refused to pass the 
prisons’ bill, Lord Melbourne announced to the House of Lords, on 
the 7th, that the ministry had resigned. On the 8th, Sir Robert Peel 
received her majesty’s command to form an administration; but owing 
to the refusal of the Queen to dismiss the ladies of her household, he 
declined the commission, and on the 10th Lord Melbourne was 
reinstated. June 8, ratification of the treaty for the separation of 
Holland from Belgium. June 14, the Designs Copyright Act passed. 
July 15, Chartist riot at Birmingham suppressed by the military, but 
not tilla large amountof damage had been done, July 20, the British 
army in India attacked and captured Ghiznee; Dost Mohammed 
fied, and Shah Soojah was proclaimed sovereign of Cabul. August17, 
the Postage Act passed, enacting a uniform rate throughout the king- 
dom for all letters not exceeding half an ounce in weight, and it gave 
the Treasury the power of fixing the rate at first, though it was to 
be ultimately one penny. This was done by reducing all rates above 
4d, to that sum, leaying all below 4d. unaltered. It came into opera- 
tion on December 5; andon January 10, 1840 the uniform half-ounce 
rate was reduced to one penny. The Act was for one year only, but 
it was confirmed in 1840. October 10, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg 
arrived in London, November 4, Newport in Monmouthshire was 
attacked by a party of Chartists, estimated to number about 10,000 
men, under the command of John Frost, an ex-magistrate. They 
were opposed by the mayor, Mr. Phillips, and a party of special con- 
stables, assisted by about thirty soldiers. The rioters broke the win- 


. dows of houses, fired on the inmates, and the mayor was wounded ; 


upon which the soldiers fired, made a sortie, and dispersed the mob, 
The next day 
Frost and some others of the leaders were apprehended ; on December 
81, they were tried, found guilty of high treason, and sentenced to 
death, but the punishment was commuted to transportation for life. 
November 23, the Queen announced to the Privy Council her intended 
marriage with Prince Albert. November 24, the trade between England 
and China was stopped by order of Lin, the Chinese Imperial com- 
missioner, 

1840. January 11, a Chartist outbreak contemplated at Sheffield 
was discoyered and prevented, some of the leaders being apprehended. 
Slight disturbances took place about this time also, in a few other 
towns of the North. January 16, parliament opened by the Queen, and 
Lord John Russell brought before the House of Commons the case of 
Stockdale, who had brought an action against Hansard, the printer to 
the House, for a libel contained in some of the papers printed by 
order. He had obtained a verdict, issued execution, and the sheriffs 
of Middlesex had seized and sold some of Hansard’s property. The 
House declared all these proceedings breaches of privilege. At different 
times, and after considerable discussion, Stockdale, his attorney, the 
two sheriffs, and some subordinate agents, were committed to the 
custody of the sergeant-at-arms, A bill was subsequently brought in 
by Lord John Russell, for exempting from such actions all papers 


ordered by the House to be printed, which was passed on April 14. 
February 10, the marriage of the Queen took place, attended with 
festivities throughout the country, March 15, the English ambassador 
at Naples presented a note, complaining of the establishment of a 
monopoly of the trade in sulphur granted to a French company in 
contravention of the treaties with England. As the Neapolitan 
government refused satisfaction, an English fleet was ordered to Naples 
to adopt coercive means; but by the mediation of France hostilities 
were prevented, and the sulphur trade restored to its former course, 
May 6, the new stamps and envelopes for pre-paid letters came into use. 
June 4, the Act for the better effecting Tithe Composition in England 
and Wales received the royal assent. June 10, a pot-boy, named 
Oxford, fired two pistols at the Queen while riding up Constitution 
Hill in an open carriage; he was seized, tried, and sent to Bethlehem 
Hospital as a lunatic. July 3, the fort of Amoy, in China, was de- 
stroyed by the English fleet, and on the 10th, the island of Chusan 
was taken. July 23, the Act for uniting the provinces of Upper and 
Lower Canada received the royal assent. August 7, the Act against 
employing children to sweep chimneys, and on August 10, that for 
regulating Irish Municipal Corporations, received the royal assent. 
August 11, the parliament was prorogued. August 25, the Carlist 
insurrection in Spain having been suppressed, the English auxiliaries 
evacuate San Sebastian and Passages. October 18, Dost Mohammed 
Khan was defeated and wounded, and again defeated on November 2, 
whereupon he surrenders himself to Sir William M‘Naghten, the 
British agent at the court of Shah Soojah, December 2, Mehemet 
Ali, of Egypt, who had been for some time resisting the claims of the 
Sultan of Turkey to the sovereignty over Egypt, who had inyaded and 
taken possession of Syria, at length, subdued by Turkey assisted by 
England and France, accepted on this day the terms proposed. Com- 
modore Napier with an English fleet had greatly distinguished himself 
by his successful attacks on Beyrout and Acre. December 15, the 
remains of Napoleon Bonaparte, which England had allowed to be 
removed from St. Helena, were this day deposited with great ceremony 
in the Hétel des Invalides, having been brought to France by a 
French squadron under Prince de Joinville. 

1841, January 9, a meeting of the Repeal Association was held in 
Dublin, to receive the accounts of the preceding year; and during the 
spring several monster Repeal meetings were held to hear the ad- 
dresses of Daniel O'Connell, some of which were attended by as many 
as 150,000 persons. January 9, the Bogue forts at Canton were 
attacked and taken by the British forces. January 20, after some 
further hostilities, the Chinese government proposed terms, by which 
Hong-Kong was ceded to Great Britain, direct official communication 
between the two powers granted, some additional ports opened to 
trade, and an indemnity of six million of dollars paid. January 26, 
parliament commenced its sittings. Feb. 10, the union of the Canadas 
proclaimed at Montreal, and Lord Sydenham took the oaths of office. 
Feb. 13, a dinner given to Lord John Russell in London, to cele- 
brate the foundation of the most recent colony of Great Britain— 
New Zealand. On March 15, at a meeting of the Vice-Chancellor, 
heads of houses, and proctors of the University of Oxford, a resolution 
was passed condemning the Puseyite Tracts, which had lately excited 
much attention. March 23, Father Mathew continues his efforts in 
Ireland in favour of temperance. On this and two succeeding days, 
he was said to have administered the pledge to 120,000 persons. 
March 31, the annual meeting of the Metropolitan Anti-Corn-Law 
Association was held, numerous meetings with a similar object having 
been held in various parts of the country. April 28, 2 meeting called 
by the Archbishop of Canterbury, in London, to raise funds for - 
sending out bishops to the colonies, when a large subscription was 
obtained. On the same day, the preliminary expedition of the second 
colony to New Zealand sailed under the command of Captain Wake- 
field; the colony to be formed on the principle propounded by 
E, G. Wakefield, limiting the area, and applying the land produce 
fund to the purpose of obtaining labour. May 18, a great meeting 
held at Manchester, to petition for a total repeal of the Corn-Laws. 
Many other meetings for the same purpose were held throughout 
the country, some of which were disturbed by the attempts of Chartists 
to incorporate a petition for universal suffrage. May 28, hostilities 
re-commenced at Canton. The British forces, under Sir Hugh Gough, 
took two forts, and the town capitulated, having agreed to the 
perc terms and to pay six millions of dollars within one week. 

ay 27, the case of the seven ministers of the presbytery of Strath- 
bogie was brought before the assembly of the Scottish Church ; when 
they were suspended for haying obeyed the order of the civil courts in 
placing the minister of Marnoch against the order of the Assembly. A 
large minority protested, and a numerous meeting was held in Edin- 
burgh on the following Monday (31st), to express their sympathy with 
the depriyed ministers. On the 27th Sir Robert Peel brought forward 
a resolution in the House of, Commons, declaring that the ministry 
did not possess the confidence of the country, June 4, the debate 
terminated, and the resolution was carried by 312 against 311. On 
the 7th, Lord John Russell informed the House, that in consequence 
they should appeal to the country. On the 22nd the parliament was 
prorogued and dissolyed, June 21, the Act for the Commutation of 
Copyhold and Customary Tenures, and that for affording Facilities for 
the Conveyance and Endowments of Sites for Schools received the 


851 VICTORIA. 


VICTORIA. 352 


royal assent. August 19, the new parliament met. An amendment 
to the address was moved by Sir R. Peel; and after a debate, the 
amendment was carried. On the 30th, the ministers announced their 
resignation, and Sir R. Peel was commissioned to form a new ministry. 
In September, accounts arrived from various parts of the country, 
representing the extreme distress of the manufacturing districts of the 
country. October 4, a great fire occurred in the Tower, which 
destroyed the storehouse and the small-arms armoury. November 25, 
Akhbar Khan, the son of Dost Mohammed, joins the insurgents of Cabul 
in a series of attacks on the English. December 31, Lord Ashburton 
was appointed to a special mission to the United States, in order to 
settle the various differences between the two countries, which he con- 
cluded in September 1842, 

1842, January 6, the British forces began to evacuate Cabul under 
a convention concluded between Akhbar Khan and Major Pottinger, 
but were attacked in the Cabul Pass and nearly all massacred. 
January 17, the first stone of the new Royal Exchange was laid by 
Prince Albert. February 8, about 600 deputies of the Anti-Corn- 
Law Association assemble in London, to promote its objects. March 
6, Colonel Palmer evacuates Ghiznee, after capitulating with Akhbar 
Khan. On April 5, General Pollock joins Sir R. Sale at Jellalabad, after 
forcing the Khyber Pass. April 29, a new law for a graduated scale 
on the importation of foreign corn received the royal assent. May 4, 
the Boers of Port Natal having thrown off their allegiance to the 
British government, are attacked by Captain Smith with a small force, 
whom they defeat, but were beaten in a second action on June 26, 
and forced to submit. May 30, John Francis fires a pistol at the 
Queen, who escaped uninjured ; Francis was tried for the attempt at 
the Old Bailey, found guilty, and sentenced to be hung, but the punish- 
ment was commuted to transportation for life. June 4, there were 
riots at Cork and Ennis, occasioned by want of food arising from the 
potato rot in 1841; and great distress and discontent continued to 
exist among the manufacturing population of England. June 16, the 
treaty with the Chinese not having been ratified, the British forces 
entered the river Yang-tze-Kiang, and seized several forts with numerous 
cannon ; and on the 19th they took possession of Shanghai. June 22, 
Sir Robert Peel's bill enforcing an Income Tax received the royal 
assent. July 3, J. W. Bean presented a pistol at the Queen, but was 
prevented from firing by a bystander, and was afterwards sentenced 
to eighteen months’ imprisonment; on July 16 a law was passed inflict- 
ing the punishment of whipping and imprisonment for such offences. 
July 9, a deputation from the Anti-Corn-Law Association waited on Sir 
R. Peel, to represent the extreme distress of the labouring poor. July 30, 
a law received the royal assent, bestowing a representative government 
on New South Wales. August 8, aserious riot took place at Manchester 
owing to the distress, and the riots extended subsequently to other towns 
in the North. August 12, the Bankruptcy Amendment Act received 
the royal assent. August 29, the Queen and Prince Albert visit Scot- 
land. September 8, Ghiznee was retaken by General Nott. On the 
16th, General Pollock forces the passes, and occupies Cabul, after several 
actions, October 1, Lord Ellenborough issued a proclamation, stating 
that the disasters in Afghanistan having been avenged, the British army 
would be withdrawn across the Sutlej, which was done on the 12th, 
September 30, a special commission was held to try the offenders in 
the late riots, when fifty-four were convicted, and sentenced to various 
periods of imprisonment. 

1843. January 9, O’Connell announced at a weekly meeting of the 
Repeal Association that “ 1843 is and shall be the great Repeal Year.” 
January 20, Mr. Edward Drummond, the private secretary of Sir 
Robert Peel, was shot at Charing-Cross by a man named M‘Naghten, 
who was acquitted on March 4, on the ground of insanity, and removed 
to Bethlehem Hospital. On February 2, parliament assembled. Feb- 
ruary 17, the forces of the Ameers of Scinde were defeated by Sir C. 
Napier, who, on the 20th, took Hyderabad, and subsequently annexed 
Scinde to the British empire. About the end of this month, the 
Rebecca Riots took place in Wales, the object of which was the 
removal of oppressive turnpike tolls. The riots continued through 
several months. March 25, the Thames Tunnel was opened. May 18, 
the secession of the supporters of the non-intrusion principle took 
_ place from the General Assembly of Scotland, when above four 

hundred ministers resigned their parishes. May 30, Natal was an- 
nexed to the colony of the Cape of Good Hope. July 3, the Cartoons 
for the embellishment of the new Palace at Westminster were exhibited 
to the public. August 22, a great Repeal Meeting held on the hill of 
Tara. August 28, the Queen and Prince Albert embarked at South- 
ampton, on a visit to Louis Philippe at the Chiteau d’Eu; on Septem- 
ber 13, they visited the King of the Belgians at Ostend. August 17, 
an Act for the pacification of the Scottish Church received the royal 
assent, but had no effect in staying the disruption. August 24, par- 
liament was prorogued. August 29, Father Mathew holds a great 
Temperance meeting in London, and in the course of a few weeks 
administers the pledge to 74,000 persons. On September 9, the 
French took possession of Otaheite. September 15, Maharajah Shere 
Singh, ruler of the Punjab, was assassinated with his family, at the 
instigation of his minister Dhyan Singh. September 28, the Anti- 
Corn-Law Association renewed its meetings in London. October 7, 
the Irish government issued a proclamation forbidding the Repeal 
meetings, and O'Connell recommends submission. On the 14th, Mr. 


O’Connell, his son, and several other Repeal leaders, are arrested and 
held to bail on a charge of conspiracy and sedition. October 27, the 
Welsh special commission opened at Cardiff for the trial of the 
Rebecca rioters, the principal culprit being a young farmer, who was 
sentenced to imprisonment for twenty years. Most of the others 
were let off, on pleading guilty, and on condition that the riots should 


cease. December 29, Gwalior, in the East Indies, invaded and sub- 


jugated by the Anglo-Indian army. 
1844, January 29, the Grand Duke of Saxe-Coburg, father of Prince 
Albert, died. February 1)parliament was opened. February 12, after 


a trial which lasted twenty-four days, O’Connell and his companions — 


were found guilty. A new trial being refused by the judges, on 
May 11, O'Connell was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment and a fine 
of 2000/.; on September 2, the judgment was reversed, on appeal, by 
the House of Lords, and he was restored to liberty. March 5, Mr. 
Pritchard, the British ex-consul at Otaheite, was seized and placed in 
confinement, by M. Bruat, the French governor, whose conduct, after 
much contention, was subsequently disavowed by his government. 
April 12, a treaty of annexation proposed between Texas and the 
United States was rejected by the Senate. On May 11, a meeting was 
held under the presidency of Lord Ashley, for improving the habita- 
tious of the poor. June 1, the Emperor Nicolas of Russia visited 
England. June 6, the Factories Act, regulating the employment of 
children and young persons, received the royal assent. June 14, a dis- 
cussion was raised in the House of Commons on the subject of Sir 
James Graham opening letters at the Post-office. He contended that 
he had the right, but would give no further explanation. The letters 
said to be opened were addressed to Mazzini, and the information 
thus obtained had enabled the Austrian government to seize the 
brothers Bandiera, who had landed in Italy for the purpose of creating 
an insurrection, A Committee of Examination was appointed by 
Lords and Commons, but they only reported that the power had been 
occasionally exercised. July 22, a treaty was signed between England 
and Hanover for the settlement of the Stade duties. August 8, a 
meeting was held in Manchester for the formation of public parks, 
and 25,0002. were subscribed by November 1. September 5, parlia- 
ment was prorogued. October 7, the King of the French arrived 
at Windsor on a visit to the Queen. October 28, the Queen opened 
the new London Royal Exchange. November 19, a meeting was held 
at Birmingham for the establishment of public parks and baths. 

1845, Jan. 11, the Archbishop of Canterbury addressed a letter to 
the clergy of the Established Church, on the disputes raised by the 
introduction of Puseyite practices in the ceremonies of the Church, as 
to which he would not give an authoritative opinion, but recommended 
moderation. Feb. 4, parliament was opened by the Queen in person. 
On the 14th, Sir Robert Peel made his financial statement: he pro- 
posed to continue the Income tax, to repeal all duties on export, to 
abolish the duties on 430 articles which yielded only a trifling income, 
also those on cotton-wool, glass, and staves, and to substitute an 
annual licence for the auction duties: these were ultimately carried. 
March 6, Sir Robert Peel brought in a bill to enable Jews to hold 
municipal offices, which was passed on March 14th, May 5, a bazaar 
in aid of the Anti-Corri-Law Association was held in Covent Garden 
Theatre, by which 25,000/. was realised. On the 22nd a meeting was 
held in London for the establishment of baths and washhouses, under 
the presidency of the Duke of Cambridge. May 23, the Arctic expe- 
dition of discovery, under Sir John Franklin, sailed from Greenhithe, 
and, unfortunately, never returned. May 28, a terrible fire took place 
at Quebec, and on the 28th of June another. In the two fires 2947 
houses were destroyed and 20,000 persons left destitute: parliament 
voted 20,000/. for their relief; subscriptions were raised, and collections 
were made in all the churches, under the authority of the Queen’s 
letter. May 29, a new convention between England and France for 
the better suppression of the slave trade was signed. June 15, a 
French and English squadron attacked Madagascar, in consequence of 
the Queen of Madagascar having threatened the traders of those 
countries with expulsion: they destroyed some forts and part of a 
town, but nothing satisfactory was accomplished. June 30, Sir R, 
Peel’s act for the endowment of Maynooth College received the royal 
assent; and on July 21, the acts for the establishment of museums in 
large towns, for the endowment of the new colleges in Ireland, and 
for the amendment of the Poor-Law in Scotland. August 9, the 
Queen prorogued the parliament, and on the same day, with Prince 
Albert, embarked at Woolwich on a visit toGermany. On their return 
they again visited Louis Philippe on Sept. 7 at the Chateau d’Eu. 
Oct. 31, Mr. Waghorn arrived with the East. India mail, which he had 
brought for the first time by the Overland route. During this month 
the railway mania reached a crisis, and a panic ensued, by which 
many were ruined. - November 19, the Irish Roman Catholic bishops 
condemn the new Irish colleges. Nov. 22, Lord John Russell issues 
his letter to the electors of London, declaring for a total repeal of the 
Corn Laws. Dec. 10, it having been previously understood that there 
had been many discussions in the cabinet on the subject of the Corn 
Laws, it was made known that ministers had resigned, and that Lord 
John Russell had been sent for to form a ministry. On the 20th, he 
haying failed, Sir R. Peel was again sent for, and re-accepted offiee. 
Dec, 18, the Sikh army was beaten by the British at Moodkee; on the 
2st the Sikhs were attacked at Ferozeshah and driven from their 


a 


q 
| 
1 


353 VICTORIA. 


VICTORIA, 354 


entrenchments; and on the 27th the Sikh army retreated beyond 
the Sutlej. 

1846, Jan. 3, the corporations of London and Dublin presented 
addresses to the Queen representing the sufferings caused in Ireland 
by the potato-rot of the previous year. Jan. 5, a meeting of agri- 
cultural labourers was held at Wootton-Basset in Wiltshire, at which 
they petitioned for the abolition of the Corn Laws. Jan. 11, the New 
Zealand chiefs, who had previously committed several outrages on 
the British settlements, were attacked and defeated: on the 19th 
they made their submission. Jan. 22, the parliament was opened by 
the Queen, who referred to the failure of the potato crop, and recom- 
mended the consideration of the propriety of relaxing protective 
duties. On the 27th Sir R. Peel announced his intended repeal of the 
Corn Laws. Jan, 28, the Sikh army was again defeated at Aliwal, on 
the Sutlej, by the British forces under Sir H. Smith. Feb. 10, the 
British army, under Sir H. Gough, attacked the Sikhs at Sobraon on 
the Sutlej, defeating them with great slaughter after a most obstinate 
conflict. March 13, potatoes having risen to a famine price in Ireland, 
a treasury order was issued allowing the importation of Indian corn, 
rice, and buckwheat at a nominal duty of one shilling per quarter. 
_ April 4, the governor of the Cape of Good Hope commenced a war 

‘upon the Caffres, who had been committing depredations on the 
colonists. June 9, the town of St. John’s, Newfoundland, was 
destroyed by fire; the damage done amounted to 1,000,000/. June 12, 
a treaty with the United States for the settlement of the Oregon 
boundary was agreed to by the senate at Washington. On the 26th 
the Corn Duties Repeal Act, and the Customs Duties Act, which gave 
great freedom to commerce, received the royal assent. On the same 
day, on the motion for the second reading of the Protection of Life 
Bill (a coercive measure for Ireland), the ministers were defeated, and 
immediately resigned. On July 6, Lord John Russell and other mem- 
bers of the new ministry were sworn into office. July 28, W. 8. 
O’Brien and many others seceded from the Repeal Association, because 
O'Connell had denounced all attempts to obtain their object by 
payneal force. August 26, an act for the establishment of Public 

aths and Washhouses received the royal assent, and also the act for 
establishing County Courts. Sept. 4, twenty-four districts in Ireland 
were declared by proclamation to be in a state of distress, and the 
provisions of the Labour Rate Act were directed to be put in ope- 
ration in them, Sept. 14, a formal protest was made by the British 
government against the marriage of the Duke de Montpensier, a son 
of the King of the French, with the sister of the Queen of Spain. 
Oct. 2, the distress in Ireland continuing, and the provisions of the 
‘Labour Rate Act proving worse than useless, the lord lieutenant 
issued a circular authorising the undertaking of works of permanent 
utility. Dec. 18, the island of Labuan was taken formal possession of 
by the agents of the British government. Dec. 18, a meeting was held 
in Edinburgh to consider as to the best means of relieving the dis- 
tress in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, where 330,000 persons 
were without the means of subsistence. _ 

1847. Jan. 2, the British Association established, by which large 

sums were raised by subscription for the relief of the distress in 
Ireland and Scotland, in both of which countries numbers were dying 
of starvation. Jan. 19, parliament was opened by the Queen, who 

_ directed the attention of the Houses to the great distress prevailing, 
and called on them to provide measures for its relief. May 13, Daniel 
O’Connell died at Genoa, while on his way to Rome. June 8, the new 
Irish Poor Law received the royal assent; on the 21st, that for the 
improvement of towns; and on the 23rd parliament was prorogued, 
Oct. 17, thanksgivings were offered up in all the churches for an 
abundant harvest. Oct. 23, in consequence of a great monetary 
pressure, the temporary suspension of Sir R. Peel’s Bank Restriction 
Act was ordered, and the order was withdrawn Nov, 23. Nov. 18, 
parliament re-assembled, and passed an act for the suppression of 
crime and outrage in Ireland. 

1848. February 21, the revolution commenced in Paris by which 
Louis Philippe ceased to be king of the French. On the 24th the king 
abdicated. On the 26th the republic was proclaimed. Louis Philippe 
and his family fled, and arrived in England at the beginning of March. 
April 10, a proposed great Chartist demonstration on Kennington 
Common, near London. The government however had appointed special 
constables ; an intended procession was prevented, and the affair passed 
off harmlessly. May 15, the state trials in Ireland commenced; the jury 
could not agree in a verdict as to Mr. O’Brien and Mr. Meagher. Mitchell 
was tried on May 22 for seditious writing in the ‘ United Irishman, 
found guilty, and sentenced to fourteen years’ transportation. June 18, 
Lieut. Edwardes, with a small force, engaged and defeated the army of 
the Dewan Moolraj. July 29, an engagement took place between the 
Irish rebels and the government forces at Ballingarry : the rebels were 
easily defeated. On August 5, W.S. O’Brien was captured, and on 
the 12th Meagher, O’Donohue, and Lyne. Aug. 20, twenty Chartist 
leaders arrested in the Blackfriars Road. Aug. 29, Sir H. Smith 
defeated the rebels under Pretorius at Bloem Platts, in the Cape of 
Good Hope colony. Aug. 31, the Health of Towns Act received the 
royal assent. Sept. 30, the Chartist trials were concluded in London, 
and Dowling, Cuffey, and others were sentenced to transportation 
for life. October 9, the trial of the Irish rebels concluded, and 
O'Brien, Meagher, O’Donohue, and McManus were sentenced to death. 

BIOG. DIV. VOL, VI, 


bapaeed 17, the Punjaub was annexed to the British possessions 
in India, 

1849, January 13, the Sikhs defeated at Chilianwallah by Lord 
Gough. February 21, they were again defeated and completely routed 
at Chenaub. May 11, on the appeal of Smith O’Brien and others 
to the House of Lords the judgment was confirmed, and on July 9, 
they were all transported. May 13, a large meeting held at Cape Town 
to protest against the attempt to make the Cape a penal colony. June 
26, the act for repealing the Navigation Laws received the royal 
assent, and on the 28th the Irish Encumbered Estates Act. Sep- 
tember 16, prayers offered up in the churches for the removal of 
cholera, which had been raging in England for some time. November 
5, Russia and Austria demand the expulsion cr imprisonment of the 
Hungarians lately engaged in the insurrection against Austria; Turkey 
asks the assistance of England, and a British fleet enters the Darda- 
nelles. December 1, the Dowager Queen Adelaide died. December 
16, a large assemblage of tenant farmers and cottiers took place at 
Mullinahone in Tipperary to petition for Tenant Right. 

1850. January 10, the Enterprise and Investigator leave Woolwich 
in search of Sir John Franklin. January 25, a meeting held in the 
Mansion House, London, in furtherance of the Industrial Exhibition 
of all nations. February 27, Sir C. Napier, commander-in-chief in 
India, disbanded the 66th Bengal Native Infantry for mutiny. June 4, 
an attack made on the Queen by Lieutenant Pate, who struck her 
with a cane. July 2, Sir Robert Peel died, in consequence of a fall 
from his horse. July 26, Baron Rothschild, having been elected for 
the city of London, attended the House in order to take his seat, but 
was refused because he objected to take the oaths on the faith of a 
Christian. August 5, the act for regulating metropolitan interments, 
forbidding burials in church-yards, received the royal assent, as 
also an act for the better government of the Australian colonies, 
forming Victoria into a separate colony, and giving it a representative 
legislature. August 14, the act enabling town councils to establish 
public libraries and museums also received the royal assent. August 
21, the Queen embarked at Osborne to visit the King of the Belgians, 
September 24, the pope issued a bull establishing a Roman Catholic 
hierarchy in England, which, on its promulgation, occasioned great 
agitation. October 8, Captain M‘Clure, in the Investigator, discovered 
the North-West Passage by Prince of Wales’s Strait. The ship was 
subsequently frozen up, and the crew were not rescued till April 1853, 
when they made their way over the ice to Melville Island, November 
22, a meeting of the clergy of the Established Church was held at 
Oxford to protest against the pope’s bull, which was followed by 
public addresses for the same purpose to the Queen from various parts 
of the country. December 31, Sir Harry Smith, governor of the Cape 
of Good Hope, declared war against the Caffres. He had been attacked 
by them and narrowly escaped on the preceding day, and the Caffres 
defeated our troops in several places, 

1851. January 27, Earl Grey in a despatch places the Clergy 
Reserves at the absolute disposal of the legislature of Canada. 
February 4, Parliament opened, and the Queen alluded to the Eccle- 
siastical Titles bill, as occasioned by the pope’s recent bull. February 
18, the trial of the London Dock Company for a fraud on the Customs 
ended this day by a verdict which was a virtual acquittal. February 
22, the Russell ministry resigned, in consequence, as stated by Lord 
John, of the smallness of their majority against Mr. Disraeli’s motion 
in favour of agricultural protection, and of Mr. Locke King having 
carried a motion against them in favour of the extension of the 
county franchise. On the recommendation of the Duke of Wellington 
the Russell ministry resumed their places on March 3, May 1, the 
Great Exhibition of the Industry of all Nations in Hyde Park was 
opened by the Queen. May 22, the governor of New South Wales 
issued a proclamation forbidding the search for gold in the newly 
discovered gold regions without a licence. By the beginning of June 
20,000 persons were employing themselves at the diggings. August 
1, the royal assent was given to the Ecclesiastical Titles Assumption 
and the New Metropolitan Cattle Market acts. September 27, the 
Submarine Cable Telegraph between Dover and Calais was brought 
into operation and was opened for public communication on November 
13. October 23, Kossuth arrives at Southampton, on the 30th he 
went in procession to the Guildhall of London, where an address from 
the city was presented to him. November 6, the Caffres defeated a 
British foree at Waterkloof. December 2, the Prince-President of 
France dissolved the legislative assembly, arrested Cavaignac, Chan- 
garnier, Thiers, and others, and on January 2, 1852, his continued 
authority was voted by 7,439,216 votes against 640,737. 

1852. Jan. 1, the Roman Catholic synod of Thurles prohibited the 
Roman Catholic clergy from holding any office whatever in the Queen’s 
colleges in Ireland. Feb. 3, the parliament met; on the 20th the 
ministry were beaten on the Local Militia Bill, and on the 23rd they 
resigned ; they were succeeded by one under the presidency of the 
Earl of Derby, who, on announcing his acceptance of office on the 
27th, deprecated the attempts which were being made to produce a 
panic-fear of invasion by the French. April 2, Martaban in Burmah 
was stormed and taken by the British, and on the 14th Rangoon was 
also taken. May 19, Bassein was taken, On June 1, Pegu, and on 
July 9, Prome, were taken by the British. April 13, Major-General 
Cathcart, who had superseded Sir H. Smith as governor “ the Cape, 

A 


855 VICTORIA. 


VICTORIA. 356 


issued a proclamation recognising the independence of the Boers of 
the Vaal river. June 1, the electric telegraph between England and 
Treland opened for communication. June 2, the independence of 
Greytown guaranteed by the English and American governments. 
June 30, the act granting a representative constitution to New Zealand 
received the royal assent. July 1, the parliament was dissolved. 
July 3,a great Tenant-Right meeting at Waringstown in Ireland, at 
which Mr. §. Crawford, M.P., attended, was dispersed by the magis- 
trates. August 11, Queen Victoria arrived at Antwerp on her way to 
Brussels. Sept. 14, the Duke of Wellington died ; on Nov. 18, received 
a public funeral in St. Paul’s, ordered by parliament. Nov. 2, a great 
Free Trade banquet held at Manchester, which was attended by 
8000. persons. Nov. 23, three ships arrived in the Thames with a 
large quantity of Australian gold. Dec. 4, the Burmese attempt to 
retake Pegu, but are repulsed with great loss; on the 20th Pegu is 
annexed to the British empire by a proclamation of the governor- 
general of India. Dec. 16, in the new parliament which had assembled 
on Nov. 4 the ministry were beaten on the budget by 305 against 286; 
they immediately resigned; and on the 27th the Earl of Aberdeen 
announced that he had accepted office, and formed a new ministry. 

1853. Jan. 5, the Emperor of China legalised the importation of 
opium, in order to make it contribute to the revenue. March 9, a 
treaty with the Caffre chiefs concluded by General Cathcart at King 
William’s Town. Aprill, a royal charter received at Manchester, con- 
stituting itacity. May 3, Prince Menzikoff presented the Russian 
ultimatum to the Turkish government, claiming for the czar the pro- 
tectorate of the Greek Christians in the Turkish dominions, which was 
rejected, May 12, the Industrial Exhibition opened at Dublin. 
June 20, peace with Burmah proclaimed by the governor-general of 
India; the late king of Burmah had died, and his successor agreed to 
the terms proposed by the English. June 21, the Queen reviewed the 
troops encamped at Chobham. June 26, the Emperor of Russia 
issued a manifesto against Turkey, and announced the march of 
Russian armies upon its Danubian provinces. Sept. 27, Turkey 
declared war against. Russia. Oct. 22, the French and English ficets 
entered the Bosphorus, Dee.5, a protocol signed at Vienna by France, 
England, Austria, and Turkey, for the maintenance of the integrity 
of the Turkish empire. 

1854. Feb. 18, Lord John Russell introduced to the House of 
Commons his new Reform Bill, which was abandoned on April 11, in 
consequence of the state of public business. Feb. 20, the Grenadier and 
Coldstream guards embarked at Southampton for Turkey, and other 
troops followed in rapid succession. March 11, the Queen reviewed a 
fleet at Spithead previous to its sailing for the Baltic. March 28, 
war declared by England against Russia. April 22, Odessa bombarded 
by the French and English fleets. June 7, a treaty concluded at 
Washington for facilitating the intercourse of the British North 
American colonies with the United States. June 8, the Crystal Palace 
at Sydenham opened by Queen Victoria, June 16, the act for doubling 
the income tax received the royal assent. Atgust 7, the act for regu- 
lating Oxford University received the royal assent. August 16, 
Bomarsund was surrendered to the allied fleet. Sept. 14, the allied 
army landed in the Crimea, after having suffered severely from cholera 
during this and the preceding month. On the 15th the Russians 
evacuated Moldavia, and the Danubian provinces were garrisoned by 
the Austrians. On the 20th the battle of the Alma took place, and 
the Russians were defeated. Oct. 17, the bombardment of Sebastopol 

commenced. Nov. 5, the battle of Inkermann, when the Russians 
‘were again beaten. On the 14th a violent storm destroyed many ships 
laden with stores, and caused great calamities on shore. This was 
followed by a season of great suffering: the roads were impassable ; 
the weather was bitterly cold; men and horses, ill supplied with food 
or shelter, perished in large numbers, while medical attendance and 
hospital accommodation were wofully deficient. Great dissatisfaction 
was expressed at home, and private subscriptions to a large amount 
were raised to alleviate the distress. Miss Nightingale organised a 
staff of nurses, and proceeded with them to Constantinople to super- 
intend the hospitals, and attend the sick and wounded. 

1855. January 6, conferences between the plenipotentiaries of 
England, France, Austria, and Russia, were opened at Vienna. Lord 
John Russell was the English plenipotentiary, and his conduct in sup- 
porting the propositions of Austria for a peace with Russia, formed the 
subject of a parliamentary discussion on July 6, and led to his secession 
from office on July 13. January 10, Sardinia joined the allies, and 
undertook to send troops to the Crimea, January 29, Mr. Roebuck’s 
motion for a committee to investigate the causes of the sufferings of 
the army in the Crimea carried against the ministry by 305 to 148. 
In consequence the Aberdeen ministry resigned, and on February 10 
was succeeded by one of which Lord Palmerston was the Premier. 
March 2, Nicolas, emperor of Russia, died, and was succeeded by his 
son Alexander II. April 17, the Emperor and Empress of the French 
arrived at Windsor on a visit to the queen. May 24, Kerteh occupied 
by the Allies, whose fleets swept the sea of Azoff, and destroyed several 
towns and a vast number of vessels, June 18, the French attacked the 
Malakhoff and the English the Redan, but were repulsed. July 1, a 
large assemblage of persons took place in Hyde Park to protest 
against Lord R, Grosvenor’s Sunday Trading bill, and some rioting 
occurred, The bill was withdrawn on the next day, but the meetings 


and the riots were continued on the two following Sundays. July 11, 
Sveaborg, in the gulf of Finland, was bombarded by the allied fleets. 
August 14, the Metropolis Local Management Act, constituting a repre- 
sentative board for the management of the improvements of the whole 
metropolis, received the royal assent. August 18, the Queen and 
Prince Albert paid a visit to the Emperor of the French in Paris. 
September 8, the French captured the Malakhoff, and in the night the 
Russians evacuated the south side of Sebastopol, of which the allies 
took possession. September 29, the Russians assaulted Kars, and were 
repulsed by the Turks, assisted by Sir W. F. Williams, several other 
English officers, and General Kmety. October 17, Kinburn, at the 
mouth of the Dnieper, surrendered to the allies, and on the next day 
the Russians blew up the fortress of Oczakoff. November 26, Kars 
was surrendered to the Russians, after a gallant defence; Sir W. F. 
Williams and the English officers were made prisoners, and ¢ with 
great kindness by the Russians. November 30, the King of Sardinia 
arrived at Windsor Castle on a visit to the Queen. December 19, the 
united kingdom of Sweden and Norway joined the alliance of the 
Western Powers. , 
1856. January 31, the Queen, on opening the session of parliament, 
announced the acceptance by Russia of the terms proposed for a 
general peace. February 1, Mr. Murray, the British minister to the 
Persian court, quitted Teheran in consequence of a dispute with the 
Persian government. February 7, the Queen, having created Sir J. 
Parke, one of the barons of the Exchequer Court, a peer for life only, 
a motion to refer the subject to a committee of privileges was carried 
against the ministers. The committee reported that such a 
gave no right to sit in parliament, which was confirmed by the House. 
Ultimately ministers gave way, and Baron Wensleydale was created a 
peer in the usual form. February 25, John Sadleir, M.P. for Sligo, 
having poisoned himself, an investigation led to the discovery of a 
series of enormous frauds, through which the Tipperary Bank failed, 
and an immense amount of litigation and suffering among the share- 
holders followed. April 29, official proclamation made of the peace 
with Russia, May 3, an amnesty granted to the political exiles; 
Frost, Williams, Jones, Smith O’Brien, and others, subsequently 
returned to England. May 29, public celebration of the conclusion of 
peace ; magnificent fireworks exhibited in London, Edinburgh, and 
Dublin, and a general illumination took place. July 12, the allies 
evacuated the Crimea, July 29, the act for establishing reformatory 
and industrial schools for criminal and vagrant children received the 
royal assent. August 20, the Queen of Oude arrived in England, to 
appeal against the annexation of her son’s dominions to the British 
possessions in India. September 4, the Royal British Bank stopped 
payment; on the accounts being investigated gross frauds were dis- 
closed ; the failure caused a vast amount of distress; and ultimately 
the attorney-general undertook to prosecute some of the directors; 
an act of parliament was also passed in 1857 to render trustees more 
easily punishable for misconduct and misapplication of funds. Octo- 
ber 11, the seizure by the Chinese in the Canton river of the ‘lorcha’ 
Arrow, gave rise to a series of attacks on Canton, from which place all 
the foreign commercial residents withdrew. November 10, in conse- 
quence of the Persians having taken Herat, in violation of a treaty, 
war was proclaimed at Bombay against that country. December 11, 
the collection of pictures belonging to Mr. John Shee was made 
over by him to the government as a gift to the nation. December 16, 
the Queen went to Spithead to receive from the government of the 


United States the Arctic discovery ship Resolute, which, having been 


abandoned in the ice by its erew, was found and recovered by an 
American ship, and now restored. 

1857. January 27, the Indian army landed at Bushire in Persia, 
capturing the place with small opposition, February 2, the army 
advanced to Burazjoon, where the Persians abandoned their camp and 
stores, and retreated; but endeavoured to intercept the British force 
on its return on February 7, when they were utterly defeated. On 
March 28, the town of Mohammerah was taken; but in the meantime 
a treaty of peace had been concluded at Paris on March 4, Persia 
agreeing to withdraw from Herat; and the war ended. March 3, the 
ministry were defeated on a motion by Mr. Cobden, involving censure 
on them for the attack on Canton. Lord Palmerston then announced 
his intention of appealing to the country as soon as the indispensable 
business of the House could be got through. Parliament was dissolved 
on March 21, and a new one summoned, which met on April 30. In 
the new elections the most remarkable fact was that Mr. Bright, Mr. 
Cobden, and most of what were called the ‘ Peace Party,’ failed in 
getting returned. March 14, the treaty with Denmark for the abolition 
of the Sound Dues was signed at Copenhagen. An indemnity was to 
be paid to Denmark, of which England’s share was settled at 1,300,0007. 
and the dues ceased from April 1. May 5, the Art Treasures Exhi- 
bition was opened at Manchester by the Queen and Prince Albert, 
May 7, a mutiny broke out in the Indian army; six regiments 
revolted, took possession of Delhi, and massacred many of the 
English residents. The mutiny spread, and nearly all the Benga 
army joined it. An emperor was proclaimed at Delhi, and a few 
Europeans and some faithful native troops assembled to besiege it, 
May 25 and 27; Commodore Keppel, with a British naval force, 
attacked a number of Chinese junks in Escape Creek, and on June 1, 
another attack was made on those assembled in Fatshan Creek, in 


t 


ee 


Se 


ee 


857 VIDA, MARCO GIROLAMO. 


VIDOCQ, FRANCOIS-JULES. 358 


the Canton river. Both attacks were successful, numerous junks 
were destroyed, a quantity of cannon taken, and a large part of the 
enemy’s force killed. June 17, the mutineers in India attacked 
Cawnpore, but were repulsed. They however renewed their attacks ; 
the British commander, Sir Hugh Wheeler, was killed, and on June 
20 the garrison was obliged to surrender to Nena Sahib, the Mahratta 
chief of Bhitoor, on an agreement of being allowed to depart for 
Allahabad. When they were embarked in boats on the Ganges for 
that purpose, cannon were fired on them, many boats were sunk, and 
those who landed were cut down. July 3, General Havelock marched 
against Cawnpore, and, after defeating the enemy in three battles, 
regained possession of the town on July 17. June 25, an order in 
Council directed that in future Prince Albert was to be prayed for in 
the churches and addressed as the Prince Consort. July 10, the Oaths 
Bill, by which Jews would have been admitted to parliament, was 
rejected in the House of Lords, after being carried in the Commons 
by a large majority. August 7, the laying down the Submarine Cable 
between Valentia in Ireland and St. John’s, Newfoundland, was com- 
menced. After laying down nearly 300 miles, the cable broke, and 
the undertaking failed for the present. 

VIDA, MARCO GIRO’LAMO, born at Cremona about the year 
_ 1490, studied at Padua and Bologna, and distinguished himself in the 

classical studies, and especially in Latin poetical composition, He 
afterwards entered the order of the regular canons of the Lateran. 
He went to Rome about the beginning of the pontificate of Leo X., 
who happening to see his little Latin poem on chess, ‘ Scacchia ludus,’ 
and another entitled ‘ Bombyx,’ or the Silkworm, took him into favour, 
and urged him to undertake the composition of a more important and 
regular poem on the life of our Saviour, and in order to enable him 
to apply himself undisturbed to his poetical studies, the pope bestowed 
upon him the priory of San Silvestro at Frascati. Vida accordingly 
began his poem entitled ‘Christiados, of which he presented two 
eantos to Leo X., who praised them greatly, but the poem was not 
finished for many years after. Meantime he published, in 1527, his 
didactic poem ‘ De Arte Poetica,’ which has been extolled by Scaliger, 
Batteux, and other critics, as being his best work. It has been trans- 
lated into English, and has been praised by Dr. Johnson, aud -by Pope 
in his ‘ Essay on Criticism.’ 

Clement VII. appointed Vida apostolic protonotary, and in 1532 
made him bishop of Alba in Piedmont, Ughelli, in his ‘ Italia Sacra,’ 
speaks at length of the meritorious conduct of Vida during the thirty- 
four years that he administered the see of Alba. When the French 
besieged that place in 1542, the bishop assisted at his own expense 
the poor inhabitants, and supported the spirit of the garrison until 
the besiegers were obliged to raise the siege. Vida afterwards repaired 
to the Council of Trent, where he became intimate with the Cardinals 
Pole, Cervini, and Dal Monte, and with the learned Marcantonio Fla- 
minio, and in the familiar conversations which he had with them he 
conceived the plan of his dialogues ‘De Dignitate Reipublice,’ which 
he afterwards published and dedicated to Cardinal Pole. In the year 
1549, on the occasion of a dispute about precedence between the towns 
of Cremona and Pavia, the citizens of the former intrusted their 
townsman Vida with the defence of their claims, which were to be laid 
before the senate of Milan for its decision, Vida wrote three orations: 
*Cremonensium Actiones Tres adversus Papienses in Controversia 
Principatus, In these compositions Vida gave way perhaps too much 
to municipal feelings, and indulged in invective against the people of 
Pavia, for which his orations were called Vida’s ‘ Verrine.’ Giulio 
Salerno, on behalf of Pavia, replied to Vida, in his ‘ Pro Ticinensibus 
adversus Cremonenses de Jure Possessionis,’ which however were not 
printed, as the question was dropped, 

Vida died at Alba, in September 1566, and was buried in the cathe- 
dral of that town. It seems that he died poor. Besides the works 
mentioned in the course of this article, he wrote sacred hymns in 
Latin, and other minor compositions both in Latin and Italian, Vida 
was one of the most learned scholars and most elegant Latin writers 
of the 16th century. His contemporary Sadoleto, a competent judge, 
affirms that his Latin verse approached near to the dignity of classical 
poetry. His poem on the Life of Christ, in six books, is a close imita- 
tion of Virgil, for which the author was styled ‘the Christian Virgil.’ 
Vida wrote also a small poem on the challenge and fight between 
thirteen Italians and the same number of Frenchmen in Apulia, in 
February 1503, in which the Italians remained victorious. Of this 
inedited poem a fragment was published at Milan in 1818: ‘ Marci 
Hieronymi Vids XIII. Pugilum Certamen.’ There is an account of 
this same occurrence in Italian prose: ‘Istoria del Combattimento 
de’ tredici Italiani con altrettanti Francesi, fatto in Puglia tri Andria 
e Quarati,’ by a contemporary and a spectator of the fight, which has 
furnished the subject of Azeglio’s historical novel, ‘Ettore Fieramosca 
o la Disfida di Barletta.’ M 

(Corniani, Z Secoli della Letteratura Italiana; Tiraboschi, Storia 
della Letteratura Italiana ; Giraldi, De Poetis Suorwm Temporwm ; 
and the biography of Vida, in the edition of his works published at 
Oxford, 1722.) 

VIDOCQ, FRANGOIS-JULES, the chief of the detective brigade 
(Brigade de sureté), at the prefecture of the Paris police, established 
in 1812, whatever must be thought of his early life as a thief and 
inmate of the convict yards, undoubtedly did real service to France, 


by his active pursuit of the marauders, who levy contributions on 
their neighbours’ goods. He was born at Arras, the chief town in the 
department of the Pas de Calais on the 23rd of July 1775. His father 
was a baker, and was chosen to supply the local government, during 
the revolution, with bread, flour, &c. Young Francois was employed 
in the business before he was thirteen ; but formed acquaintances who 
led him to purloin his father’s money by means of several artful con- 
trivances. These being detected, the boy began to. pilfer the stock, 
spending the proceeds with his companions at a neighbouring wine 
shop. A watch was at length set over him; which did not prevent 
his stealing ten silver forks and spoons, and pledging them, For this 
offence his father gave him in charge, when he was sent to the House 
of Correction for a few days, While in confinement he was incited by 
a young fellow-prisoner to rob his father again, by picking the lock of 
the till, and taking out the whole contents, amounting to 801. Having 
divided this money with his accomplice, he left Arras, intending to 
sail for the United States; but the high price of the passage made 
him change his mind; and being’at Ostend a few days after, he was 
plundered by a sharper of all his ill-gotten gains. 

In this state of destitution, he hired himself to an itinerant show- 
man, who kept a small ménagerie. His allotted task consisted at first 
in sweeping out the cage and the reception room. His master, 
after promoting him to the rank of tumbler and acrobat, wanted him 
to play the part of a savage who eats raw flesh and drinks blood. 
The wretched boy refused to undertake this new character, and was 
discharged, He next took service with the master of a puppet 
show ; from whom he passed into the hands of a peregrinating quack- 
doctor. At length weary of this hard probation of vagrant life, 
which had lasted two years, the seeming penitent returned home, and 
a kind old priest prevailed on his father to forgive him and receive 
him. This was in 1791, in his 16th year. 

But he was too idle and restless for regular work; so he enlisted 
(after one or two escapades), in the regiment of Bourbon, and set out 
for Belgium, then the seat of the new war, between France and 
Austria. He was present in several actions, and was made a corporal ; 
but, having quarrelled with his drum-major, and challenged him to 
fight, he deserted to avoid a court martial. He then enlisted in the 
11th chasseurs, and fought at the battle of Jemappes, November 6, 1792. 
Having distinguished himself at the capture of Longivy, under Kel- 
lermann, October 20, 1792, and being of unusual stature for his age, 
he was made a corporal of grenadiers. A day or two after he was 
recognised as a deserter, when he made his escape to the Austrian 
outposts. Unwilling however to fight against his own countrymen, 
he counterfeited illness, and began to teach fencing. 

After a short stay with the Austrians, he got back to France, 
entered the 14th regiment, and then returned to the 11th, being present 
at several actions, and being wounded three times. One of his wounds 
obliged him to return to Arras, where in consequence of a quarrel he 
was denounced to the Revolutionary Tribunal as a ‘Modéré, and 
thrown into prison. However he was soon after released, owing to 
the good offices of Mademoiselle Chevalier, the daughter of the noto- 
rious Joseph Lebon. He married her in 17938, but they separated 
almost immediately. The next year he went to Brussels, became a 
professed gambler, made love to a countess under a feigned name, 
and repenting of his treachery or fearing punishment for bigamy, just 
as he was about being married to her, confessed the imposture, was 
rewarded with a considerable sum of money, and took the diligence 
for Paris, which he entered for the first time in 1796, at the age of 
twenty-one. 

He had not been in the capital many weeks, before the dangerous 
society of gamblers, swindlers, and loose women, left him once more 
penniless; which compelled him to return to the army of the 
north. Several fresh instances of folly, three imprisonments, and as 
many escapes, succeeded ; after this he was confined in the prison of 
Douai, where he remained eight months. During his confinement, 
he was mixed up in a case of forgery, which in his autobiography he 
tries to explain as an act of inadvertence, rather than of guilt. For 
this however he was tried, convicted, and sentenced to eight years’ 
penal servitude at the galleys. As they conducted him, bound to the 
chain, he excited a revolt among the convicts, but the attempt to 
escape having failed, he reached Brest, and remained six years at the 
bagne. In this place he completed his studies of the manners, the 
erafts, the habits of every class of thief. ‘Two years before the expi- 
ration of his penalty, he contrived to escape from the convict-yard, 
assumed the name of Duval, and returned to his own neighbourhood, 
where he became an usher to a school at Ambricourt, near Lille. He 
was soon re-captured, and sent to Toulon. From this convict-yard, 
he then made what he calls “his finest escape.” After this he joined 
a band of freebooters in the south, who plundered the stage-coaches 
on the highroads. But these malefactors having detected the brand 
of the convict on his shoulder, dismissed him from their company, 
having first made him swear not to betray them. He resolved to 
be revenged; and this incident became the turning point in his 
fortune. 

As he was making for the north, Vidocq, having no passport, was 
arrested and taken before a magistrate, to whom he offered to give 
such intelligence as would enable him to surprise his late eomrades in 
the act of plunder. For this purpose, he applied for a temporary 


359 VIEN, JOSEPH-MARIE. 


VIEN, JOSEPH-MARIE. 360 


release. But the magistrate demurred. ‘Suppose, on my way to 
prison,” said Vidocq, “I get away from my keepers, come back to you, 
and resume my bondage, will you then grant me the provisional 
freedom I now solicit ?’—“ Yes,” replied the judge. He escaped, and 
made good his offers to assist justice. This service was followed by 
others far more considerable. These events took place in 1804, but 
he continued for several years the slave of his antecedents. In 1806 
he went to Paris again, where he maintained himself by following the 
handicrafts which he had learned during the course of his nomadic 
life. He became a toy manufacturer, a dealer in hardware, and a 
tailor; but other thieves, who had known him in prison, and who 
were well acquainted with his embarrassments, left him no peace: 
sometimes they wanted money, at others they proposed a good 
bargain; next it was some plunder to be hid. On one occasion they 
borrowed his cart, to convey the body of a murdered victim to a place 
of safety. His state in the end became intolerable. 

In 1809, driven to extremity, Vidocq presented himself before M. 
Henri, the commissioner of the secret police of Paris, acknowledged 
his critical condition, and offered to give valuable information in case 
he might be allowed to come and go freely. This proposal was not 
accepted until his solicitations had been several times renewed, in the 
midst of which he was once more arrested. On this occasion he was 
sent to Bicétre, when M. Henri, interested by his perseverance, and 
struck with the pointed nature of his proposals, which he continued 
to make by correspondence, at last consulted the Minister of Police, 
Pasquier, who returned a favourable answer, in which Vidoeq was 
instructed to furnish information. His revelations then became so 
numerous and so important, that his liberty was granted him not 
long after. 

The qualities he displayed in his new functions, soon attracted 
attention. Few detective officers ever possessed so much presence of 
mind, keen intelligence, bodily strength, courage, and diligence; 
besides that fluency of slang and banter, which is the eloquence of 
the vulgar. He made ita point, from the outset of his new vocation, 
to produce at once the culprit and the proofs of his-crime. The 
receivers of stolen goods found in him a more relentless enemy than 
the thief. At first he held but a humble employment under the 
regular police officers; but, in 1813, he was withdrawn from their 
control and placed under the orders of M. Henri alone. His captures 
were extraordinary. The famous thief Delzéve, and Folard, the robber 
who afterwards stole the medals of the Royal Library, were surprised 
at their work, and handed over by this secret agent to justice, La 
Courtelle, a sort of St. Giles’s, infested with the worst vagabonds, was 
purged; the great burglar, Desnoyers, and thirty-two of his accomplices 
were taken. About the same time, the famous brigade of detective 
police (Brigade de Streté), directed by Vidocq, was formed, consisting 
at first only of four men; in 1817, the number rose to twelve; and in 
1824, when its complement was full, it contained twenty-eight detec- 
tives. “It was with this limited force,’ says Vidocq, “that I had to 
watch and look after 1200 returned transports, and issue every year 
from four to five hundred writs.” In the single year 1817, he effected 
772 arrests, and 39 seizures of stolen goods. His useful brigade cost 
but 2000/. a year, of which he enjoyed a salary of 200. During 
the whole term of his official employment, he was the butt of continual 
charges, suspicious, and open accusations, He was said to take part 
in every crime, to incite robberies for the sake of arresting his dupes, 
and to have a share in all the plunder. This obloquy rose so high 
as at length to alarm the government, and in 1825 he was superseded 

- in his functions by Lacour, whose antecedents resembled his own. In 
1826 he established a paper manufactory at Saint-Mandé; and in 1827 
he wrote his autobiography, which was published in Paris, by the 
bookseller Tenon, in 1829, in 4 vols. In 1831-32 he was employed to 
detect some of the political agitators of the day, but his vocation was 
not either permanent or precise. Then, in 1834, he set up an office for 
information on behalf of Trade and Commerce, the object being to 
enable the fair trader, when applied to for credit, to ascertain the 
degree of trust to which his new customer was entitled. In 1844, 
stimulated by the success of Eugéne Sue’s ‘ Mysteries’ at Paris, and 
certain works of the same questionable character, which had appeared 
in London, he republished his Mémoires, under the title of ‘ Les 
Vrais Mystéres de Paris.’ The morbid taste for notoriety of any kind 
which then seemed to exist, induced Vidocq to visit London, and 
exhibit himself, with many curious articles used by French burglars, 
in the rooms of the Cosmorama in Regent Street. But this specula- 
tion did not answer his expectations, Soon after he fixed himself in 
Belgium, where he died in 1850, 

VIEN, JOSEPH-MARIE, one of the most celebrated French 
painters of the 18th century, was born at Montpellier, June 18, 1716, 
and was the pupil of various painters, among them A. Rivalz, of 
Toulouse, and finally C. Natoire, at Paris, whither he repaired in 1740, 
He was very sickly in his youth, and his parents thought that even 
the fatigue of the drawing-board was more than his strength could 
bear, and endeavoured to lead him to other pursuits; his own enthu- 
siastic devotion to art however got the better of all obstacles, and in 
the year 1743, he competed successfully at Paris, for the grand prize 
of the French Academy, and obtained accordingly also the govern- 
ment pension for Rome. The subject of the picture was the Plague 
of the Israelites in the time of David. In 1744 he departed for Rome 


and remained there until 1750, when he returned to Paris. Besides 
numerous studies he painted many excellent pictures during his six 
years’ residence in Rome, including several church or altar pieces of 
great merit, as the Slaughter of the Innocents, St. John for the town 
of Montpellier, and the only two pictures by Vien now in the gallery 
of the Louvre, Saint Germain and Saint Vincent receiving the Crown 
of Glory from the hands of an Angel, and the Sleeping Hermit. 

These were followed by a long series of works at Paris, many of 
them compositions of the highest pretensions, and indicating a decided 
revival in the French school of painting from the insipid puerile state 
to which it had been reduced by Vanloo and Boucher. The pictures 
of Vien approach the style and technical excellence of the scholars 
of the Carracci, though for some time his works were much maligned 
by the scholars of Boucher and Vanloo, and among them his own 
master Natoire. His St. Denis preaching to the Gauls, one of his best 
works, was pronounced by them inferior to the picture by F. Doyen 
of the Miracle des Ardons, illustrating the tradition of the miracle 
performed by St. Généviéve when by her prayers she arrested the 
conflagration of Paris, which was caused by lightning in the year 1129. 
Vien’s picture was placed in the church of St. Roch, where Doyen’s 
is also now placed: they are nearly the same size, being about 24 
feet high by 13 wide. Ina few years however, and before the French 
revolution, Vien was justified by his contemporaries, who gave him 
the title of regenerator of painting in France: Count Caylus had 
always been an admirer of his genius. It was his object to restore 
the study of the antique, and of nature as represented in the works 
of the best Italian masters, and he succeeded to a considerable extent 
in both respects; but his admiration for the antique was carried 
to the utmost extreme by his pupils, Vincent and David and their 
scholars. 

Vien was elected a member of the French Academy in 1754, when 
he gave as his presentation piece, a picture of Dedalus attaching his 
Wings. In 1775, after the painting of his picture of St. Denis, which 
was exhibited in the Louvre in the previous year, he was decorated with 
the Order of St. Michel, and was appointed Director of the French 


Academy at Rome, where he resided from that time until 1781, and 


was elected in the mean while member of the Academy of St. Luke. 
After his return to Paris he became one of the rectors and Director 
of the Academy there (he had previously been professor); and he 
was finally appointed principal painter to the king in 1789. This post 
he_of course lost at the revolution, but he was from its foundation a 
member of the Institute of France; he was also created by Napoleon 
a member of the senate, a count of the empire, and a Commander of 
the Legion of Honour. He died at Paris, March 27, 1809, having 
nearly completed his ninety-third year, and he was buried in the 
Pantheon. He painted until within a year of his death. Vien’s 
pictures are very numerous, amounting to little short of two hundred; 
this number would not be great, if many of them were not of very 
large proportions. Few of them have however been engraved; the 
St. Denis, already mentioned, which is by some considered his master- 
piece, has been engraved only in outline by C. Normand for the 
‘Annales du Musée,’ published by Landon, and in the ‘Musée de 
Peinture,’ &c., of Réveil and Duchesne. His works are from various 
subjects, but chiefly from the Sacred Scriptures, from ancient and 
modern history, and from Greek mythology. Among his more cele- 
brated pictures are :—Julius Cesar contemplating the Statue of Alex- 
ander at Cadiz, and regretting that he was still unknown at an Age 
when Alexander was already crowned with Glory; the Consecration 
of the Equestrian Statue of Louis XV.; Marcus Aurelius causing Pro- 
visions to be distributed among the People; St. Louis vesting the 
Regency of the Kingdom in his Queen, Blanche of Navarre; St. 
Jerome; the Embarkation of St. Martha; Christ breaking Bread; the 
Resurrection of Lazarus; the Virgin attended by Angels; St. Gregory; 


Briseis in the Tent of Achilles; the Parting of Hector and Andro- © 


mache; Hector exhorting Paris to go out to battle; Venus wounded 
by Diomede; Aineas pursuing Helen during the burning of Troy; 
Andromache showing the Arms of Hector to her Son; Mars forcing 
himself from the Arms of Venus ; Cupid and Psyche; Sappho playing 
on her Lyre; Proserpine adorning the Statue of Ceres; Cupid flyin 

from Slavery; a Woman selling Cupids; and a young Greek Gir. 
comparing her Bosom with a Rose-bud. 

Vien has left also many drawings, some in series, as :—The Sports of 
Nymphs and Cupids, in 20 pieces; the Vicissitudes of War, also in 
20 pieces; and the Union of Cupid and Hymen, Love and Marriage, 
in 86 pieces. There are also some etchings by Vien : he executed a set 
from a series of designs of the Adventures of Lot and his Daughters; 
and a Féte or Masquerade given by Vien and other students of the 
French Academy at Rome, to the Cardinal de Larochefoucauld in 1748: 
it is in 82 pieces, under the following title—‘ Caravane du Sultan & la 
Mecque, Mascarade Turque donnée & Rome par Messieurs les Pen- 
sionnaires de ]’Académie de France et leurs Amis, au Carnaval de 
VY Année 1748; Jos. Vien inv. et sc.’ 

Mapame Vien, born Marie Reboul, was a distinguished painter of 
birds, flowers, and still life; and was a member of the old French 
Academy of Painting. She died in 1805, aged seventy-seven. 

JosEPH-Marre VIEN, the Younger, the son of M. and Madame Vien, 
though a distinguished portrait-painter, practised only as an amateur. 


He was born at Paris, in 1761. He exhibited several pictures in the 


4 


a a a ee 


ee an 


861 VIETA, FRANCIS. 


VIETA, FRANCIS, 362 


Louvre during the first quarter of the present century : among them a 

portrait of his father, as M. Vien, sénateur, in 1804, , ; 
(Gabet, Dictionnaire des Artistes de 0 Ecole Francaise au dix-newvidme 

Sidcle ; Fiorillo, Geschichte der Mahlerei ; Landon, Annales du Musée ; 


’ Réveil et Duchesne, Musée de Peinture, &c.; Brulliot, Dictionnaire 


des Monogrammes, &c.) 

VIETA, FRANCIS. Much has been said of the writings of Vieta, 
but very little on his life, and that little has often been wrongly given. 
In the absence of all good sources of reference, we are under the 
necessity of giving somewhat more space to this biography than is 
usual, 

Francois Vict, Viette, or de Viette (his name is given in these ways, 
and in one of his own writings it is Latinised Fr. Vietzus, but more 
usually Vieta), was born at Fontenai-le-Comte, a small town not far 
from La Rochelle, in the year 1540. His family, if we may judge from 
the position which he occupied during the greater part of his life, 
must have had both rank and interest. We may connect the epoch 
of his birth with other parts of the history of science, by stating that 
he was born about the time when algebra was introduced into the 
northern parts of Europe from Italy, in the thirty-ninth year of the 
age of Cardan, and three years before the death of Copernicus, while 
Napier, Harriot, and Galileo were respectively 10, 20, and 24 years his 
juniors. Of his education and early years we know nothing, and the 
seanty materials for the rest of his life are found principally in the 
work of his friend the president De Thou (‘ Hist.,’ lib. exxix.). Bayle 
charges this celebrated writer (‘Dict.,’ art. ‘Rasario’) with inaccuracy 
in his accounts of learned men; if we may disregard this imputation 
in the case of Vieta, with whom the biographer was personally and 
intimately acquainted, we cannot all the more help wishing that the 
facts preserved had been more in number, and of somewhat closer con- 
nection with the scientific pursuits of Vieta. The whole of De Thou’s 
account does not amount to more than a few insulated anecdotes, 
which are often repeated; and the want of information from other 


quarters respecting one of the greatest mathematicians of the 16th 


century, may be accounted for if we remember the troubled times in 
which he lived, and the rule which he appears to have followed 
of printing all his works at his own expense, and distributing them 
as presents among his friends. This has been found almost uni- 
formly to be a successful mode of preventing or diminishing post- 
humous fame. 

The life of Vieta was passed in the public service: on the resigna- 
tion of De Thou, he was made master of requests. We have seen it 
said that he held this office under Henry III., and elsewhere that it 
was in the household of Margaret, wife of Henry IV. Both state- 
ments are probably true; since De Thou assures us that his attention 
to the mathematics was only the relaxation of a whole life spent in 
public business, for which, says the historian, he had both talent and 
industry. And Vieta himself, in his answer to Adrian Romanus, says 
that he cannot profess to be a mathematician, but only a person to 
whom mathematical studies are delightful when he has leisure. He 
lived and held office through the religious troubles of the reigns of 
Henri III. and Henri IV.; a letter of his friend Ghetaldi, hereinafter 
mentioned, proves that he was on the council of state in the latter 
reign, and we must suppose that his love of study induced him to 
confine himself to the simple duties of his calling. It seems however 
that he did not entirely escape the dangers of the time, or the attacks 
of the opposite party. In his dedication to Catherine de Parthenai, 
ducheésse de Rohan, and mother of the Duc de Rohan, well known as 
the leader of the French Protestants in the time of Louis XIIL, he 
addresses that lady as one who had saved him from imprisonment and 
certain death; which means, we suppose, that he had fallen into the 
hands of the Huguenots. He proceeds to aver, but whether this be 
fact or dedication we have no means of knowing, that it was her love 
for and great skill in mathematics which first incited him to that 
study. Her literary attainments are mentioned by her biographers, 
and the account given by Vieta may be perfectly true. There is only 
one story in De Thou of his political services:—The extent and 
scattered character of the Spanish dominions having rendered their 
communications insecure in time of war, a cipher was invented with 
more than 500 characters, and these not permanently retaining the 
same signification. The complexity of this method foiled the ordinary 
decipherers, and application was thereupon made to Vieta, who with- 
out any difficulty discovered the secret, which was used for more 
than two years, to the great loss and annoyance of the Spaniards. 
These, perceiving that their cipher was detected, and imagining that 
no human skill was equal to such an effort, attributed the discovery 
to magic, and took care to publish this report throughout Europe, but 
particularly at the court of Rome. But the imputation failed to 
excite any odium, and was received, says De Thou, non sine risu et 
indignatione rectius sentientium ; heresy had taken the place of sorcery. 
It is therefore not true, though some writers have said it by way of 
mending the story, that Vieta was actually cited to appear at Rome 
and answer the charge of dealing with the foul fiend. 

Indirectly connected with the politics of the day is the share which 
Vieta took in the controversy on the reformation of the calendar. 
This, as is well known, was completed under the auspices of Pope 
Gregory XIIL., in 1582, though the subject had been in agitation more 
than a century, and the change had even been projected by Sextus 


‘ 


‘powers of forbearance. 


IV.,in 1474, The plan finally adopted was that of Lilius, an astro- 
nomer of Calabria, who died before its presentation to the pope, and 
the execution of it was intrusted to the Jesuit Clavius. It is to be 
remembered that the true time of keeping Easter was then thought of 
the utmost importance, and that heterodoxy in this particular had 
more than once been thought worthy of excommunication. The 
reformed calendar was attacked by Vieta, Joseph Scaliger, and others, 
the first of whom published in the year 1600 what he called the true 
Gregorian calendar, and prefixed to it the bull of Gregory XIII, On 
this work it will be sufficient to say that Montucla and Delambre 
unite in condemning the ideas of Vieta: he made 3400 Julian years 
contain exactly 42,053 lunations, the error of which is a trifle more 
than that of the astronomy of his day. His work was carried by him- 
self to Cardinal Aldobrandini, who was then at Leyden on a mission 
from Clement VIII. He had however no success with the cardinal, 
‘as I warned him when he set out,” says De Thou, “ feeling sure that 
an improvement adopted by the princes of Christendom after so 
much deliberation, would not easily be modified, even for the better, 
by those who think it a secret of government never to confess that 
they either have erred or can err.” Clavius simply replied to Vieta 
by referring him to a work on the Gregorian calendar which he was 
then preparing, and which he stated would contain a full reply to all 
the objections. This answer seems to have enraged Vieta beyond his 
Perhaps he felt indignant at not being con- 
sidered worthy of a separate reply, or perhaps the malady which after- 
wards destroyed him had begun to act upon:his mind—which last 
may be charitably hoped. In 1602 he published his expostulation 
against Clavius, a tract of three pages, which Montucla is surprised his 
editors should have permitted to descend to posterity. He charges his 
opponent with evasion, and asserts that he ought to have retracted his 
error for the sake of the mysteries of religion, the peace of Christen- 
dom, and the divine authority of the supreme pontiff. He accuses 
Clavius of having slandered him to the pope, of contempt of religion, 
of falsehood in mathematics and theology; and urges upon him 
the danger that the Protestants might, through his obstinacy, get 
hold of the real calendar (his own) by themselves, and not from the 
papal authority. He calls upon Clement to alter the bull of his pre- 
decessor, and brings forward, curiously enough, as a precedent, that 
Augustus Cesar, a Pontifex Maximus, had changed the arrangement 
of the year ordained by Julius Cesar, another Pontifex Maximus, 
Finally, in order that no manifestation of bad feeling might be 
wanting, he calls upon the order of Jesuits to excommunicate all who 
should by design and fraud stand in the way of the good of Christen- 
dom; meaning, of course, Clavius and his followers. ‘To this explosion 
of passion Clavius did not condescend to reply; but throughout his 
work, which appeared in 1603, the year of Vieta’s death, he treated 
the latter with the respect due to his genius. De Thou gives a partial 
friend’s account of this controversy ; for he says that on the refusal of 
Clavius to adopt the emendations of Vieta, the latter sent him a 
serious expostulation, and that had Vieta lived, the matter would not 
have stopped there, since those who did not hesitate to pluck at the 
beard of a dead man, would have beaten the living one, had they 
dared. The anonymous author of the life of Vieta in the ‘ Biographie 
Universelle’ has followed De Thou in the preceding description of the 
controversy, probably from having never seen anything but copies of 
this description. 

It can hardly be supposed that so severe an attack upon the bull of 
Gregory XIII. would pass altogether unnoticed at Rome; and the 
treatment of Galileo, which was not many years after Vieta’s death, 
may lead to a suspicion that, if Vieta had not died opportunely, he 
would have been compelled to desist from his opposition; and cer- 
tainly, if the Inquisition had caught him on this matter, he would 
not, after the hint which he had thrown out about Clavius, have had 
the sympathy which posterity, with one voice, has expressed for 
Galileo, There is a circumstance which seems to us to make it pro- 
bable that the storm was brewing. In 1603, just before Vieta’ 
death, Theodosius Rubeus (author of a work called ‘Diarium Uni- 
versale,’ published in 1581, and which seems to have been reprinted 
with additions in 1693), an ecclesiastic at Rome, published, “ per- 
missu superiorum,” an expostulation against Vieta on behalf of 
Clavius ; a work, of which we never saw any mention, except in a 
manuscript cross-reference from ‘Vieta’ in the catalogue of the 
British Museum. This expostulation was dedicated to the pope, 
in terms which, unless used by permission, were presumptuous in 
the highest degree; since they certainly imply that the writer was 
empowered to say that recourse would be had to authority, if that 
expostulation were not sufficient. As this tract is never cited, and 
not easily obtained, we give at length the passage to which we 
allude :—“Itaque cum apud te solum, Pater Beatissime, hac causa, 
cujus cognitio tua est, sit agitanda, censui sub augustissimo nomine tuo, 
hance meam admonitionem in publicum dare, ut omnis provocandi 
ansa Vietze tollatur, e¢ tandem huie controversice auctoritate tud finis 
imponatur.” Rubeus afterwards pays a high testimony to the extent 
of Vieta’s acquirements, which is well confirmed by such scattered 
notices of him as exist. He says that he feels it necessary to speak 
strongly in behalf of Clavius, since the latter is contending single- 
handed with one who is both lawyer, theologian, mathematician, 
orator, and poet, 


363 VIETA, FRANCIS. 


VIETA, FRANCIS. 864 


What more we have to say of Vieta must appear in connection with 
his friendships or his writings. He died at Paris in 1603, according 
to De Thou: Weidler says December 13, but without stating from 
whence. Of his attachment to study the former writer says it was so 
excessive, that he often continued for three days together, fixed in 
thought, without stirring from his chair, or taking more sustenance or 
sleep than nature absolutely required. In religion he appears to have 
been a zealous Roman Catholic, at least towards the end of his life, 
and in politics a confirmed believer in the divine right of kings. The 
assassination of Henry III. seems to have dwelt upon his mind for 
years, so much as to force him to recur to it in his writings, in places 
where political allusion is a curious kind of digression. Thus, at the 
end of his ‘ Responsa Mathematica, published in 1593, he suddenly 
breaks off from the subject of the Calendar to refer to that event, 
which took place in 1589: ‘Sed de iis tollendis ad ecclesiasticos re- 
feram commodiore loco, ac ipsis detegam periodum qua summo ipso- 
rum applausu mirum solis et lune consensum prodat eis fepd empha. 
re **Eheu! quis unctum chrismate mystico 

Necare regem, sacrileg4 manu, 
Ausus cucullatus sodalis 
In numerum colitur Deorum | 

*¢ Pii haud vacillent, Ecce MALUS BONIS, 
Tremant procaces, ECCE BONUS MALIS 
Non compater nomen sodali 
Omen at imposuit nefando.” 


The allusion in the verses is to Jacques Clement, who after the assas- 
sination of the king, was considered as a saint by his party. 

This article is the proper place of reference to two minor mathe- 
maticians, who are hardly worth separate articles, but who owe some 
of their fame to their connection with Vieta:—Adrian van Roomen, 
and Marino Ghetaldi. 

ADRIAN VAN RooMEN, commonly called ApRranus RoMANuUS, was 
born at Louvain, September 29, 1561, and died May 4, 1615 (1625 ?). 
He published various works, of which the names may be found in 
Vossius ‘De Scientiis Mathematicis,’ The story of his acquaintance 
with Vieta is told by De Thou, but more in detail by Tallemant des 
Réaux, whose ‘ Historiettes’ (written before 1657) were published at 
Paris, in 6 vols. 8vo, 1834-35: In his ‘Idea Mathematicw, &c., 
Antwerp, 1593, Romanus proposed a problem to all the celebrated 
mathematicians whom he knew by reputation, naming them, but 
without a Frenchman among them. Shortly after, the ambassador 
of the States being at Fontainebleau, in conversation with Henry IV., 
who was enumerating to him the celebrated men of the country, said, 
“But, Sire, you have not a mathematician, for Adrian van Roomen 
does not name one Frenchman in his list.” ‘ Indeed I have, though,” 
answered the king; “and an excellent one—let some one call M. 
Vidte.” Vieta came, was presented to the ambassador, who gave him 
Van Roomen’s problem, placed himself at a window, and, before the 
king left the room, wrote two solutions with a pencil. In the evening 
he sent several others, offering more, as he said the problem was 
capable of any number. Van Roomen, immediately on hearing this, 
set off to Paris to see Vieta, followed him to Fontenay, and spent 
some weeks with him. We shall see more of his problem presently, 
T'allemant, who was evidently not a mathematician, tells us the sort 
of impression which Vieta's writings had created about the middle of 
the 17th century. He says that this M. Viste, who had learnt 
‘mathematics by himself, there being nobody to teach him in France, 
wrote treatises so difficult that no one of his age could understand 
him; that one Lansberg, if he mistakes not (but he does mistake), 
first deciphered some of them, and that since his time people had 
made out the rest. It is worth noting that this same Tallemant is a 
witness independent of De Thou; for he informs us that Vieta died 
young, of study, whereas, had he seen De Thou’s account, he would 
have found in the very first words that Vieta died “anno climac- 
terico.” And yet Alexander Anderson, who must have known bis 
friend’s age, calls his death, “ fatum immaturum,” 

Marino Guerapl, of Ragusa, was of a good family, but of his life 
we can find nothing; nor of his death, except that it took place 
before 1630, Tallemant, already cited, says that a Ragusan gentleman, 
called Galtade (Ghetaldi), procured himself to be made minister of his 
native republic in France, that he might have the acquaintance of 
Vieta. Ghetaldi, in the letter already alluded to, says he was at Paris 
on his own affairs when he first met with Vieta. The works. of 
Marino Ghetaldi are—1, ‘ Nonnulle Propositiones de Parabola,’ Rome, 
1603 ; 2, ‘Promotus Archimedes, Rome, 1603, a work on specific 
gravities, which is sometimes cited on matters of weights and mea- 
sures; 3, ‘ Apollonius Redivivus,’ Venice, 1607; 4, ‘Supplementum 
Apollonii Galli,’ Venice, 1607, in continuation of the tract of Vieta 

resently mentioned ; 5,‘ Apollonius Rediyivus’ (the second book), 
Venice, 1613; 6, ‘ Variorum Problematum Collectio,’ Venice, 1607 ; 
7, ‘De Resolutione et Compositione Mathematica,’ folio (all the others 
being quarto), Rome, 1630 (posthumous). There is not much of algebra 
in Ghetaldi’s writings, but what there is comes from the school of Vieta: 
the author so far bears out Tallemant’s story, that he speaks of -his 
intimate friendship with Vieta at Paris, Alexander Anderson (born at 
Aberdeen in 1582), who taught mathematics publicly at Paris, was the 
editor of two of Vieta’s works, which came into his hands, one from 


the author, the other from his executors, as will presently appear. 
[ANDERSON, ALEXANDER.] Nathaniel Torporley may also be named in 
this connection, he having for several years acted as Vieta’s ama- 
nuensis. [ToRPORLEY, NATHANIEL] 

It may perhaps save some bibliographical student a hunt for an 


imaginary work of Vieta if we mention here the ‘Supplementum Fr. — 


Viet, ac Geometrie totius Instauratio, Paris, 1644, by A. 8S. L. 
This A. S. L. is Antonio Sanctini of Lucca, who had a few years 
before published ‘Inclinationum Appendix,’ &c., with his name. At 
the head of his dedication he calls himself Constantius Silanius Nice- 
nus which is an anagram for Antonius Sanctinius Lucensis, The work 
itself is an impudent attempt to connect Vieta’s name with pretended 
solutions of the problem of two mean proportionals, the multisection 
of the angle, &c. Both Sanctini’s works were answered by P. P. Cara- 
vaggi of Milan, in his ‘In Geometria, &c. Rime detectx,’ &c., Milan, 
1650, Sanctini’s algebra is of the school of Vieta. It is a striking 
corroboration of what may be suspected for other reasons, namely, 
how little Vieta was appreciated in France for many years after his 
death, that of all the persons we have mentioned as connected with 
him, not one is a Frenchman; but nevertheless some part of his works 
was translated into French by one Vaulezard: we know that this 
translation exists, but we cannot find any mention of it. 

The writings of Vieta are rendered difficult to read by the then 
almost universal affectation of forming new terms from the Greek, 
and of introducing phrases in that language. His pages may remind 
the reader of the English fashionable novels of twenty years ago, which 
required a continual insertion of French words and sentences. Thus, 
in the isagoge, we find zetetic, poristic, and exegetic processes, the first 
consisting of antithesis, hypobibasm, and parabolism ; and also that by 
an additional axiom, ‘ alrnua non dvcpnqxavov,’ many problems hitherto 


‘&doya,’ may be solved ‘ évréxvws,’ He uses the signs + and —, and © 


also that for division ; but when he would designate the difference of 
two quantities of which the greater is unknown, he places between 
them our modern sign of equality, thus, A = B, The exponents are 
expressed by words, either full or contracted; and the numerical 
coefficients are written after their accompanying letters. The 
between algebra and geometry, which gave the name of square and 
cube to the second and third powers is extended to all symbols, Thus 
the equation 3BA*—DA—A* = Z, would be written 


B 3 in A quad.—D plano in A—A cubo equatur Z solido. 


Here D is called D planwm, and is considered as the representative 
of a geometrical superficies, that the second term may be homogeneous 
with the first : for a similar season Z is Z solidum. And in various 
places it is expressly laid down, that it is not allowable to compare 
quantities which are not thus rendered homogeneous. The great 
difference between the methods of Vieta and of his predecessors is 
one in which lies much, if not the greater part, of the power of 
algebra: he was the first who used letters to signify known or deter- 
mivate quantities, and he was the first who systematically combined 
the use of symbols of quantity with that of symbols of operation. By 
this method the comprehension of a process which expressed in words 
would be long and complicated, does not cost the practised eye a 
second glance. It is true that the operations of those who preceded 
Vieta would lead to a correct numerical result in any particular case; 
but the result only appeared, and the modus oaictads was either lost 
or wrapped in the dusky folds of a verbal rule. The notation of 
Vieta expresses at once the rule and the result, and is a step in the 


advance of science which, for the magnitude of its consequences, — 


deserves to be ranked with the invention of fluxions, There is much 
truth in the remark of Vieta upon his predecessors: ‘ Vovebant Heea- 
tombas, et sacra Musis parabant et Apollini, si quis unum vel alterum 
problema extulisset, ex talium ordine qualium decadas et eicadas 
ultrd exhibemus, ut est ars nostra mathematum omnium inventrix 
certissima.”’ 

We now proceed to a short account of the writings of Vieta, 
referring for more detail to the second volume of Hutton’s tracts. 
Vieta, as we have said, printed his works privately, and we are not 


wholly able to recover the dates of the several first | dryers ig : ; 
wrote it, for a 


[But—we put this paragraph in brackets, as we 
reason afterwards mentioned—it is not noticed that many of these 
works, which are now only known by the edition of Schooten, were 
published together, or at least preceding publications were joined 
together in one, by Vieta himself, before the year 1591, under the 
name of ‘ Restituta Mathematica Analysis, seu Algebra Nova.’ Neither 
Montucla, nor any other modern writer that we have seen, appears to 
be aware of this fact: the French historian does not seem to know 
that the first seven books of the ‘Responsa Mathematica, of which 
(i. 578) he regrets the loss, were contained in the collection alluded to, 
The fact is nevertheless certain, as the following editions of different 
separate works—viz., ‘In Artem Analyticam Isagoge,’ Tours, 1591; 
‘De Numerosa Potestatum ad Exegesin Resolutione,’ Paris, 1600; 
and ‘Supplementum Geometrie,’ Tours, 1593—contain in their title- 
pages the name of the source from whence they were taken, and the 
first of them also gives a list of the contents, from which list we have 
placed R. M. before the titles of the following descriptions, in every 
case in which the ‘ Restituta Mathematica’ is said to have contained 
the work. Besides these, we must reckon among the contents the 


365 VIETA, FRANCIS, 


VIETA, FRANCIS. 


366 


seven first books of the ‘ Responsa,’ which have not come down to us, 
though tradition has preserved the name; and ‘ Ad logisticen specio- 
sam note posteriores, of which even the very name has disappeared 
from the history of algebra, We cannot help hoping that some old 
library may yet be found to contain this collection. Other writers 
take the words of the title in a sense between that of quotation and de- 
scription, Thus Alexander Anderson says, ‘ Restitutwum Mathematicam 
Analysin F. Viets debetis, p:Aouade?s.” And Walter Warner (preface 
to Harriot), “ Artis Analytice Restitutionem F, Vieta aggressus est.’’] 

We believe it will be shorter and clearer to leave the preceding 
passage in brackets (for which we thought we had very fair evidence), 
and ea pieks a suspected correction, as another writer would do, in 
preference to mixing up the mistake (if it be a mistake) and the cor- 
rection. The first publication of the ‘Isagoge,’ &c. (1591), bears on 
its title-page that it is ‘Seorsim excussa ab Opere Restituts Mathe- 
matics Analyseos, seu Algebreo Nove :’ and on the reverse of the 
title-page appears ‘Opere Restituta: Mathematica Analyseos, seu Alge- 
bra Nova, continentur ...... .: Operi autem Preposita est sequens 
epistola,’ Ten works are given by title, which may, all but the seven 
books and the note posteriores already noticed, be collected from the 

_ indication (R. M.) in the following list; and the epistle is the dedication 
to Catherine of Parthenai before alluded to, Blancanus (1615). places 
*Opus Restitute,’ &c., in the list of Vieta’s works; and Morhof says 
that Vieta wrote “Isagoge, &c., sew Algebra Nova.” Can any evidence 
be more positive to the fact that a work was published, or at least 
written out for publication? The absence of date or printer’s name 
tells nothing as to that period ; for books were then few, and did not 
require the minute accuracy of description which is now necessary to 
distinguish one work from another: moreover, whether this be the 
reason or not, such accuracy of description was not usual. Why then 
do we not continue to believe that such a work was published? In 
the first place it is entirely lost, and with it the Responsa and the note 
postertores, which is not likely to have happened to a large collection 
of Vieta’s works; in the second place, Anderson, in his publication 
(which he gives us to understand was the first that was made) of the 
treatise ‘De Recognitione,’ &c., tells us something about Vieta’s habits, 
which seem to explain the whole. ‘He was,” says Anderson, “in the 
habit of referring to as finished” (insignire solebat), and by their 
names, works which, though undertaken in his own mind, and digested 
in order, were not even so much as fairly written down, owing to the 
interruption which his studies received from his public duties. This 
then may be the whole secret: Vieta gave a list of the works which 
he intended to publish, under the name which he intended to give 
them collectively, The seven books of the ‘Responsa’ and the note 
posteriores never, on this supposition, were published at all. And it 
will afterwards appear that there was a reason why the eighth book of 
the ‘ Responsa’ should have been published without the rest ; though 
it is singular, if the list above named be only of works intended, that 
this eighth book, which must have been as finished as the rest, should 
not have been mentioned. It is almost incredible moreover that 
Alexander Anderson should have published a few of Vieta’s theorems, 
with his own demonstrations, as new, if Vieta had published them, 
and more, twenty years before. 

(R. M.) In Artem Analyticam Isagoge, first published by Vieta him- 
self, at Tours, in 1591. _Here are laid down the principles of homo- 
geneity before alluded to, and the common axioms used in the solution 
of simple equations. Many new terms are introduced, of which only 
two have lasted, namely, the distinction of equations into pwre and 
adfected. The law of homogeneity is a fanciful deduction from certain 
well-known analogies between arithmetic and geometry, and the 
manner in which it is applied renders this book of Vieta somewhat 
obscure. The following is a specimen :—“ Lineam rectam curve non 
comparat (probably corrupt, comparare non licet), quia angulus est 
medium quiddam inter lineam rectam et planam figuram. Repugnare 
itaque videtur homogeneorum lex.” 

(R. M.) Ad logisticen speciosam note priores. The note posteriores, 
as Just mentioned, are lost. Logistice Speciosa is the literal algebra, as 
distinguished from Jlogistice nwmerosa, or common arithmetic. Here 
are various questions in algebraical addition and multiplication: the 
powers of a binomial are raised up to the sixth inclusive, and the law 
of the exponents is given, but not that of the coefficients. Particular 
notice is taken of the addition of powers of A-+-B and A—B, and, in 
a few cases, of the composition of A*—B" Various methods are 
given of forming right-angled triangles whose sides shall be whole 
numbers. 

(R. M.) Zeteticorum libri quingue. The first book contains problems 
producing simple equations, of which the following are specimens :— 
Given 2 + y, ~ + 2, and the ratio of y to z, to find z; given the sum 
or difference of two numbers, and of given proportions of those num- 
bers, to find the numbers, Here, as elsewhere, Victa uses the capital 
letters only, and represents the unknown quantities by vowels, and 
the known quantities by consonants. The second book is full of those 
problems of the second and third degree, which produce unadfected 
equations, solved as in our modern works. ‘The third book contains 
the reduction into equations and solution of questions in proportion, 
and also of right-angled triangles, The fourth and fifth books give 
the solutions of various of those problems now called Diophantine, 
mostly collected from Diophantus himself, We find here the first use 


of the vinculum connecting terms whose result is considered as a 
whole. Blancanus says that Cataldi explained this work of Vieta in 
what he calls “continuatio algebre proportionalis,” which cannot be 
the “nova algebra proportionale,” Bologna, 1619, published after 
Blancanus wrote, 

(R. M, as to the first, not the second.) De Equationum Recognitione 
et Emendatione libri duo. First put together by Alexander Anderson, 
who obtained the materials from Alelmus or Aléaume (who had charge 
of Vieta’s papers), and published these books at Paris in 1615. The 
first six chapters of the treatise De Recognitione are employed in 
demonstrating that equations of the second and third degree spring 
from questions upon three or four continued proportionals, except in 
the irreducible case of the latter species, which is shown to depend on 
the trisection of an angle. Where a cubic equation has one root only, 
and that negative, the equation is deduced which has the corresponding 
positive root. The two roots of an equation of which one is negative 
are not considered, but the equation is deduced which has a positive 
root corresponding to the negative root of the former, and this equa- 
tion is called contradictory to the former. Various methods are found 
by which an equation of a higher degree may be deduced from a given 
one, a synthetical process, apparently introductory to the subsequent 
depression of equations. In the treatise de Hmendatione, Vieta lays 
down rules for destroying the second term of an equation of the second 
or third degree. He then shows, in a cubic equation which has the 
highest term negative, how to avoid this by a transformation which is 
in effect finding the equation whose roots are reciprocals to the roots 
of the former equation. We have not space to enter minutely into 
the various transformations; we will only remark generally, that an 
equation is considered unfit for use in which the highest power of the 
unknown quantity is negative, or has a ceefficient, and that the greater 
part of the reductions employed would not be necessary to a modern 
analyst. These books leave the reader in possession of the methods 
then known for the depression or solution of equations of the second, 
third, and fourth degrees. They are a luxuriant exercise of the power 
newly derived from Vieta’s improvements in notation. He concludes 
by showing how to construct an equation which shall have given 
positive roots: which form the suggestive basis of the subsequent 
discoveries of Harriot. On this he observes, “ Atque hee elegans et 
perpulcres speculationis sylloge, tractatui alioquin effuso, finem 
aliquem et Coronida tandem imponito.” Dr. Hutton mistranslates 
when (‘ Hist. Alg. Tracts,’ vol. ii.) he concludes from these words that 
Vieta only announces the theorem, “and for this strange reason, that 
he might at length bring his work toa conclusion.” Nevertheless, 
Hutton’s account is generally a very good one. 

(R. M.) De* Numerosa Potestatum purarum atque adfectarum ad 
exegesin resolutione tractatus. This work, first published, with Vieta’s 
consent, at Paris in 1600, has at the end a letter (herein before referred 
to) from Ghetaldi to Michael Coignet, a Belgian mathematician, who 
states that at his earnest entreaty Vieta had consented to allow the 
work to be published, on condition that he (Ghetaldi) would take the 
trouble of editing it. This letter mentions the seven books of the 
Responsa, the Harmonicon Celeste, &c. The numerose exegesis, as the 
method herein explained was frequently denominated, passed through 
the hands of Harriot, Oughtred, and Wallis, with some improvements, 
but was so prolix, and required so much calculation, that when New- 
ton’s method appeared it gradually sank out of use. The late Mr. 
Horner of Bath reproduced it, with a capital improvement in the 
mode of, making the successive computations, which will establish it 
permanently. Recently, Mr. Thomas Weddle of Newcastle, author of 
“A New &c. Method of solving Numerical Equations,’ has produced 
the kindred method of finding the highest denomination of the root, 
and correcting it by successive multiplications, instead of additions ; 
a method which has considerable advantages when the degree of the 
equation is high. To return to Vieta: when the root is irrational, 
and any given degree of approximation is required, instead of using 
fractions, the equation is found whose roots shall be ten, or a hundred, 
&e., times the root of the given equation, which roots are then 
extracted by the method within a unit. The introduction of our 
notation for decimal fractions had not taken place at the time we are 
speaking of, though we should not be justified in drawing this con- 
clusion from the mere fact of not finding it used by Vieta. From his 
avocations perhaps, but more from the imperfect modes of communi- 
cation (for there were then no scientific associations), he appears not 
to have been perfectly aware of what was going on in other parts of 
the mathematical world. So that it is impossible to say, at present, 
whether some of the things which we know to have been discovered 
before his time, may not have been, as far as he knew, the fruits of his 
own investigation. ‘He neglects to avail himself of the negative 
roots of Cardan” (but this however was done, on principle, and from 
a determined refusal of all symbolical extension); “the numerical 
exponents of Stifelius, instead of which he uses the names of the 
powers themselves; or the fractional exponents of Stevinus; or the 
commodious way of prefixing the coefficient before the quantity ; and 
such like circumstances, the want of which gives his algebra the 
appearance of an age much earlier than his own.” (Hutton, ‘ Tracts, 
ii. 273.) He had however seen the exponents of Stevinus, and the 
prefixed coefficients, for Van Roomen’s problem, as given by himself, 
contains both, 


367 VIETA, FRANCIS. 


VIETA, FRANCIS. 3638 


(R. M.) ELffectionwm Geometricarum Canonica Recensio and Swpple- 
mentum Geometrie. The second of these works was first published 
at Tours in 1593. The former of these treatises is a collection of 
problems in common geometry, intended to facilitate the solution of 
problems of the second degree. The second treatise assumes the 
construction of the conchoid of Nicomedes; the finding of two mean 
proportionals, the trisection of an angle, the inscription of a regular 
heptagon in a circle, and the solution of the irreducible case of cubic 
equations are made to follow. The last of these is contained in the 
following proposition:—‘If there be two isosceles triangles, having 
the equal sides of one equal to those of the other, and the equal 
angles of the second triple of those of the first, the cube of the base 
of the first diminished by three times the parallelopiped under 
the base of the first, and the square of the common side, is equal to 
the parallelopiped under the base of the second and the square of the 
common side,” 

Pseudo-mesolabum. The term mesolabum was applied to any process 
by which two mean proportionals could be found between two given 
straight lines. By Pseudo-mesolabum Vieta means a process which, 
though not limiting itself to Euclidean geometry, nevertheless is 
effective on its own suppositions. A chord of a circle cuts a diameter, 
and a perpendicular from one extremity of the chord cuts the 
diameter produced, so that the part produced is equal to the chord. 
This being the case, the segments of the chord are mean proportionals 
between those of the diameter. When Vieta has finished his 
pseudo-solution (merely ungeometrical), he then is ambitious of showing 
how well he can reason falsely, and ends with a pseudo-theorema 
(meaning one which is avowedly untrue, and given to be afterwards 
exposed). Now, if a man will write a pseudo-method, which he 
himself defines to mean no more than unallowed by Euclid, and 
makes his treatise to end in nothing but a psewdo-theorema (intended 
to be false), not even the closest examination will prevent every one 
from supposing that his pseudo-theorema is the jinis atque corona of 
his pseudo-method. 

(R. M., in which it is called Analytica Angularium Sectionum in tres 
partes distributa). Ad Angulares Sectiones Theoremata na0oAudrepa. 
This is really Alexander Anderson’s publication. Vieta sent him the 
theorems, he found out the demonstrations, and published them, in 
1615, at Paris, with a dedication to Charles, prince of Wales. Among 
many trigonometrical theorems are here given some of the class of 
which we shall presently speak with respect to Van Roomen’s problem, 
The chord of an are being given, the chords of its multiples and of 
their supplements are found. 

Ad Problema quod omnibus mathematicis totius orbis construendum 
proposuit Adrianus Romanus Responsum. The circumstances under 
which Vieta first saw this problem have been already stated from 
Tallemant. It amounts to this: given the chord of an are, to 
express algebraically the chord of the 45th part of that arc; but it is 
given in the form of a proposed equation of the 45th degree. If 
Vieta sat down at a window and solved several cases while Henry IV. 
and the Belgian ambassador were talking in the room, it must have 
been because he was then in full possession of his theory of angular 
sections, and saw at once that Van Roomen’s problem was a particular 
case of it. But it must not be forgotten that the latter must also have 
been in possession of the same or of cases of it. This answer of Vieta 
is a full one, and appears to have been drawn up deliberately: he 
gives the complete reduction of the problem, with a good deal of 
what he must have supposed to be fun, but of a very ponderous and 
sober character. He ends by proposing, in his turn, a problem, evi- 
dently directed at Van Roomen, and by way of hit at his fearful 
equation and enormous coefficients, he says, “‘ Porro ad exercendum 
non cruciandum studiosorum ingenia, problema hujus modi con- 
struendum subjicio.” The problem is one of Apollonius, of which the 
solution had been lost,—Given three circles, to find a fourth touching 
them all. 

Apollonius Gallus, seu exsuscitata Apollonii Pergei wep) exapay 
Geometria, first published by Vieta at Paris, in 1600, and addressed to 
Van Roomen. It has, in the beginning, a Greek epistle, anonymously 
addressed (perhaps by Van Roomen himself) payxicx Oixérn, which 
is a presumption that the true pronunciation is Viéta. Van Roomen, as 
appears by the introduction, solved the preceding problem by the 
help of the hyperbola, on which Vieta rallies him in his manner, and 
proceeds to a geometrical solution. He then gives geometrical solu- 
tions of some problems which Regiomontanus had solved algebraically, 
but professed himself unable to solve geometrically. He calls him- 
self Apollonius Gallus, and Van Roomen, Apollonius Belga; and from 
that time it became a fashion for those who had done anything after 
the manner of a particular Greek, to adopt the name of that Greek, 
with an adjective of country annexed, Thus Snell, after his measure 
of the earth, called himself Eratosthenes Batavus, 

Variorum de Rebus Mathematicis Responsorwm liber octavus. This 
book, first published at Tours in 1593, is preceded by an epistle from 
Pet. Da., whoever he may be, which explains why it appeared. It 
seems (at least it is so asserted) that there was at that time a great 
excitement at Tours, not only among the educated, but even down to 
the lowest of the people, about the quadrature of the circle, the prob- 
lem of two mean proportionals, &c.; and Pet, Da. who had seen 
Vieta, and knew that he had a book on the subject lying by him, 


solicited and procured its publication. We have already spoken of the 
first seven books, which, if they were ever written, are lost. This 
book contains the history of, and remarks on, the method of finding 
two mean proportionals, various modes of applying mechanical curves 
to the quadrature of the circle, approximate solutions of the same 


problem, and a collection of formule for the solution of triangles, — 


with a short chapter on the calendar. 

Munimen adversus Nova Cyclometrica. This was a refutation of 
Joseph Scaliger’s asserted quadrature of the circle, though the name 
of Scaliger is not mentioned in it. This eminent scholar was exceed- 
ingly angry, and attacked Vieta with much bitterness. But he 
afterwards, according to De Thou, changed his tone, admitted his 
error, and did justice to his opponent. Vieta himself had a high 
respect for Scaliger, as might be inferred from his suppression of the 
name, If Isaac Casaubon is to be trusted, he thought most highly 
even of the mathematical knowledge of Scaliger. In one of Casaubon’s 
letters to De Thou (p. 507 of the collection), he says, that on one 
occasion he and a friend paid a visit te Vieta, and that, Scaliger’s name 
coming up in conversation, Vieta said, “I have so great an admiration 
of that astounding genius, that I should think he alone a Se 
understands all mathematical writers, particularly those of the 
And he added, that he thought more highly of Scaliger when wrong 
than of many others when right. 

Relatio Calendarii vere Gregoriani (Paris, 1600); Kalendariwm Gre- 
gorianwm perpetuum, and Adversus Christophorum Clavium Hapostu- 
latio (Paris, 1602). We have said enough of these unfortunate works 
in the preceding part of this article. The expostulation is preceded 
by Greek verses addressed to Clavius. 

All the preceding works are contained, in the order in which we 
have mentioned them, in the collected edition of Vieta’s works, edited 


by Schooten, and printed by the Elzevirs at Leyden in 1646. It © 


seems that Vieta’s papers had either been almost entirely destroyed or 
else exhausted; for though the Elzevirs, in 1640, advertised their 
intention of printing such an edition (in the first number of the 
‘Catalogus Universalis,’ an annual book-list, printed at Amsterdam), 
requesting those who had anything unpublished of Vieta’s to com- 
municate it, and giving the names (without dates, unfortunately) of all 
that had been published, yet they could not print, six years after this 
advertisement, one single treatise which did not appear in their own 
advertisement as already known. We have yet to speak of two other 
works, both remarkable in their way, which are not in Schooten’s 
collection. 
Harmonicon Celeste ——This work has only been recovered in our 
own day. Schooten’s reason for not giving it was, that he could only 
find an incomplete and inaccurate copy to print from; but he says 
that he had reason to suppose he should obtain a more complete copy, 
which he promised to publish with other writings of Vieta: no such 
work ever was produced. ; 
Schooten appeared, Bouillaud, in the prolegomena to his ‘ Astronomia 
Philolaica’ (1645), says that Peter Dupuis (Petrus Puteanus) had lent 
the manuscript to Mersenne, and that some borrower, or more pro- 
fessed thief (but which is not said), had obtained it from Mersenne, 
and had never returned it. Some particular person is evidently 
pointed at; Bouillaud says this borrower would neither restore it nor 
a copy of it, and suspects that he meant to publish it as his own. 
Bouillaud was a good authority in this matter: he was known to De 
Thou, Schooten, &c., and Peter Dupuis was one of his colleagues in 
the formation of the catalogue of De Thou’s library, and perhaps, if 
the story be true, got the manuscript out of that library to lend it to 
Mersenne. This story has been repeated in many English writers on 
this subject, from Sherburne down to Hutton, and always in the same 
words. Some inquiries which the writer of this article made some 


‘years ago at Paris through a most competent investigator, ended in 


the assurance that it was in Bowillaud’s handwriting in the Royal 
Library at Paris, that he (Bouillaud) had himself lent the manuscript 
to Cosmo de’ Medici of Tuscany, which must have been after it was 
recovered from Mersenne’s honest friend; and of course after the publi- 
cation of the ‘Astronomia Philolaica.’ Lately M. Libri (‘ Hist. des Sci. 
Math. en Italie,’ vol. iv. p. 22) announces that there is an imperfect 
manuscript in the Royal Library at Paris, and that the original manu- 
script of Vieta (and an old copy, which however is mislaid) is in the 
Magliabecchian Library at Florence (which confirms the last statement 
of Bouillaud). He gives a short account of the contents of the Paris 
manuscript, which contains various modifications of Ptolemy’s theory, 
and sufficient proof that Vieta well knew both the writings of Coper- 
nicus and Tycho Brahé. Of the former he says that the excellence of 
his system, if any, is destroyed by the badness of the geometry by 
which it is explained; and M. Libri states that he avows his oppo- 
sition to the heliocentric system still more plainly in other places. 
There is one conjecture which is worthy of some attention: we haye 
seen how imperfect is the evidence for attributing to APpoLLonius the 
opinion afterwards maintained by Copernicus; Victa asserts that this 
opinion was called Apollonian, not because Apollonius promulgated 
it, but because the sun (Apollo) is in the centre of the system. 

It was said that the ‘Harmonicon Coeleste’ was to be published, 
but it has not yet appeared. 

Canon Mathematicus, seu ad Triangula, cum adpendicibus, Lutetiz, 
apud Johannem Mettayer, &c., 1579; to which is annexed, with a new 


The very year before this preface of 


869 VIETA, FRANCIS, 


VIETA, FRANCIS. 370 


title-page, ‘ Francisci Vieteei universalium Inspectionum ad Canonem 
Mathematicum liber singularis, Lutetie,’ &c., as before. 

This same book, from the same types, is also found with another 
title-page, as follows :—‘ Francisci Vietzi opera mathematica, in qui- 
bus tractatur canon mathematicus, seu ad triangula: item Canonion, 
&e, &c. &e., Londini, apud Franciscum Bouvier,’ 1589 (but though 
bearing the imprint London, it is evidently printed on the Continent). 

The same book, again from the same types, is in the British 
Museum with a third title-page, as follows :—‘ Fran. Vietei Libellorum 
Supplicum in Regia magistri, insignis que Mathematici, varia opera 
mathematica: in quibus tractatur Canon Mathematicus, seu ad trian- 

ula; item Canonion, &c., Parisiis; apud Bartholomeum Macceum,’ 

¢., 1609. 

That the second. and third are really the same book as the first, 
with a new title-page, we have ascertained by carefully comparing 
various words which are misspelt, and letters and lines which are 
broken, in all three; also by the fact that the second title-page, 
* Francisci Vietzi,’ &c., is the same, date and all, in the second. In 
the third the second title-page is taken out, and Mettayer’s address is 
printed after the first. This book was, from its extreme scarceness, a 
bibliographical curiosity: we have seen five copies, three with the first 
title-page, one with the second, and one with the third: in two of the 
first three, some figures which are not found in the third have been 
stamped in after printing; and the same stamping is apparent both in. 
the fourth and fifth. The canon mathematicus is the first table in 
which sines and cosines, tangents and cotangents, secants and cosecants, 
are completely given ; they are arranged in the modern form, in which 
each number entered has a double appellation. But the notation of 
decimal fractions not being invented, the mode of description is as 
follows :—to give the sine and cosine of 24° 2’, Vieta states that, the 
hypothenuse being 100,000, the perpendicular and base are 40,727 and 
91,330 9; and in a similar way for the others: and here itis remark- 
able that in the cosines Vieta does use a species of decimal notation, 
leaving a blank space instead of using a decimal point; for, to an 
hypothenuse 100,000, the base to an angle of 24° 2’ is what we should 
now write 91,330°9. There is also a large collection of rational- 
sided right-angled triangles, which form a trigonometrical canon, but 
not ascending by equal angles. The work concludes with a copious 
collection of trigonometrical formule and various numerical calcula- 
tions, for mention of which see Hutton’s ‘ History of Trigonometrical 
Tables,’ prefixed to his logarithms, and inserted in his tracts. A short 
preface by Mettayer, prefixed to the ‘ Universalium Inspectionum,’ &c., 
states that Vieta found great difficulties in getting tables printed at all, 
and also that plagiarists had printed and sold something of the kind, 
but what is not stated. Vieta himself (Schooten, p. 323) calls this 
book infeliciter editus, and hopes that a second edition will be of better 
authority. ws 

Having now given, we believe, as complete an aecountof Vieta as 
existing materials can furnish, in consideration of the very meagre 
manner in which his biography is usually treated (the article in the 
‘Biographie Universelle’ is very poor, considering that the work is 
French, and Vieta the greatest French mathematician of the 16th 
century), we may speak briefly upon the merit of his writings. Vieta 
is a name to which it matters little that we have not dwelt on several 
points which would have made a character for a less person, such as 
his completion of the cases of solution of right-angled spherical 
triangles, his expressions for the approximate quadrature of the circle, 
his arithmetical extensions of the same approximation, and so on. 
The two great pedestals on which his fame rests, are his improvements 
in the form of algebra, which he first made to be a purely symbolical 
science, and showed to be capable of wide and easy application in 
ordinary hands ; his application of his new algebra to the extension of 
trigonometry, in which he first discovered the important relations of 
multiple angles; and his extension of the ancient rules for division 
and extraction of the square and cube roots to the exegetic process 
for the solution of all equations, which, with Mr. Horner’s new mode 
of conducting the calculation, is becoming daily of more importance. 
He did not, as some of the French say, lay down the view of equa- 
tions which was afterwards done by Harriot; but he gave strong 
suggestions towards it, stronger suggestions than the Italian algebraists 
had furnished him with for his own new algebra: it is Harriot’s praise 
that he saw how to go on from where Vieta had stopped, as it is that 
of Vieta to have proceeded from the point at which Cardan had 
stopped. Neither did he, as some of the French again say (but not 
from national feeling in this instance), first apply algebra to geometry; 
for if by the application of algebra be meant the method of co-ordin- 
ates, that application is wholly due to Des Cartes, assisted, no doubt, 
by the power which Vieta conferred on algebra. But if nothing more 
be meant than the solution of geometrical problems by help of alge- 
braical symbols and methods, many have claims before Vieta; for 
instance, Regiomontanus, Cardan, and Bombelli, Nay, Vieta himself 
points out that Regiomontanus had solved problems algebraically 
which he complained of not being afterwards able to do geometrically; 
and Vieta himself supplies the geometrical verification of Regiomon- 
tanus’s algebraical solutions. Neither did he, as some of the French 
again say, show how to form the coefficients of the powers of a 
binomial : he saw, no doubt, the connection of them with the series, 
1, 2, 3, &e., 1, 3, 6, &e., 1, 4, 10, &c., as Tartaglia had done before 

BIOG, DIV, VOL, VI, 


him; but he did not show how to form them by any algebraical law, 
as Newton afterwards did. If a Persian or an Hindoo, instructed 
in the modern European algebra, were to ask, “ Who, of all the indi- 
vidual men, made the step which most distinctly marks the separation 
of the scienee which you now return to us from that which we 
delivered to you by the hands of Mohammed Ben Musa?” the 
answer must be—Vieta. 

The earliest history of algebra is that contained in the mixed 
treatise of Wallis (in English, 1685; in Latin, 1693). Wallis had a 
partiality for Harriot, which not only blinded him to much of the 
merit of Vieta, but furnished him with spectacles by which he could 
see most of the discoveries of the latter only in the writings of the 
former. Montucla has fairly and properly exposed this tendency ; 
but that he may be disqualified to throw a stone at Wallis, he, in his 
turn, gravely and seriously declares that he cannot see the merit of 
the invention of aa, aaa, &c., to represent the powers of a, instead of 
Vieta’s mode. Montucla is not altogether fair to the Italian alge- 
braists who preceded Vieta, as to which he has been severely criticised 
by Cossali, and also by M. Libri. But these Italian historians have 
a corresponding fault: they make a painful endeavour to show that 
the peculiar discoveries of Vieta are to be found in the writings of 
their own illustrious countrymen, and particularly of Cardan. Cossali 
will even have it that Cardan has even something equivalent to, or 
very nearly approaching to, Des Cartes’s theorem on the roots of 
equations; and constantly endeavours to show that Cardan might, 
could, would, or should, or ought to have had something which he just 
stops short of saying Cardan actually had. He wants to make his 
countrymen a school of constructive discoverers; if Cardan had only 
carried the contents of page x farther than he did, and seen some- 
thing at page y which he did not see, then he would have been able 
at page z to do something which he did not do, but which Vieta did 
do. M. Libri starts more fairly: “In France,” he observes (vol. iv., 
p. 1), “ Vieta made algebra approach nearer to perfection, and, per- 
haps, caused the labours of his predecessors to fall into too much 
neglect.” This is perfectly true, and might have been more positively 
expressed; but a little further on we find (p. 7), ‘‘ In truth his dis- 
coveries seem to be not comparable to those of Ferro or Ferrari.” 
This is truly strange; for in the next sentence we find he “was an 
eminently philosophical mind, and is more to be admired for his 
methods than for the results which he obtained from them.” Can it 
seriously be M. Libri’s opinion that the inventor of an isolated result 
is to be placed above one who increases the power of the human race 
over every branch of science? and is it not the surest test of the 
greatness of a discovery, that it is a method, not a result, and that 
the power which it gives to others makes succeeding results obtained 
from it more remarkable than those of the inventor himself? If ever 
it bas been true that coming events have thrown their shadows before, 
it has been in the progress of the mathematics: it never has happened, 
in the case of any great discovery, that it was made upon quite a clear 
field. No one can read the history of science without finding that 
there was always, in the time immediately preceding the promulgation 
of any new method, a constant tendency towards the invention of that 
method, a series of efforts the results of which have speedily merged in 
those of the man for whom the discovery was reserved. This leaves the 
relative merit of investigators unaltered; if it depress Vieta, it also de- 
presses Tartaglia and Cardan. To us itraises ail three; for it points 
out that they have severally succeeded where their predecessors have 
failed, and relieves them from the consequences of the supposition that 
it was merely their good fortune which led their thoughts to that which 
another might as easily have attained if his thoughts had been turned 
towards the subject. If sometimes too much Gallicism shows itself, 
by way of exception, in the admirable history of Montucla, it is not 
half so offensive as the constant and always recurring nationality of 
the Italian historians, which renders it necessary to watch them so 
closely, that the end of it will be a general conviction that they are not 
to be safely read at all, without the original authorities at hand, on 
apy matter in which claims of country can enter. M. Libri, in finding 
out, and with perfect correctness, that Cataldi used continued fractions 
before Brounker, and infinite series (or at least an infinite series) before 
Wallis, and in making a very just remark on the interest with which 
the first dawnings of the doctrine of infinites should be regarded, 
forgets that Vieta had preceded Cataldi, to the extent of using a 
combination of the infinite product and series united. It would be 
difficult, we think, to produce an earlier germ of the doctrine just 
alluded to than is seen in the celebrated expression given by Vieta 
for the quadrature of a circle, which we should now express thus 


= = Va. (a+ Va). /fa+ V (at Va)} be. 


where w means half a unit. (‘Resp. Math.,’ Schooten, p. 400.) 

Both Vieta and Cossali endeavour to show that the Italian alge- 
braists used letters for quantities, both known and unknown. So they 
did, no doubt, and so did Euclid, and so (according to M. Libri him- 
self) did Aristotle. But who combined the use of letters with that of 
symbols of operation so as to produce algebraical formulz, and to give 
to the operations of algebra that technical character which makes 
them resemble the operations of arithmetic? One look at any page 
of the Italian algebraists will show the difference between om algebra 

: B 


371 ~ VIGA GANITA, 


VIGA GANITA, 372 


and that of Vieta better than any description. Accordingly, both 
Cossali and Libri state the asserted resemblances without specific 
citation. When will the writer who asserts that Cardan was substan- 
tially in possession of Vieta’s algebra, attempt to substantiate his 
assertion by putting so much as half a page of the former side by side 
with one of the latter ? 

VIGA GANITA, the name of the principal Hindoo work on Algebra 
which remains. In our notice of Drormantus, the Alexandrian 
mathematician, we referred to the head Viga Ganita the consideration 
of the question whether the method of analysis which bears his name, 
but of which it is impossible to suppose he was the inventor, was 
borrowed from certain Greek predecessors, or whether he derived 
the original suggestion from India. We have also referred to this 
article all matters which relate to the astronomical and arithmetical 
science of the Hindoos, because there is not enough to be said on the 
subject or the writers, to make it worth while to distribute what we 
have to say under heads in a work like the present. We cannot 
pretend to the knowledge of Oriental matters which is necessary to 
form the most positive judgment upon the controversy; but it is of 
more consequence to our readers to see the manner in which the 
question has been discussed, than to be put in possession of any new 
statements of opinion; and it is of some importance that those who 
may hereafter write on the subject, should see that a disposition to 
support system is soon pointed out, even in ordinary works of re- 
ference. 

In 1687 La Loubére, returning from his embassy to Siam, brought 
home what are called the Siamese Tables. In 1750 Du Champ, a 
missionary, sent home another set of tables, from Christnabouram (the 
Kistnabaram of the ordinary maps?), in the Carnatic. About the 
same time Patouillet, another missionary, sent home another set, 
nameless, but supposed to answer to the latitude of Narsapur, near 
Masulipatam. In 1769 the astronomer Le Gentil brought with him 
from India, where he had been to observe the transit of Venus, the 
tables of Tirvalore. These were all the documents of Indian astro- 
nomy which were known when Bailly published his history of that 
subject. The professed epochs of these tables are—Siamese, A.D. 638 ; 
Christnabouram, A.D. 1491; Narsapur, 4.D. 1569; Tirvalore, B.c. 3102, 
the beginning of the Cali Yug, or fourth great age of the Hindoos, 

These tables, with the exception of some remarks by D. Cassini and 
Le Gentil, excited no great notice till they impressed the active imagi- 
nation of Bailly with the idea that the epoch of the Tirvalore Tables 
was that at which they were actually made, and that consequently 
they represent actual observation made nearly five thousand years 
ago. We have seen, in the article cited, the manner in which he rode 
this singular hobby, and how he even changed it at last for one still 
more strange, in inventing a people unknown to history to be the 
original progenitors of all astronomical science. Bailly had learned 
from his Indian teachers not to be nice about a few thousand years; but, 
as it bas been mercifully said that we are not to judge of the tempta- 
tion to which a man has yielded, without taking into consideration the 
amount which he may possibly have resisted, we may remember that 
the Hindoo Calpa was upwards of four hundred millions of years, and 
that Bailly, when at his wildest, never asked for more than eight or 
nine thousand. His latest opponent, Bentley, who, as we shall see, had 
the same sort of fault as himself, petitioned for and obtained a sort of 
certificate in his own favour from Maskelyne, who states that, to his 
knowledge, Lalande’ and Laplace considered Bailly as a superficial 
- astronomer and an indifferent calculator. But Bailly was a better 
calculator than Laplace, and a better astronomer (in the sense in 
which Laplace was an astronomer) than Lalande. 

The antiquity of Hindoo astronomy found favour in the eyes of 
Playfair, and was supported by him in the ‘Edinburgh Transactions,’ 
in a paper which is reprinted in his miscellaneous works. It was 
opposed by Leslie, who regarded everything Indian with abhor- 
rence: his gross ignorance and reckless assertions were exposed by 
Colebrooke (‘ Algebra,’ &c, Introduction, p. 59). Playfair’s only 
authority was Bailly; and his paper amounts to little more than a 
reiteration, in his own elegant manner, of the main points of Bailly’s 
argument. Sir W. Jones evidently leans to the side of antiquity ; and, 
placing the foundation of the Indian system about 3.c. 2000, seems to 
suppose that astronomical knowledge was nearly of as old a date; but 
hedoes not enter into the question as a mathematician, We next 
come to Delambre,a mind the opposite of Bailly’s in every particular : 
he was seduced by the regular and demonstrated systems of the 
Greeks into the belief that the origin of all astronomy which deserves 
the name must have been Grécian. Relying upon nothing but con- 
temporary written documents, his mode of meeting every conjecture, 
however probable, is simply that of treating it as conjecture. It is 
evident that the spirit of system is as strong in him as in Bailly, the 
current only setting in a different direction ; his mode of arguing 
equally keeps out truth and falsehood, when it comes on unwritten 
evidence, The admissions which he is obliged to make in favour of 
Indian arithmetic and algebra, are evidently wrung from a most 
unwilling soul; and not content with overthrowing most completely 
the premises of Bailly’s argument, he endeavours to insinuate that ail 
the astronomy of the Eastern world either did come or might have 
‘come from the Greeks : in his mind the latter is the same thing as the 
former. Much of the matter of Delambre’s chapters onthe subject is 


drawn from the writings of Davis and the earlier writings of Bentley. 
Colebrooke’s ‘ Algebra,’ &c, only appeared in time for him to consider 
it in the preface to the History of Astronomy in the Middle Ages, He 
did not see Colebrooke’s work: the account of it in the ‘ Edinburgh 
Review’ was, he says, better for his object (and he puts it in Italics 
than the work itself, on account of the accompanying remarks. It 
the only instance that we can find in which an article in a 

serves Delambre’s purpose better than the historical documents on 
which it was written. 

Since the time of Bailly, three Anglo-Indians have written on the 
subject of Hindoo science, more or less controversially : Samuel Davis, 
Henry Thomas Colebrooke, and John Bentley. The first two are the 
only writers in our list who seem to have no personal wish that the 
astronomy of which they treat should have any particular date. Mr. 
Colebrooke states that Mr. Davis was the first who opened to the 
public a correct view of the astronomical computations of the Hindoos. 
Mr. Colebrooke was one of the most eminent of Sanskrit scholars, an 
indefatigable Indian antiquary, and more than well informed in mathe- 
matics and astronomy. His account of the Hindoo systems of philo- 
sophy, as published in his ‘ Miscellaneous Essays,’ is by far the best 
which exists; and all that he has written on their science is done in 
the most careful and conscientious spirit. We may even say that it was 
his bias to allow the least possible weight to his own arguments, and 
the greatest to all that could make for his opponents. For instance, 
when he has brought the time of Aryabhatta (presently mentioned) 
to “some ages before the 6th century,” he places him in the 5th 
century A.c., and requires no other conclusion to be granted. But 
when he comes to speak of Diophantus (of whom, the earlier he wrote, 
the more likely is it that he did not borrow his algebra from India), 
he is willing that it should be “ confidently affirmed” that he cannot 
be later than the 4th century, because (such are his grounds) Suidas 
states that Hypatia wrote a commentary on some Diophantus, most 
likely the writer now known by that name, and an author of uncertain 
date in the ‘ Anthologia ’ wrote an epigram upon him. Throughout 
his writings there is this apparent carelessness of making the most of 
his own argument, and the least of that of his opponents, to an 
extent which, while it makes us feel we are certainly on the safe side 
in following him, causes us to regret that so cautious an investigator 
should not have given us his limits in both directions. We consider 
him by far the safest guide, both in point of learning and judgment, 
taking the former from the general report of Oriental scholars; and 
accordingly we shall represent him as to dates and facts, even where 
we do not follow him. . ; 

Mr. Bentley, the last named of the three, is the Bailly of those who 
oppose the antiquity of Hindoo astronomy. In his earlier writings, 
which are to be found (as well as those of Davis and some of those of 
Colebrooke) in the ‘ Asiatic Researches,’ he does not deserve any such 
epithet; his opinions, though strong, are accompanied by their sup- 
ports moderately stated. His paper ‘On the Antiquity of the Surya 
Siddhanta’ was published in 1799: it was not till 1823 that he pub- 
lished at Calcutta his ‘ Historical View of the Hindoo Astronomy, 
which was reprinted in England in 1825, It is in this work that he 
has surpassed Bailly in his own line. The Hindoo works are forgeries 
by the dozen: Bentley knows who forged them, and why. The 
upholders of Indian antiquity are dupes, or worse; they are to take 
the stain (see his preface) of supporting all the horrid abuses and 
impositions of the Hindoo superstition, *‘the burning of widows, the 
destroying of infants, and even” (even !) “the immolation of men.” 
They conspire to overturn the Mosaic account; and they calumniate 
the just endeavours of those who attempt to stop the torrent of im- 
position. It is worth while to state an instance or two of Mr. Bentley’s 
mode of proceeding, as some of our readers may have no other autho- 
pe on the subject. oe 

hascara, the author of the Liliwati and Viga Ganita, lived, aecord- 
ing to Mr. Colebrooke, who gives his reasons, in the 12th century. A 
version of the former, by one Faizi, was made, at the command of the 
emperor Akbar, in 1587. It does not please Mr. Bentley that it should 
be so, and he accordingly informs us that Bhascara’s work was pre- 
sented to Akbar, the author being then alive; but that, in order to 
give a false antiquity to the work, it was represented as that of 
another Bhascara, who lived some centuries before. Not a single hint 
at any authority is given; it is a simple statement, as of the author's 
own knowledge; and is only one out of hundreds of the same kind, 
all of which Mr. Bentley calls in different places “absolute facts,” 
“ demonstrated facts,” &c. 

Again, Mr. Colebrooke mentions a treatise which he found in his 
library, the Siddhanta-Sphuta. This is one of Mr. Bentley’s mass of 
forged treatises; but in this instance he declares he knew the forger. — 
A native, he says, offered his services to him, informed him that his 
profession was ‘ book-making,’ in rather an odd sense, for he said he 
could forge any book whatever. This native was, after being con- 
temptuously dismissed by Mr. Bentley, in the employment of Mr. 
Colebrooke, at least so the former affirms ; and on this native he fixes 
the forgery, as he asserts it to be, of the Siddhanta-Sphuta, giving us — 
to understand that the keen and critical eye of Mr, Colebrooke could 
be deceived by so shallow an artifice as a recent forgery laid among his 
papers by his own servant. And he makes this adroit native inter- 
polate other books of Mr. Colebrooke’s, so that the latter, infact, had 


873 


VIGA GANITA. 


VIGA GANITA, 


874 


a manufactory of falsified history on his own premises, from which his 

opponent could destroy the genuineness of any passage he pleased. 
r, Bentley does not tell us in what language he talked with this 

native, but we strongly suspect that they misunderstood each other, 

On the grounds of the complete absence of all reference to autho- 
rity, the certainty of all the conclusions (for there is rarely an admis- 
sion of any degree of probability less than certainty), and the temper 
of the writer, who sees nothing but folly or fraud in every one who 
differs from him, we should feel justified in assuming that Bentley is 
no authority whatsoever in the matter. But Colebrooke answered Mr. 
Bentley's work, in the ‘ Asiatic Journal’ for March 1826; and though 
the answer does not occupy more than seven pages of the periodical 
above cited, it sets in array such a number of inconsistencies, as well 
as of simple unsupported assertions, as to satisfy us that our opinion 
of Bentley as derived from his writings was a correct one, With 
respect to the asserted forgery of the ‘Brahma Sphuta Siddhanta,’ 
on gl says it is “an idle guess, untrue in all its particulars.” 

ut he turns the tables on his opponent, as follows:—“ Bentley has 
reasoned on a treatise in his possession, which he calls the Arya Sid- 
dhanta, and asserts to have been written by Aryabhatta.” Colebrooke 
says that none but Bentley had seen this work, that the manuscript 
was not forthcoming, that Bentley himself did not understand Sanskrit, 
that the natives about him well knew his notions, and that he was as 
likely as his friend Colonel Wilford (who from his ignorance of Sanskrit 

had some very curious impostures palmed upon him) to have 
been imposed upon, With regard to his own manuscript Colebrooke 
adverts to the fact of its being (with the rest of his Oriental library) 
deposited at the India House, in a situation accessible to Sanskrit 
scholars, And with respect to Bentley’s celebrated test, namely, that 
tables must.have been constructed at the time when they best repre- 
sent the state of the heavens, Colebrooke adverts to an instance in 
which Bentley himself was obliged to abandon it, because it would 
have proved that a certain set of tables, which now exist, were 
written fourteen hundred years hence. But as we have nothing here 
to do with Bentley, except to give sufficient reason for not taking as 
an authority a writer whose name is very well known (perhaps better 
than that of any recent writer) in connection with our subject, we 
refer the reader to the ‘Asiatic Journal’ (March, 1826, vol, xxi.) for 
further information. 

The writers who are most cited by Hindoo astronomers bear the 
names of Varaha-mihira and Brahmegupta, The astronomers at Ujein 
place BRAHMEGUPTA at A.D. 628, and Mr. Colebrooke, from his own 
description of the position of certain stars with respect to the equinox, 
thinks he lived towards the end of the 6th century. His work, 
called the Brahma Sphuta Siddhanta, generally referred to under the 
name of Brahma Siddhanta, which appears to be a correction of a 
treatise of the latter name, was found in an imperfect state by Mr. 
Colebrooke. He informs us that it consists in the computation of 
mean motions and true places of the planets; solution of problems 
concerning time, the points of the horizon, and the position of places; 
calculation of lunar and solar eclipses ; rising and setting of the planets; 
position of the moon’s cusps; observation of altitudes by the gnomon; 
conjunctions of planets with each other and with stars ; the astrono- 
mical sphere and its circles; the construction of sines; the rectifica- 
tion of the apparent planet (?) from mean motions ; the cause of lunar 
and solar eclipses; and the construction of the armillary sphere, It 
also contains algebra and mensuration. 

From his astronomical data Colebrooke infers that Varana- 
MIAIRA wrote at the end of the 5th century, which is also the date 
assigned to him by the astronomers at Ujein, He is the author of a 
system of astrology (including. astronomy), which he declares he has 
compiled from earlier writers. There is another Vahara-mihira, whom 
the same astronomers place in a.D. 200. But popular tradition places 
Varaha-mihira in the time of Vikramaditya (B.0. 56), and names, as 
hereafter noticed, several of his contemporaries. No historical 
evidence tending to impeach this tradition has yet been put forward, 
not prominently at least. 

AryaBuatta, known to the Arabs under the name of Arjabahar, is 
placed by Colebrooke, after much discussion, at not later than the 
5th century, possibly not far from the first. He wrote both on 
astronomy and algebra, but none of his writings have been found, 
except in citations, 

Authors prior to or contemporary with the last named are men- 
tioned by name, and even cited; such are Palisa, Parasara, and others; 
but none of their writings are preserved. 

Buaascara AoHarya, the author of the Liliwati, Viga Ganita, 
Siddhanta-siromani (of which the two former are parts), and other 
works, is very confidently placed by Colebrooke a.p, 1150. 

The celebrated work on astronomy, the Surya-siddhanta, is of 
uncertain date, The term siddhanta means a system of astronomy, 
-and suryais thesun. The oldest writings mention a work of this 
name, and the Arabs state that among the systems of astronomy of 
the Hindoos there is one called Arca (or solar). The tables mentioned 
at the beginning of this article are generally admitted to have been 
substantially taken from the Surya-siddhanta, as it now exists, or 
from a common source; but whether the work which now exists is 
that which was mentioned by the ancient writers may be strongly 
doubted. Bentley (in one of his early papers, before he became bis 


reader’s sole authority) has discussed the question ; and assuming that 
the age of a table is most probably that at which, one result with 
another, it best represents the heavens, has deduced the year a.p. 1000, 
or thereabouts, for the age of the Surya-siddhanta, The principle is 
a fair one; and Colebrooke at one time acknowledged great force in 
Bentley's argument. But it is notorious that the Hindoo writers were 
in the habit of correcting their works from time to time, without 
altering their names; so that it is very possible that there may 
always have been a Surya-siddhanta, from the earliest times of Hindoo 
astronomy. The name of the author, according to Bentley, is Varaha- 
mnihira; but Colebrooke does not mention any author, as far as we 
can find, and certainly disputes Bentley’s assertion, which also over- 
turns itself, thus :—Bentley’s method (which was also that of Bailly 
and Playfair, though their conclusions were very different), as applied 
by himself, throws the tables of Brahmegupta into the 6th century : 
now Brahmegupta mentions Varaha, who is nevertheless, by Bentley’s 
own conclusion from another source, the author of the Surya-sid- 
dhanta in the 11th century. Perhaps it was this dilemma which 
Grae its author to assert forgery upon forgery, until he had set all 
right, 

It thus appears that there is ordinarily good evidence for a succes- 
sion of writers from the commencement of the Christian era up to 
the 12th century, with no very great allowance of antiquity to those 
who are cited by the earliest writers now remaining. There would be 
nothing extraordinary in the supposition that the chain of authors 
went back to the time of Alexander at least, since it is certain that 
the Brahminical system existed before the time of that conqueror. 
The only question which is worth discussing is, whether anything was 
received from the Greeks, and if so, whether it was without inter- 
change, and enough to give us a right to say that the Greeks were the 
primary instructors of the Hindoos. If not, then it is to be settled 
whether the Hindoos were the original instructors of the Greeks. It 
is only with reference to this question that the antiquity of Hindoo 
astronomy is of much independent interest, as a matter of discussion 
at least: if the astronomy travelled westward, then we must place a 
flourishing period of it before the time of Thales, and the only thing 
to be said is, that we must probably wait for the actual ascertainment 
of the most active age of Hindoo science, till we know that of other 
things. But if it travelled eastward, it must be pretty clear, from the 
dates given above, that it was the science of Hipparchus and his suc- 
cessors of the period preceding Ptolemy, and not that of Ptolemy, nor 
of his Saracen followers, which was communicated to the Hindoos. 

There is some evidence of communication between the Greeks and 
Hindoos, such as it is; but neither Delambre nor Bentley could pro- 
duce it. All that can be obtained from the actual theories and methods 
amounts to very little indeed, in establishing any connection; while 
there are hints and processes by the dozen to which there is no resem- 
blance whatever in the Greek writings. Varaha-mihira, according to 
Colebrooke, says that the Yavanas (Ionians or Greeks) are barbarians, 
but that this science (astronomy) is well established among them, and 
they (the learned in it, we suppose) are revered like holy sages. The 
name of Yavana-charya, which occurs frequently in Hindoo compila- 
tions, is thought by the same writer to have reference to some 
European ; and he thinks he sees in a work entitled Romaca-Siddhanta 
a title which has some allusion to the astronomers of the west. But 
nevertheless in another place Colebrooke cites one Yavaneswara as a 
known Sanskrit writer. Besides this, there are several words of Greek 
origin, and used in their Greek meaning. First hora, for astrological 
prediction, in the sense of determining the houwr— Vahara-mihira... 
derives the word from ahoratra, day and night,... But this formation 
of a word, by dropping both the first and last syllables, is not conform- 
able to the analogies of Sanskrit etymology.” Next dreschcana, used 
in the same astrological sense with the Greek dexavos and Latin 
decanus. Thirdly, for the minute of a degree, the Hindoos have 
adopted, besides their own cala, one taken from the Greek Aerra, 
hardly altered in the Sanskrit lipta, This word in Sanskrit means 
smeared, infected with poison, eaten; and the dictionaries give no 
interpretation that has any affinity with its special acceptation as a 
technical term in the writings of Brahmegupta. Cendra, for centre, 
resembling the Greek xeytpov, is not easily traced to any Sanskrit root. 
If to all that precedes we add that the Hindoo astronomy employs 
epicycles about as much as Hipparchus appears to have done, but 
stops decidedly short of the use of them made by Ptolemy, it seems 
very likely, especially when we consider the age in which their earliest 
cited writers must be placed, that they had some communication with 
the Greeks, or their writings, before or immediately after the Christian 
era. And this surmise, founded on the points of resemblance between 
their astronomy and that of the Greeks, receives an additional proba- 
bility from the state of their political affairs. In the first century 
before our era was the celebrated prince Vikramaditya of Ujein, from 
whose reign the years of the Samvat era are counted (Bc. 56). 
Vahara-mihira, whom Colebrooke leaves somewhere in the 5th 
century, is the name, according to Professor Wilson, of one of nine 
who were called the gems of the court of this prince. The prince 
just mentioned was a noted promoter of knowledge, and the period 
was a remarkable one, It is not unreasonable to suppose that at this 
period, which is intermediate between the times of Hipparchus and 
Ptolemy an effort was made to obtain -information from Greek 


375 VIGA GANITA, 


VIGA GANITA. 376 


writings: nor would it be unlikely that at the same time those notions 
of algebra from which Diophantus wrote his work were given in 
exchange. It is exceedingly difficult to make any other conjecture 
which will explain the existence of this solitary work on algebra 
among the Greeks; but that the Hindoos received at this time all 
their astronomy is very unlikely, In several points it differs mate- 
rially from the system of the Greeks, and in some it is more correct : 
for instance, in the precession of the equinoxes, the length of the 
tropical year, and the synodic period of the moon. 

It is worth noting that the disposition which existed among Greek 
writers to send their old sages to India to learn the principles of 
astronomy and other sciences does not commence till after the 
Christian era. 

We may now leave the question of the antiquity of Hindoo science, 
and proceed to give some account of its materials. The works in 
which it is contained are usually written in verse, and in short and 
obscure precepts, intended to be committed to memory: the commen- 
tators take every verse, and almost every word, in succession. The 
most peculiar feature of these books is the general absence of demon- 
stration : results only are frequently announced. It cannot be denied 
that there is, particularly in the algebraical part, a frequent succession 
of steps, of which the connection is pointed out in a manner which 
makes the last of those steps a necessary consequence of the first. 
But though a Hindoo writer may fall into the road of demonstration 
in any part of his journey, and remain there for a time, it is evident 
that this is with him entirely a matter of convenience, and that he 
does not feel himself at all bound to give proof. 

It seems to us by no means to be taken for granted that there ever 
was any such thing among those writers, or their predecessors, as a 
connected system of demonstration; there are few propositions either 
of their geometry or algebra which might not have been found by 
trial, and verified numerically or graphically; or else procured from 
empirical propositions by the mode of occasional demonstration just 
alluded to. Butit must be allowed that here and there we have a 
proposition for which it is difficult to suppose an origin without pre- 
suming, not only power of demonstration, but methods of considerable 
generality. Though the Greeks, after the time of Euclid, never pub- 
lished anything of a mathematical nature without demonstration, it 
does not follow that even they had demonstration from the beginning; 
and the hints given by Proclus on the progress of geometry would 
almost support the contrary notion. The idea of an undemonstrated 
raathematical system may appear a strange one, but it must be remem- 
bered that the nations of modern Europe are, in this matter, the 
pupils of the Greeks, and never, till of late years, even so much as 
heard of any science which was independent of their own masters, 
except what has been added among themselves; and it is no wonder 
that any different mode of proceeding may seem strange, when the 
mere possibility of such a mode has never been made-a matter of 
discussion among us, 

The following is Colebrooke’s comparison of the daily motions of 
the several planets, according to the Hindoos, Ptolemy, and Lalande 
(it is not worth while to substitute any astronomer more modern than 


the latter), Degrecs, minutes, and seconds are common to all:— 
Brahmegupta, Si pa ot Ptolemy. Lalande. 
of uw a W wa AV wm AV me WW 
Bans 5s << 5) 0-59 <8 10°22 10 10 17 13 19 48 
-Moon ... .. 18 10 34 52 47 52 3 58 30 61 40 
Moon (synodic) . 12 11 26 42 25 41 53 3117 . 41 52 
Mercury ... 4 5 8218 28 20 42 24 12 34 13 
Venus... . 136 7 44 85 43 39 43 6 48 24 
Mars . . 0 31 26 28 7 28 11 36 53 39 23 
Jupiter. . .. 0 459 9 9 8 48 14 26 15 53 
Saturn . « « O- 2 0 22 52 22 53 33 31 35 38 


It appears then, that Ptolemy’s daily motions are generally too 
small, but that the Hindoos err still more in the same direction; 
except only in the synodic motion of the moon, in which they are 
much more correct than Ptolemy: the Surya Siddhanta in particular, 
probably the later work of the two, and therefore the more likely to 
be misled by Ptolemy’s numbers if they were known, agrees entirely 
with Lalande. This is what might have been expected: the Hindoos 
were not, as far as appears, noted for good observations, nor very apt 
to record them; but they sedulously attended to eclipses, the pre- 
diction of which was the most important duty of the astronomer, and 
nea? the goodness of their determination of the moon’s synodic 
motion. 

The length of the sidereal year is given 3654 6" 12™ 30%, more than 
three minutes too much; the Hindoo astronomical year is sidereal, 
and begins when the sun enters the sign of the Ram. But their 
tropical year is 3654 5" 504", much nearer the truth than that of 
Ptolemy and Hipparchus, which was 3654 5% 55", The meridian from 

which they reckon is that of Lanka, which some take to be Ceylon, 
others the name of a lake near the sources of the Ganges; it passes 
through Ujein. Their precession of the equinoxes is 54" in each year, 
which is much more correct than that of Hipparchus or of Ptolemy. 
Most of the Hindoo writers do not suppose a permanent precession, 
but imagine the oscillatory motion or trepidation, as it was called 


‘date and the discussions upon it. 


when it was afterwards introduced into Europe by the Arabs, who 
seem to have borrowed this idea from India. Those who hold the 
oscillatory motion fix it at from 24° to 27° on each side of a mean 
position. The revolutions of the apsides and nodes of the moon are 
given within a fraction of a day of what they are now known to be; 
the obliquity of the ecliptic is 24°, too large even for their time. The 
inclination of the moon’s orbit is made 4° 30’; those of Mercury, 
Venus, and Saturn, 2° each; of Mars, 1° 30’; of Jupiter, 1°. The 
circumferences of the orbits (obtained, it is said, upon the purely 
speculative idea that they all move with the same actual velocity) are 
given in yojanas, a measure which appears to have been used in 
different senses, and which cannot be very well settled. This yojana 
contains four crosas, aud the modern crosa is 1°9 statute miles. 
According to Colebrooke, Aryabhatta gave 3300 yojanas for the cir- 
cumference of the earth, which, if the crosa were the modern one, 
would be 25,080 statute miles, or 69°7 miles to a degree: this degree 
of accuracy must be accidental. With regard to the motions of the 
nodes and apsides of the planets, which the Hindoo writers profess to 
give, Colebrooke thinks they are inventions constructed from analogy 
with those of the moon, As to the more theoretical parts of astro- 
nomy, the Hindoos knew the inequality of the planetary motions 
which is called the equations of the centre, though their values of 
these equations are not very correct. They had about as much of 
that which was afterwards called the Ptolemaic system as is reported 
to have been invented by Hipparchus; the principal variation being 
that their epicycles are made (by several of their astronomers) oval, 
instead of circular. This is enough of the actual details of the 
astronomy for our present purpose; those who would know more of 
it must search the tedious and disjointed pages of the authors whom 
we have cited. No one of them would trouble himself to collect into 
one page the actual numerical elements.of the astronomy on which 
they were all writing; and it is consequently so difficult to understand 
their several accounts (since, in case of apparent contradiction, we 
cannot know whether they speak of the same or of different values of 
the elements), that we have not felt ourselves able to supply the 
deficiency. It is not however of much consequence, for the elements 
of the Hindoo astronomy are only interesting as connected with its 
We have not at all entered upon 
the refutations which it is still customary to give to Bailly on points 
connected with the theory of gravitation. That writer imagined that 
by correcting the various elements of the planets, as they now are, so 
as to reduce them to what, according to the Newtonian theory, they 
should have been at the beginning of the Cali Yug, a remarkable 
agreement was found between the results and the recorded elements 
of Hindoo astronomy. There is such agreement in one or two cases, 
but the result of the whole is, that there is no reason to suppose the 
few accordances to be due to anything but accident. 

The mixture of the mythological, which some of the Hindoo astro- 
nomers [the author of the Surya Siddhanta and also Bhascara; the 
latter, with apparent reluctance, not in the text, and only briefly in the 


notes] allow to appear in their works, and which seems to have be-— 


longed to the vulgar creed, presents a very strange appearance, Both 
in Hindoo and Burman systems eclipses are caused by a distinct planet, 
Rahu, of a dark essence, which at times takes both the sun and moon 
under its influence. The irregularities of the planetary motions, their 
stations, retrogradations, and departures from the ecliptic, are caused 
by deities provided for the purpose, who reside at the nodes and points 
of conjunction. Aryabhatta, according to Colebrooke, not only gave 
the true solution of the phenomena of eclipses, but asserted the 
diurnal motion of the earth, which he affirmed to be carried round an 
axis by a strong wind. Brahmegupta attributes this opinion to him 
with reproach, and asks why, in such case, lofty bodies do not fall 
(that is, off the earth), A commentator of Brahmegupta, who lived 
before the 12th century (since he is mentioned by Bhascara), and whose 
name (Prithudaca Swami) deserves to be mentioned, in spite of our 
wish to keep as clear of these unretainable appellatives as we can, 
says—“The objection that lofty things would fall is contradicted ; 
for every way the under part of the earth is also the upper, since 
wherever the spectator stands on the earth’s surface, even that point is 
the uppermost point.” But the same commentator adds a very 
scholastic reason for the earth’s motion causing the diurnal changes. 
He says a planet cannot have two motions; meaning that the orbital 
motion is the only one it can have, and that the diurnal motion is 
therefore to be attributed to the earth. 

The great point of contest seems to have been whether the earth is 
stable in space or perpetually falling; if the former, whether it stands 
by itself or upon a support. We do not find that any astronomers 
cited by our authorities support the notion which our books attribute 
to the Hindoos, namely, that the earth stands upon an elephant, which 
itself stands upon a tortoise, which tortoise swims in a sea of milk; 
but there is an allusion to this succession of supports in a passage of 
Bhascara cited by Colebrooke, which is on other accounts worth 
the quoting. The Jains, a species of Buddhist sect, affirmed the falling 
motion of the earth; on which Bhascara remarks—“ The earth stands 
firm, by its own power, without other support, in space. If there be 
a material support to the earth, and another upholder of that, and 
again another of this, and so on, there is no limit. If finally self- 
support must be assumed, why not assume it in the first instance ? 


377 VIGA GANITA. 


VIGA GANITA. 378 


Why not recognise it in this multiform earth? As heat is in the sun 
and fire, coldness in the moon, fluidity in water, hardness in iron; so 
mobility is in air, and immobility in the earth, by nature. How 
wonderful are the implanted faculties! The earth possessing an 
attractive force ” (like the attraction of the loadstone for iron, adds a 
commentator), “ draws towards itself any heavy substance situated in 
the surrounding atmosphere, and that substance appears as if it fell. 
But whither can the earth fall in ethereal space, which is equal and 
alike on every side? Observing the revolution of the stars, the Baudd- 
has (Jains) acknowledge that the earth has no support, but as nothing 
heavy is seen to remain in the atmosphere, they thence conclude that 
it falls in ethereal space. Whence dost thou deduce, O Bauddha, this 
idle notion?” &c. He adds in his notes, “For if the earth were 
falling, an arrow shot into the air would not return to it, since both 
would descend. Nor can it be said that it moves slower and is over- 
taken by the arrow, for heaviest bodies fall quickest, and the earth is 
heaviest.” 

As to the observations and instruments, it is sufficiently evident 
from the differences between the Hindoo system and that of the Greeks, 
that they must have had both. Their system is more accurate than 
that of Hipparchus or Ptolemy, precisely in the three fundamental 
results of widely separated observations—the tropical year, the synodic 
month, and the precession of the equinoxes. But no observations 
have been preserved, except indirectly in results; Bhaskara describes 
nine instruments, including the quadrant, semicircle, circle, armillary 
sphere, horary rmg, gnomon, and clepsydra. ; 

The periods of the Hindoos, which were of interest as long as it was 
a question whether the beginning of the Cali Yug was or was not to 
be considered as an epoch of actual observation, may now be returned 
into the hands of the mythologists, warranted as long as ever. A 
Yug, or age, is 482,000 years; a Maha-Yug, ten Yugs, or 4,320,000 
years; a Calpa, or day of Brahma, is 1000 Maha-Yugs, or 4,320 
millions of years; and Brahma’s life is 100 years of such days and 
nights, of which about one-half is past. Various attempts have been 
made to expound these periods by combinations of astronomical 
cycles; aud considering that the number of years in a Calpa has 382 
distinct divisors, it is not wonderful that various modes of putting 
astronomical periods together should seem equally effective in this 
respect. It is just as well to leave these speculations, and to remark 
what a power of expressing large numbers was given by the Indian 
numeration, now universally diffused. Archimedes wrote a book (the 
* Arenarius’) merely to prove that it was possible to express such 
numbers as the Brahmins played with in their astronomical computa- 
tions, and spoke of to the people in the common mythological stories. 

The astronomy of the Hindoos would have had little interest, but 
for their arithmetic and algebra. In leaving the former to turn to 
the two latter, we shall soon cease to feel any surprise at the respect 
with which the astronomy has been treated, coupled as it is with an 
arithmetic which is greatly superior to any which the Greeks had, 
and an algebra which no other nation ever had, except those who 
derived it from the Hindoos. For even supposing Diophantus to 
have been an original inventor, which we greatly doubt, his work is 
hardly algebraical, in any sense in which that term can be applied to 
the science of India. 

We shall begin by describing the Liliwatt and Viga Ganita, the 
proper subject of this article, presuming the reader to be aware that 
the Indian arithmetic is that which we now use, and that both this 
arithmetic and algebra were introduced among the Arabs from India 
(as the Mohammedan writers: themselves inform us), through whom 
they were transmitted to Europe. [Virra,] Bhascara Acharya (a.D. 
1150, as already mentioned) was the author of the Liliwati (called 
after his daughter), and the Viga Ganita (or casual calculus : viga, cause ; 
ganita, computation). These two works form the preliminary chapters 
of the Siddhantasiromani, an astronomical work of the same writer, 

The Liliwati opens with a salutation to Ganesa, the god of wisdom, 
and then proceeds to describe the system of weights and measures, 
Then follows decimal numeration, briefly described; and the eight 
operations of arithmetic, addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, 
square, cube, square-root, cube-root. Reduction of fractions to a 
common denominator, fractions of fractions, mixed numbers, the eight 
rules applied to fractions. Cipher;* a+0—=a; 0?=0, /0=0, &, 
a@—0, the submultiple of 0, called intinite by the commentator ; 
ax0=0. Inversion of processes, the solution of such an equation as 
{(@+a)+b} c—d =e, which is made a rule of arithmetic. Rule of 
false position. Rule of concurrence, to solve x+y = a, x—y = b, and 
et+y=a, #*—y?=b. A problem concerning squares, finding pairs of 
fractions the sum and difference of whose squares, diminished by 1, 

are both squares. Solution of #°-+ az=b. Rule of three. Compound 
rule of three, various cases. Interest, discount, partnership. Time 
of filling a cistern by several fountains (a practical matter to those 
who used the clepsydra). Barter. Presents of gems. Alligation. 
Arithmetical progression; sums of squares and cubes. Geometrical 
progression. Right-angled triangles; given two sides to find the third: 


* The reader will easily understand that, to save room, we put down a sort of 
table of contents, brief, but we hope intelligible. When we state a result alge- 
braically, we mean the statement for a European abbreviaticn, not for a tran- 
script from the work. We have not put down some things of minor importance, 
nor have we taken anything from the commentators without mention, 


also to find sides in rational numbers, to a given side or hypothenuse ; 
segments of the base of a given triangle; perpendicular and area, the 
sides being given. Four-sided figures, areas, &c., sides and a diagonal 
or perpendicular being given. Many problems relative to four-sided 
figures. Circumference of a circle is diameter x 3927 +1250, very 
nearly; but x 22—7 is adapted to practice (the first answers to 
3°1416): area is 4 diameter x circumference: the surface of the 
sphere is four times that of the great circle: the solidity of the sphere 
is surface x diameter —6. Versed sine found from chord of twice the 
are and diameter, and the two converses. ‘By 103923, 84853, 70534, 
60000, 52055, 45922, 41031, multiply the diameter, and divide the 
products by 120000, the quotients are severally the sides of polygons, 
from the triangle to the enneagon, within the circle.’ To determine 
roughly the chord of an are, a rule is used which amounts to the 
following :— 

g2rightangles 16 (n—1) 


n ~ 5n?—4n+4 
or co-secant of 27ight angles _ 1 (5m 414+ ) 
” 16 1 


sine o 


Vd 

For 1° this last gives 56°3 instead of 57°3, and the relative error 
diminishes up to 90°. A corresponding rule is given for the are of a 
chord. The solid contents of a cone, pyramid, cylinder, prism, and 
truncated cone or cylinder, are then given, and rules for estimating the 
contents of mounds of different kinds of grain, derived from experi- 
ment, the height being greater or less according as the grain is coarser 
or finer. Various rules on shadows are then given, derived from the 
geometrical properties of a right-angled triangle, and this is followed 
by a chapter on the Cuttaca, or pulverizer, presently noticed. The 
work ends with a chapter on combinations, containing questions of 
this kind: any number of digits being given, as 5, 5, 7, 8, 6, required 
the number of different arrangements, as 55786, 57865, 78565, &e., 
and a rule for the sum of all the numbers thus formed. 

The Viga Ganita commences with a curiosity of the Sanskrit 
language—a sentence in which each of the leading words is threefold 
in meaning; so that it will bear, and is intended to bear, three 
different translations, which are as follows :— 

1. I revere the unapparent primary matter, which sages conversant 
with theology declare to be productive of the intelligent principle, 
being directed to that production by the sentient being: for it is the 
sole element of all which is apparent. 

2. I adore the ruling power, which sages conversant with the nature 
of soul pronounce to be the cause of knowledge, being so explained by 

| a holy person: for it is the one element of all which is apparent. 

8. I venerate that unapparent computation, which calculators 
affirm to be the means of comprehension, being expounded by a 
fit person: for it is the single element of all which is apparent. 

Bhascara then proceeds thus: ‘Since the arithmetic of apparent 
(known) quantity, which has been already propounded in a former 
treatise, is founded on that of unapparent (unknown) quantity, and 
since questions to be solved can hardly be understood by any, and not 
at all by such as have dull apprehensions, without the application of 
unapparent quantity: therefore I now propound the operations of 
analysis (Vija-crya, elemental solution.)’ 

According to Colebrooke, whose words we abridge, the algebraic 
notation of the Hindoos is as follows :—Abbreviations and initials for 
symbols; negative quantities with a dot; no mark for positive, 
except the absence of negative. No symbol for addition, multiplica- 
tion, equality, greater or less. A product denoted by the first 
syllable of a word subjoined to the factors, between which a dot is 
sometimes placed. In fractions, divisors under dividend without line 
of separation. The two sides of an equation are one under the other, 
confusion being prevented by the recital of the steps in words which 
always accompanies the operation. Symbols of unknown quantity are 
various, usually initials of names of colours, except the first, which is 
the initial of yavat-tavat, ‘as much as:’ Bombelli used tanto in the same 
sense. Colour means unknown quantity, but its Sanskrit also signifies 
a letter, and letters are also used, either from the alphabet, or from 
initial syllables of subjects of the problem. Symbols are also used for 
variable and arbitrary quantities, and sometimes for both given and 
sought quantities. Initials of square and solid denote those powers, 
and combined, the higher powers, reckoned* not by sums of powers, 
but by their products, An initial syllable also marks a surd root, 
Polynomials are arranged in powers, the absolute quantity being 
always last, distinguished by an initial syllable denoting known 
quantity. Numeral co-efficients are employed, integer and fractional, 
unity being always noted : fractional co-efficients preferred to division 
of unknown quantities, and the negative dot always over the numeral, 
not over the literal character. The numeral co-efficient always after 
the unknown quantity. Positive or negative terms indiscriminately 
allowed to come first : and every power repeated on both sides of an 
equation, with nought for the co-efficient, when wanted. 

The Arabian algebraists have no symbols, arbitrary or abbreviated, 
either for quantities known or unknown, positive or negative, or for 
the steps and operations of an algebraic process; but they express 


*In the old times of European algebra, some would call, for instance, the 
sixth power the ‘cubo-cube,’ as being a® x a°; others would call the ninth 


power by the same name, as being the cube of the cube, 


379 VIGA GANITA. 


VIGA. GANITA, 380 


everything by words at length. The description of the Hindoo nota- 
tion always led us to suspect that there was some communication with 
Hindoo algebra over and above that which was made through the 
Arabs; and the preceding account, with that which follows, will lead 
every one who knows the history of algebra to wish that there had 
been more of it. 

The Viga Ganita contains as follows, it being presumed that the pre- 
ceding account of Hindoo notation will prevent the reader from 
imagining that the algebraical symbols which we here employ are con: 
tained in the work :—The rules for addition, subtraction, multiplica- 
tion, and division of positive and negative quantities: the rules for the 
square and square roots of the same, it being distinctly specified 
that the square root of a negative quantity is imaginary. Rules for 
the cipher, asin the Liliwati; but here it is more distinctly stated that 
‘the fraction of which the denominator is cipher is termed an infinite 
quantity.” The commentator Chrishna is well worth quoting on this 
point :—“As much as the divisor is diminished, so much is the quo- 
tient increased. If the divisor be reduced to the utmost, the quotient 
is to the utmost increased. But if it can be specified that the amount 
of the quotient is so much, it has not been raised to the utmost, for a 
quantity greater than that can be assigned. The quotient therefore is 
indefinitely great, and is rightly termed infinite.” Then follow arith- 
metical operations on unknown quantities, and combinations of 
them. Surds, the usual operations on them, the rationalization of 
surd denominators, and the extraction of square roots. The rule for 
the extraction of such a surd as the square root of a+ / b+ Ve+ vd 
is worth citing as a proof of the decided character of their knowledge 
of this part of algebra. Let / (a? — 6 — ec) =e, 4 (ate) =f, 
k(a—e) =g, Vv (f? —@) =4; then the square root required is 


vA be + fa + Ve 

The Cuttaca, or pulverizer, is the rule for the solution, in integers, 
of ax +- by = c; a, b, and ¢ being integers. There is no need to 
deseribe it, as it is the rule which’ is now found in every European 
book on the theory of numbers, and which proceeds by resolving 
a — b into a continued fraction. The Hindoos give no use of con- 
tinued fractions except in this rule, though it is obvious, from the skill 
with which they manage the reduction of fractions to nearly equal 
fractions of more simple terms, that they must have applied continued 
fractions, directly or indirectly, probably by means of this veryrule. We 
do not mean to say that they had continued fractions, but only the pro- 
cesses involved in the use of them, and power of attaining their results. 

The Varga-pracriti, or principle of the square, is a rule which is 
remarkable, as the whole of it was not used in Europe till after the 
middle of the last century.- It consists in a rule for finding an indefi- 
nite number of solutions of y? = a#+1 (a being an integer which is 
not a square) by means of one solution given or found, and of feeling 
for one solution by making a solution of y? = az?+6 give a solution of 
a? = ax*+b*, It amounts to the following theorem ;—If p and g be one 
set of values of « and yin y? = ax? +b, and p’ and q’ the same or another 
set, then gp+pq’ and app’+ qq’ are values of cand y in y? = az2+082, 
From this it is obvious that one solution of y = axz*+1 may be made 
to give any number, and that if, taking b at pleasure, y? = az? +0? can 
be solved so that and y are divisible by b, then one preliminary 
solution of 7? = az*?+1 can be found, Another mode of trying for solu- 
tions is the combination of the preceding with the Cuttaca, as follows :— 
Let y = g, = p, satisfy y? = az? +6: then solve pz+q = bw, and 

au? + 8 wilh (SEP) ; 
and will be asquare. It is then said that y? = ax®— 1 is impossible 
unless a be the sum of two squares; and some miscellaneous pro- 
visions are then given. 

The chapter on simple equations requires no particular description ; 
many of the examples are geometrical, as—Given the sides of a triangle 
to find the perpendicular. In the chapter on quadratic equations the 
well-known rules are given, and some cubic and biquadratie equations 
(special cases of course) are solved by completion of the cubes and 
squares, The two roots are mentioned, when positive, and it is said, 
“people do not approve an absolute negative number,” on which the 
commentators speak as if the negative roots were seen, but not ad- 
mitted, The property of the right-angled triangle is proved in a 
twofold way: first, by the similarity of the right-angled triangles 
formed by the perpendicular on the hypothenuse to the whole and 
to one another: next, by the method called Indian. Various of the 
propositions in Euclid’s second book are proved. In the chapter on 
equations of more than one unknown quantity questions both of the 
determinate and indeterminate kind are considered. 

In the next chapter are considered the equations aw+bx? = y?; 
(a+yP+ (ety = 205 +2y3; axt—ba? = y?; e-y= v4, c+y?= 
w*: “in what period is the sum of a progression continued to a certain 
period tripled, its first term being three, and the common difference 
two;” az*+by? = v7 and az*@—by?+1 =w?; w+y2 = v2 andat+y 
=w?; e+y*+ry =v’, and av+yut+l=w?; 


ae 
WS =) + VS (0? + y?) + A (why 42) 4+ A (a t+y—2) 
+7 (y—2? +8)= v2; 


yt e+3sv3j9—2+38=03,y+2—4=8,yY—+1l2=4, boy 
—t=p,andv+wtt+urpr2=8; 2+yY+labiz?—yr+l=w, 
e+y?—l=vtand 2?—y?—1 =w?; 82+1=v% andic+1law; 
82+1=v% and 8v?+1l=w?; 22?—2y?+3 =v" and 322+8y2+8 
=w?; w—a=by; e—6=5y; ba? + 3=—16y; 4a+3yt+2ee 


xy; vwxy = 20 (vrwraty); arytertyr+ay = (23—-4—y)*; - 


4e+3y+2 = ay; 2xy=58—10%—l4y. 

Mr. Colebrooke has also given the algebra of Brahmegupta, being a 
chapter of the Brahme-sphuta-siddhanta, It contains the operations 
of algebra, barter, interest, progression, plane geometrical questions 
(the ratio of the circumference to the diameter is called 3 for practice, 
and +/ 10 for more accuracy), and many of the more practical applica- 
tions of arithmetic, as in the Liliwati. Also the Cuttaca, simple and 
quadratic equations, the indeterminate equation y* = az*?+ b, and 
miscellaneous problems, The whole of this algebra is contained in 
Colebrooke’s ‘Algebra, with Arithmetic and Mensuration, from the 
Sanscrit of Brahmegupta and Bhascara,’ London, 1817. Dr, John 
Taylor, in 1818, published at Bombay a translation of the Liliwati 
from the Persian, with an appendix on the mode in which arithmetic 
is now taught in Hindoo schools; and (London, 1813) Mr. Edward 
Strachey published a great part of the Viga Ganita, also from the 
Persian, with Mr. Davis's notes. It remains to mention that, by the 
extracts which were made from the Surya Siddhanta, it appears that 
the Hindoo arithmetic of sines was more perfect than could be 
gathered from what is said of the mode of finding chords in the 
Liliwati. They had a table of sines, calculated by the method of 
second differences for every 33° from 0° to 90°; and among their — 
astronomical uses of this table is one which is equivalent to the equa- 
tion d(sin @) = cosa da. (Delambre, ‘Astron. Anc.,’ i, 456.) “The 
minimum of trigonometrical formule which Delambre allows them 
(and he never grants them more than the barest minimum) amounts to 


sin? + cos’z = 1, sin 80° = 3, sin 60° = 4 V3 rt 
sin? 3A = § (1 — cos A); , 


but how they were to find out a theorem equivalent to A’ sin # = 
—4sin® 4 A xsin z, with only this amount of formule, he does not 


say. 
The Mohammedans brought but a small part of this splendid body 
of algebra into Europe. The work of Mohammed-ben-Musa, which is 
sufficiently shown by Dr. Rosen in his translation to have had an 
Indian origin (and indeed no one now questions that origin), contains 
merely simple and quadratic equations of the determinate kind, applied 
to various questions connected with pecuniary transactions. The 
algebra of Diophantus is more Indian in its character, as it treats 
entirely of those problems which are therefore called Diophantine, 
namely, integer solutions of indeterminate equations. It is, to all 
appearance, a part of the Indian algebra, similar in its contents to 
some of the classes of problems which fill the two last chapters of the 
Viga Ganita, translated into that strict and consecutive mode of 
demonstration which the Greek mathematicians (fortunately for us) 
never dispensed with. But, while granting to the first HKuropean 
algebraist full credit ‘for the superior completeness of his mode of 
exposition, every comparison confirms us more and more in the 
impression that the Hindoo was his teacher: whether we consider the 
probable era of the older Indian algebraists, or the contents of the 
book itself, it is difficult to come to any other conclusion. The extra- 
vagant mania of Bailly, and the reaction caused by the writings of 
Delambre, have left no medium opinion upon Hindoo antiquity; 
and conclusions founded on the most sober views of history, and the 
most usual modes of chronological reasoning, have been entirely kept 
out of sight. In both our suspicions with respect to ancient inter- 
course between the two nations, namely, that the Indians received 
some astronomy between the time of Hipparchus and Ptolemy, and 
communicated some algebra, which was finally systematised by Dio- 
phantus, we think we derive some support from the period at which 
the Grecian kingdom of Bactria was in existence. That principality 
was governed and partly colonised by Greeks at a time when the 
discoveries of Hipparchus must have been in the hands of Greek 
astronomers, if of those of any countiy ; and to put a difficulty in the 
way of Bactrian Greeks knowing of Hipparchus, is to put a much 
stronger one in the way of Hindoos having the same information. 
Again, though it is possible that Hindoos might have taught algebra 
to Greeks in Bactria, it is impossible that the latter could have com- 
municated it to the former, since Bactria ceased to be a Grecian 
kingdom about z.c. 140; and Diophantus, though his time is not 
known, has never been supposed to have lived till two or three 
centuries after the Christian era. Granting, which is likely enough, 
that Greeks remained in Bactria after their government was over- 
thrown by the Scythians, and that they retained the knowledge of 
Grecian arts; granting also that the descendants of these same Greeks 
became in time incorporated with the Hindoo race after Vicramaditya 
had checked the advance of the Scythians, and established a govern- 
ment which was likely enough to attract the remaining Greeks of 
Bactria, and more particularly the learned among them—this, though 
a reasonable account of the transmission from Greece to India of the 
astronomy of Hipparchus, gives no clue whatever to that of _the 
algebra. - Colebrooke’s researches give a chain of algebraical writers 
who are cited, each by his successor, and who begin (even upon his 


reer: 


881 VIGILIUS. 


VIGNOLES, ALPHONSE DES. 


cautious mode of estimation) at the very time when Diophantus 
probably wrote; and to suppose anything like an immediate and 
direct transmission of a Greek writing to India, and an immediate 
cultivation and extension of its results, is to start an hypothesis which 
not only bears on the face of it the purpose which it is to serve, but 
pays far too high a compliment to the natives of India, whether as 
recipients of the knowledge of others, or as extenders of their own. 
There is one difficulty in the way of our own opinion as to the algebra, 
and that not a small one: Why did not the Greeks, or the Greek, 
obtain the Indian principle of local value in numeration at the same 


_ time as he learnt their algebra? — 


- VIGI’LIUS, a deacon of the church of Rome, happened to be at 
Constantinople when Theodora, wife of the emperor Justinian, deter- 
mined to depose Pope Sylverius, who had incurred her displeasure for 
Yeasons not very clearly ascertained. - Anastasius Bibliothecarius says 
that Sylverius had refused to reinstate in the see of Constantinople 
the patriarch Anthimus, who had been deposed through the influence 
of Pope Agapetus I., the predecessor of Sylverius, on the charge of 
heresy. A charge was brought against Sylverius of having held cor- 
respondence with the Goths, who were besieging Rome in a.p. 537; 
upon which Belisarius, who commanded in that city, arrested Sylve- 


rius, stripped him of his pontifical garments, and banished him to 


Patara in Asia Minor. Belisarius then, according to the instructions 
which he had received from Theodora, ordered the clergy of Rome to 
proceed to a new election, suggesting at the same time the deacon 
Vigilius, who had been intriguing with the court of Constantinople, as 
the fittest candidate. Vigilius was accordingly elected in November 
537, and he soon after repaired to Rome, where he was installed in his 
see through the influence of Belisarius. His election however was 
generally looked upon as having been forced and unlawful, and the 
historians of the Church consider him as an intruder as long as Sylve- 
rius lived. Vigilius is said by some to have agreed with Theodora to 
reject the Council of Chalcedon, and to receive into his communion 
Anthimus, Theodosius, bishop of Alexandria, and others who enter- 
tained Eutychian doctrines. Liberatus Diaconus and Pagi quote 
letters of Vigilius in proof of his connivance at these doctrines. It is 
also said that he paid a large sum of money to Theodora to obtain his 
election. In the year 538 Sylverius, who had been sent back to Italy 
by the emperor Justinian, to be tried concerning his alleged treason, 
died; Procopius says that he was put to death by order of Antonina, 
the wife of Belisarius; others say that he was starved to death in the 
island of Ponza by order of Vigilius, who after his death remained 
undisputed possessor of the see of Rome.  Vigilius has been since 
generally acknowledged as legitimate pope from the date of his prede- 
cessor’s death. From that time also Vigilius showed himself less 
docile to the caprices of the court of Constantinople; he maintained 
the authority of the Council of Chalcedon, and he even incurred the 
displeasure of Justinian, because he would not subscribe to the theo-. 
logical opinions of that emperor. 

In the year 545 Vigilius left Rome for Sicily, from whence he sent 
supplies to Rome during the subsequent siege of that city by the Goths 
under Totilas. In 547 Vigilius repaired to Constantinople, at the 
request of Justinian, who was warmly engaged in a theological con- 
troversy, which is known in Church history by the name of the ‘ three 
chapters.’ Vigilius, after remaining at Constantinople for some years, 
was obliged to escape from the wrath of the emperor to Chalcedon, 
where, in 552, he took refuge in a sanctuary. In the following year 
Justinian convoked a general council at Constantinople, chiefly to 
decide upon the question of the ‘three chapters,’ or, in other words, to 
condemn certain controversial writings of three bishops of the pre- 
eeding century—THEoporeE of Mopsuestia, Ibas of Edessa, and THro- 
DOoRETUS. Vigilius, who considered those writings to be orthodox, 
refused to condemn them, and for this he was banished, with other 
bishops of his own opinion, to the island of Proconnesus, from which 
he was recalled, in 554, at the urgent entreaty of the clergy of Rome, 
supported by the intercession of Justinian’s successful general Narses. 
Meantime the Council of Constantinople had condemned the ‘three 
chapters,’ and its decision was now sanctioned by Vigilius, after which 
Justinian permitted him to return to Italy. On his way to Rome by 
sea, Vigilius landed at Syracuse, where he died of the stone, of which 
he had been suffering for some time, in the seventeenth year of his 
troubled pontificate. He was succeeded by Pelagius I. 

(Muratori, Annali d’Jtalia, and the authorities therein quoted.) 

VIGNO’LA, GIA’COMO BAROZZI, a very eminent Italian archi- 
tect, and one of the greatest modern authorities in his art, was born in 
1507, at Vignola, in the territory of Modena, whence he derives the 
name by which he is more generally mentioned than by his family 
appellation. Giacomo was the only child of his parents, and by the 
death of his father he was left at an early age entirely dependent upon 
his mother. Having manifested some taste for drawing, he was sent 
by her at a suitable age to Bologna to study painting, but he made so 
very little progress that he determined to abandon it and apply him- 
self to architecture, a study he had been led to by that of perspective, 
‘in which he had discovered principles and practical rules that in the 
then state of the science were eminently useful. He now set out for 
Rome in order to make himself acquainted with ancient architecture 
by examining the various remains in that city; and afterwards he 
made a series of drawings of them for an academy or architectural, 


society which was at the time just established under the auspices of 
several persons of rank. In the meantime,.or previously to being so 
employed, he had supported himself by painting. hat was the 
length of his first residence at Rome is not known, but it could hardly 
have been one of many years, because, about 1537, he accompanied 
Primaticcio to France, where he remained two years, during which he 
made several models and designs for Francis I., none of which however 
was executed, owing ‘to the unfavourable state of public affairs, The 
Chateau Chambord indeed has been erroneously attributed to him, but 
it was erected somewhat earlier, and is of a very different character 
from any of his works. 

On returning to Italy he fixed himself for awhile at Bologna, where, 
in competition with many others, he made designs for the facade of 
San Petronio, in which he endeavoured to combine the antique, or 
rather the style founded upon its orders, with the Gothic of the original 
fabric; but, as not unfrequently happens under such circumstances, 
neither his nor any of the other designs were adopted, for the whole 
scheme fell to nothing. He was however employed upon various 
works in that city, and among them are the Casa Bocchi (no very 
favourable specimen of his taste, as he was obliged to comply with 
that of the proprictor), alterations of the Bank or ’Change, the ‘ Navig- 
lio,’ or canal leading to Ferrara, and the Palazzo Isolani at Minerbio, 
at a short distance Bion Bologna. So poorly were his services for the 
work of the Naviglio recompensed, that on its being completed he 
took his leave of Bologna and went to Piacenza, where he designed 
the ducal palace, leaving however the building of it to his son Giacinto. 
It was perhaps about this period that he erected the church at Maz- 
zano, the Madonna degli Angeli at Assisi, the chapel of San Francesco 
at Perugia, and other structures in various parts of Italy, the precise 
dates of which are unknown. During the pontificate of Julius III. 
(1550-56) he was introduced by his friend Giorgio Vasasi to that pope, 
who had known him while legate at Bologna, and who appointed him 
his architect. Besides the direction of the Trevi aqueduct, his new 
patron employed him almost immediately on the villa for himself, 
called * La Papa Giulio,’ or ‘ Villa Giulia.’ This last has always been 
regarded as a superior piece of architecture, and it forms the subject of 
a splendid atlas volume, published by the architect Stern in 1788; 
nevertheless it is difficult to account for its celebrity, there being little 
to admire, or that is striking, except the picturesque arrangement and 
effect of the inner cortile and its semicircular loggia; it is besides a 
mere ‘casino,’ both small and incommodious asa house. The same 
work also contains plans, &c. of the small church of 8. Andrea, near 
Ponte Molle at Rome, another highly esteemed production of Vignola’s, 
but which also has been greatly overrated : at the best its merits are 
of a negative kind, because though taken by themselves the individual 
parts and their mere proportions are correct, they have no particular 
character, and the composition is anything but masterly or in accord- 
ance with the spirit and system of the antique. The heavy double 
attic causes the order to appear insignificant and the pediment un- 
meaning. In such cases however the established reputation of a work 
generally silences criticism, and deters from nice examination into 
merits which may safely be taken upon trust ; accordingly Stern speaks 
of this building in very encomiastic terms, as does likewise De Quincy. 
After the death of Julius, Vignola found a liberal patron in his nephew 
the Cardinal Alexander Farnese, for whom he erected his chef-d’uvre, 
the celebrated palace at Caprarola, a magnificent edifice of very pecu- 
liar character, it being a mixture of military and civil architecture, 
pentagonal in plan, and presenting a lofty mass reared upon an equally 
lofty substructure of terraces of the same form. Yet although sufli- 
ciently stately, there is also something both lumpish and monotonous 
in its general outline. Within is a circular cortile with open galleries 
or arcades, with which all the principal rooms immediately communi- 
cate, and but for which they would be merely thoroughfares to each 
other. The magnificence of the interior consisted chiefly in the fres- 
coes and other paintings with which the walls and ceilings of the 
apartments were decorated, and of which a very cireumstantial account 
has been given by Vasari in his Life of Taddeo Zucchero, the principal 
artist employed upon them. Philip II., on the part of whom he had 
been consulted relative to the designs for the Escurial, would willingly 
have engaged Barozzi in his immediate service, but the architect ex- 
cused himself on the score of advanced age and infirmity, and his 
having also undertaken the superintendence of the works at St. Peter’s, 
on the death of Michel Angelo (1564). He therefore remained at 
Rome, where he died July 7th, 1573. 

What has mainly tended to confer on Vignola the celebrity he 
enjoys throughout Europe is his ‘Treatise on the Five Orders,’ which 
has been received as an authority in regard to them; but though it 
has been of service to the profession, it has done injury to the art, it 
being impossible to say what variety might have been produced in 
regard to ‘ orders,’ had architects been left to treat them as freely as 
other parts of design, instead of tying themselves down to fixed rules, 
which after all are of little use, inasmuch as they do not secure any 
further merit. Of Vignola’s own designs, &c., the best collection is 
that entitled ‘C2uvres complétes de J. B, de Vignola, publi¢es par 
H. Lebas et F. Debret,’ in large folio, and in outline, Paris, 1823, &e. 

(Milizia, Vite; Quatremare de Quincy, Cél2bres Architectes ; Vasari.) 

VIGNOLES, ALPHONSE DES, was descended from a Protestant 
family of great antiquity in Languedoc, where he was born, at the 


383 VIGNY, ALFRED, COMTE DE. 


VILLANI, GIOVANNI. 884 


chateau of Aubais, October 29th, 1649. He had been designed by his 
father for the military profession; but preferring the Church, he went 
through the usual studies, first at Geneva, and then at Saumur, after 
which he spent some time in England. Returning home in 1675, he 
became minister at Aubais, and, after some time, at Calais, where he 
remained till the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, He then 
retired to Geneva, whence after a time he removed toa church in 
Berlin, and then to that of Brandenburg ; but when the Royal Society 
of Berlin was founded in 1701, being chosen one of, the first members, 
and invited on the suggestion of Leibnitz to take up his residence in 
that city, he returned thither, and being appointed minister of the 
neighbouring church of Copenick, he remained there till his death, at 
the age of ninety-four, on the 24th of July 1744. . 

Des Vignoles is the author of many papers in the ‘Memoirs of the 
Royal Society of Berlin,’ and in the periodical journal called the 
‘ Bibliothdque Germanique,’ of which he became one of the editors in 
1711; but his principal work is his ‘ Chronologie de Il’Histoire Sainte 
et des Histoires Etrangéres depuis la sortie d’Egypte jusqu’d la Cap- 
tivité de Babylone,’ which appeared in 2 vols. 4to, at Berlin, in 1738. 
Chronology was the study to which he had chiefly devoted his 
attention. 

* VIGNY, ALFRED, COMTE DE, one of the most estimable of 
the modern French poets, was born at Loches, in the department of 
Indre-et-Loire, on the 27th of March 1799. His father was one of the 
few of the old French nobility, who did not emigrate. Alfred was 
educated with great care at one of the colleges in Paris, After the 
Restoration of Louis XVIII. he was admitted as one of the Red 
Musketeers of the king’s household, in which the privates ranked as 
officers, and wore the epaulette. This regiment was dissolved during 
the Hundred Days; whereupon De Vigny was transferred to the Royal 
Guard. In 1823, he passed into a regiment of the Line, in hope of 
taking part in the expedition into Spain; but his regiment continued 
in cantonments in the Pyrenees during the whole campaign. Already 
a number of fugitive pieces, both in poetry and prose, besides one or 
two dramas, had drawn attention to the young nobleman, when, in 
1825, he formed the acquaintance of a rich English lady, whom he 
married in the following year. At the same time, he withdrew from 
the army, to devote himself exclusively to literature. His earliest 
attempts had been published in various Parisian periodical works in 
1820, since which his ‘ Dolorida,’ his ‘ Eloa,’ his ‘ Maise,’ and others 
had appeared in that evanescent form; but in 1826, they were 
collected and published in a volume, under the title of ‘ Poémes 
Antiques et Modernes,’ five editions of which were sold during the 
first two years. In 1826, likewise, his clever historical romance, 
‘Cing-Mars, ou une Conspiration sous Louis XIII,’ in 2 vols., was 
printed. He had meditated the plot of this tale, during his sojourn 
in the Pyrenees. It ran through several editions, the sixth being 
published in 1840. The style of Cing-Mars is pure, natural,; and 
graceful; the character of Cardinal Richelieu is drawn with great 
strength, the figure of the king, though feeble, as he is represented in 
history, being perhaps equally true to life. This romance was soon 
translated into most European languages, and from it may have been 
taken some hints for the fine conception of the drama of ‘ Richelieu’ 
by Sir E. Bulwer.Lytton. The later editions of this production have 
been preceded by athoughtful and instructive preface, abounding in 
deeper views, and exhibiting greater research and more subtle criti- 
cism, than is usually found among romancists. His ‘Stello ou les Diables 
bleus,’ a narrative delivered by a physician to one of his patients, was 
given to the public, in 1832; it comprises three separate stories, 
exemplifying the struggles, aspirations, disappointments, and untimely 
death of three poets, Gilbert, André Chénier, and Chatterton. In 
these tales, the natural interest belonging to them is impaired by a 
vague philosophy, which the author appears to have taken up as a 
caprice, In several passages we miss the graceful pen of De Vigny, 
and are reminded of that of Victor Hugo. 

Among his dramatic productions we may name his version of 
‘Othello,’ and ‘Le Marchand de Venice,’ which appeared in 1830; his 
*Maréchale d’Ancre,’ produced in June 1831, and his ‘Chatterton,’ 
which was produced in 1835. The success of this last was prodigious, 
partly owing to the exciting nature of the subject in French hands, 
and partly owing to the excellent acting of Madame Dorval, then 
the rising star of the Parisian stage, whom all Paris hastened to see. 
Alfred de Vigny is the author of many articles in the ‘Revue des 
Deux Mondes.’ A complete edition of his works in 8 vols. was pub- 
lished in 1838. 

VIGORS, NICHOLAS AYLWARD, was born in 1787, at Old 
Leighlin, in the county of Carlow, where his family had long lived. 
He received his early education at home, and afterwards became a 
student at Trinity College in the University of Oxford, where he gave 
considerable proof of his classical and literary acquirements, by the 
publication, in 1810, of ‘An Enquiry into the Nature and Extent of 
Poetic Licence.’ In the year 1809 he had an ensigncey purchased for 
him in the Grenadier Guards, and was present at the action of 
Barossa, in the early part of 1811, where he got severely wounded. 
On his return to England he quitted the army, and devoted himself 
to the study of zoology, especially of birds and insects. In both these 
subjects he acquired great knowledge, and formed extensive coliec- 
tions, which he at a subsequent period presented to the museum of the 


/ 


Zoological Society. On the death of his father he succeeded to the 
family estate, and, in 1832, became the representative in parliament of 
the borough of Carlow, for which and for the county of Carlow he 
continued to sit until the termination of his life, on the 26th of 
October 1840. 

Although Mr. Vigors has written no work devoted to the subject of 
zoology, he has contributed a large number of valuable papers to the 
‘ Transactions’ of the Linnzan Society and of the Zoological Society, 
and the pages of the ‘Zoological Journal.’ He was an advocate of 
the circular or quinary system of arrangement as propounded by Mr, 
W. 8S. Macleay, in his ‘ Hore Entomologice ;’ and the two pai 
for which he is best known, the. one ‘ On the Natural Affinities that 
connect the Orders and Families of Birds,’ and the other, ‘On the 
Arrangement of the Genera of Birds, are devoted to the applications 
of this system to ornithology. He was one of the founders of the 


-Zoological Club of the Linnean Society, from which sprung the Zoolo- 


gical Society, of which society he was the first secretary, and through 
the whole of his life he devoted much of his time and talents to its 
interests. In his papers he did not confine himself to one depart- 
ment of zoology, but there are many in the ‘ Zoological Journal’ and 
‘Proceedings of the Zoological Society’ that attest his acquirements in 
the whole range of zoology. He died suddenly in the midst of a 
useful career, and has left among those who knew him a lively 
sense of his worth as a friend and of his talents as a man of science. 

VIJA, GANITA. [Vica Ganita,] 

VILLA’NI, GIOVANNI, born at Florence in the latter part of 


the 13th century, was a merchant by profession, and travelled in 


various countries in the pursuit of business. He also filled several 
offices in the service of the republic of Florence, was repeatedly one 
of the priors or executive council, and was employed in negociating 
the peace with Lucca and Pisa in 1317, . He afterwards served in the 
Florentine army in the war against Castruccio Castracani, after whose 
death, in 1328, he negociated the peace with Lucca. He was involved 
in the bankruptcy of the mercantile company of the Bardi in 1345, by 
which he was a great loser, and he was even imprisoned in conse- 
quence of it as an insolvent. He died of the plague in 1348. Villani 
wrote the history of his country, in twelve books, from the building 
of Florence to the time of the author's death. He does not however 
confine himself to the history of Florence, but he relates also the 
occurrences of other countries, both of Italy and out of Italy, so as to 
retain the character of a general chronicler. 
his narrative he exhibits considerable credulity, and a want of critical 
skill, but as he draws near-to his own times, he can be more depended 
upon for correctness of facts and impartiality. Villani, though 
belonging to the Guelph party, appears to have been, as a writer, com- 
paratively free from party spirit. His style is remarkably clear; his 
language is the pure Florentine of his age, some of the expressions of 
which however are now become antiquated. Villani is liable to the 
charge of plagiarism, for he has copied in great part the older 
chronicle of Ricordano Malespini, without once mentioning him, 
which chronicle, including the continuation by Giacotti Malespini, 


comes down as far as the year 1236. From this epoch, however, to _ 


that of Villani’s death, 1348, Villani’s history is original. The work 
appears to have lain forgotten for nearly two centuries, until it was 
first printed at Venice in 1537. Machiavelli quotes Villani once at 
the beginning of the second book of his ‘Storie Fiorentine,’ but he 
does not seem to have followed or consulted him in his narrative, and 
the other historians anterior to Machiavelli do not mention Villani’s 
work. It is worthy of remark that the chronicle of Dino Compagni, 
also a writer of the 14th century, whose interesting narrative embraces 
part of the period of that of Villani, remained unedited till the 18th 
century, when Muratori published it in his great collection. 

The first ten books of Villani’s history were published at Venice in 
1537, and the eleventh and twelfth books were afterwards published 
at Florence in 1554, under the title, ‘La Seconda Parte della Cronica 
Universale de’ suoi Tempi, di Giovanni Villani, Cittadino Fiorentino.’ 
In 1587 Baccio Valori published a new and more correct edition of the 
whole at Florence, and dedicated it to Francesco de’ Medici: ‘ Istoria 
di Giovanni Villani, Cittadino Fiorentino, nuovamente corretta, e alla 
sua vera lezione ridotta.’ This is the edition which is quoted by the 
academy of La Crusca as a ‘Testo di Lingua,’ or a book of authority in 
matters of language. 

Marrgo ViILLANt, brother of Giovanni, wrote, after his brother's 
death, a continuation of his history, and brought it down to the year 
1363, in which he died. His veracity has been praised by Muratori, 
but his style is inferior to that of his brother. 

Frurero VILLANI, Matteo’s son, also added a continuation to his 
father’s narrative, including the years 1363-4. The whole body of 
history by the three Villani was published together by Muratori, and 
has been reprinted several times since. 

Filippo Villani was also a Latin writer; he wrote, ‘De Origine 
Civitatis Florentiz et ejusdem famosis Civibus.’ The first part of the 
work, which treats of the origin of Florence, is full of fables, and it 
has never been printed. Of the second part which contains short bio- 
graphies of distinguished men of Florence, detached biographies in 
the original text have been published in the Life of Ambrosius Camal- 
dulensis, by Mehus, who discovered the manuscript, and some others 
by Sarti; Moreni published those of Dante, Petrarch, and Boceaccio, 


In the earlier period of | 


Pint, 


885 VILLANUEVA, JOAQUIN LORENZO DE, 


VILLARS, DOMINIQUE. 886 


under the title, ‘Philippi Villani Vita Dantis, Petrarch; et Boccacii,’ 
Florence, 1826. Mazzuchelli published an old Italian version of the 
Lives of Filippo Villani by an anonymous translator, before the dis- 
covery of the Latin text: ‘Le Vite d’Uomini illustri Fiorentini, 
Fag da Filippo Villani, colle Annotazioni del Conte Mazzuchelli,’ 
1747. 

Filippo Villani wrote also a work ‘De Origine Regum Francorum,’ 
which we believe is still inedited. He died about 1404. 

Giovanni Villani, the Florentine historian, must not be confounded 
with another Giovanni Villani, who wrote chronicles of the town of 
Naples, and also of the kingdom of Sicily, which are of no great 

ue, 

(Tiraboschi, Storia della Letteratura Italiana; Corniani, J Secoli 
della Letteratura Italiana ; Gamba, Serie dei Testi di Lingua.) 

VILLANUEVA, JOAQUIN LORENZO DE, a learned and liberal 
Spanish author, was born at Jativa, in the kingdom of Valencia, on 
the 10th of August 1757, and studied at the University of Valencia, 
where Mujiioz, well known for his ‘ History of the New World,’ was 
one of his tutors. After taking holy orders he fixed his residence in 
the capital, where he became one of the literary ornaments of the 
reign of Charles III., which is regarded as that of the revival of sound 
literature in Spain. His most noted work at this epoch is his ‘ Aiio 
Cristiano de Espafia,’ or Spanish Christian Year, an account of the 
festivals of the Spanish Church, the lives of its saints and martyrs, 
&e., which, although it extends to nineteen octavo volumes, has passed 
through several editions. Another work by him, ‘ De la leccion de la 
sagrada Escritura en lenguas vulgares’ (On the Reading of the Holy 
Scriptures in the common languages), folio, Valencia, 1791, in which he 
advocated that practice, was not looked upon with favour by his eccle- 
siastical brethren; nor did he regain favour by promulgating the doc- 
trine that the jurisdiction of the tribunal of the Inquisition was 
incompatible with the fundamental laws of Spain. He held neverthe- 
less the offices of court preacher and confessor of the royal chapel at 
the time of the general convulsion of Spanish affairs on the invasion 
of 1808, when he became a distinguished member of the patriotic and 
constitutional party. In 1810 he was chosen a member of the Cortes, 
and in 1812 he supported the principles of constitutionalism by argu- 
ments from the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas in a dissertation 
entitled ‘Angelicas Fuentes 6 el Tomista en las Cortes.’ On the 
return of King Ferdinand he was shut up for six years in a sort of 
imprisonment in the monastery of Salceda, but allowed to solace his 
confinement by making use of the treasures of a good library. The 
resumption of constitutional government in 1820 led to his liberation, 
and he was sent by the Cortes on a mission to the court of Rome, 
whose pretensions he had always been conspicuous for opposing, while 
defending what he considered the rights of the Church of Spain, in a 
spirit analogous to that which once animated the Gallican clergy. 
His negociations met with no success; and on the overthrow of the 
constitutional government he thought it advisable to emigrate to 
England, from which he afterwards transferred his residence to 
Treland. While in London he published what he called his “ literary 
life” (‘ Vida Literaria de J. L. de Villanueva,’ 2 vols. 8vo, 1825), but 
the work is too much occupied with dissertations on the rights of the 
Spanish Church and on the Council of Trent to be very attractive to 
an English reader. He translated Paley’s ‘Natural Theology’ and 
some other works into Spanish ; but his chief literary labour here was 
a dissertation in Latin on Irish antiquities and the colonisation of 
Treland by the Phoonicians, ‘Ibernia Phoenicea seu Phcenicum in 
Ibernia incolatus,’ Dublin, 1831. He died at Dublin, on the 26th of 
March 1837. He was a poet as well as a prose writer, and a volume 
of his select poems, ‘ Poesias Escogidas,’ appeared at London in 1833. 

His younger brother, Jaime Vi~Lanurva, born at San Felipe in 
1765, and first a Dominican, then a secularised priest, shared his 
opinions, his literary fame, and his exile. He was the author of a 
‘Literary Tour to the Churches of Spain’ (Viage Literaria & las 
Iglesias de Espafia), commenced at Madrid in 1803, and left imperfect 
in thirteen or fourteen volumes; a work full of valuable information 
on the ecclesiastical archives of that country. His brother Joaquin 
Lorenzo contributed many portions to the earlier volumes. Jaime 
Villanueva died at London, on the 14th of November 1824. 

VILLARET, CLAUDE, was born at Paris about the year 1715, or 
s00n after, and was educated for the bar; but a love of light literature 
and worse levities disinclining him for that or any other laborious 
profession, he took to writing books, and-produced, in 1745, a romance 
entitled ‘ Histoire du Cour Humain, ou Mémoires du Marquis de 
——;’ besides a one act play, entitled ‘ Quartier d’Hiver,’ in which he 
was assisted by two other writers; and some other things of the same 
kind, said to be all of little value. It is not certain however that he 
was really the author of all the pieces that have been attributed to 
him. In 1748 his embarrassments forced him to leave Paris, upon 
which he joined a company of provincial players, being smitten, it is 
said, by the charms of one of the females. He now took the name of 
Dorval, and made his first appearance at Rouen in the character of a 
lover; but he soon rose to a higher range of parts, and at length 
became manager of a company, which performed at Lidge. He left 
the stage however in 1756. In 1758 he published anonymously at 
Geneva an answer to Rousseau’s ‘ Lettre sur les Spectacles,’ under the 
title of ‘Considérations sur ’Art du Théatre,’ which is said to have 

BIOG, DIV. VOL, VI. . 


been the best that appeared next to that by d'Alembert. This was 
followed in 1759 by a volume, also anonymous, of selections from 
Voltaire, which he called ‘Esprit de Voltaire,’ and which was well 
received. In 1760 he returned to Paris with some literary reputation, 
and his friends got him the office of first clerk to the Chamber of 
Accounts (Premier commis 2 la Chambre des Comptes), an appoint- 
ment which led him to the study of the national historians of the 
middle ages; so that when the booksellers Desaint and Saillant were 
looking out for a writer to continue the ‘ Histoire de France,’ com- 
menced by the Abbé Velly, recently dead, they were induced to select 
Villaret. He conducted or compiled and wrote the work, from the 
226th page of the 8th volume to the 348th page of the 17th, being the 
portion extending from 1329, the second year of Philip de Valois, to 
1469, the 9th year of Louis XI. Villaret’s first volumes are said to 
have so greatly extended the sale of the work, that the publishers 
raised the salary of their new editor to triple what they had paid to 
his predecessor; but as this would have made his remuneration not 
less than 4500 livres per volume, the statement is regarded by the 
writer of his life in the ‘ Biographie Universelle’ as more than doubt- 
ful. This writer considers Villaret’s to be the best written portion of 
the work, and intimates that it has been generally so esteemed by the 
public. The Abbé de Castres, on the contrary (in his ‘ Trois Siécles 
de la Littérature Francoise,’ iv. 436), describes Villaret as being to his 
predecessor what Seneca is to Cicero; and asserts that he wanted the 
art of skilfully weaving his researches into the substance of his narra- 
tive—“il n’a pas eu, comme son modéle, l’art de fondre avec adresse 
ses recherches dans la narration.” Villaret also held the office, made 
for him, of secretary to the dukes and peers (Secretaire des Ducs et 
Pairs); and he is said, in the latter part of his life, to have been con- 
cerned in one or two other literary undertakings of the day. He died 
in February 1766. His successor in the compilation of the ‘ Histoire 
de France’ was the Abbé Garnier. 

VILLARS, DOMINIQUE, French botanist, was born on the 14th 
of November 1745, in a hamlet of the village of Noyer in Dauphiné. 
His father taught him reading and writing, and he learned Latin and 
geometry of the parish priest. When he was only fourteen years old 
his father died, and being the eldest in the family, at that early age he 
was obliged to superintend the duties of the farm on which his family 
lived. He was also appointed to his father’s post of parish registrar, 
and in order to fit himself for his duties, he received instruction from 
a notary, in whose library he met with books on natural history, 
which so engaged his attention that he determined to pursue the 
study of botany and medicine at his leisure. This led his mother to 
fear that he would neglect his agricultural pursuits ; and accordingly, 
at the age of seventeen, she persuaded him to marry, in the hope that 
this would be a check to his pursuit of science. But in this she was 
disappointed; for in 1765 Villars made an excursion through Lyon- 
nais, Bourgogne, La Franche-Comté, and Bresse, and collected many 
plants, and otherwise added to his knowledge of natural history. He 
afterwards became known to the Abbé Chaix, a good botanist, with 
whom he made many excursions in the mountains of Gapencois. He 
thus became acquainted with M. de Marchéval of Grenoble, and in 
1771 proceeded to the military hospital of Grenoble for the purpose 
of studying medicine. Here his botanical knowledge soon brought 
him into notice, and in 1773 he gave a course of lectures on botany 
to the pupils of the hospital. From this period to 1776 he made 
several excursions in Bas-Dauphiné, Provence, Languedoc, and La 
Grande Chartreuse, for the purpose of studying the natural history, 
more particularly the botany, of these districts. In 1777 he visited 
Paris, where his reputation as a botanist secured him a very flattering 
reception. In 1778 he took his degree as Doctor of Medicine, and 
would have returned to Noyer to practise medicine, but his friend 
M. Marchéval secured him an increase of stipend for his lectures at 
Grenoble, and in 1782 he was appointed physician to the hospital; he 
continued in this position till the suppression of the hospital by the 
French government in 1803. As this was unexpected, he remained 
for some time in considerable difficulties, but in 1805 he was appointed 
professor of botany and medicine in the school of medicine at Stras- 
bourg, where he remained till his death, which took place on the 27th | 
of June 1814, 

Villars wrote several works on botany and medicine, but that which 
secured him the greatest reputation is his ‘ Natural History of the 
Plants of Dauphiné’ (Histoire Naturelle des Plantes du Dauphiné). 
This work was published in 4 vols. 4to, in 1786 and successive years ; 
it contains 65 plates of the plants described. Each of the volumes 
contains a preface, in which an account is given of the various excur- 
sions which he made. All the plants are arranged according toa 
classification of his own, in which he reduces the number of the 
Linnean classes to twelve, by considering only the number of the 
stamens as a character of the classes. Under these classes he arranges 
27 natural orders, named after the ‘Fragments’ of Linneus. It also 
includes a dictionary of terms, and lists of plants found in particular 
districts. This work was submitted to the French Institute, and a 
critical report given of its merits by Jussieu, Geoffroy, and Tessier. 
Although in some respects unfavourable to the work, the author was 
modest enough to print each report of the members of the Institute 
at the commencement of the volumes as they appeared. In 1801 he 
published a catalogue of the plants growing in the betes ee at 


387 VILLARS, LOUIS-HECTOR. 


VILLARS, LOUIS-HECTOR. 383 


Strasbourg, in which he arranged the plants according to the system 
of Jussieu. He published several other books and memoirs on various 
departments of natural history and topography. His principal work 
on medicine was entitled ‘ Principes de Médicine et de Chirurgie,’ and 
was published at Lyon in 1797. He also gave an account of an epi- 
demic fever which prevailed in Dauphiné during the years 1779 and 
1780. At his death he left behind him an extensive library anda 
large collection of plants. In a prospectus of his large work on 
plants, he named a species Berardia, after Berard, an apothecary, who 
lived at Strasbourg, and was a contemporary of the Bauhins, and who 
left behind him a manuscript work on plants, still in the public library 
at Strasbourg. A genus of plants has been named in honour of Villars, 
Villarsia. 

(Biog. Univ. ; Bischoff, Lehrbuch der Botanik; ‘Prefaces’ to volumes 
of the Plants of Dawphiné.) 

VILLARS, LOUIS-HECTOR, a maréchal of France, and one of its 
most illustrious soldiers, was born at Moulins in 1653. He studied 
at the college of Juilly, and was, on quitting that seminary, enrolled 
among the “ pages de la grande écurie.” During an excursion of the 
court to Flanders, Villars obtained leave to visit Holland, and he after- 
wards accompanied his relation St, Géran, envoy to the Elector of 
Brandenburg, to Berlin. On his return to France he served in 
Holland as a volunteer in the corps commanded by Louis XIV. in 
person. The spirit of enterprise and observation beyond his years 
which had spurred him to visit foreign countries, he carried into the 
camp. The king, who had formerly distinguished him among the 
other pages on account of his fine figure, remarked one day, * A single 
shot can’t be fired without this boy starting from the ground to 
witness it.”  Villars’s courage and activity, and perhaps his fine 
figure, obtained for him, although his family was out of favour at 
court, a troop of horse at the age of nineteen. 

The next two years he served in Germany under Turenne, who 
entertained a high opinion of his talents as a partisan. The Prince of 
Condé also distinguished him from the crowd of young officers, The 
‘mingled good sense and gallantry which he showed at the battle of 
Sénef procured for him a regiment of cavalry in 1674, before he had 
completed his twenty-first year. From 1674 till the peace of Nim- 
wegen in 1678, Villars served in Flanders under the Maréchal de 
Luxembourg, and in Alsatia under the Maréchal de Crequi. The 
minister Louvois, who had quarrelled with the Maréchal de Belle- 
fonds, Villars’s uncle, extended his inveterate enmity to the whole 
family. The young. soldier felt that he had nothing but himself to 
rely upon; and he appeared to multiply himself in his search of 
opportunities of distinction. 

The next ten years of the life of Villars were spent principally in 
diplomatic employments. On his return to court after the peace of 
1678, he gave the rein to his amorous propensities, to an extent which 
attracted general attention, and occasioned much disturbance. He 
was ordered to rejoin his regiment, but any fear of having lost the 
king’s favour was soon dispelled by his being sent to Vienna to con- 
dole with Leopold I. on the death of the empress-mother. At Vienna 
he gained such an influence over the mind of the Elector of Bavaria, 
that he detached him from the Austrian interest, and rendered him 
subservient to the views of France. With the approbation of Louis, 
Villars accompanied the elector on his return to Munich, and followed 
him into Hungary, when he assumed the command of the Bavarian 
contingent in the imperial army levied against the Turks. Here, as 
usual, Villars distinguished himself by his impetuous but not uncal- 
culating valour. On his return to Munich he found a new Austrian 
emissary opposed to him—the beautiful and voluptuous Countess of 
Kaunitz. The first use made by this lady of the complete ascend- 
ancy which she soon gained over the elector, was to insist that Villars 
should be removed from the court. Notwithstanding this partial 
failure, Louis was satisfied with, his ambassador’s conduct. Villars 
was admitted to private interviews; Madame Maintenon received him 
at St. Cyr. At last, Louvois relented, and in 1688, on the eve of the 
war occasioned by the league of Augsburg, conferred upon him the 
appointment of commissary-general of the cavalry. 

Villars was sent to Munich to attempt to regain his influence over 
the elector, and detach him from the alliance of Austria. In this he 
failed, and his life was even in danger from the Austrian party in 
Bavaria. He was next appointed to command the cavalry of the 
Maréchal d’Humiéres, whose army was stationed in Flanders with 
orders to act on the defensive, Villars, tired of this inactivity, 
resumed his old occupation of partisan, and levied contributions as 
far as Brussels. In 1689 he was created maréchal-de-camp. During 
the two following years he commanded a body of 15,000 men, which 
formed a reserve to the army of the Maréchal de Luxembourg. He 
was subsequently sent to the Rhine to assist with his counsels the 
Maréchal de Joyeuse, who was hard pressed by the Prince of Baden. 
In this service he continued till repose was for a short time restored 
to Europe by the peace of Ryswick in 1697. 

The intrigues which preceded the Spanish War of Succession were 
now in full vigour. In 1699 Villars was entrusted with the delicate 
mission of ambassador-extraordinary to Vienna. He spent three years 
at that court, at the time when it and the court of Versailles were 
incessantly busied by every means short of actual war to thwart each 
other’s views upon the throne of Spain. Villars, with a sleepless 


patience, strangely contrasting with his impetuosity in war, watched 
and unravelled all the tortuous intrigues of the Austrian court. He 
kept Louis and his ministers informed of every movement of Austri 

and by blunt and opportune applications more than once dctarel 
the emperor from steps which would have promoted his views. The 


personal animosity felt by the Austrian court to Villars was extreme 5 


he was personally insulted, attempts were made to implicate him in 
the rebellious movements of Hungary, and his life was threatened. The 
courtiers affected to shun him; Prince Eugene alone continued on a 
footing of unreserved friendly intercourse, Villars persevered, and 
though more of the honour of insuring the accession of Louis’ grand- 


son to the Spanish throne was attributed to others than he felt tobe ~ 


consistent with a due sense of his sefvices, even Louis XIV. was 
satisfied with his conduct. : 

On the commencement of hostilities in 1701 Villars was sent to the 
army commanded by Villeroi in Italy. Dissatisfied with his 
he obtained his recall. On his return to Paris he married Mademoi- 
selle de Varangeville, to whom he was passionately attached. On the 
appointment of Catinat to the army of Germany, Villars joined 
but it is alleged that he found the genius of his commander enfeeb: 
by age. In 1702 Villars was sent, at the head of thirty battalions, 
forty squadrons, and thirty pieces of artillery, to disengage the elector 
of Bavaria, who was surrounded on all sides by the Austrian 
Villars had now attained his forty-ninth year, and this was the first 
time he had commanded in chief. 

The events of Villars’s campaign in Germany in 1703 are faithfully 
and instructively portrayed in his correspondence with the elector, 
Louis XIV., and his minister-at-war, and the letters of the 
officers under his command, published at Amsterdam in 1762. The 
French general was everywhere successful, but the imbecility of the 
Elector of Bavaria neutralised all his victories. Disgusted with his 
position, Villars. petitioned to be recalled, and by his importunity 
wrung from the king a reluctant permission. 
it was proposed to send him to Italy, but the Duke de Vendéme was 
his senior maréchal, and in his connection with the Elector of Bavaria 
Villars had had enough of military partnership with a prince of the 
royal blood, Louis forbore to insist upon his undertaking the Italian 
campaign, for there was a more important charge to intrust to him, 

This charge was to terminate the war of the Cevennes, With the 
sanction of the king, he repaired to the scene of action, resolved to 
put an end to the troubles less by rigour than by gentler methods. 
In Lamoignon, the intendant of the province, he found a coadjutor 


participating in his sentiménts, master of the necessary local informa-- 


tion, and prompt in action. Together these associates pursued the 
Camisards into their most secluded retreats. A few examples of 
severity to those who resisted were followed by the extension of 
lenity, and even concessions to their religious scruples, to all who laid 


down their arms. Cavalier, the ablest leader of the Camisards, was — 


gained by the humanity and soldierly frankness of Villars, Peace was 
on the eve of being restored to the province, when emissaries of 
England and Savoy rekindled the dissensions. The insincerity of the 
court co-operated with foreign intrigue, but the watchfulness of Villars 
cut off all assistance from beyond the frontier, and the insurgents of 
the Cevennes ceased to be dangerous. Villars saved his king, at the 
moment when he had all Europe on his arms, from the additional 
embarrassment of a civil war. He was received with the highest 
honours on his return to Versailles. 

From the spring of 1705, till the conclusion of the peace of Rastadt 
in 1714, the life of Villars Was a series of campaigns. Sent by the 
king in the former year to inspect and strengthen the defences of the 
eastern frontier, he took post on the heights near Fronsberg, where he 
covered Thionville, was in a position to succour Luxembourg if neces- 
sary, and, by means of the fortified posts at Bouzonville and Bour- 
gaiche, kept open the communication with Sarre-Louis. Confident in 
the strength of his position, he did not entrench it, lest he should 
render his soldiers apprehensive. Marlborough appeared 
camp, at the head of 110,000 men; he examined it at all points for four 
days, and then retired. This encampment, more generally known by 
the name of Sirek than Fronsberg, astonished everybody. The rompt 
decision and fearlessness of Villars were well known, but the skill 
shown in selecting a strategic position, and the self-control evinced in 
keeping on the defensive, were unexpected.. The moment the enemy 
retired, he gave vent to his natural impétuosity by resuming the 
offensive ; he burst into Alsatia, forced the lines of Wetsseattingg, pre- 
sented himself before Lauterburg, and, to conceal the weakness which 


prevented him laying siege to that place, crossed the line between 


Fort Louis and Strasbourg, and laying the whole country between 
the river and Schwarzwald under contribution, closed the campaign 
of 1705. In 1706 he took Lauterburg and Hagenau, in the latter o 
which the enemy kept his reserves of artillery and stores, This 
success was neutralised by Villars’s loss of the great battle of Ramillies 
in Flanders, where he was forced to succumb to the superior genius 
of Marlborough, and by the minister Chamillard’s withdrawing some 
of his best troops. In 1707 Villars crossed the Rhine; forced the 
lines of Stolhofen on the 23rd of May; established his head-quarters 
at Rastadt on the Feet thas the same day, and the next occupied 
Stuttgard. He invited C 


On his return to France, — 


before this 


les XII. of Sweden, who had invaded — 
Saxony, to make a junction with his army under the walls of Niirn- A 


889 VILLEHARDOUIN, GEOFFROY DE. 


VILLEMAIN, ABEL-FRANCOIS. 390 


berg, and concentrate their forces against Austria; but the invitation 
was declined. Troops were again withdrawn from him, and he was 
obliged to re-cross the Rhine. In 1708 he was sent to command on 
the frontier of Savoy, but the tardiness of those to whom the arrange- 
ments were intrusted caused the campaign to terminate without effect, 
In 1709 he was sent to re-organise the dispirited and demoralised 
army of Flanders, At the battle of Malplaquet he was wounded early 
in the day : he endeavoured to continue to direct the troops from a 
litter, but fainted, and was borne from the field. His wound was 
dangerous, and kept him inactive the rest of the year. The campaign 
of 1710 was desultory; repeated attempts were made to open nego- 
ciations. In the autumn of that year Villars’s wound broke open, 


and he was obliged to resign for a time the command of the army, 


Tn 1711 the exhausted state of French finances hampered the military 
operations and kept Villars on the defensive within the frontier. In 
1712 the battle of Denain (24th July), the capture of Marchiennes, 
Douai, and a number of forts by Villars, restored courage to tbe 
French. Prince Eugene was obliged to give ground, and retire 
beneath the walls of Brussels. The peace of Utrecht was concluded 
(separately) by Holland and England in 1713, Austria refused to 
sign the treaty; Villars was sent into Germany at the head of an 
army, and on the 7th of March 1714, the peace of Rastadt. was 
concluded. 

The military labours of Villars were now to experience a long inter- 
mission, and only to be renewed when he approached the termination 
of his career, From 1714 to 1732 he was exclusively engaged in the 
turmoil of state intrigue. He had set off to visit his government of 
Provence, when he was recalled to witness the last moments of 
Louis XIV. Villars stood on delicate ground with the regent. In 
concluding the treaty of Rastadt he had made two secret stipulations : 
that tho right of succession to the French throne, to the exclusion of 
the Duke of Orleans, should be reserved to Philip V. and his descend- 
ants. The regent was pacified however by Villars’s producing the 
autograph commands of Louis XIV. to insist upon those conditions. 
Villars was appointed by the duke a member of his council, in which 
he steadily opposed every deviation from the policy of his old master. 
In particular he laboured to prevent the adoption of the course pro- 
posed by Dubois, under the name of the quadruple alliance. He 
opposed energetically the adoption of the financial schemes of Law. 
Dubois advised the regent to have Villars arrested, and attempted to 
implicate him in the conspiracy of Alberoni, but the maréchal, by 
serving the regent with the same entire devotion as he had served 
Louis XIV., gained his confidence, and the affection entertained for 
him by the young king was an additional protection. After the death 
of Dubois the regent reserved to himself the office of prime minister, 
and regulated his conduct in a great measure by the advice of Villars 
in military and foreign affairs. - The Duke of Bourbon, who succeeded 
the regent, showed no less confidence in him. His only rival was the 
Abbé Fleury, The marriage of Louis XV. with the daughter of the 
king of Poland appeared for a time to strengthen the influence of 
Villars, but the Abbé Fleury haying determined the queen’s power 
with the king, the maréchal was obliged to give way to the favourite. 
This continued till 1732, when the rupture with Austria on account of 
the Spanish possessions in Italy rendered the military services of 
Villars indispensable. In his eighty-first year he was sent to command 
in ltaly with the rank of maréchal-général de la France, which had 
never been conferred on any one before him, except Turenne. In the 
campaigns of 1733 and 1734 he evinced all the ardour, activity, and 
contempt of danger which characterised his youth. The ingratitude of 
the king of Sardinia however decided Villars to solicit his recall early 
in the course of the second. His wish was granted. He was taken ill 
at Turin on his way to France, and died on the 17th of June 1784. 

The predominant features of Villars’s character were humanity, 
sincerity, quickness of apprehension, and promptitude without pre- 
cipitancy in action. He was not free from the lax gallantry of his 
day, and is said, with or without cause, to have been extremely 
jealous of his wife. In advanced life he evinced a degree of avarice, 
contracted probably from the habits of economy forced upon him by 
the circumstances of his youth. He is among the most brilliant mili 
tary characters of France, yet without that restless desire of show 
which detracts from the merits of so many of them. He was capable 
of deep, disinterested, and lasting attachment, His conduct in the war 
of the Cevennes will ever endear his memory to the lover of humanity 
and of religious liberty. 

VILLEHARDOUIN, GEOFFROY DE, was born near Arcis-sur- 
Aube about 1167, and was descended from one of the most ancient 
and distinguished families of the Comté de Champagne. He was 
Maréchal of Champagne when, in 1199 his sovereign lord Thibault, 
Count of Champagne and of Brie, determined upon joining the cause of 
the crusades, and Villehardouin was among the first chosen to accom- 
pany him. Previous to the departure of his lord he was sent as 
ambassador to Venice, to solicit the aid and co-operation of that 
Republic im their enterprise. He arrived at that city with five other 
deputies in the beginning of Lent, 1201, and met with an honourable 
reception from Henry Dandolo, the Doge. Admitted before the 
council of state, Villehardouin eloquently explained the motives of his 
mission, and the reasons which had induced the Count of Champagne 
to apply to the Venetians for assistance, in preference to other powers. 


“We have chosen you before all other nations in Europe,” he said, “as 
being the most powerful, the most generous, and the most capable of 
seconding so glorious an enterprise. We have come to demand your 
assistance and the junction of your forces to ours, without which we 
can never expect to re-conquer Jerusalem ; and, as we are resolved to 
undertake this conquest, we have been commanded not to leave this 
city till we have received a favourable answer to our request, leaving 
it to you to impose the conditions on which it is to be granted.” To 
this energetic appeal were-joined the tears and entreaties of the other 
deputies, who, in the holiness of their mission, forgot the shame of 
kneeling as suppliants before the haughty representatives of com- 
mercial power. Moved by their appeal, and the pecuniary advantages 
which were likely to result from the transaction, an unanimous accla- 
mation arose from the assembly of ‘‘ Nous l’octroyons! Nous l’octro- 
yons!” <A treaty was concluded between the French deputies and 
the Republic, by which it was agreed, that the Venetians should 
furnish the vessels necessary for the transport of 4500 horsemen and 
9000 squires and attendants, and also 20,000 foot soldiers, with nine 
months’ provisions ; that the vessels should be equipped and ready to 
sail in the month of June in the following year, and that their service 
should only count from the time that they left Venice. For these 
Services the crusaders were to pay the Venetians the sum of 80,000 
marks of silver, or, according to some accounts, 85,000. The payment 
of-so exorbitant a sum, for that period, proves equally the generous zeal 
of the crusaders and the attentive regard of the Venetians to their 
interests. After the conclusion of this treaty, Villehardouin returned 
to France, where he found the Count Thibault dangerously ill. The 
death of Thibault, which occurred soon after, left the crusaders with- 
out a chief. The command of the expedition having been offered to 
the Duke of Burgundy, and afterwards to the Count of Bar, who both 
declined. it, it was finally accepted by the Marquis of Montserrat, who 
appointed Venice as the place of general meeting. 

The first exploit of the crusaders, after leaving Venice, was, at the 
solicitation of Alexis Comnenus, to re-establish on the throne of Con- 
stantinople the Emperor Isaac his father. The French having after- 
wards to complain of the conduct of Alexis, who had not ratified the 
stipulated conditions for the succour they had lent him, sent Villehar- 
douin as their deputy to make the necessary remonstrances. 

Villehardouin was present at the siege of Constantinople in 1204, 
when that city was taken by the Venetians and French, and to him 
history is indebted for a minute and graphic description of this 
remarkable siege. The services of Villehardouin were rewarded by 
the Emperor Baldwin, whom the victorious Franks had placed on the 
throne, by his appointment to the important office of “ Maréchal” of 
the province of Romania. His military skill and bravery also insured 
him the esteem of the Emperor Henry, the successor of Baldwin, to 
whom the Marquis of Montserrat had given his daughter in marriage ; 
from him he received, as a free gift, the entire city of Messinopolis, 
together with its dependencies. This valuable donation induced him 
to reside in Thessaly, where he died about the year 1213. While 
however enjoying the honours which his merit had acquired, he 
appears not to have been unmindful of the country of his birth; in 
1207, he richly endowed the abbeys of Froissy and Troyes, to which 
his sisters and his two daughters belonged. The lustre of his name 
gave power and influence to his descendants, who for nearly two 
centuries ruled over the most important principalities of Greece. 

It is chiefly as an historian that the name of Geoffroy De Villehar- 
douin has become celebrated, To him we are principaily indebted for 
the history of one of the most important periods in the wars of the 
crusades, from 1198 to 1207. His work is entitled ‘ L‘Histoire de la 
Prise de Constantinople par les Frangais et les Venitiens.’ The author 
relates the events in which he was an active participator with modest 
simplicity and tolerable candour. His narration is remarkable for 
brevity and clearness, and generally bears the impress of truth. His 
talents as a negociator caused him frequently to be employed on 
missions of importance, and to be summoned to the councils of the 
army; he has thus been enabled to give a minute detail of several 
events, of which we might otherwise have remained ignorant. His 
history is rendered the more valuable from the fact, that it is probably 
the oldest historical record in prose which the French language 
possesses. The first edition of it was published at Venice in 1573, the 
second in Paris in 1585: the most valuable is that by the learned Du 
Cange, ‘f whose notes,” says Mills, “are as valuable as his notes on the 
Alexiad.” [Byzantine Hisrorrans,|] The title of this edition of Du 
Cange, which is now not easily to be met with, is as follows :—‘ His- 
toire de Empire de Constantinople, devisées en deux parties, &c., 
écrite par Geoffroy De Ville-Hardouin, avec la suite de cette Histoire 
jusqu’en 1240, tirée du Manuscrit de Philippe Mousker, &c., le tout 
avec Observations faites par Charles du Fresne, Sieur du Cange; Paris, 
de Imprimerie Royale, 1657) in fol.’ In this edition the old text is 
accompanied with a modern French version. The history of Villehar- 
douin is also to be found in vol. xxviii. of the ‘ Recueil des Historiens 
des Gaules et de la France;’ in fol., Paris, 1822: the text in this 
wD) has been revised on three manuscripts, and to it is appended a 
glossary. 

* VILLEMAIN, ABEL-FRANCOIS, peer of France and one of the 
most distinguished of French men of letters, was born in Paris on the 
11th of June 1791, and educated at the Imperial Lyceum there, where his 


VILLENEUVE. 


391 


VILLENEUVE. 393 


reputation for talent was such that at the early age of nineteen (1810) 
he was appointed Professor of Rhetoric in the College Charlemagne. 
Here, besides gaining fame as an eloquent lecturer, he distinguished 
himself by two published essays, both of which were crowned by the 
Institute—an ‘ loge de Montaigne,’ published in 1812, and a ‘ Discours 
sur les avantages et les inconvenients de la critique,’ published in 
1814, The approbation bestowed on these Essays was such, that the 
young professor was removed in 1816 to the University of Paris, first 
as assistant professor of Modern History, and afterwards, in the same 
year, as Professor of Eloquence. In that year, too, he published his 
‘floge de Montesquieu, which was again crowned by the Institute. 
A work of far greater importance was his ‘ Histoire de Cromwell, 
daprds les mémoires du temps et les recueils parlementaires,’ pub- 
lished in 1819, in two volumes. In 1821 he became a member of the 
Academy ; and in 1822 he published a translation of Cicero’s ‘ Re- 
public, from the palimpsest manuscript discovered ih 1820 by Angelo 
Mai. It was about this time that he entered on official political life. 
In reading his ‘ Discourse on the Advantages and Inconveniences of 
Criticism,’ in 1814, he had pronounced a panegyric on the allied 
sovereigns then in Paris; and this was remembered against him. 
Since then, however, he had shown his sentiments to be those of a 
moderate liberal opposed to the reactionary policy of the Restoration. 
Having been appointed to the office of Maitre des Requétes to the 
Council of State, his liberalism brought him into collision with the 
excessive legitimism of the Villéle ministry, more particularly as he 
was a strenuous advocate for the liberty of the press. His lectures, 
with those of his colleagues Guizot and Cousin, were suspended, and in 
1827 he was deprived of office. Meanwhile he had published ‘ Lascaris, 
ou les Grecs du 15me siécle, suivi d’un essai historique sur l'état des 
Grecs depuis la conquéte musulmane jusqu’’ nos jours’ (1825); also, 
‘Funérailles de M. Lemontey: Discours’ (1826). In the former of 
these works the author showed his ardent sympathy with the Greek 
struggle for independence. In 1829 M. Villemain published ‘ Funé- 
railles de M. Picard : Discours ;’ and in 1830, the first portion of his 
well-known work entitled ‘Cours de Littérature Frangaise,’ the re- 
mainder of which appeared in 1838. Just before the revolution of 
1830, he had been chosen deputy for l’Eure; with Guizot and others 
he figured as a man of influence at that crisis; and was consequently 
an important personage in the new government of Louis-Philippe. He 
was made a peer of France in 1833, was one of the most eloquent of 
political orators of the period, and, after having acted as Vice-President 
of the Council of Education, became Minister of Public Instruction 
under Guizot. In 1833 he published ‘Funérailles de M. le Baron 
Cuvier: Discours;’ in 1837 a collection of his miscellaneous writings 
under the title of ‘Mélanges Historiques et Littéraires;’ and in 1841 
a Report entitled ‘ Tableau de l'état actuel de l'instruction primaire en 
France.’ In 1845 he resigned the Ministry of Instruction, and during 
the rest of the reign of Louis Philippe the state of his health pre- 
cluded much public activity. In 1847 he gave to the world a new 
edition of the ‘ Provincial Letters of Pascal,’ with an accompanying 
essay. Since the revolution of 1848, M. Villemain, like his friends 
Guizot and Cousin, has lived in retirement, waiting for a change of 
system rather than hoping for it, and attending to no other duties 
of a public kind than those of the perpetual secretaryship of the 
Academy, which he has held since 1834. In 1854 he published 
‘Souvenirs Contemporains d’Histoire et de Littérature.’ He has since 
published ‘Tableau de l'Eloquence Chrétienne au IVe. siécle,’ 1856, 
and ‘ Choix d’études sur la littérature contemporaine,’ 8vo,'1857 ; and 
he is engaged in translating Pindar into French. Among M. Ville- 
main’s works, besides those which we have enumerated, are several 
translations from the English, including one of Sheridan’s comedy of 
‘ The School for Scandal,’ published in 1822. 

VILLENEUVE. From the birth of Romée de Villeneuve, grand- 
senechal of Provence in 1170, to the death of Vice-Admiral Villeneuve 
in 1806, there has almost always been some one of this name to lend 
it distinction in France, A 

Rom&E DE _VILLENEUVE (born 1170, died soon after 1250) deserves 
to be remembered in the history of France as one of the earliest 
statesmen who appears to have comprehended the importance of 
uniting all the Gallic provinces into one nation. The history of his 
early life is obscure and distorted by fables. Created constable of 
Provence by Berenger before 1238, he besieged and took Nice, which 
had revolted against the count. Villeneuve frequently made that city 
his place of abode during his subsequent career, and conciliated its 
citizens by his wise and humane government. He fought bravely 
against the Pisans and Genoese, patronised the Troubadours in general, 
and punished some in particular who sinned against morality in their 
writings. On the 12th of July, 1238, Berenger nominated him in his 
will regent of Provence, and guardian of Beatrice, his fourth and un- 
married daughter. On the death of Berenger, in 1245, Villeneuve 
assembled the nobility of Provence, and persuaded them to swear 
fealty to Beatrice. He next married his ward to Charles of Anjou, 
brother of St. Louis, who had, many years before, in a great measure 
through the instrumentality of Villeneuve, been married to Marguerite, 
her eldest sister. The regent procured the insertion of a clause in the 
marriage contract of Charles of Anjou, in virtue of which the terri- 
tories of Provence, if Beatrice died without male issue, were to descend 
to the offspring of her sister Marguerite by St. Louis, The object of 


this arrangement was realised two centuries later by Palaméde de 
Forbin. After this marriage Villeneuve appears to have withdrawn 
himself from public life. His name only appears again in the page of 
history in the mention of his will, by which he disposed of an 
enormous fortune for that age. 

E.ion, or Hetion, Dz VILLENEUVE (born in 1270, died in 1346), 
of the same family as the preceding, entered in early life the order of 
St. John of Jerusalem, and, in 1319, on the abdication of Foulques de 
Villaret, grand-master of Rhodes, was elected his successor, Before 
repairing to his seat of government, the new grand-master visited 
several courts to collect contributions for his Order, which was at that 
time deeply involved in debt. The division of the order into langues 
has been attributed to him, and is said to have been proposed at a 
chapter which he held at Montpellier soon after his election. His 
visits to the courts above noticed, and a severe attack of illness, pre- 
vented his reaching Rhodes before 1336; the remaining ten years of 
his life were exclusively devoted to the discharge of his official duties. 
In 1344 he in person besieged and took Smyrna. 

ROSALINE DE VILLENEUVE (born 1263, died 1329), sister of the 
grand-master of Rhodes, was famous for her piety, her charity, and 
her ascetic exercises of devotion. In 1310 she was elected head of the 
order of Chartreux. She was canonised after her death; and some 
legendary writers have attributed in a great measure to her inter- 
cession the suppression of the heresy of the Albigeois. 

Louis DE VILLENEUVE, premier marquis de France, distinguished 
by the title ‘ Riche d’Honneur,’ belonged to the same family. He was 
born about 1451. Charles VIII., whose chamberlain he was, intrusted 
Villeneuve with the command of the army destined for the conquest 
of Naples. When Louis XII. mounted the throne, he sent Villeneuve 
as his ambassador to the papal court. At Rome the Provencal am- 
bassador received extraordinary honours’; the Romans were charmed 
with his manly and persuasive eloquence; and his popularity was the 
occasion of his being again employed on a mission to that court at the 
perilous crisis of 1500. Villeneuve was the intimate and esteemed 
friend of Bayard and Gaston de Foix. In 1505 Louis XII. erected the 
barony of Trans, hereditary in the family of Villeneuve, into a 
marquisate, the first instance of that title being conferred in France. 
The only son of Louis de Villeneuve fell at the king’s side in the 
battle of Marignan, and the father, already enfeebled by wounds and 
years, died not long after of grief, in the month of July, 1516. 

CHRISTOPHE DE VILLENEUVE, who was born on the 30th of June, 1541, 
was a member of this illustrious family. He was in his youth page to 
Francois de Lorraine, duc de Guise. He entered the service of 
Claude of Savoy, and earned a high reputation for bravery in that 
prince’s campaigns against the Huguenots. On the death of the duke 
of Savoy, Villeneuve remained attached to the Comte de Carces, his 
lieutenant and successor in the government of Provence. De Carces 
intrusted to Villeneuve the delicate mission of moving the king to 
countermand the orders for the massacre of St. Bartholomew. The 
envoy reached Paris on the same day that a messenger was despatched 
from that city by the, king, with fresh orders for the massacre. His 
representations were however successful in partially shaking the reso- 
lution of the king, who sent for him in the course of the night, and 
charged him witha message to De Carces, countermanding his previous 
orders in so far as Provence was concerned. Villeneuve started im- 
mediately, passed the messenger of death on his way, and reached Aix 
in time to save Provence from the massacre. The subsequent career 
of Villeneuve was as honourable as this its commencement, . He 
served with distinction Henri III., Henri IV., and Louis XIII. He 
died on the 26th of July, 1615. 

There have been several authors of the name of Villeneuve. Huon 
DE VILLENEUVE, an ancient French poet of some reputation, was a 
contemporary of Philippe Auguste.’ He was one of the earliest versi- 
fiers of the legends of the Twelve Peers, His principal work is ‘ Le 
Quatre Fils d’Aymon,’ next to which perhaps ranks his ‘Doolin de 
Mayence,’ of whicha prose translation into more modern French was 
published at Paris in 1501, with the title ‘Fleur des Batailles.’ 
QUILLAUME DE VILLENEUVE, a good soldier, who served Charles VIII. 
in his Neapolitan campaigns, published in 1497 ‘Mémoires sur la 
Conquéte de Naples” It is the only narrative by an eye-witness of 
the adventures of the French army and partisans from the departure 
of Charles till their final expulsion. GABRIELLE SusANNE BaRror, 
dame de Villeneuve (born about 1695; died in 1755), was a friend of 
Crebillon, and published many tales and romances. Only one has 
retained hold of the popular mind, and that in the form of an abridg- 
ment: it is the famous ‘ Beauty and the Beast.’ 

The reputation of the name of Villeneuve was well sustained during 
the wars of the French revolution by PIERRE CHarLEes JEAN Bar- 
TISTE SILVESTRE DE VILLENEUVE, vice-admiral. He was born at 
Valensoles in Provence, on the 3lst of December 1763. He entered 
the navy in his fifteenth year, and obtained the command of a vessel 
in 1798. In 1796 he was promoted to be commodore (capitaine de 
division), and a few months later to be rear-admiral (contre-amiral). 
He was appointed to command a division of the fleet destined for the 
invasion of Ireland; but contrary winds detained him in the Medi- 
terranean, and rendered the expedition abortive. At Aboukir Ville- 
neuve commanded the Guillaume Tell, and carried off his own vessel, 
with two other ships and two frigates, in safety after the defeat. In 


393 VILLERS, CHARLES-FRANCOIS. 


VILLOISON, JEAN-BAPTISTE. 


394 


1805 he was placed in command of a squadron, the main object of 
which was to withdraw the British fleet from the shores of Europe. 
With this view he sailed for the Antilles, where he did some mischief 
among the English traders, and attacked the Diamond. As soon as 
Villeneuve heard of the arrival of the English fleet at Barbadoes, his 
mission being accomplished, he reimbarked his troops, and set sail for 
Europe. On the 22nd of July 1805, he encountered, off Cape Finis- 
terre, the English fleet under Sir Robert Calder. An engagement 
took place, which continued till nightfall. Next morning, neither the 
French nor the English admiral sought to renew the action, and for 


’ failing to do so both were reprimanded by their respective govern- 


ments. This reprimand so chafed the spirit of Villeneuve, that, when 
he again put to sea, an instruction to his captains, issued on the 20th 
October 1805, contained the remarkable expression—‘ Every captain 
who is not in action (dans le feu) is not at his post: and a signal of 
recall will bea brand of dishonour to him.” In the battle of Trafalgar, 
Villeneuve was taken prisoner after displaying throughout the fight 
the most perfect self-possession and high courage. He was carried to 
England, and detained there till the month of April 1806. On his 
arrival at Rennes, he wrote to the minister of marine that he was in 
France, and waiting the orders of the emperor in that town. This 
was on the 17th of April. Four days elapsed, and he had received 
no answer. Mindful of the rebuke he had received on a former 
occasion, this delay appears to have unsettled the mind of Villeneuve, 
On the 22nd of April he was found dead in his apartment by wounds 
inflicted by his own hand. 

VILLERS, CHARLES FRANCOIS DOMINIQUE DE, had, next 
to Madame de Staél-Holstein, the chief share in making German 
literature known to the French at a period when the Freuch, clinging 
to old prejudices and intoxicated by recent victories, treated Germany 
with neglect and contempt. He was born on the 4th of November, 
either of 1764 or 1765 at Belchen, a small town in that part of 
Lorraine which is inhabited by Germans. His father was chief receiver 
of the taxes, and a royal counsellor; by his mother’s side, a baroness 
de Launaguet, he is said to have been allied to the family Du Lys, 
which is descended from the brothers of Jeanne d’Arc, the maid of 
Orleans. He received a military education at Metz, and as early as 
1782 was appointed lieutenant in theartillery. His first literary essay 
was On magnetism, which was then the favourite science of the day. 
He lived alternately at Strasburg and Metz, and he filled up his leisure 
hours with studying history, ancient and modern literature, as well as 
Greek and Hebrew, which he had hitherto neglected. Excited, though 
not misled, by the Revolution, he wrotea witty political satire in verse, 
entitled ‘Les Députés aux Etats Généraux ;’ and in 1791 he published 
his celebrated work ‘ Dela Liberté.’ In this work, which went through 
three editions in the course of one year, he laid down political prin- 
ciples which were very dangerous not only for those who published 
them, but even for those who received them. Ata period when the 
bloody tyranny of the people began to be established in France, he 
had the courage to place on the title of a work on liberty the motto, 
“ Aliud est, aliud dicitur;” and in the face of the most fanatical 
democrats he said “that it was dangerous to preach liberty to the 
people, because they always confounded liberty with the desire of 
indulging their will in everything;” and “that the people in insur- 
rection were the worst tyrants of all.” No sooner had the Jacobins 
established their power, than they pursued Villers, who, after many 
perilous adventures, escaped to Germany, and settled at Holzminden 
on the Weser. Though acquainted with the German language, he had 
the most unfavourable opinion of German literature, because he had 
never read any good book in the language, and he had all the pre- 
judices against the Germans which were then prevalent in France. At 
Holzminden however he made the acquaintance of Dr. Brandis, known 
by his excellent works on medicine and philosophy, who became after- 
wards first physician to the king of Denmark, His intercourse with 


this learned medical man, and his friendship with Kistner, Spittler, 


Heeren, and Schlézer at Gottingen, where he stayed from 1794 to 
1796, led Villers not only to abandon his prejudices against the 
Germans, but to become the most active and generous-defender of the 
nation against his own countrymen, the French. His friendship with 
the learned daughter of Schlézer, Mrs. Dorothea von Rodde, upon 
whom the University of Gottingen had conferred the title of Doctor 
in Philosophy, exercised still greater influence over him. In 1797 he 
followed Mrs. Dr. von Rodde and her husband, to Liibeck. From this 
time he lived alternately at Liibeck and Eutin, then the residence of 
Voss, Count Stollberg, Jacobi, and other distinguished scholars, poets, 
and philosophers. His chief object was to mediate between the French 
and Germans, by eradicating their national prejudices, and by trans- 
lating several of the best German works into French, among which 
was Heeren’s ‘Essay on the Influence of the Crusades.’ Reimarus 
persuaded him to write for the ‘Spectateur du Nord,’ one of the best 
newspapers of the time, which was published at Hamburg, and which 
in the course of one year received sixty leading articles from Villers, 
Hanover having been occupied by the French in 1803, he addressed a 
letter to the French officers, urging them to spare and respect the 
people. In 1804 he published his ‘ Essai sur ]’Esprit et |’ Influence de 
la Réformation de Luther,’ a masterpiece, which was crowned by the 
Institut de France, and which was translated into English (by B. 
Lambert, London, 18065, and again, with a preface and notes by James 


Mill), German (thrice), Dutch, and Swedish. In 1806 Liibeck was 
taken by storm by the French, and Villers had to expose the brutality 
and immorality of the French troops in his ‘Lettre } Madame la 
Comtesse Fanny de Beauharnois sur Liibeck.’ This pamphlet caused 
him much persecution, especially from Davout, in 1811. Although 
he attacked the policy of Napoleon I. on several occasions, and 
especially by his articles against the Continental System, Jérome Bona- 
parte, king of Westphalia, appointed him, in 1811, professor of philo- 
sophy (for the branches of literature and history) in the University of 
Gottingen. Jérome having ordered the abolition of this university, 
Villers, at the request of Heyne, Heeren, and John von Miiller, repre- 
sented to the king the consequences of this measure, and the king 
countermanded his order. Villers was esteemed and cherished both 
by Frenchmen and Germans, and the Germans looked on him as their 
trusty friend and protector. He had nevertheless many enemies, 
especially among those who could or would not lay aside their pre- 
judices; and the frequent attacks which were made upon his character 
gradually ruined his health. After the House of Brunswick had been 
restored to the possession of Hanover in 1813, Villers was dismissed 
from his post: he received a pension of 3000 francs, but he was 
ordered to return to France. As he had committed no crime, he pro- 
tested against this order, and it was discovered that he had been 
calumniated to the Prince Regent, afterwards George IV., who, at the 
request of Count Miinster, augmented the pension of Villers to 4000 
francs, and allowed him to live in Hanover; but he was not permitted 
to continue his lectures. He had just been invited to the University 
of Heidelberg, when he died of consumption, on the 26th of February 
1815, with the reputation of having been one of the most enlightened 
men of his time, who had in a measure sacrificed himself for the 
good of others. Villers also wrote—‘Philosophie de Kant, ou Prin- 
cipes Fondamentaux de la Philosophie Transcendentale ;’ ‘ Lettre & 
George Cuvier sur une Nouvelle Théorie du Cerveau par Gall;’ 
‘Rapport sur l’Etat de la Littérature Ancienne et de l’Histoire en 
Allemagne ;’ ‘Précis Historique de la Vie de Martin Luther, traduit 
du Latin de Melanchthon, avec des Notes,’ &c. He had begun the Life 
of Luther, but death prevented him from finishing it. The authori- 
ties cited below contain a list of his works, 

(Biographie Universelle ; Zeitgenossen, vol. ii. (1818), pp. 55-78.) 

VILLIERS, G. [Buoxinanam, DuKEs oF. 

VILLOISON, JEAN BAPTISTE GASPARD D’ANSSE DE, one 
of the most eminent Greek scholars of modern times, was born at 
Corbeil-sur-Seine on the 5th of March 1750. Among the scholars to 
whose instruction he was principally indebted we may mention Le 
Beau and Capperonnier, but Villoison soon surpassed all his fellow- 
students, and his teachers also, and pursued his studies of the authors 
of ancient Greece with such perseverance, that at the age of fifteen 
he had read nearly all the Greek authors. He soon also gave evidence 
that his extensive reading was not superficial, for he was scarcely 
twenty-two years old when he published from a manuscript at St. 
Germain the first edition of Apollonius’s Lexicon on the ‘Iliad’ and 
‘ Odyssey,’ together with the fragments of Philemon (Paris, 2 vols. fol. 
1778, reprinted at Leipzig in the same year in 2 vols. 4to), with very 
valuable and learned Prolegomena and notes. Before the edition was 
printed, he submitted it to the Academy of Inscriptions, which elected 
him a member, although he had not yet attained the age at which this 
honour could be conferred upon him according to their rules. He 
was now looked upon not only in France, but in Europe also, asa 
prodigy of learning, and he formed extensive literary connections 
with scholars of various parts of Europe. But he did not allow him- 
self to be dazzled by the fame thus early acquired, nor to sink into 
inactivity; he pursued his studies with the same ardour as before; 
and in 1778 he published a new edition of the pastoral poem of Longus 
with a very learned commentary. His ambition however was rather 
to publish such ancient works as had not yet appeared, than to prepare 
editions of those authors which were already in print. The govern- 
ment being informed of this desire of Villoison, he was sent in 1778, 
at the expense of the state, to Venice, to search the library of St. 
Mark. Here he formed an intimate friendship with the Abbé Morelli, 
with whose assistance he discovered numerous rhetorical and gram- 
matical works and fragments of works of that kind which had not yet 
been printed. These, together with some other similar works which 
he had before discovered at Paris, were published under the title 
‘ Anecdota Greeca e Regia Parisiensi et e Veneta S. Marci Bibliotheca 
deprompta,’ Venice, 2 vols. 4to, 1781. Valuable as these anecdota are, 
their publication was too hurried, and it was afterwards discovered 
that Villoison had published some things as new, which had appeared 
in print long before his time. Another more important discovery 
which he made in the library of St. Mark, was a manuscript of 
Homer’s Iliad, which probably belonged to the 10th century, and con- 
tained very ancient scholia (now known under the name of Scholia 
Veneta), and marginal notes which pointed out such verses as were 
supposititious, corrupt, or transposed. This valuable treasure, together 
with very learned prolegomena by Villoison, appeared at Venice, folio, 
1788. It was perhaps appreciated by no one so well as by F. A. Wolf, 
whose theory of the Homeric poems is based in a great measure upon 
the information derived from this discovery. Several years before the 
printing of this work was completed he was invited by Amalia, 
Duchess of Saxe-Weimar, and her son Carl August, to pay them a 


395 VINCE, SAMUEL. 


VINCENT DE PAUL, SAINT, 396 


visit in Germany. Villoison accordingly left Venice and went to 
Weimar, where he spent about a year in searching the library of that 
capital. The results of his learned inquiries were published in his 
‘ Epistole Vimarienses, in quibus multa Grecorum Scriptorum loca 
emendantur ope librorum Ducalis Bibliothecs,’ Ziirich, 4to, 1783. 
The year after he edited at Strasburg a Greek translation of the Old 
Testament, which he had discovered at Venice, and had been made by 
a Jew in the 9th century of ourera. In 1785 he accompanied the 
French ambassador at the court of Constantinople, Count Choiseul 
Gouffier, to Constantinople, and travelled about for three years in the 
islands of the Archipelago and the continent of Greece, His hopes of 
finding manuscripts of ancient authors not yet published were disap- 
pointed, but he made himself perfect master of the modern Greek 
language, and collected a vast quantity of materials partly with a view 
to make a new and improved edition of Tournefort’s travels, and 
partly to write a complete description of ancient and modern Greece. 
But the unhappy condition in which he found his country on his 
return prevented the realisation of these plans. Villoison withdrew 
to Orleans, and began to read through all the ancient authors in order 
to collect materials for his great work on Greece. After the storms 
of the Revolution had passed away, he returned with his literary 
treasures to Paris, and having lost the greater part of his property, 
he began a course of lectures on the Greek language, in which how, 
ever he did not meet with much success. He was made a member of 
the National Institute of France, and Napoleon I. afterwards appointed 
him professor of ancient and modern Greek in the Collége de France, 
but he had scareely entered upon this office when he was seized by an 
illness which terminated in his death on the 26th of April 1805. The 
‘Memoirs’ of the Academy of Inscriptions contain several valuable 
papers by Villoison, The materials for his great work on Greece, in 
fifteen large quarto volumes, as well as his remarks on Tournefort and 
on Montfaucon’s ‘ Paleographia Greeca,’ of which he likewise intended 
to publish a new edition, are in manuscript in the royal library of 
Paris. 

Villoison was a man of prodigious learning: he possessed an extra- 
ordinary memory, and a quick and penetrating mind; but his thirst 
for knowledge was so great, that he scarcely allowed himself time to 
digest that which he had acquired, and all the defects of his works 
arise more or less from this haste and want of reflection. 

VINCE, SAMUEL, a distinguished mathematician, and Plumian 
Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy in the Univer- 
sity of Cambridge. He took orders, and he was promoted to the 
archdeaconry of Bedford. He died in December 1821. 

Professor Vince was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1786, 
having previously written a paper on friction, which was published in 
the ‘Philosophical Transactions’ for 1785. This paper, which pos- 
sesses considerable originality and merit, contains a description of 
many experiments made on that subject. In the ‘Philosophical 
Transactions’ for 1795 there is a paper by Vince, entitled ‘ Observa- 
tions on the Theory of the Motion and Resistance of Fluids,’ in which 
are described several experiments relating to the discharges of water 
through pipes inserted, in vertical positions, in the bottom of vessels. 
From these it is shown that, when the pipes are less than one inch in 
length, the ratio between the quantities discharged from a simple 
orifice and from a pipe are not exactly to one another in the sub- 
duplicate ratio of the depths, that is, of the distance from the upper 
surface of the water in the vessel to the orifice and to the lower extre- 
-mity of the pipe; the results of the experiments are however found 
to agree better with the theory in proportion as the pipes are longer. 
Another paper by Vince, which is entitled ‘Experiments on the 
Resistance of Bodies moving in Fluids,’ was published in the volume 
of the ‘Transactions’ for 1798, These experiments were made with 
bodies at considerable distances below the surface; and it was found 
that when the body is a plane surface, and also when it is a hemi- 
sphere moving with the flat side foremost, the experimented resistances 
differed from the results of the general theory in the ratio of 3 to 2 
nearly. The ratio between the resistance experienced by a plane 
surface at rest, when struck by a fluid in motion, and that which 
took place when the same plane was made to move in the fluid, the 
latter being at rest, was found to be nearly as 6 to 5; and this result 
agrees with that which was obtained by Du Buat. 

In conjunction with the Rev. James Wood, Professor Vince pub- 
lished at Cambridge a ‘Course of Mathematics and Natural Philo- 
sophy, for the Use of Students in the University ;’ and of this valuable 
work there have since been several editions with considerable improve- 
ments: the parts-written by Vince are entitled ‘Elements of Conic 
Sections, intended as Preparations for the reading of Newton’s Prin- 
cipia’ ‘ Principles of Fluxions;’ ‘ Principles of Hydrostatics;’ and 
‘klements of Astronomy.’ In 1790 came out his ‘Treatise of Prac- 
tical Astronomy,’ in 4to, containing descriptions of the constructions 
and the uses of astronomical instruments ; but his principal work is 
a ‘Complete System of Astronomy,’ which was published at Cam- 
bridge in 83 vols. 4to. (1797 to 1808). The first volume contains 
accounts of the phenomena and motions of the moon and planets, 
deduced from observations: part of the second is occupied with the 
subject of physical astronomy, or investigations from the theory of 
general attraction, concerning the precession of the equinoxes, the 
movements of the moon and planets, of the apsides and nodes of the 


orbits, and the variations to which the inclinations of the orbits are 
subject: the remainder consists of several tables, of great utility in 
the solution of problems relating to practical astronomy. The t 2 
volume contains a complete series of astronomical tables with precepts 
for their use; they consist of Delambre’s tables of the sun, moon, and 
planets, and of the satellites of Jupiter, and Burg’s tables of the moon 
the epochs being changed to the first day of January at Greenwi 
mean noon. - 

Professor Vince published a pamphlet entitled ‘ The Credibility of 
Christianity Vindicated,’ in answer to Hume’s objections in his ‘Essay 
on Miracles ;’ and, in 1806, one entitled ‘Observations on the Hypo- 
theses which have been assumed to account for the Cause of Gravi- 
tation on Mechanical Principles.’ The latter was read before the 
Royal Society, and was intended to be the Bakerian Lecture; but, for 
some reason, it was not published in the ‘Transactions.’ The writer 
endeavours to disprove Newton’s supposition that gravity may be 
accounted for by means of an elastic fluid, and he concludes that the 
formation and preservation of the universe must be ascribed to the 
immediate agency of the Deity. He also published four Sermons, 
which he had preached before the university. The subject of these 
discourses is a confutation of atheism, from the laws and constitution 
of the heavenly bodies; the various adaptations of the parts of the 
solar system to one another are exhibited, and offered as proof of 
design in its formation; and the correspondence of certain phenomena 
in that system to those which have been observed in the stars called 
fixed, is stated as an evidence that the universe is under the superin- 
tendence of one Being. 

VINCENT, EARL ST, [Jervis, Jonny.) 

VINCENT DE PAUL, SAINT, was born on the 24th of April 
1576, at Ranquines in the parish of Pouy, near the Pyrenees, in the 
present department of the Landes. He was the third son of Guil- 
laume de Paul, who owned and cultivated a small farm in that parish, 
The narrow means of his family promised him a life of laborious toil, 
and till the age of twelve he assisted his parents in the care of their 
farm. He had however from early youth manifested so great an 
acuteness of intellect and sensibility of disposition, that they were 
induced to endeavour to give him a suitable education. He was 
placed as a student in a convent of the Cordeliers at Acqs, the resi- 
dence of the bishop of his diocese. At the age of sixteen, he was con- 
sidered qualified to become tutor to the children of M. de Commet, an 
advocate of Acqs, and the magistrate of his native village, This 
situation enabled him at the same time to relieve his parents from the 
expenses attendant on his education, and to prepare himself for the 
ministry of the church, to which he had now determined upon devotin 
himself. He assumed the tonsure on the 20th of December 1596, and 
the next year he went to Toulouse, in order to follow the course of 
theology of that university. But he was compelled, on account of the 
slender pittance which was allowed him, to combine the duties of a 
teacher with those of a student, In the year 1600, after haying 
received the previous orders, he was made a priest by the Bishop of 
Perigueux ; in the same year the offer was made him of the parish of 
Tilh, one of the most valuable in the diocese of Acgs, which he 
declined in order to devote himself more entirely to the study of theo- 
logy. In this study, notwithstanding the difficulties under which he 
laboured, he soon became eminent, and on the 12th of October, 1604, 
obianes the degree of bachelier des lettres, with a permission to 
ecture. 

In 1605, a legacy of fifteen hundred livres, which had been left him 
by a friend who had died at Marseille, compelled him to make a 
journey to that city. After taking possession of his legacy, he was 
returning by sea, when he was taken prisoner by some Tunisian 
corsairs, and was wounded in the conflict. He has left us a minute 


relation of his capture and imprisonment, in a letter written to his 


early patron, M. de Commet, on his return to France in 1607, of which 
there is a copious extract in the ‘ Biographie Universelle. During his 
captivity at Tunis and Algiers, he became the slave of three successive 

masters; the last of them, an Italian renegade, he converted to his — 
former faith. After a delay of ten months, he was sufficiently fortu- 
nate to induce his master to forego the temporal advantages of a resi- 
dence in a land where he was obliged to conceal his profession of 
Christianity, and to escape with him to France, in which country they 
landed on the 28th of June 1607. At Avignon, the penitent renegade 
was publicly readmitted to the privileges and consolations of the 
religion he had denied. Shortly afterwards the vice-legate of the 
pope, Paul V., who had performed this ceremony, induced Vincent 
and his companion to accompany him to Rome. He there became 


acquainted with the ambassador of the French king, who selected 


him to be the bearer of an important and confidential message to 
Henry IV. He arrived in Paris at the commencement of the year 
1609, and obtained several interviews with the king. His time how- 
ever he chiefly devoted to the service of the sick of l’'Hépital de la 
Charité, near which he had taken up his residence, 
The period of Vincent’s residence in Paris was embittered by an 


accusation of robbery made against him by a fellow-lodger, a native of — 


the same province as himself, and for six years he was unable to clear 
himself of the charge. During that time, though suffering severely 
from the cruel imputation, he contented himself, when questioned 
concerning it, with a simple denial, joined to the remark that “God 


wee ee ead 2. 
Y 4 


Se ee 


VINCENT DE PAUL, SAINT. 


397 


_ 


knew the truth.” The real author of the robbery was at length dis 
covered, and the reputation of Vincent rose still higher in the estima- 
tion of those who had witnessed the patience and resignation which he 
had displayed under the false accusation. His adversity however was 
alleviated by the sympathy and support of several influential personages, 
whose friendship and esteem his merit had conciliated. Among them 
was Margaret of Valois, sister of Henry III., and the divorced queen of 
his successor, who appointed him her almoner, and Pierre de Berulle, 
afterwards cardinal, and founder of the congregation of the Oratoire. 
By the latter he was induced to. accept the cure of the parish of 
Clichy in the neighbourhood of Paris, where he discharged his duties 
with exemplary diligence. His short residence in that village was 
attended with the happiest results; not only were the sick attended 
to, the poor assisted, and the afflicted consoled, but family discords 
and dissent in religious matters were made by his pious influence to 


Tn 1613, he was obliged to abandon this peaceful scene of spiritual 
labour, to undertake the education of the three sons of Philippe 
Emmanuel de Gondi, count of Joigny, and general of the galleys of 
France. These pupils of Vincent were destined to occupy an import- 
ant position in the history of their country; one of them became the 
well known Duc de Retz; another, the famous cardinal, who acted 
80 conspicuous a part in the civil wars of the Fronde. [Rerrz, Car- 
DINAL DE.] 

In 1616, he accompanied the Countess de Joigny to her country 
residence at Folleville, in the diocese of Amiens, where he commenced 
a series of eminently successful missionary labours among the inhabi- 
tants, The memory of this mission he was in the habit every year, 
on the festival of the conversion of St. Paul, of celebrating with pious 
gratitude, The following year, he left the residence of the Count de 
Joigny to undertake the cure of the parish of Chatillon, in Bresse, 
where his labours were attended with similar success. It was there 
that he first established and organised a religious association for the 
relief of the temporal and spiritual wants of the sick and poor, to 
which he gave the name of the “ confrérie de charité,’ which became 
the model of many similar institutions in France and other countries. 
Towards the end of the same year, he was induced to return to the 
count’s family, and, with the permission and co-operation of the 
couutess, a lady of pious disposition and intelligent mind, who had 
placed herself under his spiritual direction, he undertook several 
successful missions in the dioceses of Beauvais, Soissons, and Sens. 
An opportunity was now afforded him to labour in a cause still more 
important, and which presented the prospect of much danger, disap- 
penenent, and difficulty. He was in the habit of accompanying to 

seille the Count de Joigny, whose situation as commander of the 
royal galleys rendered it necessary for him frequently to visit that 
city. He was there moved with compassion on witnessing the suffer- 
ings and severities to which were subjected the unhappy criminals 
condemned to the galleys. To ameliorate their condition ahd to 
alleviate their sufferings was the task which Vincent took upon him- 
self. He found them in narrow and unhealthy dungeons, almost 
entirely deprived of air and light, with bread and water for their only 
food: disfigured by filth, and covered with vermin, these wretched 
victims of their own misdeeds, and of the misguided policy of the 
state, sank shortly after their admission into a brutal state of igno- 
» vance and ferocity. Vincent began his work of reformation by intro- 
ducing himself among them as their friend and benefactor, and 
undetetred by the rude scoffs and jests to which he was at first 
exposed, and undismayed by the havocks of a pestilential disease, 
which was habitual in these prisons, he unremittingly pursued his 
charitable mission; his kindly manner, his patient attention to their 
wants, his reproofs, tempered by mildness and Christian charity, and 
above all, his own example of humility and self-devotion, soon over 
came all obstacles; he gained their confidence, and thus secured a 
ready acquiescence in his efforts for their welfare. In a short time, 
the most unexpected success attended the improvements which he 
introduced and the reformation which he effected. The ameliorated 
condition of these criminals was sensibly felt and gratefully acknow- 
ledged by his patron, who called the attention of the king, Louis XIIL., 
to the change which had taken place among the criminals under his 
care, and to the devoted man by whom it had been produced, and the 
king, with appropriate consideration for the services he had rendered, 
appointed Vincent almoner-general of the galleys of France; the date 
of his appointment to this important office was 8th of February 1619. 
In the beginning of the following year, Francis de Sales, the celebrated 
bishop of Geneva, whose intimacy he had for some time previously 
oP ike Soa to him the direction of the first convent of thé order 
of the Visitation, which he had lately established. [Satus, Dz, 
FRANCIS, SAINT. 

In 1623, Vincent established two “confréries de charité” in the 
town of Macon, one for men, and the other for women. He next 
visited the city of Bordeaux, for the purpose of inquiring into the 
condition of the criminals there condemned to the galleys, On leaving 
that city, he visited his friends and relations in his native village; 
having assembled together those whoeremained of his family, he 
informed them of his determination to die as he had lived, destitute 
of all worldly wealth; told them that money left by a priest to his 
family seldom prospered, and thus weaned them from any expecta- 


a 


VINCENT DE PAUL, SAINT. 393 


tion they might have formed of obtaining property at his death, This 
resolution however did not prevent him, on a subsequent occasion, 
from distributing among them about a hundred pounds of our money, 
which had been bequeathed to him. 

The next scene of Vincent’s labour was the town of Chartres, where 
he founded an association under the name of the “ Congregation of 
the Missions,” which was intended to supply the provinces of France 
with efficient teachers of religion, who were to act as assistants to the 
regular clergy, and were to be subordinate to the authorities of the 
church. On the 6th of March 1624, the “Collége des Bons Enfans” 
was given to him as the first residence of the new company he had 
formed, For the better watching of his infant institution, he left the 
family of the Count de Joigny, and retired to this college. In 1627, 
he had the satisfaction to see the Congregation of the Missions autho- 
rised by letters patent from the king, and in 1631, formally approved 
by a bull of the Pope Urban VIII. During this period he was actively 
employed in establishing retreats for the members of the society, and 
for persons destined to enter the orders of the church; a measure 
which greatly tended to the reformation of many existing abuses, 
In 1632, he yielded to the repeated requests of the prior of St. 
Lazarus, Adrien Lebon, to accept his house and property for the pur- 
pose of furthering his projects for the instruction and relief of the 
poorer classes of the peasantry. Small as were the beginnings of this 
institution, he lived to see the order of the Lazarists spread its chari- 
table influence over the greater part of Europe. The institution how- 
ever which has probably been productive of the most beneficial 
consequences was that which he established in 1634 ; it was composed 
of a company of pious females, called Sisters of Charity, who especially 
devoted themselves to the attendance of the sick; a branch of this 
society, called “*les Dames de la Croix,” was intended for the sole 
service of | Hotel Dieu at Paris. To Vincent de Paui this city indeed 
has been peculiarly indebted for many valuable and still existing 
institutions. Among them may be mentioned the hospitals of ‘La 
Pitié,” ‘ Bicétre, ‘La Salpétriére,’ and ‘Les Enfans Trouvés,’ or 
Foundling Hospital. The origin of this last-mentioned institution 
exhibits a striking proof of the disinterested zealof Vincent. Previous 
to the establishment of the Foundling Hospital in Paris, an immense 
number of children, the fruits of licentious intercourse or the victims 
of their parents’ poverty, were daily exposed in the streets and 
public places of that city, and often left there to perish. The pitiable 
condition of these innocent sufferers excited the commiseration and 
stimulated the charitable zeal of this devoted minister of the church, 
For the purpose of affording them food and succour, he enlisted in his 
cause several ladies of the capital, over whom his simple piety had 
already exercised a beneficial influence, He called them together at 
the commencement of the year 1640, and so energetically set before 
them the motives for their charitable intervention in the cause of 
these unhappy foundlings, that they determined upon making the 
trial of taking under their protection all who should hereafter be dis- 
covered. The generous gift of an annual rent of 12,000 livres from 
the Queen Anne of Austria was: the first assistance they received in 
their humane design. Soon however the wants of these foundlings 
exceeded the funds which charity could raise; discouraged in their 
efforts, and fearful that the task which they had undertaken was 
beyond their means and abilities, the adopted parents of these children 
were about to abandon their charitable enterprise. To avert such an 
issue, Vincent, in 1648, called together another and more numerous 
assembly, at which he pleaded the interests of these innocent outcasts 
of society in a language of fervid and impassioned eloquence, The 
termination of his address on that occasion has been recorded by a 
high authority as one of the finest pieces of eloquence in any language. 
(Maury, “ Essai sur Eloquence de la Chaire.’) [Maury,J.S.] Rich 
and plentiful were the fruits of his energetic pleading; alms were col- 
lected in abundance, two large buildings were converted into hospitals 
for foundlings, and the capital of France was no longer disgraced by 
the daily exhibition in its streets of helpless children dying from the 
want of food and succour. Besides the hospital already mentioned, 
Vincent founded two others, which have been productive of consider- 
able benefit: one at Paris, which went under the designation of the 
name of Jesus, for the maintenance of forty poor men, whom age had 
incapacitated from labour; the other, that of Sainte Reine, in the 
diocese of Autun, in Burgundy, for the relief of the poor and sick 
among the numerous pilgrims who are accustomed to visit the shrine 
of that martyr. 

While occupied in the formation of societies and in the establish- 
ment of institutions destined for the permanent relief of his fellow- 
creatures, he was«no less zealous and persevering in attending to the 
immediate wants of those who came within the reach of his assistance. 
The province of Lorraine ‘was, during the latter period of the reign of 
Louis XIII, suffering under the threefold calamity of war, pestilence, 
and famine. ‘To that province, by his charitable exertions, for several 
successive years, Vincent caused considerable sums of money, which 
he collected in Paris, to be sent for the succour of its inhabitants. 
His biographers differ with respect to the amount, the highest stated 
being two million livres, and the lowest from five to six hundred 
thousand, F 

During the wars of the Fronde, the Queen-regent, Anne of Austria, 
instituted a council for the settlement of disputes on questions of 


999 VINCENT, WILLIAM, D.D. 


VINCENT, WILLIAM, D.D. 400 


theology, and appointed Vincent .de Paul its president. In this 
capacity, he took an active part in the religious controversies of that 
period, and warmly espoused the cause of the Jesuits against the 
followers of Jansenius. Through his influence, a letter signed by eighty- 
eight bishops was sent to the reigning pontiff, praying him authorita- 
tively to condemn the witness of Jansenius, and in particular the 
work entitled ‘Augustinus.’ In carrying on this controversy however 
he appears not to have exceeded the bounds of moderation, and to 
have employed against his adversaries only the legitimate weapons of 
argument and expostulation. ‘The last four years of his life were spent 
under the burden of infirmities, which compelled him to keep within 
the precincts of the convent of St. Lazarus, where nevertheless he con- 
tinued efficiently to preside over the interests of the community he 
had established. His death, which occurred on the 27th of September 
1660, was preceded by severe and protracted sufferings, which were 
borne with his accustomed patience and resignation. His remains 
were deposited in the church of St. Lazarus, in presence of the 
assembled clergy and the highest dignitaries of the capital, who 
mourned his loss as that of their spiritual father; but perhaps the 
tears of most genuine affection were shed on his tomb by the 
multitude of the poor and needy, who gratefully remembered that 
they had often been consoled by his counsels and relieved by his 
charity. 

is’ paheaets of this eminent minister of the church has been 
written by two of its most distinguished prelates, Boulogne, bishop 
of Troyes, and the Cardinal Maury ; the last of these has been greatly 

.admired for the beauty of its style and the energy of its expressions ; 
it may be seen in the last edition of his ‘ Essai sur l’Eloquence de la 
Chaire. The memory of Vincent de Paul was consecrated by a cere- 
mony, known in the church of Rome by the name of Beatification, by 
Benedict XIIL., on the 14th of August 1729, and he was canonised as 
a saint on the 16th of June, 1737, by Clement XII., who appointed 
19th July as the day of his festival in the Roman calendar. 

The name of St. Vincent de Pau] stands deservedly high in the list 
of benefactors of mankind. His entire life was devoted to the ad- 
vancement of the best interests of humanity ; he was a constant actor 
on the ever recurring scene of sickness and suffering, poverty and 
crime, and his presence was always attended by consolation and relief 
to their victims. Men of all creeds and persuasions have rendered 
homage to his worth, and the members of his own church have ascribed 
to his relics the power of working miracles, The greatest miracle 
however was himself, and the mighty works of which he was the 
instrument: the many hospitals which he founded, the religious com- 
munities which he established, the missionaries whom he sent abroad, 
the vast sums of money which he caused to be distributed to the poor 
and sick, his untiring activity in ministering to their wants, his dis- 
interestedness and self-devotion, his evangelical patience and religious 
resignation ; above all, his genuine humility, which, while it shed lustre 
on those of his charitable deeds which are known, has caused a large 
proportion of them to be unknown and unwritten, save in the 
records of the book of life ;—these, it must be allowed by all, are the 
real miracles on which stands the fame of this apostolical man. 

The following is a list of the writings he has left :—1, ‘ Regul seu 
Constitutiones communes Congregationes Missionis, Paris, 1658; 2, 
‘Lettre au Pape Alexandre VIL, pour solliciter la Canonization de 
Francois de Sales, prince-6véque de Genéve;’ 3, ‘ Conférences spiri- 
tuelles pour l’Explication des Régles des Scours de la Charité,’ Paris, 
8vo, 1826. 

- The two most important biographies of St. Vincent de Paul are 
those of Abelly (‘ Vie de St. Vincent de Paul,’ Paris, 2 vols. 8vo, 1839), 
who was intimately acquainted with him, and Collet (which has been 
translated from the French by a Roman Catholic clergyman, Dublin, 
1846), who was a member of his community; there is also a third, by 
M. de Capefigue, Paris, 8vo, 1827. 

VINCENT, WILLIAM, D.D., was born 2nd November, 1739, in 
the city of London, where his father carried on business, first as a 
packer, afterwards as a Portugal merchant, till he lost all he had 
through the failures that followed the Lisbon earthquake of 1755, in 
which also his second son perished. William, who was his third, was 
admitted a king’s scholar of Westminster school in 1753, was thence 
elected a scholar of Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1757, and in 1761 
took his degree of B.A., and was chosen a Fellow of his college. The 
next year he was appointed one of the ushers of Westminster school ; 
in 1764 he took his degree of M.A.; and in 1771, having passed 
through the previous gradations, he rose to be second master of the 
school on the resignation of Dr. Lloyd. The same year he was also 
nominated one of the chaplains in ordinary to his majesty. Soon 
after this he married Miss Hannah Wyatt. In 1776 he took his 
degree of D.D, In 1778 he was presented by the Dean and Chapter of 
Westminster to the vicarage of Longdon in Worcestershire; but this 
living he resigned, after having held it about half a year, on being col- 
lated by the Archbishop of Canterbury to the united rectories of All- 
hallows the Great and Less, in Thames-street, London. At length, in 
1788, on the death of Dr. Smith, Dr. Vincent succeeded him as 
head-master of Westminster Schoo]. This situation he continued to 
hold, discharging its duties with distinguished ability, till, on the 
translation of Bishop Horsley from the see of Rochester to that of 
St. Asaph in 1802, he was nominated by the crown the bishop’s suc- 


cessor in the deanery of Westminster, having already been presented 
to a prebend in that church the year before. In 1803 the rectory of 
St. John’s, Westminster, which is in the gift of the dean and chapter, 
having become vacant, and the nomination falling to his turn, he took 
that living for himself and resigned Allhallows, which however he 
obtained for his eldest son. Finally, in 1805, he exchanged St. John’s 
for the rectory of Islip in Oxfordshire, the patronage of which also 
belongs to the church of Westminster. He died at his residence in 
Westminster, on the 21st of December 1815, 

Dr. Vincent’s first publication was an anonymous ‘Letter to Dr. 
Richard Watson, Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge (after- 
wards Bishop of Llandaff), occasioned by his Sermon preached before 
the University,’ 8vo, London, 1780. It was an attack upon certain 
political principles announced in Watson’s printed sermon. This was 
followed by ‘A Sermon preached at the Yearly Meeting of the Charity 
Children at St. Paul’s,’ 4to, 1784: ‘Considerations on Parochial Music,’ 
8vo, 1787; ‘A Sermon preached at the Anniversary Meeting of the 
Sons of the Clergy,’ 4to, 1789; and ‘A Sermon preached at St. Marga- 
ret’s, Westminster, for the Grey-coat School of the Parish,’ 8vo, 1792. — 
This last discourse, which was another proclamation and defence of its 
author's strong conservative politics, was printed at the request of the 
Association against Republicans and Levellers, by whom, it is said, above 
twenty thousand copies of it were distributed, In 1793 Dr. Vincent 
published a short Latin tract entitled ‘De Legione Manliana, Quaestio 
ex Livio desumpta, &c., 4to. It is an explanation of what had 
appeared to be an irreconcileable difference between the account of 
the Roman legion given by Polybius (book vi., c. 1) and what is said 
by Livy (book viii., c. 8) about a manceuvre of the consul T. Manlius 
in his battle with the Latins at the foot of Mount Vesuvius, a.v. 413. 
His next publication, which appeared in 1794, was a tract in 8yvo, 
entitled ‘The Origination of the Greek Verb, an Hypothesis.’ Singu- 
larly enough, in the same week in which this performance issued from 
the press in London, there appeared at Edinburgh a volume of a new 
edition of the ‘ Encyclopedia Britannica,’ in which, in an article on 
Philology, was given a view of the origination of the inflections of the 
Greek verb almost identical with that proposed by Dr. Vincent. The 
author of the Edinburgh article was David Doig, LL.D., a very remark- 
able man, then master of the grammar-school of Stirling, where he 
died at the age of eighty-one, in 1800. Vincent immediately sought 
out Doig, and although, we believe, they never met, they became 
friends through the medium of an epistolary correspondence, Vin- 
cent’s speculation extended and put into a new shape, was reproduced 
the following year, 1795, under the title of ‘The Greek Verb analyzed, 
an Hypothesis.’ 

In 1797 appeared, in a quarto volume, the first of the works which 
have principally established Dr. Vincent’s reputation, ‘ The Voyage of — 
Nearchus to the Euphrates, collected from the original journal pre- 
served by Arrian.’ {NrEarcuus.] This was followed in 1800 by ‘The 
Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, part first, containing an Account of 
the Navigation of the Antients from the Sea of Suez to the Coast of 
Zanguebar, with Dissertations.’ The Second Part, containing the navi- 
gation from the Gulf of Adlana to the island of Ceylon, appeared in 
1805; and both the Nearchus and Periplus were republished together, 
in two volumes quarto, in 1807, under the title of ‘ The History of the 
Commerce and Navigation of the Antients in the Indian Ocean.? A 
Supplemental volume, containing the Greek text of the two voyages, 
was afterwards added, with an English translation and also part of 
Arrian’s Indian History. This work forms one of the most important 
contributions to ancient geography that modern scholarship has 

roduced, 
Dr. Vincent contributed several valuable articles to the ‘ Classical 
Journal,’ and he was also a frequent writer in the ‘ British Critic’ till 
near the close of his life. He printed, but did not publish, a letter in 
French, addressed to M. Barbié du Bocage, who had attacked his 
*Nearchus.’ His only other separate publications were, ‘A Defence of 


' Public Education, in a Letter to the Lord Bishop of Meath,’ 8vo, 


1802; and ‘A Sermon preached before the House of Commons on the 
Day of General Thanksgiving for Peace,’ 4to, the same year. The 
‘Defence of Public Education,’ which he wrote and published imme- 
diately before terminating his connection with the Westminster 
School, was an answer to certain attacks recently made on the system 
of our public schools, which was charged with a neglect of religious 
instruction. One of the principal authors of the attack was Dr. 
O’Beirne, the prelate to whom Vincent addressed his ‘ Defence,’ which 
passed rapidly through three editions. It is said to have been the 
only one of his publications from which he ever derived any pecuni 
profit ; he presented what he got from it to his wife as the first-fruits 
of his authorship. It was to this publication also that he was indebted 
for the deanery of Westminster, which was given him by Mr. meee 
ton, then first lord of the treasury, avowedly as an expression of 
admiration of the Defence of Public Schools. When Vincent repub- 
lished his Nearchus and the Periplus, in 1809, he dedicated the work 
to his patron, then become Lord Sidmouth. 
By his wife, who died in 1807, Dr. Vincent had two sons, the Rey, 
W. St. Andrew Vincent and George Giles Vincent, Esq. The history 
of his life has been given at ample length by his friend Archdeacon 
Nares, in a communication printed in the 26th and 27th Nos. of the 
‘Classical Journal.’ . “9 


\. 


401 


VINCI, LIONARDO DA. 


VINCI, LIONARDO DA. 402 


VINCI, LIONA’RDO DA, one of the most accomplished men of an 
accomplished age, and for the extent of his knowledge in the arts and 
sciences yet unrivalled, was born at the Castel da Vinci in the Val 
d@’Arno below Florence, in 1452. His father Pietro da Vinci, of whom 
he was anatural son, was a notary, and in the year 1484 notary to the 
signory of Florence. He had three wives, but his son Lionardo was 
born before his first marriage, in his twenty-third year; the mother of 
Lionardo is not known. Lionardo evinced as a boy remarkably quick 
abilities for everything that he turned his attention to, but more par- 
ticularly for arithmetic, music, and drawing; his drawings appeared 
to be something wonderful to his father, who showed them to Andrea 
Verrocchio. This celebrated artist was likewise surprised to see such 
productions from an uninstructed hand, and willingly took Lionardo 
as apupil; but he was soon much more astonished when he perceived 
the rapid progress his pupil made; he felt his own inferiority, and 
when Lionardo painted an angel in a picture of the Baptism of 
Christ, so superior to the other figures, that it made the inferiority of 
Verrocchio apparent to all, he gave up painting from that time for 
ever. This picture is now in the academy of Florence, The first 
original picture of Lionardo’s mentioned by Vasari, was the so-called 
Rotella del Fico, a round board of fig-tree, upon which his father 
requested him to paint something for one of his tenants. Lionardo, 
wishing to astonish his father determined to execute something extra- 
ordinary that should produce the effect of the head of Medusa; and 
haying prepared the rotella and covered it with plaster, he collected 
almost every kind of reptile and composed from them a monster of 
most horrible appearance; it seemed alive, its eyes flashed fire, and it 
appeared to breathe destruction from its open mouth. It had the 
desired effect upon his father, who thought it so wonderful that he 
carried it immediately to a picture-dealer of Florence, sold it for a 
hundred ducats, and purchased for a trifle an ordinary piece, which he 
sent to his tenant. This curious production was afterwards sold to the 
duke of Milan for three hundred ducats. 

Although Lionardo devoted himself enthusiastically to painting, 
he appears to have found time also to study many other arts and 
sciences—sculpture, architecture, engineering, and mechanics gene- 
rally, botany, anatomy, mathematics, and astronomy; he was also a 
poet and an excellent extempore performer on the lyre. He was not 
only a student in these branches of knowledge, but a master. His 
acquirements cannot be better told than in his own words, in a letter 
to Ludovico il Moro, duke of Milan, when he offered him his services: 
—‘Most Illustrious Signor—Having seen and sufficiently considered 
the specimens of all those who repute themselves inventors and 
makers of instruments of war, and found them nothing out of the 
common way: I am willing, without derogating from the merit of 
another, to explain to your excellency the secrets which I possess; and 
Lhope at fit opportunities to be enabled to give proofs of my efficiency 
in all the following matters, which I will now only briefly mention. 

“1. [have means of making bridges extremely light and portable, 
both for the pursuit of or the retreat from an enemy; and others that 
shall be very strong and fire-proof, and easy to fix and take up again. 
And I have means to burn and destroy those of the enemy. 

2. In case of a siege, I can remove the water from the ditches ; 
make scaling-ladders and all other necessary instruments for such an 
expedition. 

“3, If through the height of the fortifications or the strength of 
the position of atiy place, it cannot be effectually bombarded, I have 
means of destroying any such fortress, provided it be not built upon 
stone, 

“4, T can also make bombs most convenient and portable, which 
shall cause great confusion and loss to the enemy. 

“5. I can arrive at any (place ?) by means of excavations and crooked 
and narrow ways made without any noise, even where it is required to 
pass under ditches or a river. 

“6. I can also construct covered waggons which shall be proof 
against any force, and entering into the midst of the enemy will 
break any number of men, and make way for the infantry to follow 


_ without hurt or impediment, 


“7. I can also, if necessary, make bombs, mortars, or field-pieces of 
beautiful and useful shapes quite out of the common method. 

“8. If bombs cannot be brought to bear, I can make crossbows, 
ballistae, and other most efficient instruments ; indeed I can construct 
fit machines of offence for any emergency whatever. 

9. For naval operations also I can construct many instruments both 
of offence and defence : I can make vessels that shall be bomb-proof. 

“10. In times of peace I think I can as well as any other make 
designs of buildings for public or for private purposes; I can also 
convey water from one place to another. 

9 I will also undertake any work in sculpture, in marble, in bronze, 
or in terra-cotta : likewise in painting I can do what can be done as 
well as any man, be he who he may. 

“T can execute the bronze horses to be erected to the memory and 
glory of your illustrious father, and the renowned house of Sforza. 

“And if some of the above things should appear to any one im- 
practicable and impossible, I am prepared to make experiments in 
your park or in any other place in which it may please your Excel- 
lency, to whom I most humbly recommend myself,” &c. 

There is no date to this letter, but it was probably written about 
BIOG, DIV. VOL. VI, : 


1488, or perhaps earlier; it is written from right to left, as-are all the 
manuscripts of Lionardo, and is in the Ambrosian Library at Milan. 
The duke took Lionardo into his service, with a salary of 500 scudi 
per annum. Why he chose to leave Florence is not known: he had 
made several propositions for the improvement of the city and the 
state, which were not listened to, This however may have had no 
such influence upon him as to make him leave Florence, One of his 
propositions was to convert the river Arno, from Florence to Pisa, into 
a canal, 

Though Lionardo devoted more time to painting than to anything 
else, he did not make many designs before he went to Milan. The 
following are mentioned by Vasari: a cartoon of Adam and Eve, for 
the king of Portugal, to be worked in tapestry in Flanders; it was 
considered in its time to have been the best work that had ever been 
produced: a painting of the Madonna, in which there was a vase of 
flowers admirably painted; it was afterwards purchased at a great 
price by Pope Clement VII.: a design of Neptune, drawn in his car 
by sea-horses, surrounded by tritons and mermaids, with other acces 
saries ; and the head of an Angel, which was in the Palazzo Vecchio. 
Da Vinci’s application was indefatigable; he sketched from memory 
striking faces that he saw in the streets; witnessed trials and execu- 
tions for the sake of studying expression; invited people of the 
labouring class to sup with him, told them ridiculous stories, and 
drew their faces; some of these drawings were published by Clarke, 
in 1786, from drawings by Hollar, taken from the Portland Museum. 
He painted also before he went to Milan the Medusa’s Head, now in 
the Florentine gallery. The silly story told by Vasari that the duke of 
Milan invited Lionardo to go and play the lyre and sing to him, is an 
imputation on the common sense of the duke, that he could send, and 
an insult on the manly character of the painter that he could accept, 
such an invitation. Lionardo does not even mention music in his 
letter to Ludovico, although he was accounted the best performer on 
the lyre of his age. In Milan, besides performing many and various 
services for the duke, Lionardo established for him an academy of the 
arts about 1485, and formed a great school. His first public work in 
the arts was tne model of a bronze equestrian statue of Francesco 
Sforza, mentioned in his letter. He painted also for Ludovico por- 
traits of his two favourites, Cecilia Gallerani and Lucrezia Crevelli : 
there is a copy of the former in the Milanese gallery; the second is 
said to be in the Louvre at Paris (No. 1091). 

When the duke went to meet Charles VIII. at Pavia in 1494, Lio- 
nardo accompanied him, and he took that opportunity of studying 
anatomy with the celebrated Mare Antonio della Torre, with whom he 
became on yery friendly terms. Lionardo made many anatomical 
drawings in red chalk for Della Torre; and Dr. Hunter, who ex- 
amined some of them in one of the royal collections in London, says 
in his Lectures, published in 1784, that they are most minutely cor- 
rect. About the year 1495 Lionardo wrote a treatise upon the respec- 
tive merits of painting and sculpture, and dedicated it to the duke, but 
it is now lost. 

All the various works executed or written by Lionardo da Vinci 
cannot be mentioned in a short notice. The bare enumeration of the 
titles alone of his treatises, of which he wrote several at this period, 
would occupy much space. In 1496 he painted a picture of the 
Nativity, which Ludovico presented to the emperor Maximilian the 
same year, at Pavia; it is now in the gallery at Vienna. 

In 1497 he commenced his celebrated painting of the Last Supper, 
on a wall of the refectory of the Dominican convent of the Madonna 
delle Grazie. This work, the greatest that had then appeared, was 
copied several times while it was in a good state, and it is well known 
from Frey’s, Morghen’s, and other numerous engravings of it. One of 
the best copies is that in the Royal Academy of London, made by 
Marco Oggioni, purchased by Sir Thomas Lawrence in Italy : there are 
twelve old copies still extant. It was restored by Bellotti in 1726. 
There was nothing of the original work remaining at the end of the 
last century, except the heads of three apostles, which were very faint: 
it was nearly destroyed about fifty years after it was painted; and 
some French soldiers in the time of the Revolution finished its de- 
struction by amusing themselves with firing at the various heads in it. 
It was painted in some new manner in oil, and its rapid decay has 
been attributed to the imperfect or bad vehicles used by Lionardo. 
This was the last work of importance in painting which Lionardo 
executed in Milan. He was obliged to leave that place without having 
cast his great equestrian statue of Ludovico’s father, Francesco Sforza: 
the mould was ready, and he was waiting only for the metal; but this 
Ludovico was not able to give him; he required 200,000 pounds of 
bronze, The affairs of the duke were in so bad a state that he could 
not even pay Lionardo his salary, which, in 1499, was two years in 
arrear ; but he made him a present of a small freehold estate near the 
Porta Vercellina, After the duke’s flight from Milan in that year, 
before Louis XII. of France, Lionardo had no longer any reason for 
staying there; but when he saw his works destroyed by the French, 
who broke up his model for the statue of Francesco Sforza, he left the 
place in disgust, and returned to Florence in the year 1500, accom- 
panied by his favourite scholar and assistant, Salii, and his friend Luca 
Paciolo. He was well received by Pietro Soderini, the gonfaloniere, 
who had him enrolled in the list of artists employed by the govern- 


ment, and fixed an annual pension upon him, His saa great work 
D 


403 VINCI, LIONARDO DA, 


VINER, CHARLES, 404 


Wag the cartoon of St. Anne, for the church of the Annunziata, a work 
Which created an extraordinary sensation, but Lionardo never executed 
it in colours, He made also about the samt time the celebrated 
portrait of the Madonna Lisa, the wife of Francesco del Giocondo, a 
work that has been praised perliaps more than it deserves; it is 
infitiitely inferior in style and execution to his own portrait at Flo- 
rence. Francis I. of France gave 4000 gold crowis for it, and it is 
now in the Louvre at Paris. ; 

In 1502 he was appointed his architect and chief-engineer b Cesare 
Borgia, captain-getieral of the pope’s army, and he visited in that year 
inany parts of the Roman states in his official capacity ; but in 1508, 
after the death of Pope Alexander VI., he was again in Florence, and 
was employed by Soderini to paint one end of the council-hall of the 
Palazzo Vecchio. Da Vinci selected for this purpose the battle in 
which the Milatiese general, Nicolo Picinino, was defeated by the 
Florentites at Anghiari, near Borgo San Sepulchro. This compo- 
sition, of which Lionardi made only the cartoon of a part, was called 
the ‘ Battle of the Standard :’ it represents a group of horsemen con- 
tending for a standard, with various accessories. Vasari praises the 
beauty and anatomical correctness of the horses, and the costume of 
the soldiers. Da Vinci is said to have left this work unfinished, on 
account of jealousy of the more masterly and interesting design of the 
rival cartoon of the young Michel Angelo for the same place. In 1507 
Liohardo again visited Milan, aid painted in that year, in an apart- 
ment in the palace of the Melzi at Vaprio, a large Madonna and Child, 
which is in part still extant. He painted about the same time also 
the portrait of the general of Louis XII. in Italy, Giangiacopo Triulzio, 
which is now in the Dresden Gallery. He visited it again in 1512, 
and painted two portraits of the young Duke Maximilian, the son of 
Ludovico il Moro. He again left it in 1514, with several of his com- 
panions, and set out, by Florence, for Rome, on the 24th of September 
of that year. He arrived at Rome in the train of the Duke Giuliano 
de’ Medici, the brother of Leo X., by whom he was introduced to the 
pope. Leo at first took little notice of Lionardo, but upon seeing a 
picture of the Holy Family which he had painted for Baldassare Turini 
da Pescia, the pope’s almoner, he gave him a commission to execute 
some works for him. Seeing however a great apparatus, and, hearing 
that the painter was about to make varnishes, Leo said, “ Dear me, 
this man will never do anything, for he begins to think of the finishing 
ot his work before the commencement.” This want of courtesy in the 
pope, and the circumstance of his sending for Michel Angelo to Rome, 
offended Da Vinci, and he left. Rome in disgust, and set out for Pavia, 
to enter into the service of Francis I. of France, known to be a great 
patron of the arts, and to have a great esteem for Da Vinci, some of 
whose works he possessed. .Francis received him with the greatest 
kindness, and took him into his service, with an annual salary of 700 
crowns. Da Vinci accompanied him to Bologna, where he went to 
meet Leo X., and afterwards, in the beginning of 1516, he went with 
him to France, whither, if it had been possible, Francis would have 
also taken the famed picture of the ‘ Last Supper,’ but it could not be 
removed from the wall, upon which it was directly painted. 


Da Vinci’s health after he left Italy was ‘so enfeebled. that he exe- 


cuted little or nothing more. Francis could not prevail upon him to 
colour his cartoon of St. Anne, which he had brought with him; nor 
did he show himself at all disposed to commence any new work which 
would require the exertion of his energies, His health gradually grew 
worse, and he died at Fontainebleau on the 2nd of May 1519, aged 
sixty-seven, not seventy-five, as Vasari and others after him have 
stated. Vasari relates, that he died in the arms of Francis I., who 
happened to be on a visit to him in his chamber when he was seized 
with a paroxysm which ended in his death, Amoretti, in his Life of 
Lionardo, has endeavoured to show that this story of Vasari’s is a fiction, 
but the reasons he gives for his opinion do not in any way tend to 
prove it such. Lionardo’s will and many other documents concerning 
him are still extant in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, where his 
manuscripts are likewise preserved. Lionardo was.a man of proud 
disposition, of very sumptuous habits, and of a remarkably handsome 
person, which he always took great care to adorn with the most costly 
attire ; in his youth also he was a great horseman. From the manner 
in which he always lived, his means must have been great, yet the rate 
of payment he received upon some occasions was very small, his salary 
when employed by the gonfaloniere Soderini was fifteen gold florins 
per month ; but he was possessed of some property which he inherited 
from his family—from his father and an uncle; the estate also which 
was given to him by Ludovico il Moro, though small, may still have 
been of considerable benefit to him; he had likewise an estate at 
Fiesole. Half of the former he left to his servant Da Vilanis, and the 
other half, with the house, to Salai, his favourite assistant; the latter 
to his brothers. His library manuscripts, his wardrobe at Cloux, and 
all things relating to his art, he bequeathed to his scholar and executor, 
Francesco Melzi. _The furniture of his house at Cloux, near Amboise, 
he bequeathed to Da Vilanis. 

This great painter had three different styles of execution. His first 
was much in the dry manner of Verrocchio, but with a greater round- 
ness of form, His second was that style which particularly charac- 
terises what is termed the school of Da Vinei; it consists in an 
extreme softness of execution, combined with great roundness and 


depth of chiar’oscuro, together with a fulness of design: in this style 


| 


are the works which he executed in Milan, His third differed little 
in essentials from his second, but was characterised by a greater free- 
dom of execution and less formality of composition : of this style th 
best specimen is his owh portrait in the Florentine gallery, a worl 
equal in every respect to the finest portraits of Titian. Ree 

No man borrowed less from other men than Lionardo Da Vinei; hi 
might almost be called the inventor of chiar’oscuro, in which, and it 
design, he was, in the earlier part of his career, without a rival. Ba 
Fra Bartolomeo in his tone and mellowness, and Michel Angelo in h 
aside ae of design, were anticipated by Vinci. Previous to Fra 

artolomeo, Michel Angelo, and Peatfaolle, with tlie exception perhaps 
of those of Masaccio, no works had appeared that could in any respect 
be compared with those of Da Vinci, Lionardo’s works are not 
numerous; his occupations were too various to allow his ee 
many pictures. There can be no doubt that many of the works attri- 
buted to him in various galleries are the productions of his scholai 
or imitators, as Bernardino Luino, Francesco Melzi, and Andrea Sa 
or Marco Oggioni, Gian Antonio Beltraffio, Cesare da Sesto, Pietro 
Ricci, Lorenzo Lotto, Niccolo Appiano, and others. The picture : ee 
the National Gallery, of Christ Disputing with the Doctors, is one of 
these doubtful works, or perhaps undoubtedly not the work of 
Lionardo, > 


ae 


ap 


reiterate in different words the precepts of Da Vinci. Lionardo’s 


hes rt: 


observation must be the guides to just theory in the investigation of 
nature. If any doubt could be harboured, not as to the right of 
Lionardo da Vinci to stand as the first name of the 15th century, 
which is beyond all doubt, but as to his originality in so many dis- 
coveries, which probably no one man, especially in such circumstances, 
has ever made, it must be on an hypothesis, not very untenable, a ; 
some parts of physical science had already attained a height whi 
mere books do not record.” The extracts alluded to above were pub- 
lished at Paris in 1797, by Venturi, in an essay entitled ‘Essai sur les 
Ouvrages Physico-Mathématiques de ag ae da Vinci, avee des Frag- 
mens tirés de ses Manuscrits apportés d'Italie.” These manuscripts — 
were afterwards restored to Milan, where they are still preserved 
under the name of the ‘ Codice Atlantico,’ It is said that Napoleon I. 
carried these and Petrareh’s ‘Virgil’ to his hotel himself, not allowing 
any one to touch them, exclaiming with delight, “ Questi sono miei” 
(these are mine). They were collected together by the Cavaliere — 
Pompeo Leoni, who procured most of them from Mazzenta, whobed 
them from the heirs of Francesco Melzi, to whom Lionardo bequea’ i 
them. They came eventually into the hands of Count Galeazzo 
Arconauti, to whom James I. of England is said to haye offered 
3000 Spanish doubloons for them (nearly 10,000/.), but this patriotic 
tg refused the money, and presented them to the Ambrosian — 
ibrary. . Lae 
(Vasari, Vite dé Pittori, &c.; Lomazzo, Idea del Tempio della — 
Piitura, &c. ; Amoretti, Memorie Storiche su la Rita, gli Studi, e le 
Opere di Lionardo da Vinci; Lanzi, Storia Pittorica, &e.; Gaye, 
Carteggio, inedito d’ Artisti; Brown, Life of Leonardo da Vinci, de. ; 
Hallam, Introduction to the Literatwre of Europe, &c,) ) 
VINER, CHARLES, is known as the compiler of ‘A General and 
Complete Abridgment of Law and Equity,’ 24 vols, folio, 1741-51, and — 
as the founder of the Vinerian Professorship of Common Law in the — 
University of Oxford. When or where he was born has not been 
recorded. The ‘Abridgment’ was printed at his own house, at Alder-— 
shott. The 24th volume is an Index, by a Gentleman of Lincoln’s” 
Inn. It appears to have occupied only ten years in printing, but 
Viner was probably bi many years previously in preparation. 
Blackstone says he was alt a century about it. This stupendous 
work was reprinted in 24 vols. roy. 8vo, 1792-94, and was followed b 
6 supplemental volumes, roy, 8vo, 1799-1806, the compilers of which — 
were James Edward Watson, Samuel Comyn, James Sedgwick, Henry 
Alcock, John Wyatt, James Humphreys, Alexander Anstruther, and 
Michael Nolan. Viner died on the 5th of June 1756, at his house, 
Aldershott, Hampshire. ’ , : 
Viner having resolved to dedicate the bulk of his property, as he 
himself states, “to the benefit of posterity and the perpetual service 


» 


405 VINET, ALEXANDRE-RODOLPHE, 


Oe ees eee ee Seen ive eee 


VIREY, JULIEN-JOSEPH, 406 


of his country,” bequeathed by his will, dated December 20, 1755, 
about 12,0007. to the chancellor, master, and scholars of the University 
of Oxford, to establish a professorship, and to endow such fellowships 
and scholarships of Common Law in the university as the produce of 
his legacy might be thought capable of supporting. The professor is 
to read a lecture in the. English language within a year after his 


’ admission, and a course of lectures on the laws of England every year 


oo 


in term. ‘The course is to consist of at least twenty-four lectures, 
to be read in one and the same term, with such intervals that not 
nore than four are to be read in a-week, Ags relates to the reading of 

e lectures, Easter and Trinity terms are reckoned as one term. 
Phere are at present two fellowships with 50/. a year each, and six 
scholarships with 30/. a year each. Both fellowships and scholarships 
expire at the end of ten years after each election, — ; 
Blackstone was elected the first Vinerian professor. He had com- 
menced his lectures on English law in the year 17538, two years before 

‘iner made his will, and it is therefore probable that Blackstone's 
lectures gaye Viner the hint for founding the professorship. The 
succession of professors is as follows :—1758, William Blackstone, 
D.C.L.; 1760, Richard Chambers, Knt., B.C.L. ; 1777, Richard Wood- 
desson, D.C.L., author of ‘Lectures on the Law of England,’ 3 yols, 
12mo; 1793, James Blackstone, D.C.L,; 1824, Philip Williams, B.C.L.; 
1843, John Robert Kenyon, D.C.L. 

. YINET, ALEXANDRE-RODOLPHE, was born at Lausanne on 
the 17th of June 1797. His father, who held an official appointment 
Nay Pi wea canton, a man of superior attainments, but a somewhat 
stern disciplinarian, was himself Alexandre’s earliest instructor. While 
still a youth, his studies were chiefly directed to theology, he having 
been devoted to the service of the church; but then, as throughout 
life, literature possessed for him a predominant attraction, and so 
diligently had he laboured in this field, that at the age of twenty, he 
was appointed professor of the French language and literature at the 
gymnasium of Basel. Two years later, 1819, he was ordained at Lau- 
sanne a minister of the protestant church, and the same year he married; 
but he continued to reside at Basel, where he, during the ensuing 
years, took an actiye and prominent part in the great religious move- 
ment or ‘revival’ which occurred amongst the Swiss protestant 
churches. Besides yarious pamphlets which he put forth in connec- 
tion with this movement and with the proceedings of those who were 
opposed to it, he published in 1826 an elaborate ‘Mémoire en faveur 
de la Liberté des Cultes,’ and he gradually came to be regarded as one 
of the leaders of the evangelical party. 

M. Vinet remained at Basel till 1837 diligently fulfilling his scholas- 
tic duties as professor of French literature and eloquence, the latter 
chair having been created for him in 1835, and in 1829 he published, 
as a text-book for his class, his ‘ Chrestomathie Frangaise,’ a work of 
great taste and knowledge, which, in the later editions, consists of 
3 volumes : 1, ‘ Littérature de l’Enfance,’ 2, ‘De l’ Adolescence,’ 3, ‘De 
la Jeunesse et de Age Mfr,’ and including a rapid but admirable 
suryey of French literature. In 1831 the literary journal ‘Semeur’ 
was commenced, and for several years M. Vinei was one of its chief 
contributors; and in 1837 he. published a selection of his essays con- 
tributed to it, with other miscellanies, under the title of ‘ Essais 
de Philosophie Morale.’ In 1837 Vinet was invited by the authori- 
ties to take the chair of practical theology in the academy of his 
native city of Lausanne, and, with some regret at leaving Basel, he 
aceepted the invitation. The religious discussions in the canton 
had decided the government to appoint a commission of the four 
classes of clergy to draw up a new constitution of the church, and M, 
Vinet was chosen a delegate for the class of Lausanne and Vévay. 
He took a part in all the protracted discussions which followed, but 
he could not bring himself to acquiesce in the decisions of the majority 
and, accordingly, upon the promulgation of the new constitution 
which was to come into operation in 1841, he, at the end of 1840, 
formally seceded from the national church, and resigned his professor- 
shi of theology. His opinions had in fact from the publication of his 
“Mémoire en faveur de la Liberté des Cultes’ in 1826, been approxi- 
mating more and more closely towards ‘voluntaryism,’ and from this 
time he became a decided, and, among French Protestants, perhaps 
me most distinguished advocate of the entire separation of church and 
state. His matured views on this subject he gave to the world in 
1§42 in an ‘ Essai sur la manifestation des conyictions religieuses, et 
sur la séparation de I’figlise et de 1’ Etat, enyisagée comme conséquence 
i6cessaire et; comme garantie du principe,’ a work which was translated 
into English in 1843 under the title of ‘An Essay on the Profession 
of Personal Religious Conviction, and upon the Separation of Church 
and State, considered with reference to the Fulfilment of that Duty.’ 
But Vinet was far from being the harsh or bigoted advocate of 
extreme opinions. Whilst firmly adhering to his own views, he 
exhorted to a wide tolerance of the honest convictions of others, and 
his later years were spent in s preaching peace and brotherly loye, and 
seeking by the amenities literature to soften the asperities of 
theological controversy. 

His last labour was the elaboration of a constitution for the Free 
Church of the canton of Vaud, formed by the ministers who seceded 
from the establishment in 1845, and which he induced the committee 
appointed by the Church in 1846 to prepare the constitution, to adopt 
im its integrity. With the Synod however, in which the ultimate 


adoption of the constitution was vested, he was less successful, and the 
material alterations there introduced, are said to have preyed severely 
on his frame, already enfeebled by protracted ill-health. He continued 
however with increased diligence his professional duties and literary 
studies till his powers gave way : he died on the 10th of May 1847. 

A list of the chief works, not already mentioned, of M. Vinet, will 
sufficiently indicate the character of his mind and the range of his 
pursuits. Among his theological works may be named his ‘ Discours 
sur quelques sujets religieux” (1831, of which a fourth edition 
appeared in 1845), and ‘ Nouveaux Discours,’ &c. (1841), from which 
two works selections haye been translated into English and published 
in America and Edinburgh under the title of ‘ Vital Christianity ;’ 
and the posthumous publications ‘ Théologie Pastorale,’ and ‘ Homilé- 
tique ou Théorie de la prédication,’ of both of which English versions 
have appeared; ‘Liberté religeuse et questions ecclésiastiques :’ ‘ Etudes 
sur Blaise Pascal;’ ‘ Etudes Evangéliques, and ‘ Nouvelles études 
Evangéliques,’ which have been rendered into English as ‘ Gospel 
Studies.’ His two chief literary works are his ‘Histoire de la littérature 
francaise au XVIIlIe siécle,’ 2 vols., which appeared in an English 
version in 1854, and ‘Etudes sur la littérature francaise du XIXe 
siécle,’ 3 vols. 8vo: 1, ‘De Staél et Chateaubriand ;’ 2, ‘ Poétes 
Lyriques et Dramatiques ;’ 3, ‘ Poétes et prosateurs.’ All these works 
are accurate reflections of the mind and- character of the author. 
Pure in sentiment, elegant and finished in style; clear, eloquent, 
brilliant rather than profound in thought; and everywhere pervaded 
by an earnest and conscientious spirit, they are works which will be 
read with pleasure and respect even by those who differ widely from 
their opinions. As a preacher, M. Vinet bore a high character for 
eloquence and earnestness; and asa teacher, he greatly increased the 
reputation of the schools of Basel and Lausanne, while his personal 
character was in every way admirable. 

(K, Scherer, Alexandre Vine-—Notice sur sa Vie et ses Ecrits, Paris, 
1853; and an excellent essay on the Life and Writings of Vinet, in 
No. 42 of the North British Review,’ Aug. 1854.) 

VIOTTI, GIOVANNI-BATTISTA, the first violinist of his time, 
was the son of the chief gardener to the Prince di Carignano, and 
born in 1755 at Fontanento, a village in Piedmont. His father in- 
tended him for a line of life very different from that which his own 
inclination marked out; but, as usually happens in such cases, parental 
wishes were combated by a natural propensity too strong to be 
resisted, and the youthful enthusiast was placed under the instruction 
of Pugnani, to whom all aspiring violinists looked up, and whose skill 
may be justly inferred from the celebrity which his pupil attained. 
At the early age of twenty he was chosen to fill the situation of first 
violin in the royal chapel of Turin, an appointment of great professional 
rank, in which he remained three years; he then commenced his 
European travels, and made a lengthened visit to Berlin. He after- 
wards proceeded to Paris, where, by the grandeur and elegance of his 
performance, and the originality and beauty of his compositions, he 
speedily acquired a brilliant reputation. 

In the early part of the French revolution, when it was deemed 
right that every class should be represented in the legislative body, 
Viotti was elected into the Constituent Assembly; but when the 
reign of terror commenced, he, disgusted and alarmed, fled to the 
English shores, and made a most successful débit at one of Salomon’s 
concerts. He afterwards took some share in the general manage- 
ment of the King’s Theatre, but from this he soon retired; his genius 
fitted him better for the partiuclar duty of leader of the band, in 
which office he superseded Mr. William Cramer. Viotti however did not | 
long enjoy this appointment, for some unknown enemy, by false repre- 
sentations to government, caused his being ordered in 1798 to quit the 
country at a few hours’ notice, and he retired to Hamburg, where he 
published his celebrated ‘Six Duos Concertans pour deux Violons.’ 
In 1801 he was allowed to return to London, and, finally abandoning 
his profession, embarked the whole of his small fortune in a partnership 
in the wine trade, by which unguarded step he lost all. Louis XVIII. 
then offered him the direction of the Académie Royale de Musique, and 
he repaired to Paris; but he found himself as little qualified to direct 
the French opera as he had been to manage the Italian theatre in 
London ; he therefore once more and finally settled in this country, 
meeting with an hospitable reception and an agreeable home in the 
house of a friend, where he mixed in the best society that the metro- 
polis afforded. In such intercourse he did not refuse to contribute 
occasionally his talents to the general stock of enjoyment, and even 
consented to become an active member and director of the Philhar- 
monic Society, when in its palmy state, and while it continued in its 
independent and disinterested form, appearing as a dilettante in its 
orchestra, occasionally as a principale, but more frequently as a repieno, 
and uniting with Salomon, I. Cramer, Yaniewicz, Spagnoletti, Vaccari, 
&c., to produce such a musical phalanx as never before was witnessed. 
His losses and disappointments however gradually affected his health, 
and he sank under them at Brighton on the 3rd of March 1824. 

VIREY, JULIEN-JOSEPH, was born at Hortes, in the department 
of Haute Marne, in November 1775. He was educated at the college 
of Langres; on leaving which he spent some time with one of his 
uncles, who kept an apothecary’s shop at Hortes. Here he imbibed 
that taste for medical researches and physical inquiries, which distin- 
guished him through life, In 1793, he attached himself to the 


407 VIRGILIUS POLYDORUS, 


VIRGILIUS, PUBLIUS MARO. 


republican armies stationed in the north of France, and having been 
received as one of the assistant dressers in the military hospital of 
Strasburg, he was noticed by Parmentier for his skill and handiness, 
and afterwards sent to the hospital, Val de Grace, at Paris, where he 
laid the foundation of his many writings. 

In the early part of the century Virey became editor of the ‘Journal 
de Pharmacie,’ without relinquishing his functions at the hospital; he 
was already considered so fully master of medical subjects as to be 
consulted by the imperial government whenever any new medicament 
was to be introduced into France from other countries. Before he 
obtained his diploma as a physician and apothecary, he contributed 
without assistance more than half the fundamental articles to the two 
celebrated works, ‘ Le Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles,’ and ‘ Le 
Dictionnaire des Sciences Médicales.? Among the vast number of 
useful works which issued from his pen the following deserve to be 
cited :—‘Le Traité Théorique et pratique de pharmacie,’ 2 vols. 8yo, 
the fourth edition was published in 1837; ‘ Ephémerides de la vie 
humaine,’ a most original work, published in 1814; ‘ Histoire naturelle 
du genre humain,’ 3 vols. 8vo; ‘ Histoire des mceurs des Animaux et 
de leurs instincts,’ 2 vols. 8vo; ‘Histoire naturelle de la Femme,’ 
1 vol. 8vo; ‘Histoire des médicaments, des aliments et des poisons,’ 
1 vol. 8vo; ‘De la Puissance vitale,’ 1 vol. 8vo; ‘Hygitne philoso- 
phique,’ 2 vols. 8vo; ‘Examen impartial de la médecine mag- 
nétique,’ &e. 

Besides his merit as a diligent inquirer after medical truth, the 
highest praise has been bestowed on Dr. Virey for the elegance, force, 
and animation of his style. His life was one of unbroken though 
moderate success. Devoted to labour, he always found ample without 
any very anxious employment; but this life, unruffled by a single 
care, was attended with one evil consequence—Dr. Virey became 
enormously fat; and at length he died very suddenly in his chair, 
whilst playing at whist with some friends, on the 29th of March 1840. 
He was an officer of the Legion of Honour, and a member of several 
learned academies. 

VIRGILIUS POLYDORUS,. [Vurernrus Poryporvs.] 

VIRGI’LIUS, or VERGILIUS, PUBLIUS MARO, was born at 
Andes, a small place near Mantua, on the 15th of October, B.c. 70, in 
the first consulship of Cn. Pompeius Magnus and M. Licinius Crassus. 
He was five years older than Horace, who was born B.c. 65, and seven 
years older than the emperor Augustus. His father, who probably 
possessed a landed estate, had his son instructed at the neighbouring 
towns of Cremona and Mediolanum (Milan). According to Donatus, 
he stayed at Cremona till he assumed the toga virilis on the day on 
which he entered on his sixteenth year, in the second consulship of 
Cn. Pompeius Magnus and M. Licinius Crassus : this day, according to 
the same authority, was the day on which the poet Lucretius died. 
Virgil was taught Greek by the grammarian Parthenius, and philosophy 
by the Epicurean, Syron. It is apparent from the writings of Virgil 
that he had a learned education, and traces of Epicurean opinions are 
obvious in bis poetry. When a division of lands in Italy was made 
among the veteran soldiers of Octavianus, Virgil lost his patrimony at 
Mantua (B.C. 41), but it was afterwards restored to him by Octavianus, 
through the, intercession of some powerful friends, among whom are 
mentioned Alfenus Varus, Asinius Pollio, and Meecenas. His first 
Eclogue is supposed to allude to the loss of his lands and his recovery 
of them, Virgil probably afterwards resided at Rome, and he was in 
favour with Mecenas, who wished to pass for a patron of letters, 
and with the emperor Augustus. He preceded Horace in acquiring 
the patronage of Mzecenas; for Horace attributes his own introduction 
to Mecenas to Virgil and Virgil’s friend, Varius. Virgil also spent 
part of his time at Naples and Tarentum. In B,c, 19 he visited Greece, 
where he intended to spend several years, for the purpose of perfecting 
his epic poem, the ‘ Aineid,’ It was on the occasion of this voyage 
that Horace addressed to him one of his lyric poems (‘ Carm.,’ i. 3). 
At Athens Virgil met with Augustus, who was returning from the 
East, and he determined to accompany Augustus back to Rome; but 
he fell sick at Megara, which city he visited probably on his road to 
Rome, and his illness was increased by the voyage to Italy. He lived 
however to reach Brundisium, where he died in the autumn of the 
year B.C. 19. According to his wish his body was taken to Naples, 
and interred on the Via Puteolana, at the second milestone from 
' Naples. He is said to have written his own epitaph a short time 
oe his death in the two following lines, which were placed on his 
tomb ;— 

** Mantua me genuit; Calabri rapuere; tenet nunc 
Parthenope: cecini pascua, rura, duces,” 
**My birthplace Mantua; in Calabria death 
O’ertook me ; and in Naples now I lie. 
I’ve sung of shepherds, fields, and heroes’ deeds,” 


The place of his burial is still pointed out by tradition, though the 
so-called tomb of Virgil at Posilipo has no pretensions to be considered 
as the monument of the Roman poet. He left as heredes the emperor 
Augustus and his friend Maecenas, the poet Lucius Varius and Plotius 
Tucca. In person Virgil is said to have had a clownish appearance, 
and to have been very shy and diffident, and of feeble health. He was 
intimately acquainted with all the distinguished persons of his age, 
aud his friend Horace has commemorated his virtues and gentle 
disposition, 


as the oracular responses of the Pythia. His Pollio, the fourth eclogue 


The principal poetical works of Virgil are his ‘ Bucolics,’ ‘ Georgies,’ 
and his ‘ Aueid,’ an epic poem. The ‘Bucolica’ are probably his earliest — 
works : they consist of ten short poems, which have also received the 
name of Ecloge, or Selections, a title which probably belongs toa 
later period than the age of the poet. The composition of these 
poems is assigned to the period between 3.c. 41 and 37. The several 
poems were probably not written in the order in which they generall 
appear in the manuscripts and the editions ; but critics are not 
on the exact chronological order, nor indeed can it be ascertained. 
These poems are not strictly Bucolic in the sense in which the poems 
of Theocritus are called Bucolic. It has been justly observed that th 
are rather allegorical poems with a Bucolic colouring. So far as re ra 
the versification these poems have some merit, and Virgil has the 
credit of attempting to introduce among the Romans a species of poetry = 
with which they were unacquainted. But this is all his merit: his 
Bucolics are defective in construction, ill connected in the parts, they _ 
have no distinct object, and are consequently obscure. The obscurity 
is owing both to the subject and the manner of treating it. The 
circumstances of Italy and of Virgil’s time did not present the same 
materials for Bucolic poetry which Theocritus had treated with so — 
much graphic power. Virgil, having undertaken to imitate his Greek 
model, was obliged to keep to the form, though he could not impress 
his copy with the same character. Accordingly we have shepherds who 
sing in alternate verses, like those of Theocritus, and a Corydon, who 
complains of unrequited love; but we do not find the truth which 
pervades the pure Bucolics of Theocritus. Virgil must have felt the 
insipidity and unmeaningness of poems which affected to be descriptive, 
and yet had no realities to correspond to them. To introduce some 
variety he treats of subjects of present interest; and his own fortunes 
and the sufferings of his countrymen are supposed to be depictedin __ 
his first and ninth eclogues. But Virgil had a delicate subject to 
handle: it was necessary to be cautious in speaking of recent events, _ 
and he has consequently so constructed these poems, especially the 
first eclogue, as to throw over it a mist of obscurity which the com- _ 
mentators have never been able fully to disperse. The first eclogue is 
full of incongruities which render the interpretation most perplexing. 
All the other eclogues also abound in allusions to the circumstances — 
and persons of his own time; but many of the allusions are as obscure 


has not a single line which appropriately belongs to a Bucolic poem, — 
nor indeed does the poet, as appears from the introductory verses, 
consider if as Bucolic in anything except the name, It is a perpetual 
enigma for the critics, and its solution still requires an (idipus. 4 

Virgil has borrowed numerous lines from the Greek poets, especially 
from Theocritus, but we can hardly allow him the merit of judicious 
adaptation. His Bucolics, even when he attempts to approach nearest 
to the true character of Bucolic poetry, give no real picture of rustic 
manners. The reader never imagines that his shepherds are really 
singing, like those of Theocritus ; and all poetic illusion is completely 
destroyed by the want of due attention to the propricties of placeand 
person, both of which, as already hinted at, were impracticable in the 
circumstances under which he wrote. Julius Cesar Scaliger, after a 
comparison between Virgil and Theocritus, prefers the Roman poet ; 
and a few scholars, who are inferior to Scaliger in learning, have put 
themselves on the same level with him in critical judgment. 

The ‘ Georgica’ of Virgil are a didactic poem, in four books, 
addressed to his patron Mecenas. In the first book he treats of the 
cultivation of the soil, in the second of the management of fruit-trees, 
in the third of cattle, and in the fourth of bees. His judgment and — 
poetic taste were riper when he wrote the ‘Georgics’ than when he — 
was employed on his Bucolics; and if he began the ‘Georgics’ as — 
early as his Eclogues, it is clear that he must have revised and 
improved them at a later date. An argument from which we might 
conclude that the first book was written before B.c. 35, is mentioned 
by Clinton (‘Fasti’); but the two facts on which this conclusion 
depends can hardly be relied on. If the concluding lines of the fourth 
book of the ‘ Georgics’ are genuine, Virgil was finishing his poem at 
Naples about the year B.0. 30. Originality is no part of Virgil’s merit, 
and the materials of this poem are all borrowed; but in the handling 
of them he has shown skill and taste. He has turned an unpromising 
subject into a pleasing and even an instructive poem, for the truth of 
many of his rules and precepts is confirmed by other writers, both 
Roman and modern. He has relieved the weariness inherent in 
didactic poetry by judicious ornament and occasional digression with- 
out ever wandering far from his subject. It has been said that the 
would have ended better with the third book, which properly closes 
the poem ; and that the fourth, which treats of the management of 
bees, hardly belongs to the subject. There is some truth in this 
remark; and the fourth book has the appearance of being an after- 
thought, and not a part of the original design, though in the opening 
of the first book, as we now have it, the management of bees is 
announced as one of the subjects. The treatment of bees indeed 
seems hardly important enough for one book in four, and the poet has 
given it a proportional length by closing it with the story of Aristzus. 
If Virgil has erred in the choice of a poetic subject, he has at least 
redeemed his fault by the mode in which he has treated it, and his 
reputation must mainly rest on the ‘Georgics.’ He improved the 
structure of the hexameter verse as we find it in Lucretius; and 


_ 


i al cag 
7a 


_ imperfect verses as they were. 


409 VIRGILIUS, PUBLIUS MARO. 


VIRGINIA, 410 


though he never attains the vigour of this writer, whom he had care- 
fully studied, he has avoided that abruptness and harshness which often 
characterise the lines of Lucretius, and remind us of the antiquated 
verses of Ennius. 

The Aineis of Virgil is the great national epic of the Romans. It 
is said that Virgil in his will gave instructions that the Afneid should 
be burnt, either because it was imperfect, or for some other reason 
which is not known; but that on Tucca and Varius urging to him 
that Augustus would not permit this, he bequeathed the work to 
them on the condition that they should add nothing, and leave the 
The Aineid was published by Tucca 
and Varius after Virgil’s death, and was universally admired. The 
poem consists of twelve books, which contain the story of the wander- 
ings of Alneas after the fall of Troy, and his final settlement in 
Latium after the defeat of Turnus and the Rutuli. The Homeric 
poems are the model of the Auneid ; the merit of invention is entirely 
wanting. The first six books are an imitation of the ‘Odyssey ;’ the 
last six books are founded on the ‘ Iliad.” Though the adventures of 
/Bneas are the direct subject of the Aineid, the glories of Rome and 
the fortunes of the Julian House, to which Augustus belonged, are 


skilfully interwoven in the texture of the poem. The foundation of Alba 
Longa and the transfer of the seat of empire from that city to Rome, 
_ are announced in the first book of the Auneid, by Jupiter, to be the 
‘will of the Fates; and the great family of the Cesars is declared to 


be the descendant of Aineas, The adventures of the Trojan hero at 
the court of Dido, queen of Carthage, give occasion to hint at the 
future rivalry between the Romans and the Carthaginians, and the long 
contest which was destined to end in the triumph of the descendants 
of the Trojan hero, The numerous allusions to actual circumstances 
and to the history of the republic were adapted to create or to confirm 
a popular notion of the Trojan descent of the Romans. Though the 
/@neid contains many fine passages, its poetical merits are greatly 
below those of the‘ Iliad’ and ‘Odyssey.’ The poem wants the 
unity of purpose and integrity of construction which so eminently 
characterise the ‘ Iliad,’ and it is deficient in that truth and ‘simplicity 
which form. the never-tiring charm of both the ‘Iliad’ and the 
‘Odyssey.’ The Trojan heroes of the Aineid are insipid personages ; 
and the chief actor Aineas fails to excite our sympathy as much as 
his rival Turnus or the fierce Mezentius, But Virgil had other models 
besides Homer, .The poets of the Alexandrine school were bis study, 
and particularly Apollonius of Rhodes, whom he has often imitated. 
It must be admitted that Virgil’s subject was barren, and it required 
considerable skill to invest it with poetic interest. He accomplished 
this indirectly by giving to it an historical colouring and connecting 
the fortunes of Rome and of his great patron Augustus with the 
illustrious names of Troy. He scattered over his work an abundance 
of antiquarian lore, in which he was well skilled; and the great 
extent of his learning and his skilful adaptation of it to his purpose 
are conspicuous all through the work. Virgil was pre-eminently a 
learned poet; and if he had not originality and strong feeling, he had 
at least good taste. His poem can bear no comparison with. the 


‘Iliad’ as a complete work. It does not abide in the memory as an 


entire thing; yet numerous single passages are remembered with 
pleasure—a clear proof that its merits are to be estimated rather by 
an examination of the details than by the general effect, and conse- 


quently that it fails in satisfying the highest conditions of art, which 


require such a unity of parts as shall render them all subordinate to 
one general conception. The Aineid contains many obscure passages ; 
and though Virgil is generally used for early instruction in schools, he 
is in fact one of the most difficult Roman writers, 

The influence of. Virgil on the literature of Rome might be the 
subject of a copious essay. His works were a text-book for the Roman 
youth and a model for the poets. Those who followed him as epic poets 
were certainly greatly inferior to him. There are indeed many fine pas- 
sages in Lucan and Silius Italicus, but a love of rhetorical ornament 
always infected the literature of Rome, and in the later ages of the 
empire all good taste was sacrificed to it. Virgil was also the great 
classical poet of the middle ages, From the time of Charlemagne to 
the present day we may trace him in innumerable imitators and 
admirers. 

Several short poems attributed to Virgil are printed in the collected 
editions of his works. 1, ‘Culex, or the Gnat,’ a kind of Bucolic 
poem, in 412 hexameters, which has little merit, and is probably 
founded on a genuine poem of the same name by Virgil. 2, ‘ Ciris, 
or the mythus of Nisus and Scylla.’ This poem has been attributed 
to Cornelius Gallus and others. 8, ‘Copa,’ a short poem in elegiac 
verse, containing an invitation by a woman who is attached to a.tavern, 
to persons to come in and make merry there. © Critics have assigned 
the authorship of this little poem to various persons. 4, ‘Moretum,’ 
in 123 verses, is probably a fragment of a larger poem which described 
the daily labours of a cultivator of the soil. This poem contains the 
description of the labours of the first part of the day only. The author. 
ship of this poem is also uncertain, 5, ‘Catalecta,’ a collection of 
fourteen smaller poems, 

The first edition of Virgil, which was printed about 1469, in small 
folio, has the following title: ‘P. Virgilii Maronis Opera et Catalecta, 
Rome, Conr. Suueynheym et Arn. Pannartz,’ with a dedication by 
Giovanni Andrea, bishop of Aleria in Corsica, to Pope Paul II, The 


text was printed from bad manuscripts. This edition is very rare: it 
was reprinted in 1471. Virgil was printed by Aldus at Venice, 8vo, in 
1501; this edition also is very scarce. Virgil was often printed with 
the commentaries of Servius and others at the close of the 15th and the 
beginning of the 16th centuries. The edition of Robert Stephens, 
Paris, fol., 1532, contains the commentary of Servius. The edition of 
J. L. de la Cerda, which is valuable for the commentary, appeared at 
Madrid, in 3 vols. fol.; the several volumes were published in the 
years 1608, 1612, and 1617. The edition of Dan. Heinsius, ‘appeared 
at Leyden, 12mo, in 1636; that of Nicholas Heinsius, which is much 
better, was first published at Amstérdam in 1676. The edition of C, 
G. Heyne, on which great labour was bestowed, was published from 
the year 1767 to 1775, at Leipzig, in 4 vols, 8vo, with a very copious 
index : this edition was reprinted in 1788 with improvements, The 
fourth edition of Heyne, by G. P. E. Wagner, has the following title: 
‘ Publius Virgilius Maro, Varietate Lectionis et Perpetua Adnotatione 
illustratus & Christ. Gottl Heyne, Editio Quarta, curavit G. Phil. 
Eberard Wagner,’ Lipsizw, 5 vols. 8vo, 1830-42. The text has been 
corrected after the best manuscripts, the Medicean, Vatican, and 
others ; the punctuation has been improved, and the orthography 
amended. The text may be had separately, in a single volume entitled 
the ‘ Publii Virgilii Maronis Carmina ad pristinam Orthographiam quoad 
ejus fieri potuit revocata, edidit Philippus Wagner,’ Leipzig, 8vo, 1831. 
This volume also contains the ‘ Orthographia Vergiliana.’ Of the edition 
of A. Forbiger, a rd edition appeared in 3 vols. 8vo, Leipzig, 1852. 

The editions of the several parts of Virgil are very numerous, A 
tolerably complete list of all the editions and translations is given by 
Schweigger, ‘Handbuch der Classischen Bibliographie,’ vol. ii., pp. 
1145-1258. There is a good German translation of the Bucolics by 
J. H. Voss with valuable notes: the second edition is by Abraham 
Voss, Altona, 1830. J. H. Voss also translated the Georgics: both 
the translation and the commentary of Voss are highly esteemed. 
Martyn’s prose English translations of the Bucolics, London, 1749, and ° 
of the Georgics, 1741, are valued for the commentaries. A complete 
translation of Virgil by J. H. Voss appeared at Brunswick, in 3 vols, 
8vo, 1799, and has gone through several editions. The Aineid was 
translated into Scottish verse by Gawin Douglas, bishop of Dunkeld, 
and published at London in 1553. The English versions of Virgil are 
numerous. John Ogilby’s translation into verse appeared at London in 
1649 and 1650. The verse translation of Dryden was published by 
Tonson, London, 1697, with a “ hundred sculptures.” There is a trans- 
lation in blank verse by Dr. Joseph Trapp, with notes : it is a very dull 
version. The Adneid translated by C. Pitt, and the Eclogues and 
Georgics by Joseph Warton, with observations by Spence and others, 
was published by Dodsley, 4 vols. 8vo, London, 1753. The Georgics 
translated by Sotheby contains the original text and the versions of 
Delille, Voss, Soave, and Guzman. 

The materials for the life of Virgil are chiefly derived from the Life 
attributed to Tiberius Claudius Donatus, which, in its present form, is 
an uncritical performance, but has the appearance of being founded on 
good materials. It is printed in Wagner's Virgil with notes, and in 
some other editions also. The works already referred to, with Baehr’s 
‘Geschichte der Rémischen Literatur,’ contain abundant references to 
the editions, translations, and commentaries on Virgil's poems. 

VIRGINIA, a Roman maiden, daughter of L. Virginius, whose 
name is famous in the early history of Rome. Her story is one of the 
most beautiful in Roman history. She possessed extraordinary beauty, 
and had been virtuously brought up by her parents. She was be- 
trothed to L. Icilius, a tribune of the people. Appius Claudius, one 
of the decemvirs, attempted to seduce her; but finding that her 
virtue was stronger than his temptations, he had recourse to fraud 
and violence. Her father Virginius was absent at Mount Algidus, 
where he commanded a division of the army against the Adqui. The 
decemvir thought this a favourable opportunity, and instigated M. 
Claudius, one of his clients, to claim the girl as his slave. Accord. 
ingly, one day when, accompanied by her nurse, she was going to the 
forum, where schools were then kept in the taberne, the client of 
Appius Claudius seized her, asserting that she was the daughter of one 
of his slaves, and consequently was his property. The nurse raised 
loud cries, and called on the people for help. A crowd came together, 
and the girl was rescued; but the claimant declared that he would 
establish his right before a court of justice. The case was accordingly 
brought before the tribunal of Appius Claudius himself, where the 
client stated that Virginia was the daughter of one of his slaves, and 
had been carried off into the house of Virginius, as he would prove by 
the evidence of Virginius himself; and he added, that until the return 
of Virginius she should be kept in the house of her lawful master. 
Great opposition was made by the friends of the girl to this claim, but 
Appius Claudius affected to think the demand of his client just. 
Icilius now stepped forward and claimed the girl as his betrothed 
wife; and when threats were unavailing, he implored Claudius to 
think of the consequences. Icilius was immediately surrounded by 
the lictors of the decemvir, and declared a disturber of the peace; but 
in order to have at least the appearance of justice on his side, Appius 
Claudius adjourned the case till the next day, adding that he would 
then enforce the law whether Virginius returned or not. Two mes- 
sengers were speedily sent to Virginius to inform him of the danger of 
his daughter, Appius Claudius also sent a secret message to request 


411 VIRGINIUS. 


his colleagues in the camp to refuse Virginius leave of absence; but 
this message came too late, for Virginius had already left the camp. 
On the morning of the following day, when all the city was in anxious 
expectation, Virginius, accompanied by some matrons and numerous 
friends, led his daughter to the forum, entreating the protection of his 
fellow-citizens. Appius ascended the tribunal, and without listening 
to Virginius or Icilius, declared the girl to be the slave of his client, 
M. Claudius. When Claudius pressed through the crowd to seize 
Virginia, he was at first prevented by the multitude; but the threats 
of the decemyir ovyerawed them, and his lictors made way for the 
client, Virginius, seeing the impossibility of saving his child, asked 
permission to have some conversation with her before their separation, 
This being granted, he took Virginia aside to a butcher's stall, and 
snatching up a knife, plunged it into her breast, saying, “ This is the 
only way in which I can deliver thee,” adding a curse on the head of 
Appius Claudius. The decemvir immediately ordered Virginius to be 
seized, but sword in hand he fought his way to the gate of the city. The 
friends of the unfortunate girl in the city roused the people toshake off 
the yoke of their haughty oppressors. Virginius in the camp appealed 
to the soldiers, and the power of the decemyirs was abolished. 

(Livy, iii. 44-48 ; Dionysius Hal,, xi. pp, 709, 718, 719, ed. Sylburg.) 

VIRGINIUS. [Vrrewra.] 

VIRGI’NIUS RUFUS, a Roman rhetorician of the time of Nero, 
who sent him into exile, as Tacitus says, merely because he was a man 
of.reputation. (Tacit., ‘Annal.,”’ xy, 71; Dion Cass. lxii. 27.) He 
appears to be the same as the Virginius Flaccus, who is mentioned in 
the ancient ‘Life of Persius,’ and of whom: this poet was a pupil. 
From Quinctilian (iii. 1, § 21 ; compare iii, 6, § 44; iy. 1, § 23: vii. 4, 
§ 24; xi. 3, § 126), who speaks of him as his contemporary, we learn 
that he wrote a work on rhetoric, which was more accurate than those 
of his predecessors ; but no fragments of this work are extant. Some 
modern critics have supposed Virginius Rufus to be the author of the 
‘Rhetorica ad Herennium,’ which is usually printed among the works 
of Cicero; but nothing certain can be said about the matter. (Schiitz’s 
Procemium to his edition of Cicero’s ‘ Opera Rhetoriea.’) 

VIRIA'THUS or VIRIA’/TUS (Ovipiardos), the leader of the Lusi- 

tanians, in Hispania, in their war with the Romans, about the middle 
of the 2nd century B.c. He is first mentioned on the occasion when 
the Roman praetor Servius Galba treacherously massacred a large body 
of the Lusitanians (B.c. 150). Viriathus was one of the few who 
escaped. In the year 3,c. 149, a Lusitanian army having been defeated 
by Caius Vetilius, the fugitives, who were blockaded, were on the 
point of surrendering, when Viriathus, who happened to be present, 
reminded them of the treachery of Galba, and by a bold and skilful 
mancuvre released them, and was appointed their general. In a 
battle which took place shortly afterwards, he defeated and killed 
Vetilius. In the three following years he defeated successively the 
pretors C, Plautius, Claudius Unimanus, and C. Nigidius Figulus. 
The next year (3.0. 145) the Romans sent against him the consul Q. 
Fabius Maximus A2milianus, who checked his suecessful course in this 
and the following year. In p.c, 143, Viriathus was again successful 
against the propretor Q. Pompeius, whose successor, Q. Fabius Maxi- 
mus Servilianus, carried on the war during the next two years with 
various success. At length, in Bc, 140, the Consul Q. Servilius 
Czpio obtained the person of Viriathus by the treachery of some of 
that chieftain’s intimate friends, and put him to death, after he had led 
the Lusitanians for eight years, or, as others say, fourteen, reckoning 
from the beginning of the Celtiberic war in B.o, 153. 
_ The Roman writers say that Viriathus was first a shepherd and 
huntsman; then a leader of robbers, by which they mean what a 
modern Spaniard would call a Guerilla chieftain; and at last.a great 
commander, who, had fortune fayoured him, would have founded an 
empire much greater than his native country, or, as Florus expresses 
it, would have been the Romulus of Spain, 

(Appian, De Reb. Hisp., 59-75; Liy., Epit., li, liv.; Diodorus Sicu- 
lus, x., p, 72-80, 97; Valerius Maximus, vi. 4, § 2; ix. 6,§4; Obse- 
quens, 81, 82; Orosius, iv. 21; Florus, ii, 17; Eutropius, iy. 16.) 

VISCHER, CORNE’LIUS, a celebrated Dutch engraver, born, 
probably at Haarlem, in 1610, He was the pupil of P, Soutman, but 
he soon surpassed his master. Vischer's works are among the finest 
specimens of art executed by the graver; Basan says that no master 
can be studied by young engravers with more advantage. He engraved 
prints of many descriptions, and some of his best are after his own 
designs, Watelet says that no man eyer painted with the grayer and 
etching-needle together with such effect as Vischer, Strutt, speaking 
of his style of working with the graver, says, “ His mode of per- 
formance with that instrument was as singular as the effect he pro- 
duced was picturesque and beautiful, His strokes are clear and 
delicate, laid over the draperies and the back-ground apparently just 
as the plate happened to lie before him, without any care or study 
which way they should turn, the one upon the other; and he crossed 
and recrossed them, till such time as they produced sufficient colour.” 

The few following are of the rarest and most valuable of his prints ; 
good impressions of some of them haye been sold for from fifteen to 
twenty pounds :— 

Andreas Deonyszoon Winius, commonly called the Man with the 
Pistols ; Gellius de Bourna, minister of Zutphen; a Cat sleeping upon 
a napkin: the Rat-catcher; the Pancake woman; and the Gipsy. 


VISCONTI. 412 
Mariette possessed a collection of 172 of Vischer’s prints, which was 
sold for 3096 francs 12 sous. His portraits are the best of the pieces 
which he engraved after other masters. ‘he year of his death is not 
known, but it was probably about 1660. a 
Jouan ViscHER, brother of Cornelius, was likewise a good engraver 
and etcher, but, except in landscapes, inferior to his brother. He 
executed some good plates after Berghem and Ostade, He was born 
at Amsterdam in 1636; for in 1692, in his fifty-sixth year, 
Houbraken, he turned animal-painter, He worked likewise with the 
needle and the graver, but more with the needle, 


merit. He lived some time in Rome, 
There was also a Cuavs or Nico_aus JonAN VISCHER, engrayer 


(Houbraken, Groote Schouburgh, &c.; Basan, Dictionnaire ; 


veurs; Strutt, Dictionary of Engravers; Huber and Rost, 
Sir Kunstliebhaber, &e.) 


was born about the middle of the 15th century. He lived 


Lampert VisOHER was also a brother of Cornelius, but of inferior 


VISCHER, PETER, a celebrated old German sculptor and founder, a 3 
Revere 


years in Italy, where he studied his art. He first distinguished m- 
self in Germany by his monument to the Archbishop Ernest of ag- 
deburg,. erected in the cathedral of that place in 1497. But his 
master-piece is the tomb of St. Sebald, in the church of that saint at 
Nurnberg, where Vischer ultimately settled, Vischer, with his five 
sons, Peter, Hermann, Hans, Paul, and Jacob, who with their wives 


and children liyed in the same house with him, was occupied 2102 : 


this monument from 1506 until 1519, yet he was paid only 
florins, which is at the rate of 20 florins per cwt.: the whee 
ment weighed 120 cwt. 14 lbs. It is beautifully designed and ric 
ornamented; among other figures there are twelve small statue 
eighteen inches high, of the apostles, which are remarkably we 
drawn, and all conspicuous for their fine expression. In one part he 
has introduced his own portrait in his working dress. It is a monu- 
ment, upon the whole, worthy of any time and any nation, Vischer 
executed some other clever works at Niirnberg : he died, according to 
Doppelmayr, in 1530. in 

Hermann ViscHer studied likewise in Italy, and was scarcely in- 
ferior to his father; he was killed in 1540 by a sledge, as he was 
going home one night witha friend. Sandrart says that no prince or 
gentleman that visited Niirnberg left it without having seen and con- 
versed with Vischer. He received many orders during these yisits, 
and he sent many works into Bohemia, Poland, and other neighbour- 
ing countries. 


Ta 
- 


(Sandrart, Teutsche Academic, &c,; Doppelmayr, WNiirnbergische 


Kiinstler, &c.) , 
VISCO’NTI, the name of a family in Lombardy which rose to the 
rank of sovereign princes during the middle ages. The Visconti 
begin to figure in history about the middle of the 18th century. They 
belonged to the feudal nobility, and were possessed of considerable 
estates in the northern part of Lombardy, near the banks of the lake 
of Como and of the Lago Maggiore. In 1262 the archdeacon Ottone 
Visconti was nominated archbishop of Milan by Pope Urban 1V. The 
see of Milan had been vacant ever since the death of Leone da Perego 
in 1275, because the chapter was divided into two parties, one of whi 
favoured a candidate from among the nobility, and the other are 
votes to a relative of Martino della Torre, the popular leader, who ha 
been appointed ‘anziano,’ or ‘elder,’ of the people of Milan. The 
appointment of Ottone Visconti by the pope was considered an en- 
croachment on the rights of the electors; and Martino della Torre 
sequestrated the property of the see, and forbade the archbishop elect 
from appearing in Milan. Upon this the pope excommunicated the 
city of Milan. But Martino della Torre and his successors Filippo and 
Napoleone della Torre continued to enjoy the popular favour, an Ottone 
Visconti remained an emigrant for fifteen years, during which he carried 
on, at the head of his feudal dependants, joined by malcontents from 
Milan and other towns, a desultory and predatory warfare against 
Milanese. At last the popular feeling turned against Napoleone 
Torre, who was suspected of aspiring to the sovereign power, Spe 
after he had asked and obtained from Rudolf of Habsburg, the nm 
elected king of Germany, the dignity of imperial vicar, Ottone Vis- 
onti seized this opportunity for striking a decisive blow. He put 
himself at the head of a large body of emigrant nobles, and adyanced 
wards Milan. Napoleone della Torre and his adherents went out to 
eet him, and a combat ensued, in January 1277, near the yillage of 
esio, in which the Torriani, as the partisans of Della Torre were 
called, were defeated with great slaughter, and Napoleone was taken 
prisoner, Ottone Visconti entered Milan amidst the acclamations of the 
people, who saluted him as archbishop and perpetual lord of Milan. — 
The Archbishop Ottone, after carrying on for years an almost unin- 
terrupted warfare against the partisans of the Della Torre, gave up 
the temporal government to his nephew Matteo Visconti, whom 
he caused to be elected ‘ captain of the people’ for five years, in 1288. 
Matteo was a prudent and temperate ruler, and he enjoyed general 
favour among the people. He defeated the Torriani and their ally the 


friends. 


Piacenza. 


was given on the 14th o 


413 VISCONTI. 


VISCONTI. 


414 


Marquis of Monferrato, in an irruption which they made into the 
Milanesé territory in 1290. After the expiration of the five years of 
his office, he was confirmed in it by the voice of the citizens, and in 
1294 was appointed, by Adolf of Nassau, imperial vicar in Lombardy, 
which dignity was dbultrined to him by Albert of Austria, who assumed 
the crown of Germany after the death of Adolf in 1298. In the year 
1300 Matteo married his eldest son Galeazzo to Beatrice d’Este, sister 
of Azzo, lord of Modena and marquis of Fetrara. Matteo entrusted 

eazZ0 with the command of the militia of Milan, against the Della 
‘Torre and their partisans, who still kept the field, and were supported 


__ by the people of Pavia, Cremona, Lodi, and other towns, which were 


‘Young, inexperienced and rash; he was repeatedly defeated, and at 

ast the Torriani re-entered Milan, in 1302, and Matteo Visconti 
withdrew to Nogarola near Verona, where he had a small property. 
His son Galeazzo took refuge at Ferrara. 

Guido della Torre was put in the place of Matteo Visconti, as 
fo adste captain of the people,’ and he continued in his office till 
ab , when Henry of Luxemburg having gone to Italy to be crowned 
empero. 
from 


Faun of Milan. Galeazzo was very different from his father; he was 


or, Guido opposed him, and was in consequence driven away 
Milan by the Imperial troops, assisted by the Visconti and their 
From that time the Torriani remained exiles from their 
country. Matteo Visconti resumed his authority over Milan, being 


< ened imperial vicar by Henry, to whom he paid 40,000 golden 


rins. His son Galeazzo was likewise appointed imperial vicar of 
Some time after, Matteo, by a stratagem, obtained pos- 
session of Pavia, where he placed Luchino, another of his sons, as 
governor, Alessandria, Tortona, Cremona, Bergamo, Lodi, and other 


owns acknowledged in succession the rule of Visconti. 


_ Cassone della Torre, who had been elected archbishop of Milan in- 


1808, having become an exile with the rest of his family, obtained of 
the pope his removal to the see of Aquileia. The see of Milan having 
thus become vacant, Matteo Visconti caused one of his sons, Giovanni, 
to be elected by the chapter, according to the old canonical form, The 
pope, John XXII, refused to acknowledge the new archbishop, and he 
appointed Aicardo, a Franciscan friar. Matteo forbade Aicardo from 
going to Milan. The pope then ordered proceedings to be instituted 
against Matteo Visconti, on the charges of heresy, sacrilege, and other 
crimes, and summoned him to Avignon to defend himself. Robert of 

Anjou, king of Naples, was appointed by the pope imperial vicar in 
Lombardy; for the pope assumed the right of appointing vicars during 
the vacancy of the imperial crown, which was then contested between 
Louis of Bavaria and Frederic of Austria. An army of Frenchmen, 
or Provencals, under the Count of Maine, crossed the Alps and 
marched against Milan. _Matteo sent his son Galeazzo with a strong 
force to meet the enemy on the river Sesia, and he found means, by 
negociations and bribes, to induce the Count of Maine to retrace his 
steps into France without coming to blows. The pope however 
excommunicated Matteo and his sons in 1321, because he would 
not resign his authority and acknowledge King Robert as imperial 
vicar in Lombardy; and the inquisitors appointed by the pope sum- 
moned him to appear before them at a church near Alessandria. 
Matteo sent in his place one of his sons, Marco, escorted by a body of 
troops with flying colours, at the sight of which the inquisitors with- 
drew to the town of Valenza in Mohferrato, whence they issued their 

‘sentence of condemnation against Matteo Visconti on twenty-five 
charges, several of which consisted in his having laid taxes upon the 
clergy and exercised temporal jurisdiction over them ; in having inter- 
ceded for the abbess Mainfreda, who had been burnt for heresy at 
Milan, in the year 1300; in entertaining himself heretical opinions, 
and being leagued with demons.. He was in consequence condemned 
asa confirmed heretic, degraded from all honours and offices, and 
stigmatised as perpetually infamous; all his property was declared to 
be confiscated, and his children and grandchildren were excluded 
from every honour, dignity, and office. This extraordinary sentence 

? pa 1322, in the church of Santa Maria 
of Valenza, and signed by Aicardo, archbishop of Milan, and four 

Dominican inquisitors, in presence of the cardinal legate, Bertrand du 
Poiet, who afterwards proclaimed from the neighbouring town of Asti 
a plenary indulgence to all those who took up arms against Matteo 
Visconti and his adherents. Raynaldus, in his continuation of the 

Annals of Baronius, acknowledges that these violent proceedings 

ainst Visconti were instigated by party spirit; and Pope Benedict 

Bai , in his bull of the 7th of May, 1341, denounced them as unjust 
and null, 

At the time however Matteo’s situation was very critical. His 
enemies took the part of the legate, and the people in general were 
horror-struck at the solemn denunciations against him. Matteo pro- 
tested that he was no heretic, and that he was falsely accused; and 
having one day convoked the body of the clergy in the cathedral of 
Milan, he repeated loudly before non the creed, professing that he 
believed and had ever believed in the tenets therein expressed. 
But the feeling of his danger and humiliation preyed upon the old 
man’s mind (he was then seyenty-two years old), and he died after a 
short illness, in June of the same year, three months after the sentence 
was pronounced against him. All the chroniclers speak of him asa 

_ wise and just man, the founder of the fortunes of his family, and some 
have styled him ‘the Great,’ His son Galeazzo I, was proclaimed lord 


of Milan. Upon this the pope issued an interdict against the city of 
Milan, and ordered all the clergy to leave the place; and he proclaimed 
a general crusade against the Visconti family. Numbers answered the 
call; and the command of the crusaders was given to Raymond of 
Cardona, nephew of the cardinal-legate. In June 1323, the * holy 
army,’ as it was styled, approached Milan, and took possession of the 
suburbs, killing the men, violating the women, and burning the houses. 
But the Visconti had a strong party within the city, and they defended 
themselves until they received assistance from without, Marco Vis- 
conti, another son of Matteo, and a brave and enterprising captain, 
still kept the field, hovéring on the flanks anid rear of the crusaders, 
Louis of Bavaria, meantime having conquered and taken prisoner his 
rival Frederit of Austria, and being acknowledged king in Germany, 
sent a body of troops into Italy to assist the Visconti, who had 
incurred the wrath of the pope mainly because they had striven to 
maintain their delegated authority of imperial vicars against the 
assumptions of the pope, who would appoint his own vicars to the 
prejudice of the imperial authority. This was at least the ostensible 
ground which the Visconti took, and a plausible one it was, and very 
convenient to the interest of the émpire in Italy. The aid of Louis 
of Bavaria and the exertions of Marco Visconti saved Milan. The 
crusaders withdrew to Monza. The pope, in July of that year, excom- 
municated Louis of Bavaria for having assumed the title of King of 
the Romans without the papal approbation, and also for having 
assisted the heretical Visconti. Louis then held a diet of the empire 
at Niirnberg, in which he protested against the interference of the 
popes in the temporal concerns of the empire, and appealed to a 
general council of the Church. In the year 1324 a battle took place at 
the bridge of Avrio on the Adda, between the papal or crusade troops 
and those of the Visconti, in which the former were defeated. Cardona 
was taken prisoner, and those who escaped shut themselves up in the 
town of Monza, which, after a siege of some months, surrendered to 
Galeazzo Visconti. . 

In 1327 Louis of Bavaria went to Italy, and was crowned at Milan 
with the iron crown of Lombardy, in May of that year. He also 
recognised Galeazzo Visconti as imperial vicar over Milan, Lodi, Pavia, 
and Vercelli. But a few days after, a quarrel—the grounds of which 
are not ascertained—broke out between Louis and Galeazzo, instigated, 
it would seem, by Marco Visconti, who was envious of his brother. 
About the same time, Stefano Visconti, another son of Matteo, died 
suddenly, Galeazzo,-his son Azzo, and his brothers Luchino and 
Giovanni, were arrested by order of Louis, and shut up in the dun- 
geons of Monza. After eight months’ confinement they were libe- 
rated, in March 1328, by the intercession of Castruccio Castracani, 
lord of Lucea, and a favourite of Louis of Bavaria, Galeazzo died 
soon after in exile, whilst Milan was temporarily governed by a 
council of twenty-four citizens. Louis of Bavaria was crowned 
emperor at Rome, in May 1328, by the antipope Nicholas V., whom 
he had set up in opposition to John XXII. The people of Rome, 
tired of the residence of the popes at Avignon, acknowledged Nicholas, 
and the people of Milan did the same. Louis of Bavaria, being in 
want of money, sold to Azzo Visconti, son of Galeazzo I., the appoint- 
ment of imperial vicar of Milan, in January 1329, for 60,000 golden 
florins ; and the antipope Nicholas confirmed Giovanni Visconti, Azzo’s 
uncle, as archbishop of Milan, made him a cardinal, and appointed 
him apostolic legate in Lombardy, John XXII, perceiving that he 
was in danger of losing all influence in Italy, came to terms with the 
Visconti through the mediation of the Marquis of Este, and recog- 
nised Azzo as lord of Milan, releasing him and the people of Milan 
from excommunication. This was in September 1329. 

Azzo Visconti, being acknowledged lord by the council of the city 
of Milan, as well as by the pope, renounced all connection with Louis 
of Bavaria and the antipope Nicholas, He ruled Milan for cleven 
years, during which he applied himself chiefly to improve the town, 
rebuild its walls, and pave the streets; he restored and embellished 
the palace raised by his grandfather, Matteo, and employed for the 
purpose the painter Giotto of Florence and the sculptor Giovanni 
Baldueci of Pisa, Azzo Visconti was a good prince, and when he 
died, in August 1339, more than 3000 citizens voluntarily put on 
mourning for him. He was the first lord of Milan who struck coin in 
his own name, omitting that of the reigning emperor. He left no 
issue, and the council-general, after his death, proclaimed joint lords 
of Milan his,two remaining uncles, Luchino and Giovanni Visconti. 
Giovanni however, being a clergyman and of a quiet character, left to 
his brother Luchino all the cares of government, 

Lucuino Visconti was an able, determined, and not very scrupulous 
man. To the several towns besides Milan which acknowledged the 
rule of his nephew Azzo, he added the towns of Asti, Bobbio, Parma, 
Crema, Tortona, Alessandria, and Novara, thus making himself lord 
of the greater part of Lombardy and Monferrato. He obliged also 
the Pisans to become tributaries to him. He established a regular 
police, and severely punished all offenders against the law, without 
distinetion of party. He appointed a judge of appeals at Milan, who 
was styled ‘ Exgravator,’ who decided summarily. It was determined 
that this magistrate should be a foreigner, without relations or con- 
nections in Milan, In Luchino’s time the manufacture of silks was 
established at Milan, and agriculture, and especially the cultivation of 
the Vine, was improved, as well as the breed of horses and catile. 


415 VISCONTI. 


VISCONTI. Pr pee 


Luchino however had vices which marred his good qualities: he was 
suspicious, lustful, and revengeful. He banished his three nephews, 
sons of Stefano Visconti, and let them wander abroad in poverty. He 
put to death Pusterla, a Milanese noble, and his wife Margherita, 
because she would not listen to his addresses. Isabella Fieschi, 
Luchino’s wife, was in this respect'a match for her husband, being 
notorious for her loose conduct, Luchino threatened to punish her, 
but he died suddenly, in January 1349, and it is hinted by contem- 
porary chroniclers that he died of poison. 

By the death of Luchino, the archbishop G1ovANNI VISCONTI 
remained sole lord of Milan. He was of a mild and quiet disposition : 
he made peace with his neighbours the Marquis of Monferrato, the 
Count of Savoy, and the Genoese ; he recalled from exile his nephews 
Matteo, Barnabd, and Galeazzo, sons of Stefano Visconti, and he 
obtained the hand of Bianca of Savoy for Galeazzo, and that of 
Regina della Scala for Barnabd. He purchased of Giovanni Pepoli 
the dominion of Bologna, by the payment of 200,000 golden florins, 
in 1350. Pope Clement VI. claimed the possession of Bologna as an 
old dependence of the Roman see, and, as Giovanni refused to give it 
up, the pope excommunicated him, but soon after came to a com- 
promise, by which Giovanni retained Bologna, with the title of ‘ Vicar 
of the Holy See. Giovanni Visconti had been elected archbishop of 
Milan by the chapter, first in 1317, and again in 1339, after the death 
of the friar Aicardo, and in 1342 Clement VI. confirmed him in 
his see. 

In 1353, the Genoese, having been defeated at sea near the coast of 
Sardinia by the Venetians, and their town being blockaded by the 
forces of the King of Aragon, who was allied with the Venetians, 
offered to the Archbishop Visconti the lordship of their city, stipu- 
lating for the maintenance of their municipal liberties. Visconti sent 
a garrison to protect the town, and in the following year a new fleet 
sailed from the harbour of Genoa bearing on its colours the arms of 
the Visconti. This fleet, commanded by Pagano Doria, obtained a 
complete victory over the Venetian fleet on the coast of the Morea. 
In the same year (October 1354) the Archbishop Giovanni Visconti 
died, leaving Milan in peace and in a prosperous condition. He was 
the last good ruler of the Visconti line; those who came after him 
were all bad, and some of them abominable. It was during the 
government of Giovanni Visconti that Petrarch repaired to Milan, 
where he was induced to remain by the archbishop, who paid him 
great respect. 

After the archbishop’s death, his three nephews, Matrro, GaLEAzzo, 
and BARNABO, conjointly succeeded him in the lordship of the town 
of Milan and its territory, but they divided among them the other 
towns which had become subject to the Visconti. Matteo had for his 
share the towns south of the Po, namely, Bologna, Parma, Piacenza, 
and Bobbio, besides Lodi; Barnabd had the towns east of the Adda— 
Brescia, Bergamo, Crema, and Cremona; and Galeazzo took for him- 
self Pavia, Asti, Alessandria, Tortona, Vercelli, Novara, Vigevano, and 
Como. ‘ 

In January 1355, Charles IV. of Germany went to Italy to be 
crowned, and was received by the brothers Visconti with great mag- 
nificence, and he appointed them his imperial vicars in their respective 
dominions. In September of the same year Matteo Visconti died 
suddenly, and it was said of poison administered by his brothers, who 
divided his share of the territory between them. The city of Bologna 
however was lost to the Visconti through the treachery of the governor 
Oleggio, who sold it to the pope’s legate. Barnabd insisted upon 
‘having Bologna again, and sent a body of troops for that object in 
1360, but was defeated by the army of the pope, who'at the same 
time excommunicated Barnabd. Barnabd laughed at the excommuni- 
cation, and told the Archbishop of Milan that he was determined to 
act as pope and emperor in his own dominions. Innocent VI, sent 
legates to Barnabd to treat with him, but Barnabd obliged the legates 
to eat the Papal bulls and swallow them piece by piece. One of these 
legates afterwards became pope under the name of Urban V., and he 
preached a crusade against Barnabd in 1368, and again by a new bull in 
1368, On this last occasion, the emperor, the queen of Naples, the mar- 
quises of Ferrara, Monferrato, and Mantua, and other Italian princes, 
formed a league with the pope against Barnabd, who however con- 
trived to avert the storm, and to conclude a peace in 1369. He did 
not recover Bologna, for which the pope paid him a sum of money. 
Gregory XI., who succeeded Urban V., again attacked Barnabd, and 
prevailed upon the Emperor Charles IV. to deprive both him and his 
brother Galeazzo of their dignity of imperial vicars, in 1872. A 
desultory war was carried on in Lombardy and Romagna for some 
years, during which the papal officers and troops committed so many 
excesses, that the Florentines, Pisans, and others, joined Barnabd 
in an alliance, which was styled ‘“‘the league against the iniquitous 
clericals,” The Visconti made the clergy of their dominions pay the 
expenses of the war. Two Franciscan monks, who dared to remon- 
strate with Barnabd for his extortion, were burnt alive by his order. 
The stories that are told of Barnabd’s ferocity are almost incredible, 
and yet many of them seem well attested. He was very fond of 
hunting, kept large packs of hounds, and was very cruel to any one 
who killed game. He kept a number of concubines, by whom he had 
many children. The only good quality mentioned of Barnabd is that 
he put down the factions and forbade even the mention of the names 


of Guelphs and Guibelines under pain of having the tongue cut off. 
His brother Galeazzo, who had fixed his residence at Pavia, was no less — 
cruel, though less impetuous and more calculating. His horrid penal 

edict against state prisoners is a fearful instance of the ingenuity of 

man in tormenting his fellow-creatures. It was styled ‘ Galeazzo’s 
Lent,’ because the tortures were so distributed as to last forty days , 
before the wretched victim received the death-blow. At the same 
time Galeazzo encouraged learning, which Barnabd despised; he ; 
opened the University of Pavia about the year 1362, and collected a 
considerable library. Galeazzo married his son Gian Galeazzo to 
Isabella, daughter of King John of France, and he gave his daughter 
Violante in marriage to Lionel, son of Edward III. of England. Ga- 
leazzo II. died at Pavia in 1378, and was succeeded by his son Gian 
Galeazzo, styled count of Vertu, from the name of a fief in France 
which his wife Isabella brought him as her dowry. rs 

Barnabd continued to rule Milan and the rest of his territories till 
May 1385, when his nephew Gian Galeazzo, under pretence of havi 
an interview with him, went to Milan with a large escort, seat 
Barnabd, and shut him up in the castle of Trezzo, where he died seven 
months after. Gian Galeazzo allowed the populace of Milan to plunder 
the houses of Barnabd and of his sons, who were all excluded from ; 
the succession by a decree of the general council, and Gian 
was proclaimed sole lord of Milan and its dependencies, which con- 
sisted of twenty-one towns, But he aspired higher; he aimed at 
making himself king of Italy, or at least of North Italy. With the 
assistance of Francesco da Carrara, lord of Padua, he drove away the 
Della Scala from Verona and Vicenza, and afterwards turned against 
his ally and took Padua, and he confined Carrara in the dungeons of | 
Monza, where he died. He seized Bologna by force, as well as part of 7 
Romagna, crossed the Apennines and took Perugia and Spoleto. He 
bought the dominion of Pisa from Gherardo Appiani, who was lord of 
it; Siena gave itself up to him, and he repeatedly attacked Florence, 
the only Italian state that successfully opposed his ambitious career, _ 
Gian Galeazzo had in his pay the best mercenary troops in Italy, com- 
manded by Jacopo del Verme, and other celebrated condottieri. In May 
1395, Gian Galeazzo obtained of the Emperor Wenceslas, for the sum 
of 100,000 golden florins, a diploma, creating him Duke of Milan; and 
by a subsequent imperial diploma, dated October of the same year, 
the boundaries of the duchy of Milan were defined, and made to 
include 25 towns, from Verona, Vicenza, and Belluno, on the east, to 
Alessandria and Tortona on the west. On the 5th of September 1395 
Gian Galeazzo was crowned with the ducal crown in the square of 
San Ambrogio, in presence of a vast multitude. He soon after began 
to build the new cathedral of Milan, 

The German princes, indignant at the cession made by Wenceslas 
of the fair regions of Lombardy, deposed that weak emperor, and 
elected Robert count palatine as king of Germany in a.pD. 1400. 
Robert went to Italy with some troops, and summoned Gian Galeazzo 
to restore to the empire the towns which he occupied. Gian Galeazzo — 
sent Alberico da Barbiano, who defeated Robert near Brescia, and 
obliged him to recross the Alps into Germany. In 1402 Alberico was 
besieging Florence, .and Gian Galeazzo was only waiting for the sur- 
render of that city to declare himself king of Italy, when he was 
attacked by the plague which then prevailed in Lombardy, and died 
in the castle of Marignano in September of the same year. Thus was 
lost another chance for the union of Italy under a native prince, 

Gian Galeazzo left two sons, both minors. The eldest, Giovanni 
Maria Visconti, fourteen years old, was proclaimed duke. The duchy 
however was reduced to very narrow limits by the revolt of most of 
the towns, and the conquests of the Venetians on one side, and of the 
pope and the Marquis of Monferrato on the other. The young duke, 
when he came of age, proved pusillanimous, suspicious, and cruel. 
His cruelty partook of insanity. He delighted in seeing men, and even 
children, torn to pieces by large mastiffs which he kept for the pur- 
pose. A wretch called Squarcia Giramo, who had ¢ of his 
kennel, was his confidential friend and minister. Giovanni Maria is 
said to have caused his own mother to be poisoned. At last a con- 
spiracy was formed against him, and he was stabbed to death on the 
16th of May 1412, at Milan, while on his way to church. Squarcia 
Giramo was torn to pieces by the people. The conspirators, among 
whom were several of the collateral branches of the Visconti, kept 
possession of Milan for a few weeks. 

Filippo Maria Visconti, at that time twenty years of age, and brother 
to the late duke, was then staying at Pavia. He was heir to the — 
ducal crown, as Giovanni Maria had left no issue. He was of a © 
timorous, suspicious, and vindictive disposition, but not madly — 
ferocious like his brother. Facino Cane, one of the generals of his 
father, and who, in the scramble that took place after the death of — 
Gian Galeazzo, had made himself master of Piacenza, Alessandria, 
Tortona, Novara, and other places, died about the same time asthe — 
Duke Giovanni Maria. Beatrice Tenda, Facino’s widow, had the com- | 
mand of his territories and of his veteran band of soldiers. It was 
suggested to Filippo Maria to marry the widow as the means of — 
securing the ducal crown. He did so, and Filippo Maria at the head 
of Facino’s soldiers entered Milan in triumph on the 16th of June, a 
month after the death of Giovanni Maria. Among the officers of 
Facino Cane was a native of Carmagnola in Piedmont, named Fran- 
cesco Bussone, to whom the new Duke Filippo Maria entrusted the 


417 VISCONTI, ENNIO QUIRINO. 


VISCONTI, LOUIS JOACHIM. 


418 


command of his troops. The result was, that Bussone recovered for 
the duke Lodi, Crema, Vigevano, Bergamo, Brescia, Parma, and also 
took Genoa, which had thrown off the yoke of the Visconti ever since 
1356. Francesco Maria afterwards quarrelled with his general, who 
went into the Venetian.service. [CarmMaGNnoLaA, Francesco BussonE 
Di.] But a worse act of ingratitude was perpetrated by Filippo Maria 
ec i his wife Beatrice, the maker of his fortune, who was much 
older than himself, and whom, upon some most improbable charge of 
infidelity, he caused to be beheaded, in September 1418. After this 
Duke Filippo Maria lived until the time of his death with Agnese del 
Maino, a Milanese woman, by whom he had one daughter, Bianca, 
whom he gave in marriage to Francesco Sforza. 

After the defection of Carmagnola, Filippo Maria remained shut up 
in his ducal residence in the castle of Milan, unseen by his subjects, 
of whom he was afraid, and surrounded by abject and wily favourites. 
He had however the discernment to employ able commanders, though 
not equal to Carmagnola, at the head of his troops, and thus he 
man to preserve the greater part of his dominions against the 
attacks of the Venetians and the Florentines. On one occasion the 
duke behaved with unexpected magnanimity to Alfonso of Aragon 
and Naples, who happened to be his prisoner in 1435, and whom he 
released with presents and even assisted in the recovery of his king- 
dom of Naples. [Atronso V. oF Aragon, vol. i. col. 139.] There 
was some political shrewdness in the_character of Filippo Maria, who 
seems to have had that kind of circumspection and penetration, joined 
with utter want of principle, for which Italian statesmen were begin- 
ning to be noted, and which has been vulgarly styled Machiavellism, 
because Machiavelli happened to expound the common policy which 
he saw practised in his lifetime and which had been in practice for a 
century before him. 

Filippo Maria reigned thirty-five years. He died at Milan in the 
year 1447. The events of the latter years of his life are briefly 
noticed under Srorza, Franczsco, his son-in-law, who succeeded him 
as Duke of Milan. The dynasty of the Visconti, which may be con- 
sidered as having begun with Matteo, in 1288, ended with Filippo 
Maria; and it constituted one of the most powerful Italian princi- 
palities of the middle ages. 

(Verri, Storia di Milano ; Muratori, Annali d’ Italia.) 

VISCONTI, E’NNIO QUIRI’NO, was born at Rome in 1751. He 
was the eldest son of Giovanni Batista Visconti, a native of Sarzana, 
who, being settled at Rome, where he married a lady of noble birth, 
became a great proficient in the science of archeology, and succeeded 
Winckelmann as prefect of the antiquities of Rome. He was com- 
missioned by Clement XIV. to collect works of ancient art for the 
new museum of the Vatican, an office in which he was confirmed by 
Pius VI. Giovanni Batista intended his eldest son, who gave very 
precocious evidence of extraordinary talents, for the church, in which 
he was sure of patronage ; and he made him study the law, in which 
young Visconti took a doctor’s degree in 1771. The pope appointed 
Ennio Visconti to an honorary situation in his household, and made 
him sub-librarian of the Vatican. The young man however felt no 
inclination for a life of celibacy, as he had conceived an attachment 
for a young lady of the nameof Doria. His father was greatly disap- 
pointed at this, and, in order to conquer his son’s opposition, he 
induced the pope to remove him from the office of sub-librarian, and 
deprive him also of a pension which he had granted him. Young 
Visconti. however bore this without complaint, while Prince Sigis- 
mondo Chigi, who had become acquainted with him, appointed him 
his own librarian, and gave him board and lodging in his palace. It 
was Ennio Visconti who recommended to the prince, for the post of 
under-librarian, Carlo Fea, who became afterwards a distinguished 
antiquarian. In 1778 the elder Visconti was commissioned to write 
the text or letterpress which was to accompany the series of engrav- 
ings of the Museum of the Vatican, or ‘Museo Pio Clementino,’ as it 
was called, in honour of the two popes who contributed to form that 

splendid collection. Giovanni Batista, being old and infirm, found 
himself insufficient for the task, and he called his son Ennio to his 
assistance. The first volume of the series of the ‘Museo Pio Cle- 
mentino’ appeared in 1782. In 1784 the elder Visconti died, and his 
son edited alone the second volume. He was then made by the pope 
Conservator of the Capitoline Museum, his pension was restored to 
him, and in January 1785, he married his betrothed, Angela Doria. 
‘He continued afterwards to publish in succession the other volumes 
of the ‘Museo Pio Clementino,’ the seventh and last of which appeared 
in 1807. In the mean time he wrote many other treatises and disqui- 
sitions on ancient art, such as a dissertation on the sepulchral monu- 
ments of the Scipio family, a description of the museum of Thomas 
Jenkins, a dissertation on the mutilated statue vulgarly called Pas- 
quino, another on a fine cameo representing Jupiter Aigiochos, found 
at Smyrna, and an illustration of two Greek inscriptions belonging to 
a temple and sepulchral enclosure built by Herodes Atticus at a place 
called Triopium, a few miles out of Rome, on an estate of his wife, 
Annia Attilia Regilla—‘ Iscrizioni Triopee, ora Borghesiane, con ver- 
sioni ecc.,’ Rome, fol., 1794, [Hrroprs, Trpertus CLaupius Atticus. | 
He afterwards wrote illustrations of the monuments found among the 
ruins of Gabii, which were discovered by Prince Marcantonio Borghese, 
and placed in his villa on the Pincian Mount—‘ Monumenti Gabini della 
Villa Pinciana, descritti da Ennio Quirino Visconti,’ 8vo, Rome, 1797.4 
BIOG, DIV. VOL. VI. 


When the French entered Rome, in February 1798, and abolished 
the papal authority, Visconti was made a member of the provisional 
government; and when a republican constitution was proclaimed, he 
was appointed one of the five consuls of the republic. As usual in 
such cases, he was censured by some for having accepted a revolu- 
tionary office, whilst the more violent demagogues accused him of 
being too moderate in the exercise of his official functions. After a 
few months however the French military authorities appointed new 
consuls, and Visconti was glad to return to his favourite studies. 
When the Neapolitan army entered Rome, in November 1799, 
Visconti, having filled an office under the republic, was obliged to 
emigrate to France, where his reputation as one of the first archzo- 
logists of his age had preceded him. He was appointed one of the 
administrators of the Museum of the Louvre, and professor of archz- 
ology. There he found himself again among his familiar acquaintance, 
the masterpieces of the Vatican, which had been transferred to Paris, 
and he made a catalogue raisonné of the new museum, which was 
often reprinted with fresh additions, In 1804 Napoleon commissioned 
him to select and publish a series of portraits of distinguished men 
of Greece and Rome, such as might be considered sufficiently 
authentic, with illustrations, This, perhaps the greatest work of 
Visconti, was published in two series:—‘Iconographie Grecque,’ 3 
vols. 4to, 1808; and ‘Iconographie Romaine,’ 1 vol. 4to, 1817. 
Meantime he undertook, at the desire of Napoleon, to contribute 
several important papers to the great collection entitled ‘Musée 
Napoleon.’ He also wrote a number of separate dissertations upon 
particular objects of ancient art. In 1815 Visconti came to London 
for the purpose of giving his opinion on the merit and the value of 
the sculptures of the Parthenon, known by the name of the ‘ Elgin 
Marbles,’ He fixed the price at which he estimated that those works 
of art might be fairly purchased by the nation. After his retura to 
Paris he wrote a Memoir in explanation of the meaning of those 
celebrated sculptures. He next completed a series of notices of the 
works of art in the Borghese collection, which he had begun at Rome 
many years befdére, and which were published after his death: ‘ Illus- 
trazioni di Monumenti scelti Borghesiani,’ Rome, 1821. 

In 1816 Visconti began to feel the symptoms of an organic disease, 
which brought him to the grave in February 1818. His death was 
mourned by the learned all over Europe, and his funeral was attended 
by distinguished men from various countries. He was no mere anti- 
quarian, but was deeply versed in the history, the languages, the 
mythology, and the manners of the classical ages, and he had a keen 
discernment and a delicate taste for the works of ancient art. A 
worthy successor of Winkelmann, his judgment was more precise and 
his views were more extensive than those of his predecessor. A col- 
lection of all Visconti’s works was begun at Milan in 1818, but has 
never been completed. Labus edited, in 1827, a selection of his 
minor works in 4 vols, 8vo. 

(‘ Elogio d’Ennio Quirino Visconti, scritto dall’ Abate G. B. Zannoni, 
R. Antiquario della Galleria di Firenze,’ in No. XVIII. of the Anto- 
logia of Florence; Tipaldo, Biografia degli Italiani Illustré ; Maffei, 
Storia della Letteratura Italiana.) 

VISCONTI, FILIPPO AURELIO, younger brother of Ennio 
Quirino, was appointed by Pius VI., in 1782, to succeed his father 
Giovanni Batista, as superintendent of the antiquities of Rome. 
During the French occupation of Rome, 1809-14, he was made pre- 
sident of the commission of antiquities and fine arts, and was also one 
of the deputies appointed to superintend the preservation of the 
numerous churches of Rome. After the restoration of the Papal 
government he was appointed, in 1816, secretary of the commission of 
the fine arts. He edited the ‘Museo Chiaramonti,’ being a description 
of the collection formed in the Vatican by Pius VII., and which forms 
a sequel to the ‘Museo Pio Clementino.’ He also published several 
dissertations concerning works of ancient art in Rome and in its 
territories. He applied himself especially to the study of numis- 
matics. He edited an improved edition of the ‘Roma’ of Venuti. 
He died at Rome in 1830. (Tipaldo, Biograjia degli Italiani Jilustri.) 

VISCONTI, LOUIS JOACHIM, son of Ennio Quirino Visconti, was 
born at Rome in 1797. His father was compelled at the close of 1799 
[Visconti, E. Q.] to remove with his family to Paris, and there the 
young Visconti was carefully educated. Having selected architecture 
as his profession, his father, as soon as he was of sufficient age, placed 
him with the architect Percier [PERCIER, CHARLES], so well known by 
his works on the Louvre, a building with which the name of the pupil 
was to become still more intimately associated. Under Percier, Vis- 
conti made a distinguished progress, carrying off at-the Architectural 
School five medals, and a second prize for the plan of a library. 
Shortly after the termination of his pupilage, he obtained an appoint- 
ment as inspector of public buildings; and subsequently that of 
architect and surveyor of the third and eighth arrondissements of 
Paris, an office he held for above a quarter of a century. He was 
further, in 1825, appointed architect of the Bibliothéque Royale, and 
he is said to have made no less than twenty-nine plans and elevations 
in the hope of being directed to give to that building an architectural 
character equal to the grandeur of its contents, but his ambition was 
not gratified. Although not called upon to construct any important 
edifice, M. Visconti found ample employment in connection with the 


offices he held; and to him was entrusted some of the an monu- 
E 


419 VISIN, DENIS IVANOVITCH. 


VITALIANUS. 420 


ments with which Paris has of late years been adorned. Several of 
the finest fountains in Paris, including those of St. Sulpice, the Place 
Louvois, Gaillon, and Moliere, were executed from his designs. The 
Tomb of Napoleon I. is also by him, and is his grandest work of the 
kind, but he also designed the monuments of Marshals Soult, St. Cyr, 
Suchet, Lauriston, and those of some other generals and’ eminent 
met. He was likewise called upon to design innumerable triumphal 
arches and other temporary structures for fétes and occasions of 
public rejoicitigs and ceremonies, and his taste and fertility of invention 
were generally admired. He also designed several hotels and private 
residences, But the work with which his name will be most per- 
manently connected is, perhaps, the completion of the Louyre, and 
its connection with the Tuileries, The Emperor Napoleon IIT. having 
decided on completing this the favourite project of the first Napoleon, 
M. Visconti was directed to prepare the necessary plans, and these 
having met with the emperor's approval, the first stone of the new 
works was laid on the 25th of July 1852, The dperations were 
pressed forward with the greatest vigour, but Visconti did not live to 
see this his greatest work completéd. He died on the 29th of Decem: 
ber 18538, having béen struck with apoplexy, which is said to have 
been brought on, or hastened, by over-exertion and anxiety. Visconti’s 
plans were carried out to completion under the superititendence of M. 
Lefuel, who was appointed to succeed him, and on the 14th of August 
1857, the vast undertaking was declared finished, and the junction of 
the Louvre and the Tuileries was inaugurated with great pomp by the 
emperor. Of course in such a work, the new buildings having to be 
rendered uniform in their elevation with those already existing, there 
was little room for origitiality, but it is admitted that Visconti has 

’ overcome the difficulties arising from the peculiarities of the site, &., 
in & very masterly manner, aiid that he has by his additions,—which, 
while harmonising with the older portions, are more ornate and 
sumptuous in style,—rendered it one of the most magnificeit royal 
residences in Europe. 

VISIN, or VON VISIN, DENIS IVANOVITCH, one of the most 
eminent Russian writers of the 18th century, and in his own peculiar 
walk the most eminent of them all, was born at Moscow, April 3rd, 
1745, of parents in easy circumstances. Except in regard to moral 
instruction, to which point his pareits were very attentive, his early 
edtication was a common one. He was sent first to the Gymnasium, 
afterwards to the University of Moscow, and whilst studying there 
was selected as one of the pupils to accompany the rector to St. 
Petersburg, to be presented to Count Shuvalov (the founder and 
patron of the establishment), as worthy of notice for their promising 
abilities. Their reception was flattering, and the splendour of the 
court and the more refined tone of the northern capital made a strong 
impression upon Von Visin. The.theatre more especially appéared to 
him a region of enchantment, and hé had’an opportunity of becoming 
personally acquainted with Volkov [VoLKov] and other leading actors 
of that time, a circumstance that contributed to encourage his taste for 
the drama. It was also his good fortune to meet with Lomonosov, 
whom merely to have seen was ai event in his life, and from him he 
received some sound advice on the importance of pursuing his studies 
systematically. On his return to Moscow, and while he still continued 
at the university, he made his first essays in literature by translating 
Holberg’s Fables not from the original, but the German, and Terras- 
son’s [philosophical Romance of ‘Sethos,’ which were followed by a 
version of Voltaire’s ‘Alzire’—a writer whom he then as greatly 
admired as he afterwards detested. Though these productions were 
reckoned by himself among the indiscretions of his youth; they served 
to make him known, and his Alzira more especially recommended him 
to the notice of the minister Count Panin, who bestowed on him an 
appointment in his own department, the duties of which were made 
little more than nominal, in order that he might prosecute his literary 
studies. Notwithstanding the apparent enviableness of a position that 
seemed to give both present enjoyment and a brilliant prospeét for the 
future, Von Visin quarrelled with his good fortune, perhaps because it 
had come too easily, and, in consequence of jéealousies and misunder- 
standings between himself and another protégé of the count’s, quitted 
his employment and his patron. After this precipitate step he seems 
to have led for awhile a rather unsettled life, associating with ¢com- 
panions who were of very, libertine principles, and of by no meats 
irreproachable conduct. From the ill-effects of their example he was 
partly preserved by infirmity of constitution, and by his being subject 
at that time to almost continual headaches; and it was moreover his 
good fortune to be reclaimed from such dangerous connections by an 
intimacy which he shortly afterwards formed with an amiable family 
at Moscow. - ‘ 

Warned by the past and encouraged for the future, Von Visin began 
again to apply himself to study, and became ambitious of not merely 
succeeding as an author, but of enriching the literature of his country 
with productions of an original and national character. On suiveying 
what had up to that time been done in the language, he perceived that 
a wrong course had been pursued—that instead of being allowed to 
show itself at will, native talent had been both misdirected and 
checked by imitation. The literature was in danger of becoming one 
of mere routine; epics, odes, tragedies, were all after established and 
“approved models,” and though correct as to mere pattern, they were 
cold, colourless, and feeble, 


He accordingly determined to give his countrymen a specimen 6 
comedy—not a drama of the kind at second-hand, but such as should 
be, and should be felt to be, thoroughly Russian in every respect. 
The result was most successful : thé ‘ Brigadier’ (written and pag da 
formed in 1764, though not printed till nearly twenty years 
wards) conferred on him immediate popularity. Nevertheless he 
showed himself in no hurry to obtain a second triumph of the kind, 
for it was not until eighteen years afterwards that he produced his 
second piece, the * Nedorosl, or Spoiled Youth. In fact he seemed 
well content to live upon the fame of his ‘ Brigadier,’ and the reputa- 
tion it acquired for him both at court and with the public. He did 
not indeed lay aside his pen, but employed it chiefly in translating 
from the French, and among other things Barthélemy’s ‘ Amours de 
Charité et de Polydore,’ and Bitaubé’s ‘Joseph? 

In 1777 he visited France for the benefit of his health ; aid his se 
dence at Paris seems to have greatly abated his admiration of the French 
people, and more especially of French philosophers. Only six letters 
of his corréspondence from that capital, with Counts Panin and Orlov, 
have been preserved, a circumstance the more to be regretted Poe 
besides being interesting in themselves, they are superior specimens 0 
style; and in fact Von Visin was by far the best Russian 
of the last century. Restored to health and cured of his French pre- 
diléctions, he returned to St. Petersburg, where, after passing some 
time in inactivity, he produced, in 1782, his second and still more stc- 
cessful comedy, the ‘Nedorosl.’ This piece seems now an exaggerated 
picture of manners, even in Russia itself; yet that such is the case is 
rather an honour than a reproach to Von Visin, for pe ise tar | the 
extravagances to which his satite was applied, he himself has destroyed 
the verisimilitude of his own picture» The ‘ Nedorosl’ was his last 
dramatic production, for he seemed disposed to take Potemkin’s ¢om- 
pliment on the occasion as serious advice. ‘ Denis,” said the prince to 
him, after the first representation, “there is now nothing left for you 
to do but go honie and die, since, were you to live for ever, ever again 
would you write anything half so good!” That celerity of Ma 3 
tion and fertility of invention which distinguished Lope de Vega, 
Goldoni, and many other dramatic writers, were certainly not pos- 
sessed by Von Visin; and, as has been further remarked by his criti¢ 
Prince Viazemsky, his talent was rather that of a powerful comic 
satirist than that of a dramatic genius. Though he continued to 
write from that time, he produced nothing of importance—chiefly 
miscellaneous pieces for various journals, which would now be for- 
gotten, but for the interest which they derive from the author's name. 
From this remark however must be excepted one production of per- 
manent value, his ‘ Ispovied,’ or Confessions, a sort of autobiography, 7 
from which it appears that he had long renounced the principles 
which he had imbibed at his first outset in life, and patiently sub- 
mitted, as to salutary chastisement, to the affliction of almost uninter- 
rupted ill-health. He again recovered however in some degree, and 
once more applied to his literary occupations. His very last pro- 
duction of all was another comedy, entitled the ‘ Hofmeister,’ 
only the day before his death he put into the hands of Derzhayin and 
Dinitriev, who are said to have agreed with him that it was still better 
than his former ones. Nevertheless we are told that the manuscript 
was lost, and could never afterwards be traced anywhere—so 
strange a story, as to be scarcely credible, Von Visin died October 
(13), 1792, at the age of forty-seven, Of his complete works two 
editions have since been published; yet it must be owned that 
although he did much for the literature of his country, it lies within a 
very small compass, and all the rest that he did does not appear to 
correspond to his reputation. ; 

VITALIA’NUS, a native of Signia, succeeded Eugenius I. in the 
see of Rome, A.D. 657. He sent envoys to Constantinople to signify 
his election to the Emperor Constans 11, called by some Constantine, 
who received them favourably and confirmed the privileges of the 
Roman See, and sent back the envoys with presents to Rome. Ari- 
bert I., son of Guntwald of Boioaria, and nephew of Queen Theude- » 
linda, was at the time king of the Longobards, but the duchy of Rome 
bore allegiance to the Eastern empire, and was included in the admi- 
nistrative jurisdiction of the exarch of Ravenna. About 663 the — 
Emperor Constans landed at T'arentum with a large force, invaded the — 
duchy of Beneventum and laid siege to that town, whose duke, Grim- 
wald, had gone to Pavia, where he had by treachery seized the crown 
of the Longobards. Grimwald, who had left his son Romuald as duke 
of Beneventum, upon hearing of the invasion of the Byzantines — 
hastened to relieve Beneventum, when Constatis was obliged to raise — 
the siege and withdraw to Naples, from whence he repaired to Rome. 
Vitalianus went at the head of his clergy to meet the emperor outside 
of the walls, and conducted him to St. Peter’s Church. Constans after- 
wards visited the Lateran and the other principal churches of Rome, atid 
after remaining twelve days in that city he returned to oe But — 
before he left Rome he ordered the principal monuments of the city to 
be stripped of their bronzes, ahd other ornaments, and the Pantheon — 
among the rest, not sparing even the external bronze cove of the 
dome, The booty was shipped for Syracuse, whither Constans 
repaired, and where he intended to fix his residence. Most of the — 
bronzes were afterwards seized by the Saracens when they plundered 
Syracuse. Sr ; 

“ae the year 666 a controversy took place between Vitalianus, and 


a 


421 VITALIS, 


VITRUVIUS POLLIO, MARCUS. 


422 


Maurus, archbishop of Ravenna, who refused to acknowledge the 
supremacy of the see of Rome, and to receive the pallium from the 
hands of its bishop. Vitalianus summoned Maurus to Rome under 
pain of excommunication, and the archbishop retorted by sending him 
a letter.in which he anathematized Vitalianus. Both Vitalianus and 
Maurus appealed to the Emperor Constans, who by a diploma, dated 
Syracuse, on the Calends of March, in the year xxv. of Constantine 
the Elder, emperor, decreed “ that the Church of Ravenna should be 
eyer after independent of every other ecclesiastical authority, and 
especially of that of the patriarch of old Rome, and should enjoy the 
ivilege of being autocephalos;” and he informed the archbishop of 
his having written to that purpose to the exarch Gregory. Muratori 
quotes this diploma, which he found in the library of Modena. 
- Inthe year 668 Vitalianus consecrated Theodore of Tarsus as arch- 
bishop of Canterbury, and sent him to England with instructions to 
establish and enforce unity of discipline in the churches of Britain, an 
object which Theodore effected, though not without much difficulty, 
at the council of Hertford, a.p. 673. 

Vitalianus died at Rome in the year 672, and was succeeded by 
Deodatus or Deusdedit II. 
_ VITALIS, [Ss6Berc.] 

VITE’LLIUS, AULUS, a Roman emperor, whose reign lasted little 
more than ten months, a.D. 69. He was of a noble family, and his 
father Lucius Vitellius had been honoured several times with the 
consulship (4.D. 34, 43, and 47), and afterwards appointed prefect of 
Syria. He was a man of effeminate and luxurious habits, and his son 
Aulus inherited these qualities from his father; he was also pro- 
digiously fond of the pleasures of the table. His manners were proba- 
bly pleasing, as he enjoyed the favour of three successive emperors, 
Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. He was first made consul in a.p. 48. 
After Galba had been elevated to the imperial dignity in a.p. 68, he 
ordered Fonteius Capito, the commander of the legions in Germany, 
to be put to death, and appointed Aulus Vitellius in his stead. Galba 
was unpopular with the soldiers, as he did not attempt to win their 
favour by rich donatives; Vitellius,on the other hand, was the idol 
of his troops, whom he attached to himself by liberal gifts and by still 
more liberal promises; and at the beginning of the year a.D. 69, 
Vitellius was proclaimed emperor. On the arrival of this news at 
Rome, Galba adopted L. Piso Licinianus, a noble and unassuming 
youth ; but the pretorians were discontented with Galba’s stinginess, 
and a conspiracy was formed against him, which was headed by L. 
Salvius Otho Titianus, who was himself proclaimed emperor by the 
soldiers, and ordered Galba and his friends to be put to death (Jan. 15, 
A.D, 69), The Roman empire had now two emperors, whose rival 
claims could only be settled by the sword. Vitellius sent two of his 
generals to occupy the Pennine Alps and the part of Italy north of 
the Po (Gallia Transpadana). Otho marched against them, and met 
the enemy near Bedriacum; but his army being defeated, he despaired 
of success, and put an end to his life about the middle of April, His 
army recognised Vitellius as emperor, who now came to Rome. He 
had scareely arrived there, when Flavius Vespasianus, who was then 
engaged in the war against the Jews, was urged by his friends to 
assume the imperial dignity, and was actually proclaimed emperor on 
the Ist of July, at Alexandria, by Tiberius Alexander, the prefect of 
Egypt. Vespasian was immediately recognised by the legions in 
Judxa and Syria, and soon afterwards also by those of Moesia and 
Pannonia. Antonius Primus, the commander of the latter, marched 
into Italy without waiting for the commands of “Vespasian. The 
defensive plans of Vitellius were betrayed by his own general, Cacina ; 
and his army, though far superior in numbers to that of the enemy, 
was routed in an engagement which took place during the night 
between Bedriacum and Cremona. His camp near Cremona was taken 
by the enemy, the soldiers surrendered, and Cremona was burnt. The 
victorious army slowly advanced towards Rome; the garrisons sta- 
tioned in the various towns on their road surrendered at the approach 
of Antonius, and Vitellius at Rome, wavering between fear and hope, 
could not come to any resolution, but allowed his adherents to act as 
they pleased. On the arrival of the hostile army in the city, and 
during the civil bloodshed which ensued, Vitellius concealed himself; 
but he was dragged from his hiding-place and murdered, at the age of 
fifty-seven. His body was thrown into the Tiber. This was about 
the end of December, a.p. 69. His brother Lucius Vitellius was like- 
wise put to death, and the rest of his adherents surrendered, 

(Suetonius, A, Vitellius ; Tacitus, Historie; 8. Aurelius-Victor, 
De Cesar. 8; Eutropius, vii. 12.) 

VITELLO (commonly, but incorrectly, VITELLIO), was a native 
of Poland, and was commonly thought to have lived in the 10th 
century, till it was shown, from his own work, that he lived in the 
13th. He wrote his work on optics near Cracow, as is supposed ; but 
it appears that he had lived some time in Italy. Nothing more is 
known of him except some unimportant facts relative to his family. 

There are said to be works of Vitellio remaining in manuscript, but 
the only one which has been printed is that on optics, which has had 
three editions. The first was ‘ Vitellionis Perspective Libri Decem,’ 
in folio, Niirnberg, 1583, edited by Tanstetter and Apian; the second, 
‘ Vitellionis Mathematici Doctissimi de Optica,’ &ec., folio, Niirnberg, 
1551; the third, ‘ Optice Thesaurus Alhazeni, &c. Item, Vitellionis 

_Thuringo-Poloni Libri Decem,’ folio, Basel, 1572, edited by Risner. 


This work is admitted, by all who have consulted it, to show a pro- 
found knowledge of the ancient geometry. Montucla and also Libes 
say that in optics it is little more than a translation of Alhazen; this 
is wholly denied by the writer of the Life in the ‘Biographie Uni- 
verselle,’ who does not however give any information on the points in 
which the two works differ, and does not precisely specify the points 
in which he considers Vitellio to have augmented the existing know- 
ledge of optics. But Libes asserts that Vitellio distinctly attributes 
the rainbow to combined reflection and refraction; as also that he 
accounts for the luminous rings which are seen round the sun and 
moon by the refraction of light in haze or vapour, and for parhelia, 
&c. by reflection from clouds. Dr. Young states his theory of re- 
fraction to be more correct than that of Alhazen, and refers to him 
as the constructor of an original table of refractive powers. 

VITRINGA, CAMPE’GIUS, an eminent Dutch theologian, was 
born on the 16th of May 1659, at Leeuwarden, in Friesland. He 
studied at Franecker and Leyden, and after having obtained in the 
latter place the degree of doctor of divinity at the unusually early age 
of twenty, he was appointed in 1681 professor of Oriental literature at 
Franecker, Two years later he obtained the chair of theology, and in 
1693 that of sacred history also. In 1698 he was inyited to a pro- 
fessorship in the university of Utrecht, with the high salary of 2000 
thalers, but he modestly declined the offer, in consequence of which 
his salary was raised at Franecker to the same amount, and he remained 
in that place until his death on the 21st of March 1722. He left two 
sons, Campegius and Horatius, the former of whom likewise acquired 
some reputation as a theological writer, though he was much inferior 
to his father. 

Campegius Vitringa was one of the greatest divines of his time, and 
in learning he was not inferior to any. His works, nearly all of which 
are in Latin, are still valued very highly by theologians, but more 
especially his commentaries on portions of the Scriptures, among 
which that on Isaiah is one of the best that was ever written. The 
following works still deserve the attention’of theological students :— 
i, ‘Commentarius in Jesaiam,’ 2 vols. folio; 2, * Anacrisis Apocalypseos 
Johannis Apostoli,’ 4to, 1719; 3, ‘Commentarius in Zachariam Pro- 
phetam ;’ 4, ‘Typus Theologiae Practicae,’ 8vo, 1 vol. ; 5, ‘ Observa- 
tiones Sacrae, 4to, 1711; 6, ‘Doctrina Religionis Christianae per 
Aphorismos descripta;’ 7, * Verklaring over de Evangelische Para- 
bolen ;’ and 8, ‘Aenleiding tot het rechte Verstand van den Tempel 
Ezechielis.’ 

(Vriemot, Series Professorum Franequeranorum ; Niceron, Mémoires 
des Hommes Illustres, vols. xxx. and xxxv.) 

VITRU‘VIUS PO’LLIO, MARCUS, a Roman architect, well known 
for his work on architecture, ‘De Architectur4, in ten books. The 
history of Vitruvius is known only by what he casually says of him- 
self in his treatise. He is noticed only by two ancient writers: by 
Pliny, who enumerates him among the writers from whose works he 
compiled ; and by Frontinus, in his treatise on aqueducts, ‘De Aqua- 
ductibus,’ who mentions him as the inventor of the Quinarian 
measure. Neither the time nor place of his birth is known, but 
he is generally suppossd to have been born at Formiz (Mola di Gaéta) 
in Campania, from several inscriptions relating to the Vitruvian family 
which have been found there. As he dedicated his work to the 
Emperor Augustus when he was already old, and as it was written 
before the theatres of Marcellus and Balbus were built, which was in 
the year B.c. 13 (for when Vitruvius wrote, the theatre of Pompey was 
the only stone theatre in Rome), it follows that he must have been 
born about 8.c. 80, or a little earlier. From what he says in the pre- 
faces to his third and sixth books, it would seem that he was not very 
successful in his profession; he executed only one public work that 
is mentioned, a basilica at Fanum. He was however, at the time that 
he wrote, one of the superintendents of the engines of war, the others 
being Marcus Aurelius, P. Numisius, and Cn. Cornelius: a place which 
he had obtained through the recommendation of the emperor’s sister; 
and it was on account of this appointment, as he himself says, that 
he dedicated his work to the emperor. He states that he had received 
a good education, and was fond of literary and philosophic subjects ; 
that riches were no object with him, and that he was possessed of 
very little; but that he hoped to acquire a reputation with posterity 
for the treatise he was then writing. He mentions in the preface to 
his seventh book the architectural writers to whom he was chiefly 
indebted for information, namely, Agatharchus, Democritus and 
Anaxagoras, Silenus, Theodorus, Ctesiphon and Metagenes, Phileos, 
Ictinus and Carpion, Theodorus Phoceus, Philo, Hermogenes, Argelius, 
and Satyrus and Phyteus. He mentions also many other writers who 
wrote upon subjects more or less bearing upon architecture, 

Vitruvius treats of many things in his work besides architecture or 
building, strictly speaking. The first book is divided into seven 
chapters, as follows :—Chapter 1 treats of the science of architecture 
generally, and of the education of an architect ; and he mentions in 
it the origin of Caryatides and the Persian order, in illustration that 
a certain knowledge of history is requisite for an architect. He 
recommends also to architects, to a certain degree as almost indis- 
pensable, the study of writing, drawing, geometry, arithmetic, the 
principles of natural and moral philosophy, law, physic, music, and 
astronomy : and he continues to show how far each may be applied : 
chapter 2, on what architecture depends, or the various qualities which 


423 VITRUVIUS POLLIO, MARCUS. 


VITRUVIUS POLLIO, MARCUS. 424 


regulate its principles, as disposition (3:d@ec1s), proportion or dimen- 
sions (7oodr7s), and economy or arrangement according to the uses for 
which the building is required (oixovoula), &e.: chapter 3, of the dif- 
ferent branches of architecture; of building, of dialling, and of 
mechanics: chapter 4, of the choice of situations for buildings, in 
which healthiness should be the chief consideration: chapter 5, of 
the foundations of walls and towers, and their security : chapter 6, of 
the situations of the buildings of the town within the walls, which 
should be so disposed as to be sheltered from the winds; and of the 
winds, which were eight principal among the Greeks, but there were 
many other names for the various winds coming from different direc- 
tions, of which, together with the eight principal, Vitruvius has made 
a diagram or oxjua, naming altogether twenty-four: chapter 7, of the 
situations of public buildings, in which he states that the temples of 
Venus, Vulcan, Mars, and Ceres should be without the city. 

Book II, In the introduction he relates an anecdote of Alexander 
and Dinocrates, and the proposition of Dinocrates to convert Mount 
Athos into a statue of Alexander, &c. Chap. 1 treats of the origin 
of building, of the first appearance of fire, &c.: chap. 2, of the origin 
of all things, according to the opinions of the philosophers: chap. 3, 
of bricks, of the earth of which they ought to be made, and of their 
dimensions: chap. 4, of sand: chap. 5, of lime: chap. 6, of Pozzo- 
lana: chap. 7, of stone-quarries: chap. 8, of the different kinds of 
walls, of the reticulatwm and the incertum, and of the isodomum, the 
pseudisodomum, and the emplectwm ; also of cramping; brick walls are 
recommended in preference to stone; of the city of Halicarnassus and 
of the fountain of Salmacis, &c.: chap. 9; of timber; chap. 10, of 
the Apennines, and of the firs called inferne and superne. 

Book III. In the introduction he mentions a few successful and 
unsuccessful artists, and various causes of success. Chap. 1 treats of 
the design and symmetry of temples, of ‘perfect numbers,’ and of 
the names of temples, as—in antis, prostylos, peripteros, pseudodipteros, 
dipteros, hypethros; chap. 2, of the five species of temples—pycnostylos, 
systylos, diastylos, arcostylos, eustylos: chap. 3, of foundations, and 
of columns and their ornaments. 

Book IV. Chap. 1, of the origin of the three kinds of columns, 
Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian; and of the origin of the Corinthian 
capital: chap. 2, of the ornaments of columns: chap. 3, of the Doric 
proportions; chap. 4, of the proportions of the cell and of the 
arrangement of the pronaos of a temple; chap. 5, of the aspects of 
temples: chap. 6, of the proportions of doors of temples: chap. 7, 
of Tuscan temples: chap. 8, of the altars of the gods. 

Book V. Of Public Buildings. Chap, 1, of the forum and basilica : 
chap. 2, of the treasury, prison, and curia: chap, 8, of the theatre 
and its situation: chap. 4, of harmony, of the doctrine of Aristoxenus: 
chap. 5, of the brazen vases (j¢fa) used in theatres for increasing the 
sound ; chap. 6, of the shape of a theatre: chap. 7, of the portico 
and other parts of a theatre: chap. 8, of the three sorts of scenes, 
the tragic, the comic, and the satyric; and of the theatres of the 
Greeks: chap. 9, of the porticoes and passages behind the scenes; 
and of walks: chap. 10, of baths: chap. 11, of the palestra: chap. 
12, of harbours and other buildings in water. 

Book VI, Of the arrangement and symmetry of private buildings. 
In the introduction he speaks of the advantages of learning, and 
relates an anecdote of Aristippus, the philosopher. Chap. 1, treats of 
the situations of buildings, according to the nature and climate of dif- 
ferent places: chap. 2, of their proportions, according to the nature 
of their sites: chap. 3, of courts (caveedia), the 7uscan, the Corinthian, 

- the tetrastylon, the displuviatum, and the testudinatum:; chap. 4, of 
courts (atria), wings or aisles (alz), the tablinwm and the peristylium : 
chap. 5, of triclinia, ect, exedre, pinacothece, and their dimensions: 
chap. 6, of the ceci (halls) of the Greeks (xu¢ixyvor): chap. 7, of the 
aspects of different kinds of buildings: chap. 8, of houses suited to 
persons of various ranks: chap. 9, of the proportions of country- 
houses: chap. 10, of the arrangement and parts of Grecian houses; 
of some Greek customs ; of pictures called Xenia; of some discre- 
pancies in Greek and Roman names of apartments, &c.; and of the 
origin of the representation of Atlas with a globe upon his shoulders : 
chap. 11, of the strength of buildings, 

Book VII. Of the finishing and decoration of Private Buildings. 
In the introduction, he speaks of books, libraries, and of book-making; 
of many writers on the arts and sciences, and also of some of the 
principal buildings of the Greeks, and their architects—as the temple 
of Diana at Ephesus, of Apollo at Miletus, of Ceres and Proserpine at 
Eleusis, of Jupiter Olympius at Athens, and of Honour and Virtue at 
Rome, Chap. 1 treats of pavements: chap. 2, of stucco : chap. 3, of 
stucco-work, and the method of preparing walls for painting or 
colouring in fresco ; and of the excellence of Greek plaster : chap. 4, 
of stucco-work in damp places, and of pavements for triclinia : chap. 
5, of the use of painting in buildings, and the different kinds of 
pictures proper for various apartments; of the inferiority of such 
decorations in the time of Vitruvius to those of the ancient Greeks, 
and an anecdote of a scene painter of Alabanda: chap, 6, of the pre- 
paration of marble for plastering for painting: chap. 7, of natural 
colours or such as are found in the earth: chap. 8, of vermilion and 
quicksilver, and of anthrax: and of the method of recovering gold 
from old gold embroidery : chap. 9, of the preparation of vermilion, 
and a test of its purity: chap. 10, of artificial colours and of black: 


chap. 11, of Alexandrian blue, and of burnt yellow: chap. 12, of 
white-lead, of verdigris, and of red-lead: chap. 13, of purple: chap. | 
14, of factitious colours, purples, attic ochre, and indigo. ! 

Book VIII, Of Water. In the introduction some ancient opinions 
concerning water are noticed. Chap. 1 treats of the methods of 
finding water: chap, 2, of rain water, of climates and of rivers; chap, 

3, of the nature of various waters, of hot-springs, of mineral-waters, 

of poisonous and of acid waters, and of remarkable fountains, &c. : . 
chap. 4, the same subject continued, the water of the Balearic Isles j 
good for singing: chap. 5, of methods of judging of water; chap. 6, 
of levelling, and of the instruments used for that purpose, the dioptra, ‘ 
the level (libra aquaria), and the chorobates: chap. 7, of conducting : 
water, which was done in three ways, in streams or channels, in leaden 
pipes, and in earthen tubes—Vitruvius recommends the last; also of —__ 
wells and of cisterns, 

Book. IX. On the principles of gnomonies and the rules of dialling. In 
the introduction he makes a few remarks in praise of the great services 1 
of many of the Greek philosophers. Chap. 1 treats of Plato’s method 
of doubling the area of a square: chap. 2, of Pythagoras’s method of 
constructing a right-angled triangle : chap. 3, of Archimedes’s method 
of detecting silver when mixed with gold, also of discoveries of Archy- 
tas of Tarentum and of Eratosthenes of Cyrene, &c.: chap. 4, of the 
universe and of the planets: chap. 5, of the sun’s course through the 
twelve signs: chap. 6, of the northern constellations: chap. 7, of the 
southern constellations ; of the Chaldeans, and of several Greek astro- 
nomers: chap. 8, of the construction of dials by the Analemma;- 
chap. 9, of various dials and their inventors. 

Book X. Of Machines, In the introduction Vitruvius notices a 
salutary law of Ephesus, which kept architects and others to their 
contracts, and regrets that no such law was in foree at Rome, Chap.1, 
treats of machines and engines generally, as scaling-machines, machi 
set in motion by the wind, and draught machines; also of the loom 
and other machines: chaps. 2, 3, 4, and 5, of machines of draught, of 
the wheel and axle, pulley, &c., and polyspaston: chap. 6, of Ctesi- 
phon’s contrivance for removing great weights, when he removed 
from the quarry the shafts of the columns for the temple of Diana at 
Ephesus: chap. 7, of the discovery of the quarry whence stone was 
procured for the construction of the temple of Diana at Ephesus: 
chap. 8, of the principles of mechanics: chaps. 9 and 10, of engines 
for raising water, of the tympanum, and of water-mills: chap. 11, of 
the water-screw : chap. 12, of the machine of Ctesibius for raising water 
to a considerable height: chap, 13, of the water-organ, a very complex 
machine, which Vitruvius has done his utmost, he says, to explain: 
chap. 14, of machines for measuring the distance you travel by land or 
by water: chap. 15, of catapult and scorpions: chaps. 16, 17, and 
18, of balistae and catapulte; chap. 19, of machines for attack, of the 
ram and the tower: chap. 20, of the tortoise for filling ditches: 
chap. 21, of other tortoises : chap. 22, of machines for defence, 

There have been many editions of Vitruvius; the Editio princeps 
was printed, without date or name of printer or place, about 1480, at 
Rome, by George Herolt, in folio, under the superintendence of Sul- 
pitius, It commences, without a title, with ‘lo, Sulpitius Lectori 
salutem. Cum divinum opus Vitruvii,”” &c. The small work of 
Frontinus, on Aqueducts, was printed with it. The next edition was 
published at Florence, in 1496, with some other treatises, also in folio ; 
it is equally scarce with the Editio princeps. There have been many 
others; at Venice, fol. in 1497; and again, in folio, with wood-cuts, 
in 1511; the Giunta edition, at Florence, in 8vo, in 1513, also with 
wood-cuts; reprinted in 1522; again in 1523, without place or date; 
at Strasburg, in quarto, in 1543 ; reprinted in 1550, with the notes of 
Philander, which were first published at Rome, in 1544, without the — 
text; at Lyon, by Philander, in quarto, in 1552, *M. Vitruvii Pollionis 
de Architectura Libri Decem ad Cxsarem Augustum, omnibus om- — 
nium editoribus longe emendatiores, collatis veteribus exemplis,’ &c. ; 
at Venice, in folio, in 1567, by Barbaro; at Lyon, in quarto, in 1586; 
at Amsterdam, printed by Elzevir, in folio, in 1649, with additional 
notes and commentaries, and some other treatises, edited by John de 
Laet ; at Naples, in folio, in 1758, with an Italian translation by the 
Marquis Galiani; at Berlin, in 2 vols. quarto, in 1800, with a gl 
in German, Italian, French, and English; at Strasburg, in 8vo, in 1807; _ 
and in the same year, by Schneider, at Leipzig, in 3 vols. 8vo., which 
is the best edition that has appeared, but it is without plates, a 

M. Quatremére de Quincy (‘ Biographie Universelle’) states that the — 
first manuscript of Vitruvius was found in the library of the Bene- 
dictine abbey of Monte Cassino, near Naples, and that the best is in 
the library of Franecker. The translations of Vitruvius into various — 
languages are likewise numerous: the following are into French; by 
Jan. Martin, Paris, folio, in 1547; reprinted in 1572; by Jean de 
Tournes, Geneva, quarto, in 1618; by Perrault, with copper-plates, — 
Paris, folio, in 1673; another edition, by the same translator, in 1684; 
an abridgment by the same in folio, 1674 (of which an English trans- , 
lation was published in London, 8vo, 1692, and several times re- — 
printed); by Le Bioul, Brussels, quarto, in 1816; into cen ae 
Rivius, Niirnberg, folio, in 1548, reprinted at Basel, in 1575, and 
again at the same place in 1614; by Rode, Leipzig, 2 vols, quarto, in 
1796; the first volume contains a Life of Vitruvius: into Itali ’ 
Benedict Jovius and Caesar Cxsarinus, one of the architects of the 
cathedral of Milan, Como, folio, in 1521; reprinted at Venice in 1524, — 


425 VITTORINO DA FELTRE. 


VIVIANI, VINCENTIO, 426 


but without the notes of Ceesarinus; and again, with a less copious 
index, in 1535. The first five books, by Caporali, Perugia, folio, in 
1536; by Barbaro, Venice, folio, in 1556; and again, by Barbaro, in 
quarto, in 1567, reprinted in quarto in 1584, and in small folio in 
1629 and in 1641; and by the Marchese Galiani, with the Latin text, 
in 1758; in folio, at Naples, and, without the Latin, in 1790; into 
Spanish, by Urrea, Alcala de Henarez, folio, in 1602; and at Madrid, 
by Ortiz y Sanz, large folio, with plates, in 1787; into English, by 
R. Castell, with notes by Inigo Jones and others, 2 vols. fol. 1730 ; 
by W. Newton, London, 2 vols. fol., with plates, in 1771-91; by W. 
Wilkins, R.A.,‘The Civil Architecture of Vitruvius,’ in two parts, 
4to, in 1812, being a translation of the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth 
books only; but the text is not entire and the introductions are 
omitted ; and by Joseph Gwilt, London, in royal 8vo., in 1826, to 
which is prefixed a list of the several editionsand versions of Vitruvius, 
of which the one here given is an abstract. His work was translated 
into Flemish by Peter Koek, 

VITTORI'NO DA FELTRE, was born in 1379, at Feltre in North 
Italy, studied at Padua under the celebrated Guarino of Verona, and 
afterwards became professor of rhetoric and philosophy in the same 
university. Being some time after invited by G. F. Gonzaga, lord of 
Mantua, to superintend the education of his children, Vittorino re- 
paired to Mantua, where a separate and commodious residence was 
prepared for himself and his pupil, which was named ‘La Giocosa.’ 
Other youths of distinction repaired thither in succession to avail 
themselves of Vittorina’s instruction, and among them. Federico di 
Montefeltro, afterwards duke of Urbino, Giberto, prince of Correggio, 
Taddeo Manfredi, of the princely house of Faenza, Gio. Battista Palla- 
vicino, afterwards bishop of Reggio, Lodovico Torriano and Bernardo 
Brenzoni, who became afterwards celebrated as jurists, Theodore Gaza 
and George of Trebisond. 

Ambrogio Traversari, or Camaldulensis, who visited the school of 
Vittorino at Mantua, gives in his Epistles (lib. vii. & viii.) an inter- 
esting account of his system of education; and Carlo Rosmini has 
written a work on the same subject, entitled ‘Idea dell’ ottimo 
precettore nella vita, e disciplina di Vittorino da Feltre a de’ suoi 
discepoli.” It appears from the example of Vittorino, of Guarino 
Veronese, and others, that education in the larger sense of the term, 
was better understood in Italy in the 14th century than it has been 
Since, but it was confined to the upper classes. Gymnastics formed 
a part of Vittorino’s system. He lived with his pupils and took his 
meals with them. Their fare was wholesome, but plain. He had 


tablets of various colours to teach his younger pupils the rudiments. 


of reading. His older pupils were instructed in rhetoric, mathematics, 
and ethics. He was very strict with regard to their morals. He 
watched the disposition and abilities of each pupil, in order to direct 
him to that particular professional course for which he was best 
adapted. Temperate in his corrections, he allowed time to pass 
' between the offence and its punishment, and he never showed himself 
out of temper. He was beloved by his disciples, and he loved them 
like a father. Such was the character of this distinguished preceptor. 

(Corniani, Z Secoli della Letteratura Italiana; Tiraboschi, Storia 
della Letteratura Italiana ; Rosmini, as above mentioned.) 

VI/VARES, FRANCOIS, a celebrated engraver, born at Lodeve, 
near Montpellier, in 1712, and died in London in 1782. He was, it is 
said, originally a tailor, but he did not keep long to that occupation. 
He came early to England, and learned landscape-engraving here from 
J. B. Chatelain, but being possessed of great ability, he studied from 
nature direct, and formed a style of hisown, His great excellence was 
in foliage, and he was one of the best engravers after Claude, “ and pre- 
served,” says Strutt, “as much of the picturesque beauties of that 
admirable painter as could be expressed by two colours only.” Strutt 
continues : “ He kept a print-shop in Newport-street, near Newport 
Market, for a considerable length of time, where he died some few 
years since. His widow still continues in the same shop (1786), and 
carries on the print-selling business.” 

Vivares etched also with great freedom. His prints are not uncom- 
mon ; Huber, in his ‘Manuel des Amateurs,’ &c., mentions fifty-seven, 
many of which are English landscapes, Strutt notices only four, all 
after Claude Lorraine. His works are unequal: some are hard, and 
are totally deficient in aérial perspective—a defect perhaps of the 
pictures engraved, for in his works after Claude, who was a great 
master in this respect, the aérial perspective is well expressed. 

VIVARI'NI, the name of a celebrated family of painters in the 15th 
century, of the island of Murano at Venice. The oldest of this family, 
the reputed Luigi Vivarini the Elder, lived about 1414, according to a 
picture in the church of Santi Giovanni e Paolo at Venice, inscribed 
with his name and this date; but as this is the only work attributed 
to him, Lanzi doubts whether there were two Luigis; and, as the 
inscription is not an autograph, he concludes that there is an error in 
the name or in the date, and that the picture may be the work of 
Luigi Vivarini, called the Younger, who lived towards the close of the 
15th century. 

Ridolfi and Zanetti mention, after Luigi, a Giovanni and an Antonio 
Vivarini, or Da Murano; but Lanzi has shown that this Giovanni was a 
German, known as Joannes de Alemania, or Johann Alamanus. There 
is mention of Antonio as late as 1451; he painted several works in 
company with Johann Alamanus and his own brother Bartolomeo 


Vivarini. Some of his pictures are still in a good state of preservation ; 
they are richly coloured, and, for the period, well drawn: there is one 
of these works in the Venetian Academy, inscribed ‘ Joannes de Ale- 
mania et Antonius de Muriano pinxit,’ 

Bartolomeo was a more distinguished painter; he was the first 
Venetian who painted what is called in oil. His first picture in this 
manner is dated 1473; it is now in the church of Santi Giovannie 
Paolo at Venice. He painted several pictures in oil and ‘a tempera,’ 
in the Gothic style, and generally in various compartments, but in 
excellent taste for that style. 

Luigi dei Vivarini the Younger was likewise a good painter for his 
period (1490), His master-piece is St. Jerome caressing a lion, from 
which some monks are flying in fear, in the Scuola di San Girolamo at 
Venice. In the Sala delle Antiche Pitture, in the Venetian Academy, 
there are several pieces by Bartolomeo and Luigi Vivarini. 

VIVES, JOHN LOUIS, commonly called Lupoyicus Vivzs, was 
born at Valencia in Spain, in March 1492. He received his early edu- 
cation in his native country, and went to the University of Paris to 
study dialectic. He afterwards went to the University of Louvain, 
and there devoted himself to the study of the ancient languages, and 
ultimately became professor of humanity or the Latin language at 
Louvain. He had at Paris been a zealous disciple of the scholastic 
philosophy, but he had now become disgusted with it, and in 1519 he 
published a book against the schoolmen, entitled ‘Liber in Pseudo- 
Dialecticos.’ At Louvain Vives formed an intimate friendship with 
Erasmus and Budeeus. He undertook to edit for the series of works 
of the fathers set on foot by Erasmus, Augustin ‘De Civitate Dei ;’ 
and this edition was published in 1522, and dedicated to Henry VIIL, 
king of England. Henry very soon after invited Vives to England, 
and gave him the charge of the education of the Princess Mary. For 
the benefit of his royal pupil Vives wrote two little essays on educa- 
tion, published under the title ‘De Ratione Studii Puerilis Epistolze 
Due.’ Vives resided, while he was in England, principally at Oxford, 
was admitted in that university to the degree of doctor of laws, and read 
lectures on law and humanity. Henry VIII. went with his queen to 
Oxford, in order to be present at some of his lectures. Vives however 
soon lost the favour of the king by making open opposition to the divorce 
of Catherine of Aragon; he was put into prison by the king’s order, 
and remained imprisoned for six months. When released, he left 
England, and went to visit his native country. He soon went from 
thence again into the Netherlands, and settled at Bruges, where he 
married, and devoted himself assiduously to study. The greatest 
number of his works were composed between his taking up his resi- 
dence at Bruges and his death, He died on the 6th of May 1540, at 
the age of forty-eight. 

Vives has a distinguished place among the philosophers who, towards 
the close of the 16th century, undermined the hitherto supreme 
influence of the schoolmen, and gave an impulse to the study of — 
classical literature. He is spoken of as having been one of a trium- 
virate in the republic of letters, of which Erasmus and Budeus are 
the two other members, all three being equally distinguished for 
learning, while Erasmus had the pre-eminence in eloquence, Budzus 
in wit, and Vives in soundness of judgment. The works of Vives are 
very numerous, and comprehend a wide range of subjects—philology, 
mental and moral philosophy, and divinity. Those which are best 
known are— De Causis Corruptarum Artium;’ ‘De Initiis Sectis et 
Laudibus Philosophorum;’ ‘ De Veritate Fidei Christiane ;’ and ‘De 
Anima et Vita.’ A complete edition of his works was published at 
Basel, in 2 vols. fol., in 1555, and another at Valencia, his birthplace, 
in 1782. A list of his works may be found in Niceron, ‘Mémoires 
pour servir,’ &c., tom. xxi., p. 172.) 

VIVIA’NI, VINCE’NTIO, a learned mathematician of Italy, who 
was born of a noble family at Florence, on the 5th of April 1622. He 
received in that city a good general education, but having a decided 
inclination for mathematical researches, he applied himself diligently 
to the study of the ancient geometry in the works of Euclid and 
Pappus, and he is said to have acquired a complete knowledge of the 
four first books of Euclid’s ‘Elements’ without the assistance of a 
teacher. 

In the seventeenth year of his age Viviani became a pupil of Galilei, 
who was living in retirement at Arcetri, and who, though then 
blind and infirm, rendered him a proficient in the higher branches of 
mathematical science. After the death of that distinguished philoso- 
pher, he continued during several years to prosecute his studies under 
the direction of Torricelli, who had previously been his fellow-pupil, 
and for whom, as well as for Galilei, he expressed to the end of his 
life the highest esteem and gratitude. 

Before he was twenty-four years of age he formed the project of 
restoring the lost treatise of Aristzeus entitled, in Latin, ‘De Locis 
Solidis, and he actually began the work; other occupations however 
prevented him for a long time from proceeding with it, and it was not 
completed till near the end of his life, though a first edition was pub- 
lished in 1673, at Florence. The treatise of the Greek geometer, who 
was nearly contemporary with Euclid, consisted of five books, and 
contained the demonstrations of certain properties of the conic 
sections; but nothing remains of it except the enunciations of the 
propositions, which have been preserved in the ‘Mathematical 
Collections’ of Pappus, 


427 VIVIANI, VINCENTIO. 


VLADIMIR. 423 


thos 


The work ‘De Locis’ being suspended, Viviani employed some of 
the leisure which his duties in the service of the Grand-Duke of 
Tuscany afforded in the attempt to restore the fifth book of Apollo- 
nius of Perga on the conic sections, which, with the three remaining 
books of that writer, was then supposed to be lost. It was well 
known that the subject of that fifth book was the determination of the 
longest and shortest right lines in the conic sections ; and Viviani had 
already made great progress in the work when, in 1656, Borelli dis- 
covered, among the manuscripts in the Laurentian Library at Flo- 
rence, a translation in Arabic of the conics of Apollonius, with a Latin 
inscription denoting that it contained the eight books of the treatise; 
the last book was however wanting. Having obtained permission, he 
carried the manuscript to Rome, and caused it to be translated into 
Latin by a learned Syrian named Abrahamus Ecchellensis: this trans- 
lation was published in 1659, and Viviani, who had not then com- 
pleted his work, apprehending that his labours might become fruitless, 
obtained a certificate to the effect that he had not been aware of the 
existence of the manuscript, and that he was unacquainted with the 
Arabic language. His ‘ Restoration’ was published in the same year, 
under the title ‘De Maximis et Minimis Geometvica Divinatio in quin- 
tum Conicorum Apollonii Pergxi adhuc desideratum,’ fol., Florence; 
and when the work was compared with the translation it was acknow- 
ledged that Viviani had pursued the subject beyond the point to 
which it had been carried by Apollonius himself. 

From this circumstance Viviani immediately attracted the particular 
notice of his prince, and acquired a high reputation among the mathe- 
maticians of Europe. In 1672 the Grand-Duke Ferdinand gave him 
the title of chief engineer, and appointed him to proceed to the 
frontier of the Papal States for the purpose of consulting with Cassini, 
who was sent from Rome to meet him, concerning the navigation of 
the Chiana and the means of preventing the inundations of the 
Tiber. The measures proposed by the two mathematicians were not 
put in execution by the governments, but Viviani availed himself of 
the opportunity which his connection with Cassini afforded to join the 
latter in making astronomical observations, and even of carrying on 
some researches in natural history. In 1664, at the request of 
M,. Chapelain, Colbert recommended Viviani to the king of France, 
Louis XIY., who assigned him a pension, and five years afterwards 
appointed him one of the foreign associates in the Académie Royale 
des Sciences. In 1666 he became a member of the Accadémia del’ 
Cimento at Florence, and in 1696 he was elected a fellow of the Royal 
Society of London. 

About the year 1666 Viviani commenced a tract on the resistance 
of solid bodies against the strains to which they are subject, but his 
numerous occupations preventing him from immediately completing 
it, he was anticipated by Marchetti, who in 1669 published a work 
on the same subject. As in this work the right of Galilei to the dis- 
covery of the law of the resistance was denied, Viviani took advantage 
of the delay to introduce into his tract a defence of his friend and 
preceptor; and in every respect his work appears to have been far 
superior to that of his opponent. 

In 1674 he published a work entitled ‘ Quinto Libro degli Elementi 
d'Euclide, overro la Scienza Universale delle Proportioni spiegata colla 
Dottrina di Galilei,’ to which he joined a tract designated ‘Diporto 
Geometrico’ (Geometrical Amusements), the latter consisting of the 
solutions, in the spirit of the ancient geometry, of twelve problems 
which had been anonymously proposed ; and some propositions of a 
like kind which were proposed by Comiers having been sent to him, 

-he published, in 1677, solutions of them in a work entitled ‘ Enodatio 
Problematum universis Propositorum } Claudio Comiers} premissis 
tentamentis variis ad solutionem illustris veterum problematis de 
anguli trisectione. This work is dedicated to the memory of his 
friend Chapelain ; and in the preface he expresses a distaste for such 
challenges, observing that the problems are enigmas which are seldom 
proposed except by persons who have previously discovered their 
solutions; yet fifteen years afterwards he proposed as a challenge to 
the mathematicians of Europe a problem whose enunciation was fanci- 
fully stated in the following manner :—‘ Among the ancient monu- 
ments of Greece, there is a temple dedicated to geometry ; its plan is 
circular, and it is covered by a hemispherical dome, in which are four 
equal apertures of such magnitude that the remainder of the super- 
ficies is accurately quadrable: it is required to determine the magnitude 
and the positions of the apertures.” The challenge appeared in the 
‘Acta Eruditorum,’ under a designation which is an anagram of the 
words “A postremo Galilei Discipulo,” a title of which Viviani appears 
to have been always proud. Solutions were almost immediately given, 
by the aid of the infinitesimal caleulus, by Leibnitz and James Bernoulli 
in Germany, by the Marquis de l'H6pital in France, and by Wallis and 
David Gregory in England: the solution given by Viviani himself is 
very simple, and it was published by him, but without a demonstration, 
in a small work entitled ‘Formazione 8 Misura di tutti i Cieli, con la 
Struttura e Quadratura esatta d'un nuovo Cielo ammirabile,’ 4to, 
Firenze, 1692. 

; In 1701 he published, at Florence, ‘a second and enlarged edition of 
his restitution of Aristeus, under the title ‘Dé Locis Solidis Secunda 
Divinatio Geometrica in Quinque Libros amissos Aristei Senioris, 
Opus Conicum, continens Elementa Tractatuum ejusdem Viviani, 
quibus tunc ipse multa in Mathesi Theoremata demonstrare cogita- 


verat.’ The work is dedicated to Louis XIV., and the author avails 
himself of the occasion to express his gratitude to his preceptor 
Galilei. The subject is treated with great elegance and simplicity, and 
according to the methods of the ancient geometers; it must be 
admitted however that the difficulty of the work would have been 
much diminished by the employment of the modern analysis. “hl 
Viviani was solicited by Casimir, king of Poland, to reside in that 
country; but from attachment to his native land, he declined the 
request, as he did the offer of Louis XIV. to make him his first 
astronomer. He built for himself, at Florence, a mansion, on the 
front of which he inscribed the words, des 4 Deo date: and from 
respect to the memory of Galilei, he adorned the entrance with the 
bust of that philosopher. He died on the 22nd of September 1703, 
in the eighty-second year of his age, leaving behind him the character 
of having been a man of simple manners and a faithful friend. F 
(Eloge de Viviani, by Fontenelle, in the ‘ Histoire de l’Académie des 
Sciences,’ for 1703.) ‘i 
VLACQ, ADRIAN, a Dutch mathematician of the 17th century, 
who distinguished himself by his labours in the computation of loga- 
rithms, Being a bookseller or printer, he superintended the printing 
of the tables which he had composed, as well as of almost the first of 
those which were computed by the mathematicians of this country. 
Logarithms had then been recently invented, and while the employ- 


‘ment of them’ was becoming genera) in Britain through the labours 


of Briggs, Gunter, and other indefatigable computers, Vlacq in 
Holland contributed greatly to extend their use and a knowledge of 
the principles of their construction on the Continent. In 1628 he 
published at Gouda an edition of the ‘Arithmetica Logarithmica’ of 
Briggs, which contained the logarithms of numbers between 1 and 
20,000, and also between 90,000 and 100,000, to fourteen places of 
decimals; but having computed the logarithms of the 70,000 inter- 
mediate numbers, he published at the same place, in folio, a French 
translation of the above work, including in it the seventy chiliads, 


under the title of ‘Arithmetique Logarithmétique:’ all the logarithms 


are given to ten places of decimals. It appears that part of the 
edition of the ‘ Arithmetica Logarithmica,’ which had been published 
by Vlacq, was sold in England, contrary to the intention of the 
author; for Norwood, in his ‘ Trigometria,’ which was published in 
1631, complains of such sale, and designates it an unfair practice. 

Briggs having just before his death completed his great table of 
logarithmic sines and tangents, his friend Gellibrand wrote for it a ~ 
preface and an account of the application of the logarithms to the 
purposes of plane and spherical trigonometry. This work, which was 
designated ‘Trigonometrica Britannica,’ was printed at Gouda by 
Vlacq in 1633. In the same year Vlacq printed a work, composed by 
himself, which is entitled ‘ Trigonometria Artificialis, sive magnus 
canon Triangulorum Logarithmicus, ad dena scrupula secunda,’ &e, ; 
it contains the logarithmic sines and tangents to ten places of — 
with differences, and to these is added Briggs’s table of the first 20,00 
logarithms with their applications, chiefly extracted from the ‘ Trigo- 
nometrica Britannica.’ : 

In 1636 Vlacq published an abridgment of the ‘ Trigonometria 
Artificialis,’ under the title of ‘Tabule Sinuum, Tangentium, et 
Secantium, et Logarithmorum Sinuum, Tangentium, et Numerorum 
ab 1 ad 10,000, in 8vo. These tables have passed through several 
editions in French and German, and on the Continent they continued 
long to be a manual for persons employed in making trigonometrical 
computations. . 

VLADIMIR (the First), Grand-Duke of Russia, surnamed the 
Great, was the son of Sviatoslav by a slave, or at least a woman of low 
condition, f 

His father, meditating the conquest of Bulgaria, divided in 1790 his 
empire between his two legitimate sons Yaropolk and Oleg. Vladimir 
was sent to Novgorod, as that unruly place, disdained by the legiti- 
mate princes, was covsidered a government only fit for an illegitimate 
son. After Sviatoslav’s death, 972, his sons remained at peace for 
five years; but in 977 Yaropolk, who ruled at Kiev, y Deron with 
his younger brother Oleg, and having slain him in battle, took his 
share of the paternal heritage. Vladimir, expecting an attack from 
his brother, fled beyond the sea to the Varingians (4¢. the Scandi- 
navians), and Yaropolk occupied Novgorod by his officers. ‘ 

Vladimir returned after two years from Scandinavia with a formidable 
body of adventurers, and was joined by the inhabitants of Novgorod. 
He formally declared war against his brother, and demanded the hand 
of Rogneda, daughter of the Varingian Rogvold, prince of Polotsk. 
Rogneda, who was betrothed to his brother, rejected Vladimir's suit, 
saying that she would not marry the son of aslave. Vladimir attacked 


Polotsk ; Rogvold was killed with his two sons, and Rogneda was com- 


pelled to marry Vladimir. 

Vladimir marched on Kiev, and Yaropolk, perceiving that he was 
betrayed by his own people, fled from his capital, but being soon after- 
wards induced to surrender, he was treacherously murdered by his 
brother’s command. ‘Vladimir now became monarch of the empire of 
his father, which extended from the vicinity of the Baltic to that of 
the Black Sea. It was however by no means a regularly constituted 
empire, like that of the western monarchs of that time. The sove- 
reignty of the grand-dukes of Russia, who had established their 
capital at Kiev, was limited to a tribute levied on the various Slavo- 


‘2 


a a 


il fae 


L 


429 VLADIMIR. 


VLADIMIR, MONOMACHOS. 430 


nian and Finnish populations spread over the imniense tract of laud 
which they considered as subject to their rule. This tribute was 
levied either by the sovereigns themselves, who travelled for that pur- 
pose about the country, or by their delegates; and their authority 
Was respected only where they had a sufficient force to maintain it, 
Vladimir established « more regular and efficient system of govern- 
ment. He subjected all the populations which had recovered their 
independence during the preceding reign, and built many towns in 
order to maintain them in subjection. He also seems to have con- 
ceived the idea of cementing his vast and heterogeneous empire by 


' the powerful bond of a religious centre, and he erected at Kiev the 


idol of Perun (thunder), the supreme divinity of the Slavonians, and 
those of the inferior deities, Khors, Dajbog, Stribog, Semargla, and 
Mokosti. The first three of these deities were Slavoniaii, and the last 
two Finnish, a circumstance which seems to imply the notion of uniting 
the religious worship of the two different races, To these deities were 


_ offered human satrifices, chosen by lot, and the chronicles relate that 


two Christian Varingians, father arid son, fell victims to that bloody 
superstition. 

Vladimir got rid of his Scandinavian allies by persuading them to 

into the service of the Greek emperor, and endeavoured to effect 

an amalgamation between the Varingians and the Slavonians. He 


- gave continual entertainments to his subjects, and the memory of the 


splendour of his court is still alive in the popular songs of Russia. 

The Chronicles, which extol Vladimir’s wisdom and valour, accuse 
him of great laxity of morals. Besides Rogneda, he had married the 
widow of his brother Yaropolk, a beautiful Greek nun, who was a 
captive of their father, and three other wives. He had a great 
number of concubines who lived in different places; as, for instance, 
at Vishgorod 300, at Belgorod the same number, at Berestov 200, and 
no woman in the country was secure from him. If such were really 
the case the Chronicles have reason to say that he was fond of women, 
like Solomon. 

Kiev had already for more than a century frequent intercourse with 
Constantinople, where Vladimir’s grandmother Olga was baptised in 
955. Her example, though it had not been followed by her son, found 
many imitators among his subjects, and the trade which was carried 
on between these two cities had undoubtedly attracted many Greeks 
to Kiev. It was also natural that missionaries of the Western church 
should be attracted by the renown of Vladimir from, Poland and 
Germany. The Bulgarians, a Mohammedan nation, inhabiting the 
banks of the Volga, in the present government of Kazan, and cele- 
brated for their commercial spirit, had, after a short war, concluded a 
soleran treaty of peace with Vladimir; and the powerful nation of 
the Khasars, which occupied the country between the Caspian and 
Black Seas northwards to the Caucasus, and bordering on Vladimir’s 
empire, contained many Jews; even the kings had for some time 
followed the Jewish religion, although at the time of Vladimir they 
were Christians. This will explain the circumstance that all these 
religious professions tried to convert Vladimir to their respective 
creeds. It is said that the polygamy permitted by the Khoran and 
the sensual paradise promised to its disciples had greatly pleased him, 
but that he would not consent to give up wine. The religion of the 
Jews, who were exiles from their own country, could not produce a 
favourable impression upon a warlike prince. The Greek church, 
which already numbered many converts in Russia, had a great advan- 
tage over that of Rome, whose missionaries were strangers in that 
country, and Vladimir answered their exhortations by saying “Our 
ancestors have not known you.” When Vladimir consulted his nobles 
on the same subject, the answer which they gave him was, “If the 
Greek religion was not good, thy grandmother Olga would not have 
adopted it.” ; 

Besides this circumstance Vladimir had motives of ambition which 
prompted him to become a convert to the Eastern church. This was 
a matrimonial alliance with the imperial house of Constantinople, 
which was then generally sought by the rulers of the barbarian 
nations bordering on the empire. In order to insure the success of 
his object, he began by an attack on the frontiers of the empire, and 
having besieged the important town of Cherson in the present Crimea, 
he demanded the had of the Princess Anna, daughter of the Emperor 
Romanus the Second, and sister of the then reigning Emperors Con- 
stantine and Basilius, and of Theophania, empress of Otho the Second 
of Germany. He promised, if his request was granted, to receive 
baptism with all his subjects, and to become an ally of the empire, 
which he threatened with war in case of a refusal. His demand was 
granted; he was baptised with his followers at Cherson, and married 
the Greek princess in 988. He immediately applied himself with 
great zeal to the establishment of Christianity in his dominions; all 
the idols were destroyed by his orders, and the inhabitants were 
baptised in crowds. He built churches, established schools, and his 
exertions were greatly facilitated by the citcumstance that there was 
already a Slavonian version of the Scriptures by Cyrillus and Metho- 
dius, as well as liturgical works in the same language. An ordinance 
on the ecclesiastical tribunals, taken from the Greek Nomocanon, was 
published by Vladimir, and he became so strongly penetrated with 
the spirit of Christian meekness, that he would no longer punish with 
death even thé greatest criminals, and was content to fine them. This 
ill-judged lenity produced great disorders, and the clergy themselves 


were obliged to remonstrate against it, and to induce Vladimir to 
restore public order by capital punishments. He is said to have 
entirely amended his former licentious manners, and his charity to 
the poor was unbounded. He divided the government of his empire 
among his eleven sons, whom he had by several wives, and his step: 
son Sviatopolk, with whom his murdered brother’s widow was pregnant 
when he married her. After his conversion he had some wars with 
his neighbours, but they did not produce any consequences; and his 
reign was chiefly spent in promoting the civilisation of his subjects, 
for which he received ample means from Constantinople, then the 
only seat of arts and literature in Christian Europe. 

The end of his life was disturbed by the growing spirit of liberty 
at Novgorod. The citizens of Novgorod refused to pay the annual 
tribute sent by that city to Kiev. His son Yaroslav, who was estab- 
lished by him at Novgorod, took the part of the inhabitants, at least 
he did it apparently, as some suppose. Vladimir assembled an army 
in order to coerce his refractory subjects, but he died on his march 
not far from Kiev, in 1014. His wife Anna died in 1011, as it seems 
without issue. The Russian church has placed him amongst her 
saints, and given him a rank equal to that of the apostles, 

VLADIMIR MONO’MACHOS, grand-duke of Kiev, is one of the 
most remarkable persons of the middle ages, whose life and writings 
present an interesting picture of the social state of Russia during the 
11th and 12th centuries. He'is extolled by the Chronicles as a most 
virtuous prineé, and considered by them almost a saint. He was 
undoubtedly a man of superior character and abilities, but by no 
means free trom the faults of his barbarous age. . 

Viadimir was born in 1052, He was the son of Vsevolod, the grand- 
son of Vladimir the Great. The division of the empire made by 
Viadimir’s grandfather Yaroslav the Gréat in 1054, produced inces- 
sant wars among his successors, who continued to subdivide their 
heritages among their children. By the same arrangement of Yaroslav 
the sovereignty over all the other princes belonged to the grand-dukes 
of Kiev, who succeeeded to that dignity, not according to the law of 
primogeniture, but according to that of seniority, or as being the 
oldest of all the princes of Russia, This arrangement, customary at 
that time with all the Slavonian nations, led unavoidably to quarrels 
among all those who either had any right to or possessed the means 
of claiming the throne of Kiev. This unfortunate state of Russia was 
rendered still worse by the appearance of the Polovtzee, or Comanes 
of the Byzantines, a nomadic nation, who arrived from the deserts of 
Central Asia, and encamped in the country extending northward from 
the shores of the Black Sea and that of Azoff, about the middle of the 
11th century. These nomadic people made continual inroads into 
the territories of the Russian princes, but were also frequently 
employed by them as auxiliaries in their internal and foreign wars. 
Vladimir made his first campaign under his relative Boleslav II., or 
the Dauntless, king of Poland, whom he joined with an auxiliary force 
in a war against Bohemia in 1076. He afterwards took an active part 
in the domestic quarrels among the Russian princes, and received from 
his father, who became grand-duke of Kiev in 1078, the principality of 
Chernigoff, which was the lawful heritage of his cousin Oleg, having 
on a former occasion obtained, in an equally illegal manner, that of 
Smolensk, which was given him by the father of the same Oleg whom 
he now spoiled. This circumstance created a deadly hatred between 
the two cousins, established an hereditary feud between their descend- 
ants, and entailed for a long time great disasters on the country, 
Having taken during these wars the town of Minsk, he did not spare 
“either man or beast ;” and when his cousin Oleg was marching with 
the Polovtzee to recover his principality, Vladimir bribed those bar- 
barians, who carried back the prince whom they came to assist as a 
captive, and murdered his brother. He also compelled the legitimate 
prince of Novgorod. to cede it to his son, and to content himself with 
a small principality. This proves that he was no more scrupulous 
than his contemporaries in the means of attaining his objects, 

Vsevolod died in 1093, but Vladimir, who was the real sovereign 
during the reign of his father, did not venture to break the law of 
seniority, and he called to the throne of Kiev his cousin Sviatopolk, 
prince of Turov, the eldest of the family. Sviatopolk confirmed 
the possessions usurped by Vladimir during his father’s life; but 
both these princes being defeated by the Polovtzee, Oleg, who since 
his expulsion had lived in exile, chiefly in Greece, returned to the 
country, and compelled Vladimir to restore Chernigoff and Smolensk 
to him and his brother. The differences among the princes were 
settled by a congress held at Lubech and at Kiev, on which occasions 
Vladimir displayed, in the prosecution of his interests, great diplomatic 
talents. He also defeated, with the assistance of other princes, the 
terrible Polovtzee on several occasions, by which he secured for some 
time the country from their devastations, and justly acquired great 
popularity. In 1112 he became, on the death of Sviatopolk, grand- 
duke of Kiev, being already sixty years old. He reigned thirteen 
years till 1125, and he proved himself during this time a really great 
prince. Internal peace was maintained by his authority, and foreign 
enemies were repelled with uninterrupted success. New towns were 
built, old ones improved, and the country enjoyed general peace and 
prosperity. ‘ 

His character, his views, and his principles are displayed by his tes- 
tament, or his last instructions to his children, which also gives an 


431 VLADIMIR, MONOMACHOS. 


VOGEL, DR. EDWARD. 432 


insight into the manners, the state of civilisation, and the prevailing 
opinions of that period. 

After having expatiated on the glory of God, chiefly in words taken 
from the Psalmist, he says, ““O my children! love God! love also 
mankind! It is neither fast, nor seclusion, nor monastic life which 
may save you, but good works. Do not forget the poor; feed them, 
and think that all goods belong to God, and are entrusted to you 
only for a time. Do not conceal treasures in the bowels of the 
earth, for this is contrary to the Christian religion. Be fathers to the 
orphans ; judge yourselves the widows, and do not permit the stronger 
to oppress the weaker. Do not take the life either of the innocent 
or of the guilty: the life and the soul of a Christian are sacred.” 
He then recommends them to keep their oaths, to respect the clergy, 
to avoid pride and every kind of profligacy, and continues—“ In your 
household look yourselves to everything, without relying on your 
stewards and servants, and the guests will not find fault either with 
your house or with your dinner. In time of war be active and be 
an example to your officers. It is not then the time to think of ban- 
quets and enjoyment. Repose after having established the nightly 
watch. Men may suddenly perish, therefore do not lay aside the 
armour where danger may happen, and mount your horses early. 
Above all, respect a stranger, be he a great or a common man, a mer- 
chant or an ambassador; and if you cannot give him presents, satisfy 
him with meat and drink, because strangers spread in foreign countries 
good and bad report of us. Salute every one whom you meet. Love 
your wives, but give them no power over yourselves. Remember 
every good thing which you have learnt, and learn what you do not 
know. My father, having never been abroad, spoke five languages, for 
which we are praised by foreigners.” This is certainly a curious fact, and 
which perhaps was not common at that time in Western Europe. The 
languages alluded to were probably the Greek—as the higher clergy, 
who had the education of the princes, were generally of that nation— 
the Scandinavian, the Slavonian of Russia, and perhaps the Hungarian, 
and that of the Polovtzee, with whom the Russians were in daily 
intercourse. It is also not unlikely that Latin, which was cultivated 
by the learned Greeks, was one of the languages alluded to. ‘“ Avoid 
idleness, it is the mother of all vices. On a journey on horseback, 
when you have no occupation, instead of indulging in idle thoughts, 
repeat prayers, at least the shortest and the best of them—‘ Kyrie 
eleyson.’ Never go to sleep without an earthly prostration; and 
when you do not feel well, do it three times, Rise before the sun, 
and go early to church. So have done my father and all the good 
men. After which they held a council with their officers, or 
judged the people, or went to hunt; and at midday they slept, 
because God has assigned the midday hour for repose, not only to 
man, but also to animals and birds,” It is remarkable that this habit 
is still prevalent among the common people in Russia. “ Your father 
lived also in that manner. I have done myself all that I could have 
ordered a servant to do: in hunting and in war, at day and at night, 
during the heat of summer, and the cold of winter, I have not known 
any repose. I have never relied on magistrates and officers. I never 
allowed the poor and the widows to be oppressed by the strong. I 
superintended myself the church, the Divine service, the household, 
the stables, the hunt, the hawks, and the falcons.” Having enumerated 
his various feats of arms, he says, “I have undertaken eighty-three 
expeditions, without mentioning many insignificant ones. Ihave con- 
cluded with the Polovtzee nineteen treaties. I took prisoners more 
than a hundred of their best chieftains, whom I released afterwards, 
and I punished and drowned in rivers more than 200 of them. Who 
travelled more rapidly than I did? On leaving Chernigoff in the 
morning, I arrived at Kiev, where my father was, before vespers (a 
distance of 100 English miles). Being fond of sports, we often 
hunted wild animals with your grandfather. Amidst thick forests I 
have bound with my own hands several wild horses at once. I was 
twice tossed on the horns of a buffalo; a deer struck me with his 
horns, and an elk trampled me under his feet; a wild boar tore the 
sword from my side; a bear bit through my saddle, and a wild animal 
attacked and overthrew the horse which I rode. How many times 
have I fallen from my horse! I twice broke my head, and many 
times injured my arms and legs, sparing not my life during my youth. 
But the Lord has watched over me. And you, my children, do not 
fear death, nor combat, nor wild animals; but act as men on every 
occasion which may come from God. When Providence has decreed a 
man’s death, neither his father, nor his mother, nor his brethren may 
save him.” It is very probable that the observation of the rules of 
prudence and external piety laid down in these instructions greatly 
contributed to the establishment of his reputation. 

Vladimir was surnamed Monomachos by his mother, a daughter of 
the Emperor Constantine IX., Monomachos. His first wife was Gyda, 
daughter of Harold, the last Saxon king of England, who had found, 
after the death of her father, a refuge at the court of Swen II., king of 
Denmark. Marriages between the Russian princes and those of 
Western Europe, particularly of Scandinavia, were very common 
during that period. Thus Vladimir's aunts were married to Henri IL. 
of France, and to Harold Hardrade, king of Norway, who perished in 
1066, at the battle of Stamford Bridge. The celebrated Danish king 
Waldemar L was the son of one of his grand-daughters, and probably 
received his Slavonian name in honour of his ancestor, After the 


death of Gyda he was twice married, but the Chronicles do not 
mention the names of his wives, 

The crown used at the coronation of the monarchs of Russia is 
called the golden cap of Monomachos, and is supposed to have been 
presented to Vladimir, with the sceptre and some other regalia used on 
the same occasion, by the Greek Emperor Alexius Comnenos, as 
having belonged to his grandfather Constantine Monomachos. These 
objects are undoubtedly of Byzantine workmanship, but the history of 
their origin is considered by many as a modern invention made during 
the 15th century, when Ivan IIL, of Moscow, having married the Greek 
princess Sophia Palaeologos, assumed the pretensions of a successor to 
the emperors of the East. 

VOET, GISBERT, the father, and Paul and Daniel, the sons, and 
John, the grandson, were distinguished members of the University of 
Utrecht, in the 17th century. 

GIsBERT VOET was born at Heusde on the 3rd of March 1593; he 
studied at Leyden, with the character of a young man of great pro- 
mise; and having taken orders, discharged the functions of minister 
in his native town till 1634. In that year he was appointed professor 
of theology and Oriental languages in the seminary of Utrecht, which 
was converted into a university two years latér. Voet became the 
zealous advocate of the doctrines adopted by the Synod of Dort, nor 
did his controversial predilections confine themselves to this narrow 
field. He attacked vehemently the philosophy of Descartes, whom he 
designated alternately an atheist and a Jesuit, and whom he even went 
the length of accusing before the civil magistrate. His controversies 
with Cocceius, professor at Leyden, divided the Dutch theologicians 
into Voetians and Cocceians. In short no polemical adversary came 
amiss to him : Roman Catholic, philosopher, Arminian—he was ready 
to break a lance with any man who did not subscribe to the Calvinistie 
creed. He had on his arms at once Desmarets, Wolzogen, Regius, 
Schoockius, Dumoulin, Oesterga, &c. The incessant excitement of 
controversy appears to have agreed with him, for he lived to the 
advanced age of eighty-seven, dying in 1680, outliving by several years 
all the other members of the Synod of Dort. A full list of his nume- 
rous publications, chiefly works of polemical theology, is given by 
Gaspar Burman, in his ‘Trajectum Eruditum:’ the principal are, 
‘Selectee Disputationes Theologice,’ Utrecht and Amsterdam, 5 vols. 
4to, apa, and ‘ Politica Kcclesiastica,’ Amsterdam, 4 vols, 4to, 
1663-76. 

PauL VoET was born at Heusde, on the 7th of June 1619. He 
taught, at different times, logic, metaphysics, Greek, and civil law in 
the University of Utrecht. He published in 1654 a Harmony of the 
Gospels; and in 1655-57, ‘Theologia Naturalis reformata.” Of his 
juridical works the most valuable, at least that which has carried with 
it the greatest authority, is the treatise ‘ De Statutis eorumque Con- 
cursu.’ His other legal publications are—‘De Duellis Licitis et 
Illicitis,’ Utrecht, 1646; ‘ De Usu Juris Civilis et Canonici in Belgio 
Unito,’ Utrecht, 1657, ‘ Disquisitio Juridica de Mobilibus et Immobili- 
bus,’ Utrecht, 1666, ‘Commentarius ad Institutiones Juris, Goreum, 
1668. It is in part owing to the time at which he lived, rendering his 
works the text-books of the young Scotch lawyers, the contemporaries 
of Stairand Mackenzie, that we find them so frequently quoted by the 
ablest Scotch lawyers previous to the commencement of the present 
century. Paul Voet published, in Dutch, a history of the family of 
Brederode, which has been translated into French; some controversial 
pamphlets defending his father; and notes on Musaeus, Callimachus, 
and Herodian. He died on the 1st of August 1677, ; 

Dantet Vort, son of Gisbert, and brother of Paul, was born at 
Heusde on the 81st of December 1629, and died at Utrecht on the 
3rd of October 1660. He was professor of philosophy at Utrecht. He 
published several text books : his ‘ Meletemeta Philosophica,’ and his 
‘Physiologica, sive de Rerum Natura Libri vi.,’ appeared at Amster- 
dam the year after his death, and were republished, with notes by 
Vries, in 1668. 

Joun Vort, the son of Paul, was born at Utrecht on the 8rd of 
October, 1647. He was professor of law at Herborn, afterwards at 
Utrecht, and ultimately at Leyden, where he died on the 11th of 
September 1714. His most esteemed work is his ‘Commentarius in 
Pandectas,’ published at Leyden in 1698, in 2 folio volumes. In 1670 
he published a tract ‘ De Jure Militari ;’ in 1673 another, ‘ De Familia 
erciscunda ;’ and in 1683, at Leyden, a ‘Compendium Juris.’ He too, 
as- well as his father, took the field in defence of Gisbert, the founder 
of the family. 

Joun Eusebius VoEt, inspector of the octrois at the Hague, and a 
Dutch physician, died there in 1778. He is mentioned with praise as 
a poet in Vries’s history of Dutch poetry. His poems are lyrical in 
their form, and rather mystical in their contents. It does not appear 
that he belonged to the same family as the theoloyian, the jurists, and 
the philosopher. 

VOGEL, DR. EDWARD. The notice of Overwza, Dr. ADOLR, 
contains also notices of Mr. Richardson, Dr. Barth, and Dr. Vogel, 
who were all employed in the same expedition from the coast of the 
Mediterranean to Central Africa. We are now enabled to state a few 
facts by way of addition and correction to the information there given. 
Dr, Barth was born May 19, 1821, at Hamburg, where he was educated. 
He afterwards studied at the university of Berlin, Dr. Barth, since 
his return, has published ‘Travels in Central Africa,’ 3 vols 8vo, 


433 VOGEL, THEODOR. 


VOITURE, VINCENT. 434 


comprising the earlier portion of his explorations, which are to be 
followed by two other volumes, completing the work, and including 
the account of his long residence in Timbuctoo. The notes from which 
these interesting and valuable volumes have been composed were 
written down daily, often under great difficulties, privations, and 
dangers, and were afterwards copied as soon as an opportunity oc- 
eurred. Dr. Edward Vogel was born March 7, 1829, at Leipzig, where 
his father, Dr. Carl Vogel, was master of one of the principal schools, 
He was educated at Leipzig, and afterwards studied astronomy at 
Berlin under Professor Encke. He resided in London about two years 
at Mr. Bishop’s Observatory, Regent’s Park. In the early part of 1857 
a despatch received by the British government enclosed a copy of a 
letter from Corporal Maguire to the British consul at Tripoli, dated 
Kuka, November, 1856, announcing the reported assassination of 
Dr. Vogel in the kingdom of Wadai. Corporal Maguire was one of the 
two volunteers from the corps of Sappers and Miners, who accom- 
panied Dr, Vogel to Central Africa, and he then stated that he was 
coming home with the observations and instruments. A paragraph 
in ‘ The Times’ newspaper, of the date of August 21, 1857, states that 
“the official confirmation of the murder of Dr. Vogel, at Wara, the 
capital of Wadai, has just been received. He was beheaded by order of 
the Sultan. Corporal Maguire was murdered by a party of Tuaricks 
some-six miles to the north of Kuka.” Thus has terminated, if these 
“accounts prove to be authentic, the last expedition from the shores of 
the Mediterranean to Central Africa, and of those who composed it, 
young and healthy men, Dr Barth alone remains alive. 

VOGEL, THEODOR, a botanist of great promise, who perished in 
the expedition to the Niger, in the year 1841. He early devoted 
himself to the study of botany, and was a student at the University of 
Berlin, where he took his degree of doctor of philosophy. One of his 
earliest contributions to botanical science was a paper published, con- 
jointly with Dr. Schleiden, on the development of albumen in legu- 
minous plants. This paper bears the high character of all the later 
labours of Dr. Schleiden, and at the same time affords evidence that 
Vogel belonged to that school of physiological botanists who, from 
their minute knowledge of structure, are doing so much at the present 
day for the advancement of scientific botany. In a subsequent paper, 
entitled a ‘Monograph of the Genus Cassia,’ Vogel displayed his 
intimate knowledge of structure, as well as his powers of analysis, in 
unravelling the intricacies of that difficult genus of plants. In 1840, 
when it was determined to fit out an expedition to Africa, Captain 
Washington visited Germany for the sake of gaining co-operation, and 
Vogel was there recommended to him as a botanist likely to be of 
great service in the expedition. Vogel, who was then at Bonn, in the 
university of which place he had been appointed a teacher of botany, 
no sooner had the offer made him than he anxiously embraced it as 
affording him an opportunity of pursuing his favourite science in an 
unexplored region. After having visited England, where his know- 
ledge of botany excited in the minds of those who knew him the 
warmest interest for his prosperous return, he sailed with the expe- 
dition for Africa, in July 1841, The disastrous events of that ill-fated 
expedition are well known. Vogel was an early sufferer from the 
fever which carried off the majority of those who sailed, and although 
he recovered so far as to be able to reach Fernando Po, he sunk there 
from the effects of dysentery about six months after the time he had 
sailed from this country. He made the best use of the little time 
that he had health to collect plants, whilst on the coast of Africa, and 
his death seems to have been hastened by his anxiety to arrange and 
study them whilst in a convalescent state at Fernando Po, He was 
buried by the side of Captain Bird Allen, another of the unfortunate 
victims of this expedition. 

VOISENON, CLAUDE HENRI FUSE’E DE, was born at the 
Chateau de Voisenon, near Melun, on. the 8th of January 1708. He 
was a younger son, and his delicate constitution rendering him unfit 
for a military career, his parents made him enter the church. 

The future priest made his literary débait by addressing in his 
eleventh year a poetical epistle to Voltaire, who complimented the 
author in return. A dramatic piece in one act, ‘ L’Heureuse Ressem- 
blance,’ which he produced in his twentieth year, meeting with a favour- 
able reception, encouraged him to write for the stage. Three pieces, 
*L’ficole du Monde,’ ‘ L’Ombre de Moliére, and ‘Rétour de l’Ombre 

' de Moliére, were brought upon the stage by him with varying success. 
About this time he was involved in a duel with an officer whom he 
had offended bysome joke. Hitherto Voisenon had refused to comply 
with the wish of his family that he should take orders: the conviction 
that he was in fault in this quarrel, and had wounded his innocent 
antagonist, pressed so {heavily on his mind, that he entered a 
seminary. He was barely ordained, when his relative M. Henriot, 
bishop of Boulogne, appointed him grand-vicar. On the death of the 
bishop, in 1741, the see was offered to Voisenon, who declined it on 
the ground that he who was unable to control himself was unfit to 
manage a bishopric. Cardinal Fleury, pleased with this disinterested- 
ness, bestowed upon him the abbey of Jard, in which residence was 
not required. Voisenon, thus made possessor of a competency, gave 
himself up for the rest of his life to the world and its pleasures. 
Voltaire introduced him to the Marquise du Chastelet. The wits 
who frequented the houses of the Comte de Caylus and the actress 
Quinault Dufresne received him with open arms, The Duc de la 
BIOG, DIV. VOL, VI. 


Valliére eagerly sought his company. His former success in writing 
for the stage led his friends to wish that he would resume his pen ; 
but two years elapsed before the entreaties of Mademoiselle Quinault 
could overcome the misgivings of the ‘ancien grand-vicaire’ of 
Boulogne. She triumphed at length, and the ‘ Mariages assortis,’ a 
comedy in verse, in three acts, was produced at the Italiens in 1744, 

From 1744 to 1755 he composed a number of plays, of which ‘La 
Coquette fixée,’ which had a run of twenty-three successive nights, 
was the best. He produced on the stage or in print operas, oratorios, 
profane and licentious lyrics, and at least one religious tract. In the 
midst of his dissolute life Voisenon was haunted incessantly with 
religious scruples. His naturally weak constitution broke down at last 
under his libertine indulgences, Apprehensive of death, he made a 
general confession: his confessor refused him absolution: Voisenon 
appealed to the pope, and with some difficulty, after paying a thousand 
crowns, and engaging to repeat his breviary every morning, he was 
absolved. He kept his promise, but the regularity of his devotion 
contrasted strangely with the equal regularity of his dissipation. 

In 1762 he became a candidate for admission into the Académie: 
he was elected, and delivered his inaugural address on the 22nd of 
January 1763. He attended the meetings of that body with punc- 
tuality, and his wit and liveliness made him a favourite. In 1766 he 
was deputed to do the honours of the Academy to the Duke of Bruns- 
wick, and in 1768 to the King of Denmark. In 1771 he was the 
director who admitted M. Roquelaure, bishop of Senlis, and a few 
days later the prince of Beauveau and the historian Gaillard. On all 
these occasions he gave free vent to his petulant wit. His face and 
figure, which have been compared to those of an ape, pointed his 
jests, and these solemnities elicited peals of laughter from the 
audience. 

Notwithstanding his effrontery, the Abbé Voisenon lived long with- 
out enemies, He was perfectly good-natured, and appears to have 
acted among his irritable associates the part of a reconciler-general. 
He lost himself however after the fall of the Duc de Choiseul, who 
had patronised him, by his servile flattery of Madame du Barry and his 
ungrateful sarcasms against his former benefactor. Voisenon’s friends 
fell off from him in disgust. The Duke of Orleans refused to receive, 
and the Prince of Conti turned his back upon him. He was insulted 
at the meetings of the Academy. He withdrew to his paternal 
chateau, where he died on the 22nd of November 1775. 

Besides his dramatic pieces and fugitive poetry, Voisenon published 
a number of tales, ‘Anecdotes Littéraires,’ and ‘Fragmens Histo- 
riques. Madame de Turpin, whom he was accustomed to call his 
secretary, was his literary executor. She published the complete 
works of Voisenon, prefaced by an eulogistic biography, in five 8vo 
volumes. Laharpe, who said that these volumes reminded him of a 
butterfly crushed in a folio, published a selection, in one small volume, 
ini8mo. There is both point and elegance in the wit of Voisenon, 
though his mind was scarcely vigorous enough for a work of any 
extent. Notwithstanding his libertinism, he was unostentatiously 
benevolent, and on some occasions self-denying. His disgraceful 
conduct towards the Duc de Choiseul may be charitably ascribed to 


dotage. 

VOITURE, VINCENT, a French writer in prose and verse, formerly 
of great reputation, was a native of Amiens, where he was born in 
1598. His father was a wine-merchant, but, besides being a lover of 
good cheer, was an attendant upon the court, and well known to all the 
principal people there. Voiture himself was educated at Paris : two 
poems by him, one in Latin, the other in French, on the assassination 
of Henry IV., were published in a collection of pieces by members 
of the College of Calvi, in 1612; the same year appeared his ‘Hymnus 
Virginis, seu Astrec ;’ and it was at the Collége de Boncour that he 
made the acquaintance of M. d’Avaux, who afterwards, when he 
became superintendent of the finances, gave his friend the valuable 
place of one of his first clerks, making it at the same time a sinecure, 
the better to suit Voiture’s tastes and habits. It is said to have been 
at the celebrated hotel of Madame de Rambouillet, where he was 
introduced by M. de Chaudebonne, that his wit and talent were first 
appreciated: Mademoiselle de Rambouillet is the Madame de Mon- 
tausier who is so frequently celebrated in his letters and verses. 
He soon became a distinguished figure at court; and he spent the rest 
of his life in the society of the great, occasionally visiting foreign 
countries on some court mission. He appears to bave been in Eng- 
land in 1633; one of his published letters in that year is dated from 
Dover. Before this he had been in Spain, where he was received with 
great distinction, and where he delighted the literary and fashionable 
circles of Madrid by penning verses in their own language, of such 
purity and apparent facility of style, that they were at first universally 
ascribed to Lope da Vega. From Spain he proceeded to Africa, to 
satisfy his curiosity by a view of that coast. He is stated to have 
paid two visits to Rome; and in 1638 he had the honour of being 
sent to Florence to announce to the grand-duke the birth of the 
dauphin, afterwards Louis XIV. Among the places he enjoyed at 
court were those of maitre d’hétel to the king, and introducteur des 
ambassadeurs to the Duke of Orleans. He was elected a member of 
the French Academy in 1634, and of that of the Umoristi at Rome in 
1638. He died in 1648, : 

With the exception of the early pieces already ery and 


436 VOLANUS, ANDREAS. 


VOLNEY, COMTE DE. 436 


some stanzas addressed to Gaston of Orleans. in 1614, Voiture printed 
nothing in his lifetime; but his French writings were collected after 
his death, and published at Paris in a quarto volume in 1650, by his 
nephew M. Etienne Martin de Pinchesne; and they have since been 
often reprinted, They consist of letters, poems, and a portion of a 
prose romance entitled ‘ L’Histvire d’Acidalis et de Zélide, His 
Latin verses were first added in an edition of his works published at 
Paris, in 2 vols, 12mo, in 1729, He is also said to have written easily 
and correctly in the Italian language, as well as in French and Spanish. 
In his own day, and for a long time after, Voiture was universally 
regarded as the model of grace and spirit in writing ; the inclination 
of more recent criticism has generally been to depreciate him, per- 
haps unduly, Voltaire remarks (‘Sidcle de Louis XIV.’) that he was 
the first example in France of what is called a bel-esprit; but that 
his writings haye scarcely any other merit. He admits however that 
that sort of merit was then extremely rare; and he adds that some 
of Voiture’s verses are very fine, though those deserving to be so 
styled are but few. The Abbé de Castres (‘Siécles. Littéraires ’) 
allows that some of his letters may still be read with pleasure, but 
not the whole continuously, He complains that the wit is too am- 
bitious and manifestly elaborate, as well as lavished with such pro- 
digality as to dazzle and fatigue more than to please. The writer's 
constant affectation, the Abbé conceives, is such as to deprive him of 
all the charm of nature and variety. On the other hand our own 
Pope, in a finished encomium on Voiture, sent along with a copy of 
his works to his friend Miss Blount, has said— 


“His easy art may happy nature seem ; 
Trifles themselyes are elegant in him.” 


De Castres admits nevertheless that Voiture does not merit all the 
contempt which it had come to be customary to express for him; and 
that few writers furnish more examples of fineness and delicacy of 
thought. Boileau was an ardent admirer of Voiture, and has cele- 
brated him as the great example of elegance of style in the preceding 
age. He must indeed be regarded as one of the reformers of French 
poetry—which he had the taste to seek to restore to the simple and 
cordial style of Marot from ‘the pedantry and affectation into which it 
had subsequently degenerated ; adding at the same time a polish and 
comparative exactness till then unexampled. He may in this way be 
considered as the founder of the style which was afterwards carried 
to perfection by La Fontaine. We had certainly nothing so good of 
the same kind in English poetry till Prior appeared. In his prose, 
his wit is often very brilliant and happy, and the diction is probably 
more flowing and regular than that of any preceding French writer. 
A conclusion to Voiture’s unfinished romance has been written by the 
Sieur des Barres; it first appeared by itself at Paris in 1677; and it 
may be seen in an edition of his ‘ Lettres et autres (Zuvres, 2 vols, 
12mo, Amsterdam, 1709, although the ‘Biographie Universelle’ says 
it was first published along with Voiture’s romance in the Paris edition 
of 1713. There are at least two English translations of Voiture’s 
Letters: one entitled ‘Letters of Affairs, Love, and Courtship, 
written to several persons of honour and quality by the exquisite 
pen of M. de Voiture; Englished by J. D.’ (i.e. J. Davies, as appears 
from the dedication), 2 vols. Svo, London, 1657; the other, entitled 
‘The Works of Monsieur Voiture, translated by Mr. Dryden, Mr. 
Dennis, Dr. Drake, Mr. Cromwell, Mr, Cheke, Mr. Brown, Mr. Ozell, 
Mr. Webster; the third edition, revised and corrected throughout by 
the last edition printed at Paris, addressed to Miss Blount by Mr. 
Pope,’ 2 vols. 12mo, London, 1736. But this is one of Curll’s lying 
title-pages, and the book contains translations of only a very few of 
Voiture’s poems, Among the translations however is one attributed 
to Pope, which could scarcely have been written by any one else 
(‘Verses occasioned by Mr. Durfy’s adding an &e. at the end of his 
name, in imitation of Voiture’s verses on Neuf-Germain’). This trans- 
lation of the letters does not seem to be so good as that by Davies. 
Some of the best of Voiture’s poems, preceded by a short sketch of 
his life, with several curious anecdotes illustrative of his character 
and habits, may be seen in the 5th volume (pp. 193-258) of the col- 
lection entitled ‘Recueil des plus belles Pidces des Poétes Frangais,’ 
6 tomes, 12mo, Paris, 1752. So lately as in 1806 there was published 
at Paris, in 2 vols. 12mo, a collection entitled ‘Lettres Choisies de 
Voiture, Balsac, Montreuil, Pelisson, et Boursault.’ The letters are 
preceded by a preliminary discourse and a biographical account of the 
writers; both anonymous, but known to be, the former by M. 
Vincent Campenon, the latter by M. Auger; and several both of his 
Letters and Poems are given in a12mo volume, entitled ‘ uvres 
Choisies de Marot, Malherbe, Voiture, et Segrais,’ Paris, 1810. See 
also the ‘Liste Alphabétique des Auteurs,’ prefixed to Richelet’s 
Dictionnaire ; and Baillet, ‘Jugemens des Sayans,’ iv. 248-250, 
VOLA'NUS, A’NDREAS, a Polish Protestant author, who acquired 
great celebrity by his controversy with the Jesuits, and by whom he 
was attacked with the most bitter violence, He was born in 1530, 
in the province of Posen, but lived chiefly at Vilna, where he was 
pastor of the Reformed church, and where he died in 1610, at the age 
of eighty. Besides his controversy with the Jesuits, he wrote against 
the Socinians, and had theological disputations with the Lutherans, in 
which he displayed great talent and learning, but failed in his object, 
which was to bring about a union between the Augustan and the 


Helvetian confessions in Poland, Besides a great number of contro- 
versial works which he published, and which had in their time a great 
run in the country, as well as abroad, Volanus is advantageously 
known .as a political writer by his work ‘De Libertate Politica seu 
Civili, Cracow, 1582, 

VOLKOV, PHEDOR GRIGORIEVICH, the founder of the 
Russian theatre, and son of a merchant of Kostroma, was born Feb- 
ruary 2nd 1729. He lost his father while young, and his mother 
married again, but her second husband, Polushkin, a merchant at 
Yaroslav, proved a kind stepfather to her children. He was more 
particularly attached to Phedor, her eldest son, and sent him to the 
Zaikonaspassky Academy at Moscow to learn mathematics and German, 
and prepare himself for theological studies: but there Volkov was 
thrown in the way of pursuits very different and far more congenial 
with his disposition. It was the practice at that seminary for the - 
scholars to get up dramatic recitations and performances, acting some- 
times religious pieces or mysteries, and sometimes comedies taken 
from Moliére. Except that he displayed general cleverness, we are 
not told what progress he made in his other learning, but in the 
dramatic art he was no sooner a scholar than he showed himself to 
be a master, and also made rapid proficiency in painting, music, 
singing, and other accomplishments of that kind. The idea of his 
studying theology was now given up, while that of his taking to the 
stage as a profession did not suggest itself either to him or his friends, 
because there was then no such profession—no public stage in Russia. 
He was therefore placed by his stepfather, in, 1746, in the counting- 
house of a merchant at St. Petersburg, with whom he soon became a 
favourite, and who took him to see the Italian operas at the court 
theatre. To say that Volkov was delighted would but coldly g 
the rapturous enthusiasm with which he was seized; nor was it at all 
abated when he afterwards saw some of Sumarokov’s pieces performe 
or recited by the pupils of the ‘Cadet Corps.’ One of his first objects 
was to become acquainted with some of the actors of the Court 
Theatre, to make himself master of Italian, and to obtain a thorough 
insight into all the business of the stage, with its machinery and 
various appurtenances, Not least of all is it to his eredit, that though 
he was thus engrossed by his theatrical passion, he did not, distasteful 
as they were. to him, neglect his counting-house duties, or the affairs 
which his stepfather had entrusted to his management. ° 

Whatever it might have cost him at the time, for this he was ampl 
rewarded by the affectionate reception with which he was greeted by 
his worthy stepfather Polushkin and his whole family on his return to 
Yaroslav. Instead of being lectured for his theatrical passion, he was 
permitted to get up a theatrical performance, after he had sufficiently 
trained his brothers and some of their acquaintance, and a barn had 
been converted into a stage with ‘real scenes,’ All Yaroslay was 
invited, and all Yaroslav went away in raptures—which were more 
than mere compliments, for some of the principal inhabitants imme- 
diately set on foot a subscription to erect a permanent theatre, of 
which Volkov was appointed architect, decorator, scene-painter, 
machinist, manager, director of the orchestra, purveyor of novelties, 
and dramatic writer, This was the first Russian theatre, the pro- 
genitor of those magnificent and colossal edifices of which that country 
can now boast. 

It was not long before the fame of the Yaroslav theatre reached St, 
Petersburg, and the Empress Elizabeth wished to witness a performance 
by the Yaroslav actors on her own private stage. They accordingly 
repaired to Petersburg, and played before the empress Sumarokoy’s 
drama of ‘Sinav and Truvor.’ Their success was complete, and the 
whole company of youthful actors was retained, although several of 
them were placed in the ‘ Cadet Corps,’ in order to perfect their edu- 
cation, and some were sent abroad to study the dramatic art and 
improve their talents, 

In 1756 Volkov was ordered to proceed to Moscow, and establish a 
theatre in that capital; which commission he executed with so much 
zeal and ability, that within the course of two wv was 
there put upon a very respectable footing, both in point of talent and 
of scenic representation, Standing high in the favour of the empress, 
he enjoyed that of the court, and afterwards of her successor Cathe- 
rine II., who would have conferred on him the rank of nobility, had 
he not declined that distinction for himself, begging that it might be 
transferred to his married brother Gabriel. But he did not enjoy 
Catherine’s favour very long, for at the time of her coronation at 
Moscow, on which occasion he was ¢ with the superintending 
the arrangements of some part of the public festivities, he caught a 
cold that was succeeded by inflammatory fever, which carried him 
off, April 4th 1763. 

Volkov is said to have translated several pieces for the stage, and 
also to have written some original ones; but as none of them have 
been preserved, or if in existence have not yet been brought to light, 
his fame as a dramatist is only traditional. He also made a collection 
of the biblical dramas of St. Demetrius, metropolitan of Rostoy 
(1651-1709), which he presented to Catherine, who bestowed them on 
Prince Orlov, who was a great admirer of literary relics and antiquities ; 
but what afterwards became of the manuscripts is not known, (Hnt- 
ziklopeditcheskit Leksikon.) 

VOLNEY, CONSTANTIN-FRANCOIS, CHASSE-BQUF, COMTE 
DE, was born February 3rd, 1757, at Craon in Anjou, where his father 


VOLNEY, COMTE DE. 


437 


VOLNEY, COMTE DE. 433 


was a distinguished advocate: He was educated at the colleges of 

Ancenis and Angers. At this time, and till he reached his twenty- 

fourth year, he bore the name of Boisgirais, invented by his father, to 

whom the ancestral Chasseboouf had always been matter of annoyance, 

His father’s wish was that he should study the law; and with this view 

he came up to Paris in his seventeenth year, having already a small 

income of 1100 livres (about 45/.) of his own, left him by his mother ; 
but he soon exchanged the study of the law for that of medicine; and 

eventually, on succeeding to a further independent revenue of 6000 

livres (240/.), he gave up the thought of following any profession, He 

now, in 1783, set out for the East. After shutting himself up for eight 
months in an Egyptian convent to study the Arabic language, he spent 
above two years more in traversing Lower Egypt and Syria; and on 
his return to France in 1787 he published, in 2 vols. 8vo, his account 
of the physical and political condition of these countries, and of their 
geoerephy and antiquities, under the title of ‘ Voyage en Syrie et en 
gypte pendant les années 1783, 84, et 85.’ The first edition of 
er’s translation of and commentary on Herodotus had been pub- 
lished at Paris the year before, and had probably done something to 
awaken a general interest about the subject of Volney’s book. Volney 
also, with the advantages of personal observation, with very consider- 
able learning, and with more acuteness than Larcher, came to support 

_ the same view of the trustworthiness of Herodotus which that writer 
‘had enforced, On the whole, Volney’s was universally received as at 
once by far the most graphic and spirited, and the most exact and 
complete description of Egypt and Syria which had yet appeared. A 
third edition of the work, with considerable additions, appeared in 
1800; and there is an English translation of it in 2 vols. 8vo. It was 
followed the next year by a short tract on the war then carrying on 
between Turkey and Russia (‘ Considérations sur la Guerre des Russes 
et des Turcs’), remarkable for its anticipation of the seizure of Egypt 
by the French, attempted ten years later; and also for the indiscretion 
or unusual frankness with which certain facts and questions of the 
diplomacy of the day were discussed in it; so that it was christened 
by the wits ‘Inconsidérations sur la Guerre,’ &c. This tract was 

reprinted in the 1800 edition of the * Voyage,’ and again by itself in 
1808. 

Volney, who had some sanguine notions upon new modes of farming, 
which he wished to have an opportunity of trying on a property he 
proposed purchasing in Corsica, now got himself appointed by the 
French government director of the agriculture and commerce of that 
recently-acquired island; but being elected deputy of the ‘tiers état’ 
to the National Assembly for the sénéchaussée of Anjou, he remained 
for the present in France to take part in the great events about to be 
transacted there; and he soon after resigned his government office. 
In the Constituent Assembly, and afterwards in the Convention, of 
which he was also a member, Volney acted generally with the party of 
the Girondists, assisting the onward movement till the establishment 
of the reign of terror in 1793; when, like many of his associates, he 
began to think that matters had been carried too far; but having a 
weak voice, he was no orator, and his personal influence in the House 
was inconsiderable. His history accordingly still continues to be prin- 
cipally that of his literary career. It appears that in 1788 he had 
commenced at Rennes a paper called ‘ La Sentinelle.” In 1790 he gave 
in to the Académie des Inscriptions an essay for a proposed prize on 
the subject of the Chronology of the Twelve Centuries preceding the In- 
vasion of Greece by Xerxes. Although he had no competitor, the prize 
was not awarded to him; but the essay was afterwards published by 
Naigeon in the ‘Encyclopédie Méthodique.’ In September 1791 he 
presented to the National Assembly his famous ‘ Ruines, ou Médita- 
tions sur les Révolutions des Empires;’ the work in which he first 
announced those peculiar views as to the symbolical character of the 
Christian and other religions (similar, as has been observed, to those 

_ developed by Dupuis in his ‘ Origine des Cultes,’ probably known to 
Volney, though not yet published), to which his name principally 
owes its popular notoriety. There are numerous French editions of 
the ‘ Ruines,’ and there is also a wretched English translation of the 
work, which has been often printed, It contains many striking and 
ingenious views and some eloquent writing, though extravagant and 
absurd in its leading principles. Soon after it appeared, Volney retired 
to Corsica to cultivate a property which he had purchased there; but 
the insurrection headed by Paoli compelled him to leave the island in 
the spring of 1793. It was during this visit to Corsica that he first 
became acquainted with Napoleon Bonaparte, then an officer of 

On his return to Paris, Volney published in the * Moniteur’ of the 

20th and 31st of March a‘ Précis de I’Htat de la Corse,’ In 1793 he 

published his well-known brochure (generally printed with his 

*Ruines’), entitled ‘La Loi Naturelle, ou Catéchisme du Citoyen 

Frangais, or otherwise ‘Principes Physiques de la Morale,’ a title 

which sufficiently explains its spirit and object. It is a clear and com- 

prehensive exposition of such a system of ethics as can be reared on 
the theory of materialism. Volney was now sent to prison by Robe- 
spierre as a royalist, and remained in confinement for about ten 
months: he regained his liberty on the overthrow of Robespierre by 

what is called the revolution of the 9th Thermidor (27th July 1794). 

Soon after he was appointed professor of history in the newly-esta- 

blished Ecole Normale; and here for about a year he delighted crowded 


audiences by his brilliant lectures, which were taken down as they 
were delivered, and have been several times printed. In 1795 he drew 
up, at the request of the government, a series of ‘ Questions de Statis- 
tique & )’Usage des Voyageurs,’ which were reprinted in 1813. This 
year also he published the first of his works on a subject which for the 
rest of his life engaged much of his attention—a tract entitled ‘ Sim- 
plification’ des Langues Orientales, ou Méthode nouvelle et facile 
d’apprendre les Langues Arabe, Persane, et Turke, avec des Caractdres 
Européens.’ His notions upon this subject were opposed by Langlés, 
Silvestre de Sacy, and other orientalists, but he never himself relin- 
quished them; and he had the satisfaction, a few years after this, of 
having an important testimony borne at least to the learning and inge- 
nuity he had shown in explaining and applying them, by the Asiatic 
Society at Calcutta, which in 1798 elected him one of its honorary 
members. 

The Ecole Normale was suppressed in 1795; upon which Volney 
proceeded to the United States of America. He was well received by 
Washington, then president; but his residence became less comfortable 
after the commencement, in 1797, of the presidency of John Adams, 
whom he is said to have offended by some severe things he had 
said of his work on the ‘ Constitution of the United States;’ and in 
the spring of 1798 he quitted America and returned to France, 
While residing in New England he had been attacked by Priestley in 
his ‘ Observations on the Progress of Infidelity ;’ and he replied in a 
pungent letter, which he caused to be translated into English and sent 
to the press. During his absence he had been elected a member of 
the Institute. Ever since they became acquainted in Corsica, Volney 
and Bonaparte had been good friends; it is said that it was by Volney’s 
advice that Bonaparte was dissuaded from going, in the beginning of 
1794, to offer his services as a military man to Turkey or Russia; and 
Volney is supposed to have had, soon after his return from America, a 
share in the contrivance and preparation of the revolution of the 18th 
Brumaire (9th of November 1799), which placed Bonaparte at the 
head of affairs. Bonaparte wished him to be one of his colleagues in 
the consulate; but he refused both that and the ministry of the 
interior, and would only consent to be nominated to a seat in the 
senate. From this date an alienation began to take place between 
the two; their first open difference was on the subject of the church, 
the restoration of which as one of the establishments of the state 
Volney conceived to be a very foolish proceeding; but their notions 
upon all other matters also ran in opposite directions, When Bona- 
parte assumed the imperial title, Volney offered the resignation of his 
senatorial dignity ; he was prevailed upon to retain his seat, but he 
seldom attended after this, and when he did he joined the small 
minority of the body which Napoleon contemptuously called the 
“ idéologues,” “ hommes speculatifs,” and other such names, He sub- 
sequently however accepted the titles of comte and commandant of the 
Legion of Honour. In 1803 he published, in 2 vols. 8vo, his ‘ Tableau 
du Climat et du Sol des Etats-Unis d’Amérique, a work which sus- 
tained the reputation he had acquired by his ‘Travels in Egypt and 
Syria, though it is now of no value. His next work was a ‘ Rapport 
fait & V Académie Celtique sur l’'Ouvrage Russe de M. le Professeur 
Pallas, Vocabulaires comparés des Langues de toute la Terre,’ which 
appeared in 1805. In 1808 he recast his ‘ Essay on the Chronology of 
the Early Ages,’ and republished it under the title of ‘Supplément & 
l’Hérodote de Larcher.’ This is a tract of only eighty pages, in which 
he fixes the date (B.c. 625) of the great solar eclipse stated to have 
been foretold by Thales [Anyarres; THALES]; and also that of the 
capture of Sardis and fall of the Lydian kingdom (B.c. 557). That and 
another work, entitled ‘Chronologie d’Hérodote,’ which he published 
the following year, involved Volney in a controversy with Larcher, 
whom he had attacked with much asperity, provoked perhaps in part 
by the complete change of opinion as to religion which Larcher, 
formerly as decided an infidel as himself, had avowed in the second 
edition of his ‘Herodotus,’ published a few years before. Volney 
however suppressed most of the personalities originally contained in 
these two works when he reprinted them in 2 vols. 8vo, in 1814, along 
with an examination of the antiquities of Persia, India, and Babylon, 
under the title of ‘ Recherches Nouvelles sur l'Histoire Ancienne.’ 

In 1810 Volney married his cousin, formerly Mademoiselle de 
Chasseboouf, between whom and himself there had existed an early 
attachment, but who had married while her lover was abroad, and 
was now a widow. Upon this occasion he removed from the small 
house in the Rue de la Rochefoucauld, in which he had resided since 
his return from America, to a fashionable mansion, with a large 
garden, which he bought in the Rue de Vaugirard. Volney was one 
of the senators who voted in favour of the decree passed the 2nd of 
April 1814, for the deposition of Bonaparte; and on the 4th of June 
following he was elevated to the peerage by Louis XVIII. It may be 
conceived from all this, that his early political ardour had now con- 
siderably abated. But he showed that some of his old opinions were 
still the same as ever by a pamphlet entitled ‘Histoire de Samuel, 
Inventeur du Sacre des Rois,’ which he published in 1819, when pre- 
parations were making for the coronation of Louis at Rheims, and in 
which he treated the character of Samuel and of the Hebrew Scrip- 
tures in general with equal freedom. It is said that Louis himself, 
who in private used to profess a very easy liberalism, both in religion 
and in politics, read this inquiry with not a little relish, Volney’s 


439 VOLPATO, GIOVANNI. 


VOLTA, ALESSANDRO. 440 


last publication appeared the same year, a tract which he dedicated to 
the Asiatic Society, entitled ‘L’Alphabet Européen appliqué aux 
Langues Asiatiques.’ He also read to the Academy, in 1819, a ‘ Dis- 
cours sur l’Etude Philosophique des Langues ;’ and the collection of 
‘(Euvres Complates,’ published in 8 vols. 1820-1826, contains two 
letters to M. le Comte Lanjuinais, ‘Sur l’Antiquité de l’Alphabet 
Phénicien,’ dated also in that year. The last work he prepared for the 
press was an octavo volume, entitled, ‘L’Hébreu simplifié, which 
appeared immediately after his death. All his acknowledged writings 
have now been mentioned except a paper entitled ‘Vues Nouvelles sur 
_ YEnseignement des Langues Orientales,’ and another entitled ‘ Etat 
Physique de la Corse,’ both printed in the eighth volume of his col- 
lected works, But he was also a considerable contributor anony- 
mously to the ‘Moniteur’ and the ‘ Revue Encyclopédique.’ f 

Volney died on the 23rd of April 1820. The above facts are chiefly 
abstracted from an excellent though somewhat partial memoir of him, 
in the ‘ Biographie Universelle, by M. Durozoir. 

VOLPA’/TO GIOVA’NNI, a distinguished Italian engraver, was 
born at Bassano in 1738, He was first employed in tapestry em- 
broidery, an art which he learnt from his mother; but he at the same 
time occasionally occupied himself with engraving, which he acquired 
without instruction, and he published some prints under the assumed 
name of Renard. The success of these prints was sufficient to induce 
him to adopt engraving as a profession, and he accordingly fixed him- 
self in Vertice, where he became the pupil of the celebrated Bartolozzi. 
Volpato engraved many good prints after several Venetian masters, 
but his best works were engraved after Raffaelle and other masters at 
Rome, where he finally settled. He was employed as its principal 
engraver by a society of dilettanti which undertook to re-engrave all 
the works of Raffaelle in the Vatican. Volpato engraved on a large 
scale seven of the great works of Raffaelle in the so-called stanze; an 
eighth, ‘The Mess of Bolsena,’ was engraved by his pupil and son-in- 
law Raphael Morghen. The prints were published coloured as well as 
plain, and are a very valuable set of engravings. He published in the 
game style the Farnese Gallery of Annibal Carracci; and many other 
celebrated works of the great Italian masters. He published also 
many coloured landscape etchings of Roman views, &c., in partnership 
with P. du Cros. Another of his great works is a set of fourteen 
views of the galleries of the Museo Clementino, with all its works of 
art. He engraved also two prophets and two sibyls from those of 
Michel Angelo in the Sistine Chapel. His prints are remarkably 
numerous considering their scale and the style in which they are exe- 
cuted. Huber, who wrote before the death of Volpato, enumerates, 
as his principal works, 166 engravings. He and his son-in-law Morghen 
were the best engravers in Italy at the end of the 18th century. 
Volpato died at Rome in 1803. 

VOLPI, GIAN ANTONIO, born at Padua in 1686, studied in his 
native town, and became a good Latin and Greek scholar. In 1717 he 


and his brother Gaetano Volpi established a printing-press in their. 


house for the purpose of bringing out correvt editions of classic 
authors, and they engaged for their assistant the printer Giuseppe 
Comino. This press—known by the name of Volpi-Cominiana, pro- 
duced among others a valuable edition of Catullus with copious notes, 
The edition was much commended by scholars, and the city of Verona 
struck a gold medal, which was presented to Volpi: the title is, ‘Caius 
Catulus Veronensis et in eum Jo. Antonii Vulpii novus Commentarius,’ 
4to, Padua, 1737. Volpi afterwards edited Tibullus and Propertius. 
He translated from the Greek into Italian the dialogue of Zacharias 
Scholasticus; he wrote a disquisition on the satire of the Romans: 
* Liber de satyree Latine natura et ratione, item paraphrasis perpetua 
et commentarius uberrimus in X satyram Juvenalis, Padua, 1744; 
he edited the poems of Sannazaro, with a biography of the author; he 
published a new edition of Dante; and he wrote three books of Latin 
poems, to which he added those of his ancestor and namesake Gian 
Antonio Volpi, the elder, who was bishop of Como and was one of the 
Fathers of the Council of Trent. Volpi was for many years professor 
of philosophy and of rhetoric in the University of Padua. In his old 
age he became blind, and he died in 1766. His brother Gaetano 
Volpi edited Sallust in 1722, and he was an active assistant to his 
brother at the press, He wrote an account of their joint labours: ‘La 
Libreria dei Volpi e la Stamperia Cominiana.’ Giuseppe Comino haying 
died in 1752, his son Angelo Comino continued to carry on the 
business. Another brother of Volpi, named Giuseppe, undertook the 
continuation of Cardinal Corradini’s great work, ‘ Vetus Latium pro- 
fanum,’ which he completed. 

VOLTA, ALESSANDRO, was born at Como in 1745, of a noble 
family, and was educated in that city. In 1774 he was appointed 
professor of natural philosophy in the University of Pavia, and while 
he held that chair he made the discoveries which have immortalised 
his name. 

It appears that in his youth he had a taste for letters, and among 
his effusions is a poem, in Italian, on Saussure’s journey to Mont 
Blane: he also composed one in Latin, which treats of the principal 
phenomena of chemistry. This taste did not however continue, and 
the bent of his mind was afterwards decidedly in favour of the sciences 
connected with electricity. 

In 1777 Volta made an excursion into Switzerland, and three years 
afterwards he travelled through Tuscany. During the latter journey 


he observed and drew up a description of the flame which appears to 
issue from the ground about 40 miles from Florence, on the road to 
Bologna. In 1782 he travelled through Germany and Holland, and 
made a visit to England, where he became known to Sir Joseph Banks 
and the most distinguished philosophers of the country. He returned 
through France, and he is said to have then introduced into Lombardy 
the culture of the potato, which he had observed in Savoy. 

When Bonaparte first entered Italy, in 1796, Volta was one of the 
persons appointed by his fellow-citizens to solicit the protection of 
that general, who afterwards took every opportunity of conferring 
honours upon him. He caused him to be named a deputy from the 
University of Pavia to a congress which was held at Lyon for the 
purpose of electing a president of the Italian republic; and in 1801 
he invited him to Paris, in order that he might repeat before the mem- 
bers of the Institute his experiments with the pile which he had 
invented. On this occasion that learned body presented Volta with a 
gold medal, and elected him one of its foreign associates, Bonaparte 
also make him a member of the Legion.of Honour, and conferred on 
him the order of the Iron Crown, with the titles of count and senator 
of the kingdom of Italy. He had been elected a Fellow of the Royal 
Society of London in 1791. 

In 1804 Volta was allowed to resign his professorship; and, giving 
up his studies, he spent the rest of his life at his native town, Como. 
Here he was seized with a fever, which, after an illness of only two 
days, terminated fatally on the 5th of March 1826. He married in 
1794, and by his wife he had three children, whose education he him- 
self superintended. His life was one of uniform piety, and he died 
sincerely lamented by every friend of science, particularly by his 
fellow-citizens, who struck a medal and erected a monument to his 
memory. 

In proof of the inclination of Volta in favour of the physical 
sciences, it may be observed, that when he was only eighteen years of 
age he corresponded with the Abbé Nollet on the subject of electrical 
phenomena, and that six years afterwards (1769) he addressed to 
Beccaria a dissertation in Latin, entitled ‘De Vi Attractiva ignis 
Electrici.’ In 1775, while pursuing some experiments on the non- 
conducting property of wood when impregnated with oil, he was led 
to the construction of his ‘ electrophorus,’ an instrument consisting of 
two circular plates of metal having between them one of resin: the 
upper plate was furnished with an isolating handle of glass, by which 
it was to be raised from the plate of resin; and the latter being 
excited by friction, the whole constituted a kind of electrical machine. 
An account of it was given in Kosier’s ‘Journal de Physique’ for 1776, 
and Dr. Ingenhouz afterwards explained its principles on the Franklin 
theory of positive and negative electricity. (‘ Phil. Trans.,’ 1778.) 

The efforts of Volta to improve the electrophorus led him in 1782 
to the discovery of the instrument which he designated an electrical 
condenser. This is rather a variation of the former instrument, a 
plate of marble or varnished wood being substituted for the resin 
between the conductors, A wire being brought to the upper con- 
ductor from the object in which a faint degree of electricity exists, 
after a time the conductor, on being lifted up by the glass handle, is 
found to have received from the object a considerable quantity of elec- 
tricity. An account of this instrument was given by Volta himself, in 
the ‘Philosophical Transactions’ for the same year (vol. lxxii.); and 
it is there stated that he had succeeded in ascertaining by it the exist- 
ence of negative electricity in the vapour of water, in the smoke of 
burning coals, and in the gas produced by a solution of iron in weak 
sulphuric acid. With this instrument Volta employed an electrometer 
consisting of two pieces of straw suspended in a glass jar, from the 
stopper; these diverged from each other on bringing an electrified 
body in contact with a ball of metal connected with the stopper ; and 
by means of a graduated scale, the intensity of the electricity was 
measured. . 

In 1777 Volta invented the elegant apparatus which is called the 
hydrogen lamp; it is constituted by a stream of hydrogen gas, which 
is made to issue through a small aperture by means of the pressure of 
a column of water, and the gas is fired by the spark from an electro- 
phorus placed below it. About the same time he discovered a process 
for determining the proportions between the two gases, oxygen and 
azote, which constitute common atmospherical air; this is accom- 
plished by introducing a given quantity of hydrogen gas into a glass 
tube with a certain quantity of atmospherical air, and firing it by the 
electrical spark: the quantity of oxygen was indicated by the dimi- 
nution of the volume. He also invented the instrument which has 
been called the electrical pistol. 

But the discovery by which the name of Volta is chiefly distinguished 
is that of the development of electricity in metallic bodies. A series 
of experiments judiciously devised and skilfully conducted led him to 
the knowledge of this principle, the applications of which have since 
produced such important consequences. 

Galvani had given the name of animal electricity to the power 
which caused spontaneous convulsions in the limbs of frogs when the 
divided nerves were connected by a metallic wire [Gatvanr]; but 
Volta observing that the effects were far greater when the connecting 
medium consisted of two different kinds of metal, inferred from thence 
that the principle of excitation existed in the metals, and not in the 
nerves of the animal; and he assumed that by their contact there was 


441 VOLTAIRE, FRANCOIS-MARIE, 


VOLTAIRE, FRANCOIS-MARIE. 442 


developed a small quantity of the electrical fluid, which, being trans- 
mitted through the organs of the frog, produced the convulsive move- 
ments. These discoveries Volta communicated to the Royal Society 
of London in two letters addressed to Mr. Cavallo, which were pub- 
lished in the ‘Philosophical Transactions’ for 1793; and in the 
following year he had the honour of receiving the Copley medal, in 
gold, which was awarded to him by the society. In the first letter it 
is stated that when different metals are placed near each other, with a 
saline liquid between them, there is produced a disturbance of elec- 
trical equilibrium, one metal giving a portion of its natural electricity 
to the other, so that the latter becomes positively and the former 
negatively electrical ; the use of the liquid being to transfer the elec- 
tricity from one metal to the other. But in the second letter Volta 
states that he considers all conductors of electricity to be divided into 
two classes, one dry and the other moist; and he assumes that 
electricity is excited when two conductors of either of these classes 
are in contact with one of the other class: an idea apparently at 
variance with that of the supposed actions of unlike metals on one 
another. 

Repeated experiments, followed up during seven years, led Volta at 
length to the invention of what is designated an electrical battery : it 


‘consisted of a series of cups disposed in the circumference of a circle ; 


each cup contained a saline liquid, in which were placed, on their 


-edges, a plate of zinc and one of silver; and the upper edge of the 


silver plate in each cup was connected by a wire with that of the zinc 
plate in the next. This apparatus, which was called a ‘ corona,’ was 
superseded by one formed on the same principle with respect to the 
alternations of metal plates, which is called the Galvanic or Voltaic 
pile. Volta’s account of his researches concerning the development of 
electricity by the pile was sent to the Royal Society in the year 1800; 


- but, in consequence of the war between Great Britain and France, one 


portion of the account could not be sent till some months after the 

first had been received; and in the interval the pile was constructed, 

and many experiments were made with it in this country. The 

paper appeared however in the ‘ Philosophical Transactions’ for that 

pe (xo. x¢c.), in the form of two letters addressed to Sir Joseph 
anks, 

It is remarkable that Volta, during the remainder of his life, con- 
fined his experiments with the pile to such as concern its action on 
the animal body, and he does not appear to have made any use of it 
as an instrument of chemical analysis; even the decomposition of 
water by it was first effected by Messrs. Nicholson and Carlisle. He 
always maintained the opinion that an electrical process took place in 
the pile, and that a chemical action was merely incidental; while the 
English experimentalists in general considered the latter as essential 
to the production of the effects, and to arise from the oxidation of the 
metals by the saline liquid: they found that the pile does not act 
when pure water is interposed between the plates, and that its action 
ceases when the apparatus does not continue to receive a supply of 
oxygen. The latest researches have shown that the effects of the pile 
are partly electrical and electro-magnetical, and partly chemical : to 


the former class are referred muscular contractions and the deviations 


of magnetised needles; and to the latter the decompositions of material 
substances. It may be observed here, that Volta supposed the heart 
and the other involuntary muscles to be incapable of being excited by 
galvanic action—an opinion which has been found to be erroneous. 

By the faculty of skilfully combining experiments, and a profound 
sagacity in perceiving the consequences which might be deduced from 
them, Volta was enabled to make many important discoveries ; but it 
is remarkable that he often held unfounded opinions of ‘the causes of 
the phenomena, and he does not appear to have pursued any of his 
researches so far as to arrive at mathematical precision in his results, 
Thus he erroneously ascribed the properties of his electrophorus and 
condenser to the effects of an electrical atmosphere which he supposed 
to exist about the surfaces of bodies; and he deceived himself in con- 
sidering his electrometer to be capable of measuring with accuracy the 
intensity of electricity in bodies; when, for this purpose, it was in 
reality far inferior to the torsion balance of Coulomb. By a series of 
experiments he succeeded in discovering the influence of conductors 
on the preservation and transmission of electricity ; but it was reserved 
for the last-mentioned philosopher to determine by experiment and 
by mathematical analysis the exact laws of the dissipation of electricity 
from bodies in contact with air, its density in spheres of different 
magnitudes, and also at different parts of an imperfectly insulating 
body, and the influence of points in facilitating its transmission, An 
inattention to accuracy of investigation is considered as the cause that 
Volta lost the opportunity of discovering the true cause of the de- 
velopment of electricity in the evaporation of water, which is the 
most important circumstance in the electrical phenomena of the 
atmosphere. 

A collection of the works of Volta, dedicated to Ferdinand IIL. 
grand-duke of Tuscany, was published, in 1816, at Florence, under the 
title, ‘ Collezione delle Opere,’ &e., in 5 vols. 8vo. 

VOLTAIRE, FRANCOIS-MARIE AROUET DE, was born at 
Chitenay, near Sceaux, on the 20th of February 1694, His baptism 
was deferred to the 22nd of November in the same year, on account 
of his feeble health. His father Francois Arouet was Trésorier de la 
Chambre des Comptes, and his mother Marguerite Daumart belonged 


to a noble family of Poitou. Voltaire was the.younger of two sons. 
He was educated at the college of Louis le Grand, then under the 
direction of the Jesuits. His character must have already developed 
itself, if the story is true that Father Lejay, one of his instructors, 
predicted that he would be the Coryphzus of deism in France. On 
leaving college he was introduced by his godfather, the Abbé Chateau- 
neuf, to Ninon de l’Enclos, who was much pleased with his lively 
manners, and bequeathed him a legacy of two thousand franes for the 
purchase of books. The abbé also introduced him to that brilliant 
society in Paris, consisting of the Duc de Sully, the prince of Conti, the 
grand-prior of Vendéme, the abbé de Chaulieu and others, whose con- 
versation confirmed the youth in those loose principles which he had 
already imbibed. But he was not entirely engrossed by the pleasures 
of Paris ; he had already sketched his tragedy of ‘ Gidipe,’ and in 1712 
he was an unsuccessful candidate for a poetical prize which was 
awarded by the French Academy. In order to detach him from the 
society of Paris, his father sent Voltaire, in 1713, with the marquis de 
Chateauneuf, who was ambassador in Holland. Here he fell in love 
with a daughter of Madame Dunoyer, an intriguing woman, who had 
left France for Holland to escape from her husband, and had embraced 
the Protestant religion. It is not clearly stated why the mother dis- 
approved of the mutual affection of her daughter and Voltaire, but 
she complained to the ambassador, and printed the correspondence of 
the two lovers. Voltaire was sent back to France, and with difficulty 
reconciled to his father, who complained of the libertinism of his 
younger son as much as of the Jansenist opinions of the elder. 

Voltaire was now placed with a procuréur, but the practice of the 
law was intolerable to a man of his tastes and temperament, and he 
soon left it. A friend of the family, M. de Caumartin, obtained his 
father’s consent to take Voltaire with him to Saint-Ange. .Here he met 
with the father of M. de Caumartin, who had been familiar with the 
court of Henri IV. and the distinguished persons of that king’s reign. 
Voltaire was delighted with his anecdotes and conversation, out of 
which grew the idea of the ‘Henriade.’ He returned to Paris with his 
project of an epic poem, and his next step was into the Bastille, 
Louis XIV. had just died, and his memory was attacked by numerous 
satirical verses. Voltaire, who was then twenty-two years of age, was 
well enough known to be suspected as the author of some of these 
verses, and without further evidence he was imprisoned. In his con- 
finement he sketched his poem of the ‘ Henriade,’ under the title 
of ‘ La Ligue,’ and completed his tragedy of ‘Cidipe. He was soon 
released by the Regent Duke of Orleans, who was satisfied of his 
innocence. It is said that about this time he took the name of 
Voltaire. The tragedy of ‘Cidipe’ was played in 1718, and was suc- 
cessful, but the author was first compelled by the judgment of the 
actors to insert a frigid love episode in the ‘(dipe,’ in compliance 
with the taste of the times. In this, his earliest work that is worthy 
of his reputation, Voltaire commenced that war against the priesthood 
which he maintained with unabating perseverance to his dying day. 
The two following verses have been quoted as the manifestation of 
that hostility to the ministers of religion which became his ruling 
passion :— 

** Nos prétres ne sont pas ce qu’un vain peuple pense, 
Notre crédulité fait tout leur science.” 


In 1721 Voltaire accompanied Madame de Rupelmonde to Holland, 
and on the way visited Jean Baptiste Rousseau, who was then at Brus- 
sels. Voltaire took the opinion of Rousseau on his poem of the 
‘ Ligue,’ and read to him the ‘ Epitre & Uranie.’ Rousseau re-paid the 
compliment by reciting his ‘Ode to Posterity,’ which Voltaire told 
him would never reach its address. The story may not be true, but 
it is at least characteristic of Voltaire. They parted bitter enemies ; 
and from that time Voltaire was the object of Rousseau’s implacable 
hatred. 

In 1724 the play of ‘Mariamne’ appeared, and shortly after the 
‘Henriade,’ under the title of ‘La Ligue,’ but without the author's 
consent, The poem had been read by Voltaire to his friends, in order 
to have the benefit of their criticism, and an imperfect copy of it had 
been surreptitiously obtained by the Abbé Desfontaines, and printed 
with some additional verses. The author however could not obtain 
permission to print it himself, for there were various passages which 
gave offence to the priesthood. This is the statement in the ‘ Bio- 
graphie Universelle,’ but it is said in Marmontel’s preface to the 
‘Henriade,’ that the first edition of it was printed at London in 1723, 
and that as Voltaire could not see it through the press, it is full of 
blunders and transpositions, and also contains considerable blanks 
(lacunes). It is not suggested that this edition was surreptitious, 
though it may have been. 

A personal adventure, the particulars of which are unimportant in 
a general sketch like this, led to a quarrel with his friend the Duc de 
Sully, and shortly after to a second visit to the Bastille, where 
Voltaire was confined some months. On being released, he was 
ordered to leave the country, and he came to England, where he 
found a state of opinion more congenial to his own than in France. 
The writings of Woolston, Tindal, Collins, and others of the same 
class, were then in vogue; freethinking opinions were generally 
diffused ; and besides this, the discoveries of Newton and the philo- 
sophy of Locke had given an impulse to men’s minds in England, 


443 VOLTAIRE, FRANCOIS-MARIE. 


VOLTAIRE, FRANCOIS-MARIE, 444 


which placed this country at that time in a higher position with 
respect to the rest of Europe than she had previously occupied. 
Voltaire had suffered injustice in France from the arbitrary exercise 
of power; and he had a foretaste of what he might expect from the 
intolerance of the church, In England he saw a country in which 
personal liberty was secure, and in which the priesthood had lost the 
power of persecution. His residence in England, aud the society 
which he saw, exercised a strong influence on him, but it was the 
religious rather than the political freedom of England which he 
admired. His notion of liberty was the liberty of writing against 
priests and religion. In England he wrote his tragedy of ‘ Brutus,’ 
and in 1726, according to Marmontel’s preface, appeared the first 
edition of the ‘ Henriade’ which the author himself superintended. 
It was printed at London, with a dedication in English, by the author, 
to Queen Caroline, the wife of George II, The edition bears the date 
1728, and not 1726, which is a manifest mistake of Marmontel, The 
work was published by subscription, and produced the author a con- 
siderable sum of money. In England also he sketched the ‘ Lettres 
Philosophiques,’ called also the ‘ Lettres sur les Anglais,’ which 
appeared some time after. His residence in England was about three 
ears. . 

7 Voltaire returned to Paris, and for some time lived a quiet life, 
dividing his time between literary labour and commercial specula- 
tions, which turned out profitable. He also gained some money ina 
lottery. In 1730 the celebrated actress Adrienne Lecouvreur died, 
and the usual rites of sepulture were refused to her because she was 
an actress. Voltaire wrote some verses on the mode in which she was 
buried, full of indignant invective, and immediately withdrew to 
Rouen, pretending that he was going to England in order to avoid a 
third visit to the Bastille, which he apprehended. At Rouen he 
printed his ‘ History of Charles XII. of Sweden,’ for which he had 
collected materials during his residence in England; and also his 
‘Lettres Philosophiques.’ The publication of the Lettres raised a 
fresh storm, the violence of which seems to have been quite dispropor- 
tionate to the occasion: they are not the works of Voltaire which even 
his enemies could most complain of. Voltaire got out of the way in 
order to avoid a fresh exile, which was denounced against him. His 
friends however convinced those in authority that the publication of 
the Lettres was owing to the treachery of a binder, and Voltaire 
obtained permission to return to Paris, But the ‘Epitre 4 Uranie,’ 
which had been long in manuscript, was now printed, and the author 
was threatened with a fresh prosecution, which he avoided by dis- 
ingenuously disavowing it, and attributing the work to the Abbé de 
Chaulieu, who had been dead for some time. To escape all further 
trouble, Voltaire determined to retire for a' time from Paris. His own 
successful speculations, and what he had inherited from his father and 
his brother, had given him a handsome fortune. He had also formed 
a connection with Madame du Chastellet, the wife of the Marquis du 
Chastellet, a woman, though fond of pleasure, possessing acquirements 
which are very unusual in her own sex, and not common in the other. 
[CHasTELLET, Marquise DU.] Her studies were geometry and meta- 
physics, but she could relish poetry and polite literature. She retired 
with Voltaire to Cirey, on the borders of Champagne and Lorraine, 
where they led a life of study and retirement, interrupted and varied 
by an occasional quarrel. At Cirey Voltaire wrote several of his 
plays, ‘Alzire,’ ‘Mahomet,’ ‘Mérope,’ and others; and he collected 
materials for the ‘ Essai sur les Moours et |’Esprit des Nations,’ which, 
with all its defects, is one of his best works. Here also he finished 
his ‘ Pucelle,” which he had commenced some time before. Several 
fragments of it had been circulated before he left Paris. 

It was in the year 1736, during his residence at Cirey, that a corre- 
spondence commenced between Prince Frederick, the son of Frederick 
William, king of Prussia, and Voltaire; it began by Frederick writing 
to him to express his admiration, and to solicit the favour of Voltaire’s 
literary counsel. Voltaire’s residence at Cirey was not uninterrupted. 
He visited Paris, and also on several occasions left France, but his 
movements are not easily traced. Voltaire was at Brussels with 
Madame du Chastellet, in 1740, when Frederick William died, and he 
soon received an invitation from his successor Frederick to visit him. 
The first meeting of the new King of Prussia and Voltaire took place 
at a small chiteau near Cleves, and is described by Voltaire in his 
amusing Mémoires. When Frederick was prince-royal, he had written 
a treatise entitled ‘ Anti-Machiavel,’ which he sent to Voltaire, who 
was then at Brussels, to correct and get it printed. Voltaire had 
given it to a Dutch bookseller, but on the accession of Frederick, 
seeing what his political schemes were, and anticipating, as he says, 
the invasion of Silesia, he suggested to his majesty that this was not 
precisely the time for the ‘ Anti-Machiavel’ to appear, and he obtained 
the king’s permission to stop the publication, for which purpose he 
visited Holland. But the bookseller’s demands were high; and the 
king, who did not like parting with his money, and was at least not 
sorry to see his work printed, preferred having it published for nothing 
to paying anything in order to stop the publication. This is Voltaire’s 
account of the transaction. While Voltaire was in Holland the 
Emperor Charles VI. died, and Frederick began to make preparations 
for his campaigns. Voltaire visited him at Berlin, but on Frederick’s 
setting out for Silesia, he returned to Brussels. From Brussels he 
went to Lille, where his tragedy of ‘Mahomet’ was acted (1741), but 


though he had at first obtained the permission of the Cardinal de 
Fleury to have it acted at Paris, the representation was prevented by 
the intrigues of some zealots, who saw or affected to see in it an irre- 
ligious tendency. ‘Mahomet’ was not acted at Paris till 1751. 

On the death of Cardinal de Fleury, in 1743, Voltaire aspired to fill 
his place in the Académie Frangaise. The King Louis XV., his 
mistress the Duchess of Chiteauroux, and the public were in his 
favour; but Maurepas, the secretary of state, was opposed to him, and 
successfully intrigued with Boyer, afterwards bishop of Mirepoix, to 
exclude Voltaire from the Académie. Boyer represented to the king 
that it would be a scandal for such a profane man as Voltaire to 
succeed a cardinal; and the king yielded to his representations. © . 

At this crisis France was threatened both by Austria and England, 
and it was thought prudent to secure the alliance of the King of 
Prussia. The Duc de Richelieu and the favourite mistress conceived 
the design of sending Voltaire to him, and, the better to conceal the 
object of the mission, Voltaire made his quarrel with Boyer a pretext 
for leaving France. The king approved of the scheme, and Voltaire, 
who was well furnished with money for his journey, set out for Berlin 
by way of Holland, He was well received by Frederick, who was 
then living at Potsdam the kind of life which he continued ever after 
his accession to the throne, and which Voltaire has depicted so 
inimitably in his Mémoires. His mission was to sound Frederick as 
to his views, and he succeeded in drawing from him a favourable 
declaration. Voltaire returned to Paris, having executed his commission 
better than most diplomatists, as the event showed: in the following 
spring Frederick made a new treaty with Louis, and advanced into 
Bohemia with one hundred thousand men, while the Austrians were 
engaged in Alsace. But Voltaire was left without his reward. The 
mistress was vexed that all Voltaire’s letters from Berlin had pa ' 
through the hands of Madame du Chastellet, instead of her own: she 
revenged herself by causing the dismissal of M. Amelot, the minister 
for foreign affairs, from whom Voltaire had received his instructions, 
and Voltaire’s hopes were thus disappointed. i BAR 

The mistress herself was soon dismissed ; and on her death, which 
followed shortly after, it was necessary for Louis to have a new 
favourite, and Mademoiselle Poisson, subsequently known as Madame 
de Pompadour, filled the vacant place. Voltaire was already acquainted 
with her, and, as he says, was in herconfidence. Threugh her interest 
he was made one of the forty members of the Académie, in the place 
of Bouhier (1746): and he was also appointed historiographer of 
France, and received the place of gentilhomme ordinaire de la chambre 
du roi. “I concluded,” says Voltaire, “that to make the smallest 
fortune, it was better to say four words to the mistress of a king than 
to write a hundred volumes.” 

During their residence at Cirey, Voltaire and Madame du Chastellet 
occasionally visited King Stanislaus at his little court of Luneville, 
which Voltaire has sketched in his usual happy way. Madame du 
Chastellet died in the palace of Stanislaus (August, 1749), a few days 
after having been brought to bed. Voltaire returned to Paris, and 
resumed his literary labours. King Frederick, who had not been 
able to induce him to visit Prussia during the lifetime of Madame du 
Chastellet, now renewed his invitation, and after some hesitation 
Voltaire went to him in 1750. He had apartments assigned to him 
at Potsdam, a pension of 20,000 francs, a chamberlain’s gold key, and 
a cross of merit. His duties were to correct his majesty’s writings, 
which was rather an irksome occupation; and Voltaire could not 
always prevent expressions escaping him which were reported to the 
king, and were far from complimentary. To correct Frederick's 
French verses without laughing at them was impossible. The 
of his residence in Prussia is briefly sketched in Voltaire’s ‘Mémoires.’ 
Voltaire at last got away, “with a promise,” as he says, “ to return, 
and the firm resolution never to see him again:” his residence in 
Prussia was three years. 
at Frankfort. He was arrested by a person named Freytag, the resi- 
dent of the King of Prussia at Frankfort, who demanded of him, in 
his barbarous French, “l’ceuvre de poéshie” of the king his master. 
A few copies of this precious volume of Frederick’s poetry had been 
printed privately and distributed by the king among his favourites : 
Voltaire had been honoured with one. The poetry had been left 
behind at Leipzig, and Voltaire was obliged to wait at Frankfort till 
it came, when it was delivered up to the resident. Frederick, well 
knowing Voltaire’s character, probably feared that he would make 
some use of the book of poetry to his prejudice, as it contained many 
satirical reflections on crowned heads, and other persons. Even after 
the surrender of the book, Voltaire and bis niece Madame Denis, who 
had joined him at Frankfort, were detained by Freytag on some mise- 
rable pretexts, and kept prisoner in an hotel for twelve days. He 
was robbed of part of his property, and compelled to pay the expenses 
of his detention. At last orders came from Berlin, and Voltaire and 


his niece were allowed to continue their journey to Mayence, It _ 


was not long after this adventure of Frankfort, while the memory 
of the treatment which he had received from the King of Prussia 
was fresh, that Voltaire wrote those ‘Mémoires’ which are dis- 
graceful to himself, and affix infamy on thename of Frederick. It is 
said that he kept the manuscript by him, but that two copies were 
made without his knowledge, a statement which is not credible. Upon 
his subsequent reconciliation with the king, it is said that he burnt 


i ee poe 


ee 


On his return, an odd adventure befel him - 


445 VOLTAIRE, FRANCOIS-MARIE. 


VOLTAIRE, FRANCOIS-MARIBE. 445 


the manuscript; but one of the two copies, thus surreptitiously 
obtained, was printed among his posthumous works. 

After a short time Voltaire fixed himself at Colmar for a few 
months (1754), while Madame Denis was at Paris for the purpose of 
ascertaining if he could safely return there. A new trouble now befel 
him, A Dutch bookseller, who had obtained in some way, but it is 
not said how, an unfinished manuscript of the ‘ Essai sur les Mcours et 
) Esprit des Nations,’ published it under the title of ‘ Abrégé d'Histoire 
Universelle, par M. de Voltaire.’ Some parts which had been pur- 
posely suppressed by the Dutch publisher made the work appear an 
attack on crowned heads and priests. Voltaire got the genuine 
manuscript from Paris, and showed by a comparison of the two manu- 
scripts, formally drawn up by a notary, that the passages had been 
suppressed with a malignant design to injure him. This story is in 
many respects very improbable; Voltaire had never had any scruples 
about publishing his works under assumed names, or denying the 
authorship of anything when it suited his purpose; and it is not easy 
to conjecture how his manuscript should get abroad without his con- 
sent, or that the real manuscript should have been left at Paris, and 
that he should be able to recover it. The difficulty is hardly diminished 
if we assume that Voltaire had possessed two copies of the manuscript. 
In fact, the mode in which this manuscript fell, as it is said, into the 
hands of the Dutch publisher, is left unexplained. 


* At length wearied with his rambling, unsettled life, after spending a 


few years in the territory of Lausanne and in that of Geneva, he 


bought an estate at Tourney and another at Ferney, both in the Pays 


de Gex, and he finally settled at Ferney, where he spent the last 
twenty years of his life in as much tranquillity as his character would 
allow. He rebuilt the house, laid out gardens, kept 4 good table, and 
had crowds of visitors from all parts of Europe. His passion for the 
stage was unabated, He had a small theatre, in which he sometimes 
acted himself, and occasionally procured the services of the first 
actors of the day. He was also a benefactor to the neighbourhood. 
A little town grew up around him out of a miserable village; new 
houses were built at his own cost ; and he encouraged and produced a 
body of skilful artisans who became celebrated through all Europe, 
He even rebuilt the church at his own expense. But his hasty pro- 
ceedings in this matter brought him into difficulties. He had neglected 
certain necessary forms in his demolition of the old church, and 
ordered a large wooden crucifix, which stood in front of the porch, to 
be thrown down. He even went so far as to preach a sermon in the 
church against theft. Complaint was made to the bishop of the 
diocese of these irregularities, and Voltaire, in order to quiet matters, 
went through the ceremony of taking the communion in the church of 
Ferney ; an act of undoubted hyprocrisy, which however was not the 
only one of which he was guilty. In the following year, 1769, the 
bishop of Annecy had forbidden all priests to confess him, give him 
absolution, or allow him to take the communion. Upon this Voltaire 
took to his bed, pretended he was dying, and compelled a Capuchin to 
administer to him all the offices of the Roman Catholic Church which 
a true believer could claim. The whole farce was certified on the spot 
by a notary, The philosophers of Paris, whose anti-religious opinions 
went beyond those of Voltaire, looked on him with contempt, and all 
pious Christians were shocked by the hypocritical impiety of an old 
man who was now upwards of seventy years of age. 
During his long residence at Ferney, Voltaire’s literary activity was 
untiring. His rancour against priests and the Christian religion was 
now grown inveterate; and in the retirement of his old age he poured 
forth an unceasing torrent of ridicule, invective, and ribaldry against 
all that believers in revelation hold most sacred, and which those who 
refuse their belief generally treat with decent respect. His works 
appeared under various names, and he never scrupled to disavow them 
when he found it convenient, though such disavowals must have been 
useless, inasmuch as nobody can mistake the authorship of anything 
that Voltaire has written. The poem of the ‘ Pucelle,’ which he had 
commenced about 1730, added to the number of his enemies. © Its 
indecency and the ridicule of sacred things shocked all sober people ; 
but it was the satirical allusions to living persons that raised up the 
most active enmity against the author. It is probable enough, as he 
says, that he never intended to print it in its original form; but it was 
well known to his friends, who had copies of some cantos, and parts of 
it had been recited in various companies. About 1755 it appeared in 
print at Frankfort, though with the title of Louvain, and Voltaire dis- 
avowed it. As usual, it had been printed from a copy which had been 
stolen from the author or his friends (‘ Advertissement des éditeurs de 
Védition de Kehl’), a misfortune to which the works of Voltaire seem 
to have been peculiarly exposed; it is also said that it contained verses 
which Voltaire had not written, and, what is more probable, “ other 
verses which he could not allow to stand, because the circumstances 
to which these verses alluded were changed.” Several other editions 
appeared without Voltaire’s consent; one at London in 1757, and 
another at Paris in 1759. It was not till 1762 that Voltaire published 
an edition of the ‘Pucelle,’ which was very different from all the 
others, and purged of much that was offensive: it was reprinted in 
1774, with: some alterations and considerable additions, and this is the 
text of the ‘ Pucelle’ which now appears in the best editions. 
His literary quarrels and his extensive correspondence also furnished 
the old age of Voltaire with constant employment. He had created a 


host of enemies, and he had to defend himself against their incessant 
attacks, He poured upon them invective and ridicule, without measure 
and without shame. He had generously offered Rousseau an asylum 
in his house, while he was persecuted for his ‘Emile,’ Rousseau 
refused the offer with his usual brutality, and Voltaire repaid him 
with a torrent of abuse. His correspondence during his residence at 
Ferney forms a valuable part of his works. He contributed some 
literary articles to the ‘Encyclopédie, which was then publishing at 
Paris under the direction of D’Alembert and Diderot, His corre- 
spondence with D’Alembert on the ‘ Encyclopédie’ is exceedingly in- 
teresting; it assists us in forming some idea of the state of France 
at that time, in which a so-called philosophic party, inconsiderable 
in numbers, was opposed to a large majority of ignorant bigots and 
hypocritical libertines. There was enough of superstition and in- 
tolerance to excite the contempt and rouse the indignation of all 
reflecting men, and in estimating the character of Voltaire it should 
never be forgotten what the state of society then was. He had be- 
come reconciled to his old pupil Frederick, and kept up a corre- 
spondence with him, though he “forgot” to burn the unfortunate 
‘Mémoires, He also corresponded with the empress Catherine IL of 
Russia, whose letters to Voltaire are some of the most agreeable in the 
whole collection. 

But he had other occupations in his retirement, which show us 
another and more pleasing side of his character. He heard that a 
grand-niece of the dramatist Corneille was in distress. She was invited 
to Ferney, where she received a good, and it is said “ even a Christian 
education,” though the exact meaning of this expression may be 
doubtful. To render her in some measure independent of him, 
Voltaire undertook an edition of her ancestor’s plays with notes; and 
the profits of the undertaking were given to her for her marriage 
portion. The affair of Calas is well known. This unfortunate old 
man, who was a Calvinist, was convicted at Toulouse (1762) of 
murdering his son, and the alleged motive was to prevent him embrac- 
ing the Roman Catholic faith. The father was broken on the wheel, 
and the family came to Geneva for refuge. Voltaire received them 
kindly. He made himself acquainted with the facts of this horrible 
case, and was convinced that Calas was innocent. He resolved that 
justice should be done to the unfortunate family, and he never rested 
till he had accomplished this, His personal exertions, his purse, and 
his pen were employed in ‘a cause which was worthy of his best 
powers. If his hatred of fanaticism stimulated his exertions, it must 
be allowed that his generous feelings also were abundantly proved. 
The sentence of the parliament of Toulouse was annulled, and the 
Due de Choiseul, who was then in power, made amends to the family 
of Calas, so far as reparation could be made, out of the public 
treasury, for the wrongs done to them by an ignorant and bigoted 
tribunal. 

Voltaire was now eighty-four years of age. His niece, Madame 
Denis, who was weary of her long retirement at Ferney, persuaded 
him to visit Paris. He arrived there on the 10th of February 1778, 
and was received with enthusiasm by all ranks, except by the court 
and the clergy. A succession of visitors crowded his apartments, 
and he was kept in a state of constant excitement. A violent hemo- 
rrhage came on and threatened his life, and he sought a reconciliation 
with the church ; he said he did not wish his body to be deprived of 
Christian burial. The Abbé Gauthier obtained from him a declara- 
tion that he would die in the Roman Catholic faith, and that he asked 
pardon of God and the church for his sins. His disorder abated, and 
he transferred his thoughts from the church to the theatre, where he 
had been a frequent visitor since his arrival at Paris. On the evening 
of the day on which he was present at a sitting of the Académie, he 
attended the sixth representation of his tragedy of ‘Irene.’ Between 
the two pieces his bust was placed on the stage and crowned by all the 
actors. From the theatre he was accompanied to his hotel by crowds, 
who cheered him loudly, and called out the titles of his principal 
works, among which the ‘Pucelle’ was not forgotten. Turning to 
them, he said, “ You will stifle me with roses.’ He was detained at 
Paris longer than he intended, chiefly owing to the management of his 
niece, who could not bear to return to the solitude of Ferney ; but 
the delay was fatal. Voltaire’s feeble frame was exhausted by this 
round of excitement; and his literary labours, which he still con- 
tinued, and the immoderate use of coffee, brought on a strangury, to 
which he had been subject. Seeing that his strength was failing, the 
Abbé Mignot, his nephew, brought to him the curé of St. Sulpice and 
the Abbé Gauthier. The details of his death-bed are contradictory: 
he seems to have been exhausted, and only to have wished to die 
quietly. The Abbé Gauthier signed a paper, in which he declared 
that he was sent for at the request of Voltaire, but found him too far 
gone to be confessed. He died on the 30th of May 1778. The curé 
of St. Sulpice officially refused to inter the body of Voltaire, but at 
the same time he renounced all his rights in the matter. The body 
was taken by night to the Abbey of Scelliéres, which Mignot had in 
commendam, where it was buried, on the production of the renuncia- 
tion of the curé of St. Sulpice, the certificate of the Abbé Gauthier, 
and a profession of ‘faith Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman,’ made by 
Voltaire about six weeks before his death. The bishop of Troyes, 
Joseph de Barral, hearing that it was intended to bury Voltaire in the 
Abbey of Scellidres, issued an order, dated the 2nd June 1778, to the 


447 VOLTAIRE, FRANCOIS-MARIE. 


VOLTERRA, DANIELE Df, 443 


- prior, by which he forbade the interment. The order came too late, 
for the funeral was over; but the. prior lost his place. The letter of 
the prior, in reply to the bishop, states all the circumstances of the 
funeral, and the grounds on which he considered the body entitled to 
Christian burial. The bones of Voltaire remained undisturbed till 
the Revolution, when they were brought back to Paris and interred in 
the Pantheon. 

The works of Voltaire are thus arranged in the edition of Lequien, 
Paris, 70 volumes, 8vo, 1820, of which the last volume consists of a 
copious index. ‘Vie de Voltaire, par le Marquis de Condorcet, 
Mémoires,’ &c.; vol.i; ‘Théatre,’ vols. ii.-ix., containing his tragedies 
and comedies; ‘ Discours sur la Tragédie,’ addressed to Lord Boling- 
broke; the translation of Shakspere’s ‘Julius Cesar,’ &c.; ‘La Hen- 
riade,’ vol. x., with the prefaces of the King of Prussia and Marmontel; 
* Pucelle,’ vol. xi.; ‘ Poésies,’ vols. xii.-xiv., containing his odes and his 
miscellaneous poems, which are very numerous; ‘Essais sur les 
Meeurs,’ vols. xv.-xviii.; ‘Siécle de Louis XIV.’ vols. xix. xx.; ‘Siécle 
de Louis XV.’ vol. xxi.; ‘Histoire de Charles XII., vol. xxii.; ‘ Histoire 
de Russie,’ vol. xxiii.; ‘Annales de l’ Empire,’ vol. xxiv.; ‘ Histoire du 
Parlement,’ vol. xxv.; ‘Mélanges Historiques,’ vols. xxvi., xxvii. ; 
‘Politiques et Législation,’ vols. xxviii. xxix., of which the latter 
contains a full account of the affair of Calas; ‘Physique,’ vol. 
xxx., which contains his physical writings, which were composed 
during his intimacy with Madame du Chastellet. Among these is his 
‘Elémens de la Philosophie de Newton,’ dedicated to Madame du 
Chastellet. At the time when this work was written almost all the 
French philosophers were Cartesians ; Maupertuis and Clairaut, both 
of whom were then very young, were exceptions; ‘ Philosophie,’ vols. 
Xxxi.-xxxiv., containing his metaphysical writings; ‘La Bible expli- 
quée,’ &c. His attacks on Christianity are not expressed with decency, 
and he is guilty of gross perversion of facts. His judgment of the 
philosophical writings of others is neither exact nor profound, He 
calls Spinosa an atheist, which he was not. Voltaire, though a deist, 
professed a great horror of atheism: and in reading all his philoso- 
phical and anti-religious works, it is necessary to bear this in mind. 
It is a great mistake to confound him with the professed atheists of 
his day, whom he hated, or at least affected to hate, and who viewed 
his deism with contempt. ‘Dialogues,’ vol. xxxv.; ‘ Dictionnaire Phi- 
losophique,’ vols. xxxvi-xlii, a work which shows his extensive and 
discursive reading, his fertility of invention, and his inveterate pre- 
judices ; ‘Romans,’ xliii. xliv., which are among his most amusing 
works, though in many respects far from being unexceptionable; 
‘Facéties,’ vol. xlv., containing among other things, ‘ Les Questions 
sur les Miracles,’ in letters, the first of which appeared in 1765, and 
after the essay of Hume. There is nothing new in the objections of 
Voltaire, which are in substance that God governs by unchangeable 
laws, and that we cannot suppose that he permits any deviations from 
them. ‘ Mélanges Littéraires, vols. xlvi, xlvii.; ‘Commentaires sur 
Corneille,’ vols. xlviii., xlix.; ‘Correspondance avec le Roi de Prusse,’ 
vols, 1.-lii.; the first letter is from the Prince-Royal, dated Berlin, 8th 
August 1736; the last in this collection is from Voltaire, dated Paris, 
1st of April 1778, about two months before his death. ‘ Correspon- 
dance avec I’Impératrice de Russie Catherine II., vol. liii.; ‘ Corre- 
spondance avec D’Alembert,’ vols. liv. lv.: these three volumes are 
perhaps the most amusing part of his correspondence. ‘ Correspon- 
dance Générale,’ vols. lvi.-lxix.; containing letters to and from a great 
number of persons of rank and literary distinction. 

To estimate the character of Voltaire correctly, and his influence on 
the age in which he lived, would furnish materials for a large volume. 
He has been the subject of almost unqualified panegyrie and of 
unqualified abuse, but he deserves neither. Education, temperament, 
and circumstances placed him in opposition to established institutions; 
his labours were directed to destroy, not to reform or rebuild. No 
man saw more clearly the vicious and absurd parts of existing insti- 
tutions; but he could not appreciate the value of that which had. been 
tested by experience. He had no veneration for antiquity. His habit 
of viewing the ridiculous side of things became so strong as to close 
his eyes to palpable truths. He was the great Coryphzeus of deism, 
and he fulfilled the prophecy of his preceptor. It is not true, as it has 
been sometimes said, that his object was solely to root out super- 
stition and to annihilate the power of the church, His panegyrist 
Condorcet distinctly states that his avowed object was to destroy 
Christianity, and his sceptical writings render such avowal unneces- 
sary: this is their manifest design. He had no deep convictions, 
except we allow to be such his belief that a man could not perpetrate 
the crime that Calas was charged with, and a vague indefinite notion 
that human nature was better than priests and bigots supposed it to 
be. He had not the simplicity and sincerity of character that belong 
to truly great minds, and he was apparently incapable of friendship 
or of strong attachment, though some instances are alleged in which 
he retained his friendships to the close of his life. His moral character 
partook of the vices of the age to which he belonged ; his intellectual 
was above it, The faults of his character pervade his writings. Asa 
poet, he fails to move the passions strongly, nor does he touch the 
more delicate sympathies of our nature. His dramatic writings are 
defective as dramas, if we measure them by our standard of excellence. 
He had studied Shakspere, and he allowed him some merit, but he 
preferred Corneille ; and some of the most undoubted characteristics 


of Shakspere’s great dramatic art appeared to the poet of the age of 
Louis XV. merely the traits of a barbaric age. Yet his dramatic con- 
ception is often just and vigorous; many of his scenes have great 
artistic merit, and he abounds in lofty truths and generous sentiments, 
But an affectation of philosophy is the fault of all his writings; he 


would always be inculcating what he considered to be great truths, — 


and thus we have Voltaire always before us, It is an essential of 
dramatic art, that the author shall never appear; but in all his writings 
Voltaire is always apparent, 

The ‘ Henriade’ of Voltaire is still the only French epic. The sub- 
ject is the siege of Paris, which was commenced by Henri III. and 
Henri of Navarre, afterwards Henri IV., who finally entered the city. 
The action is confined to Paris and the field of Ivry, which decided 
the fortunes of Henri IV. It has accordingly an historical basis, and 
the main events are made conformable to historic truth ; its poetic 
part consists of fictions intended to aid the development of the action, 
and of allegories, which are feeble aids, such as the journey of Discord 
to Rome, and the Temple of Love. Its machinery is neither original 
nor grand, and it is deficient in striking events. It contains a love 
episode, the amours of Henri and La Belle Gabrielle, which might as 
well have been a separate poem for any connection it has with the 
main subject. The ‘Henriade’ has been variously judged even by 
French critics, and the rest of Europe has pronounced on the whole 
an unfavourable opinion. The author worked much and long upon it; 
for he had the ambition of raising a monument which should stand 
by the side of the epic poems of Greece and Italy. To deny it all 
merit would be absurd; it contains many fine and vigorous passages, 
but of all the longer works of Voltaire it is perhaps that which, to a 
foreigner at least, is the most tedious, except the ‘ Guerre Civile de 
Gendve,’ the dullest of all his productions, 

His ‘ Pucelle d'Orléans’ has been already mentioned. The sub- 
ject, if one can describe such a subject in a few words, is Jeanne 
d’Arc, the Maid of Orleans. The poem commences with the loves 
of King Charles VII. and Agnes Sorel, and the siege of Orleans by 
the English. Jeanne is armed by St. Dionysius, and goes to King 
Charles at Tours. The poem concludes, after many adventures, with 
the triumph of Charles. Voltaire aimed to rival Ariosto, but it is 
universally agreed that he has not approached him. Even in its pre- 
sent form the ‘ Pucelle’ is one of the most licentious poems of modern 
times, for the corrections of the author principally related to the 
satirical allusions. All things serious and sacred are treated with 
ridicule. The poet riots in his licence, and seems to exult in his con- 
tempt of decencies and religion. Proprieties of time, place, and cir- 
cumstance—all are disregarded; the ‘Pucelle’ is the reflection of 
Voltaire in his most lively and most extravagant mood. The poem 
has great merits in detail; the versification is easy, and many of the 
descriptions are beautiful: the exordiums of each canto are justly ad- 
mired. But the ‘Pucelle’ has fixed a stain on the moral character of 
Voltaire, for which all its beauties cannot atone. ; 

The fertility and facility of Voltaire were unequalled. His grea 
and discursive reading supplied him with an infinite variety of matter, 
which he moulded into every variety of form. His satire and his sar- 
casm, and his sneer, were always ready and always effective. He 
seldom rises to eloquence, because he is not impassioned and sincere. 
But he never sinks into triviality : he is never tiresome; he is always 
lively and amusing. Clearness and precision characterise all his 
writings. When he is superficial, which is often the case, it is rather 
for want of taking pains to examine his subject with sufficient care, 
than from want of power to comprehend it. 
cases where his passions were concerned, and where prejudices had 
become inveterate. Passion filled him with malice and bitterness, and 
prejudice made him blind. His historical writings and essays have 
great merit. He sketched with rapidity and force: he selected what 
was pertinent and characteristic; he omitted what was trivial and 
useless. He set the example of a better handling of the materials of 
history: he was judiciously sceptical, though sometimes, from deficient 
knowledge and prejudice, unwisely incredulous. He had no exact 
knowledge of antiquity, or even of the Middle Ages ; yet his criticism 
sometimes sheds a ray of light where the dulness of mere learning 
has left nothing but darkness. His writings contributed greatly to 
the amendment of the penal law of France, and to the destruction of 
many absurd prejudices. That they tended to destroy also many of 
those notions on which society reposes for its safety, is not and cannot 
be denied. The prodigious activity and unwearied industry of Vol- 
taire, his long and brilliant career of literary success, and the influence 
which he exercised on his own generation and that which immediately 
followed, have made him one of the most conspicuous personages of 
the 18th century. He has still many readers, and probably will 
always have some. His best writings please by the mere charm of 
form, independent of the matter, and they are stamped with the 
impress which genius alone can give. The influence of his opinions is 
probably not great at present. He is not the writer for all ages: he 
belonged to his own age, and that is passed, 

(Vie de Voltaire, par M. le Marquis de Condorcet; Mémoires pour 
servir & la Vie de M. de Voltaire, écrits par luiméme: Eloge de 
Voltaire, par M. de la Harpe; Biographie Universelle, art. ‘Voltaire;’ 
Guvres Completes de Voltaire, Paris, 1820, 70 vols. 8vo.) 

VOLTERRA, DANIELE DI. [RicotaRenu, DanrELz.] 


We must except the © 


mn Ya ts 


- 


449 VON VISIN. 


VOROSMARTY, MIHALY. 459 


VON VISIN. [Visty, Von.] 

VONDEL, JOOST VON DEN, the great national poet of Holland, 
was born November 17th, 1587, at Cologne, to which city his parents 
had retired from Antwerp, in order to avoid the persecution to which, 
being Anabaptists, they were exposed from the religious severity and 
jealousy of the Austrian-Spanish government. As soon however as 
the republic of the United Provinces was established, the family 
removed to Amsterdam, where Vondel continued to reside during his 
very long life. The education he received from his parents did not 
extend beyond the ordinary acquirement of reading and writing; for 
his father was only a tradesman, as he was afterwards himself, dealing 
in hosiery as his ostensible business, though making poetry his serious 
occupation. How he contrived to reconcile literary study with 
business we are not informed; but there is reason for supposing that 
his attention to the first rather checked his success in the latter, 
since he seems to have been far from prosperous in trade as a hosier. 
For poetry he is said to have eviuced a taste very early, and even to 
have given evidence of his poetic talent when he was no more than 
thirteen. It was not however until he had reached double that age that 
he began to study Latin. Not only was his proficiency in the language 
rapid, but a decided improvement, both as to style and ideas, it is 
said, soon began to manifest itself in his compositions; yet in pro- 
portion as he caught the tone as well as the spirit of the ancients, he 
probably lost originality of invention and freshness of feeling. His 
tragedies, which form so considerable a portion and so important a 
class of his productions, show him to have possessed far higher genius 
as a lyric poet than as a dramatist; for they owe their chief attraction 
to the ‘ Reien,’ or choruses with which they are interspersed, and 
many of which are splendid lyrical effusions ; it is these, in fact, which 
give us the loftiest flights of Vondel’s genius, and which constitute 
his chief attractions for modern readers, <A selection of them was 
made by De Vries, who published it in 1820. Among the more 
celebrated of his dramatic poems are his ‘ Palamedes,’ ‘ Gijsbrecht von 
Amstel,’ and ‘Lucifer.’ The first of these, which was a direct allusion 
to the fate of the grand-pensionary Barneveldt [BARNEVELD?], obtained 
for its author both political and literary distinction; for though not 
published till the Prince Maurice’s death, in 1625, it was prosecuted 
by those in power as treasonable, and as libellous on the memory of 
that prince, and it was only with great difficulty that Vondel escaped 
severer punishment than a fine of 800 guldens. On the other hand it 
obtained for him the highest renown both as a patriot and a poet, and 
passed through thirty editions in the course of a few years. The 
*Gijsbrecht,’ which was written by him for the opening of the new 
theatre at Amsterdam, in 1637, is justly considered one of his master- 
pieces, and is also, of all his dramas, that which is most national 
in its subject. That however which possesses for us as Englishmen 
almost the charm of nationality, is the ‘Lucifer, for it may be con- 
sidered the precursor of our ‘ Paradise Lost,’ which it anticipated by 
fourteen years; consequently for its Miltonic grandeur and inspiration 
it is not at all indebted to the work of the English bard, nor is there 
reason to suppose that Milton kindled his flame at that of his illus- 
trious contemporary. Milton and Vondel were kindred spirits. 

To enumerate here chronologically all the productions of Vondel, 
not in the drama alone, but in almost every other species of poetical 
composition, would be useless. We will therefore specify one per- 
formance, which, had he completed it, might alone have secured for 
him the reputation of an epic poet, namely, a poem, of which Constan- 
tine the Great was the hero, and which he began in 1632; but the 
death of his wife shortly afterwards, caused him to abandon the sub- 
ject, and, lest he should be tempted to resume it, he destroyed the 
manuscript. The loss of his wife was indeed a severe blow to him, 
for it was she who had chiefly attended ‘to the concerns of their busi- 
ness. From that time his circumstances grew worse, and his embar- 
rassments were afterwards so much increased by the conduct of a 
spendthrift son, that at the age of seventy-two he was glad to obtain a 
situation with a small salary in a bank at Amsterdam. Even there 
however neither his energy nor his genius deserted him, for it was at 
this period that he composed, besides several other things, his 
*Jephtha,’ one of the best and the most regular of his tragedies, At 
length, in 1668, he was permitted to retire, retaining his salary as a 
pension for life; and, notwithstanding his then advanced age, he lived 
to enjoy it many years, for he did not die until February 5, 1679, 
when he had attained a length of days that entitles him to be classed 
among the patriarchs of literature and art. 

VOPISCUS, FLAVIUS. [Avucusra Hisrorta.] 

VORONIKHIN, ANDREI NIKOPHOROVICH, a Russian archi- 
tect, was born in 1760, among the peasantry of Count Alexander 
Stroganov, who, having heard of his talent for drawing, sent him, in 
1777, to Moscow, in order to be properly educated as an artist, and he 
there received some instruction from Bazhenov and Kazakov, two 
eminent architects. He was then sent to travel with his patron’s son, 
Count Paul Stroganov, and after visiting the southern provinces of 
Russia, Germany, and Switzerland, resided for some time at Paris, 
diligently profiting by the opportunities there afforded of pursuing 
his architectural studies. In 1790 he returned to St. Petersburg, 
where Stroganov’s protection soon brought him into notice, and 
obtained for him employment. Mere employment however, without 
more than ordinary opportunities, can hardly lead to architectural 

BIOG. DIV, VOL, VI, ‘ 


fame; it was therefore fortunate for Voronikhin that such oppor- 
tunity was given him in the erection of what is still one of the finest 
monuments of the northern capital of Russia. It was in 1800 that 
the Emperor Paul conceived the idea of building a magnificent 
cathedral in the ‘ Nevskii Prospect,’ to be dedicated to ‘Our Lady of 
Kazan ;’ and Voronikhin, who was then professor at the Academy of 
Arts, was appointed architect. In the following year the first stone 
was laid by the Emperor Alexander, and the edifice was completed 
and solemnly consecrated in September 1811. Criticism has not been 
sparing of its remarks on this piece of architectuge; because the prin- 
cipal facade is extended by a semicircular colonnade it has been called 
a copy of St. Peter’s at Rome on a reduced scale, whereas there is no 
other point of similarity between the two buildings. Although Voro- 
nikhin is said to have erected a great many other buildings, both 
public and private, we have no suflicient account nor even a complete 
list of them; among them however are said to be the colonnade in 
the gardens at Peterhof, the terraces, &c. at Strelna, and several villas 
at Gatchina and Pavlovsky. Voronikhin died rather suddenly, Feb. 21 
(March 5), 1814. 

VORONTSOV. [Woronzow.] 

VOROSMARTY, MIHALY or MICHAEL, an eminent Hungarian 
poet and prose writer, was born at Nyér in the county of Fejervdr, 
called by the Germans Stuhlweissenburg, in the year 1800. His 
father, whom he lost early, was steward to a nobleman. Michael went 
in 1817 to Pesth to study law, and in 1824 he was admitted as an 
advocate, but he early adopted literature as a profession. In 1821 
appeared his first drama,‘ King Solomon,’ founded on the History of 
King Solomon of Hungary, and in 1824 another drama, ‘ King Sigis- 
mund,’ between which, in 1822, was published his romantic poem of 
the ‘Triumph of Fidelity.’ It was as an epic poet that he attained 
the greatest celebrity: his ‘Zalan Futdsa,’ or Flight of Zalan, his 
*Cserhalom,’ and his ‘Tiindervélgy,’ or Enchanted Valley, the first 
published in 1824 and the last in 1827, are considered the finest 
narrative poems in the Hungarian language. For some years Vo6rés- 
marty was editor of the ‘ Tudomanyos Gyiijtemény,’ or Repository of 
Science, a monthly magazine, which lasted under his guidance and 
that of others for a quarter of a century, and was during its con- 
tinuance the chief organ of Hungarian periodical literature. He was 
afterwards concerned with Bajza and Schedel in the editorship of the 
‘ Atheneum,’ a periodical not unlike the London ‘ Athenzeum,’ which 
had for a time great and deserved success. In 1830, on the establish- 
ment of the Hungarian Academy at Pesth, he was appointed one of its 
members, and soon afterwards its secretary, and for some years his 
life flowed in an unbroken course of literary labours and literary fame, 
In general his reputation stood higher among the educated classes 
than among the people; but one of his lyric poems, the ‘Szézat,’ or 
Appeal, written in 1840, enjoyed a double success; it rose at once to 
a strong popularity among the people, like that of the ‘ Marseillaise’ 
in France, and the Hungarian Academy presented the poet with a 
ducat for every line. Some of the lines of the ‘Szdzat,’ the subject 
of which is the fate and prospects of the Hungarian nation, have since 
acquired a melancholy increase of significance :— 


** For come there will, and come there must, 
To us a better time. 
‘¢ And if it come not, then come Death 
To end our dark career, 
And be our country, drenched in blood, 
Laid on a glorious bier.”’ 


It was natural that at the outbreak of the revolution of 1848 the 
poet of the ‘Szdézat’ should be called on to take a part, and he was 
elected deputy for the county of Bacska. His course in the Assembly 
however was far from meeting the approval of some of the more fiery 
patriots. The popular and impetuous Petéfi, the Hungarian Burns, 
was so indignant at one of Vordésmarty’s votes that in a poetical 
address to him he renounced his friendship. [Prréri.] On the final 
triumph of the Austrians Vérdsmarty was brought to trial, and con- 
demned as a member of some of the revolutionary committees, but 
was released and pardoned after a short imprisonment. Such however 
was the effect produced upon him by the calamities of his country, 
that he sunk into a deep melancholy, and lived for two or three years 
in retirement, without suffering pen and paper to come in his sight. 
At length, in 1854, his friends roused him in some degree from this 
state of depression, and he undertook a translation of Shakspere, some 
of whose plays he had rendered into Hungarian in happier days. The 
task was still not completed when Viérésmarty died at Pesth, on the 
9th of November 1856. 

An edition of the works of Vérésmarty was issued by his friends 
Bajza and Schedel as part of the collection of the Hungarian classics, 
entitled the ‘Nemzeti Kényvtar,’ or National Library. It was pub- 
lished in 1847. The divisions adopted for the writings are Lyric 
Poetry, Narrative Poems, Dramas, More Recent Poetry, Novels and 
Tales, and Miscellaneous Writings in Prose, which are subdivided into 
Essays on Language and Literature, and Dramatic Criticisms. The 
whole are comprised in one thick octavo volume, printed in double 
columns, but would occupy nine or ten ordinary octavos. V6rds- 
marty’s writings are more distinguished for classical correctness of 


form than for striking originality of substance. His ae poems 
G 


451 VORST, CONRAD. 


VOSS, JOHANN HEINRICH. 452 


are written in hexameters on the classical model, for which the Hun- 
garian is perhaps better adapted than any other modern language. 
His lyric as well as his epic poetry is estimated at a high value by 
native critics; but the very qualities that excite their admiration 
render their beauties difficult of transfer, 
VORST, or, Latinised, VO’RSTIUS, CONRAD, a celebrated German 
divine, was born at Cologne on the 19th of July 1569. At the time 
of his birth his family belonged to the Roman Catholic Church, but 
some years after his father, with his whole family, consisting of his 
wife and ten children, secretly embraced the Protestant religion. 
After having received his preparatory education in a village near 
Cologne, Conrad was sent to Diisseldorf, where he studied from 1583 
till 1586. He continued his studies at Cologne, but was prevented 
taking his degree, partly because he could not subscribe the deci- 
sions of the Council of Trent, and partly because his father’s means 
were not sufficient to allow his son to go to a Protestant university, 
For a time therefore his learned pursuits were abandoned, and Vorstius 
began to prepare himself for a mercantile life, What enabled him 
afterwards to continue his studies is not said, but in 1589 he went to 
Herborn, where he devoted himself with great success to the study of 
theology under the famous Piscator. During his stay there he gained 
his living principally by giving private instruction; and in 1593 he 
went with some of his pupils to Heidelberg, where he was honoured 
the year after with the degree of Doctor of Divinity. In 1595 he 
visited the universities of Switzerland, where he took a part in some 
of the theological controversies which were then carried on there. 
For some time he delivered lectures at Geneva, which were so well 
received that the reguler professorship of divinity was offered to him 
in that university. Bro about this time Count Arnold of Bentheim 
had founded a great school of divinity at Steinfurt, and he invited 
Vorstius to a professorship, which he accepted, He soon acquired a 
great reputation, and received very honourable invitations from several 
universities; but all offers were refused, partly because his own family 
did not wish him to go to any great distance from them, and partly 
because Count Arnold was unwilling to part with him, The readiness 
with which Vorstius complied with the count’s request was afterwards 
very honourably rewarded, for Vorstius was raised to the highest 
ecclesiastical office in the count’s dominions, About the year 1598 a 
report got abroad that Vorstius had expressed himself in favour of the 
doctrines of Socinus. The count hearing of it began to be alarmed, 
and requested Vorstius to go to Heidelberg and clear himself of the 
charge before the faculty, which had conferred upon him the degree 
of Doctor of Divinity. Vorstius succeeded in clearing himself of 
Socinianism, but was obliged to own that he had used expressions 
which might seem to justify the charge. After having expressed his 
regret, and solemnly declared his abhorrence of the opinions of Socinus, 
he returned to Steinfurt. Although he had thus outwardly cleared 
himself, the suspicion which had once been raised could not be allayed. 
The matter was brought to a crisis when, in 1610, he received an 
invitation to the professorship of theology at Leyden, which had 
become vacant by the death of Arminius. Vorstius, after some con- 
sideration, accepted the offer, although he was well aware of the 
difficulties which he would have to encounter; but he was very much 
pressed by the followers of Arminius, and he also hoped to find a 
wider field for the free exercise of his powers than in the small princi- 
pality of Bentheim. He went to Leyden provided with the most 
satisfactory testimonials respecting his orthodoxy and his conduct; 
but his appointment alarmed the Calvinistic party at Leyden and in 
Holland generally. They protested most vehemently against the 
‘appointment, and even solicited the interference of foreign universities, 
and of James I, king of England. The work of Vorstius on which 
- their fears and accusations were chiefly founded was a collection of 
dissertations which he had published at Steinfurt, in 1610, under the 
title ‘De Deo, seu Disputationes decem de Natura et Attributis Dei, 
diverso tempore Steinfurti habitw.’ This book was attacked more 
fiercely than even the Koran had been by any Christian writer, King 
James I., after having read the book, found it full of heresies, and had 
it publicly burnt at Oxford, Cambridge, and London; and he recom- 
mended the States of Holland not to tolerate such a heretic within 
their territory, The States instituted an inyestigation, and as the 
contest grew hotter every day, Vorstius was obliged to quit Holland 
and wait for the final decision in another country, The King of 
England in the mean time wrote a tract against the unfortunate pro- 
fessor, declared that burning was much too mild a punishment for 
him, and threatened to cause all orthodox Protestants to unite their 
strength against the Arminian heresies, The synod of Dortrecht at 
length, in 1619, brought the matter to a close; and it is said to have 
been chiefly owing to the influence of the English deputies at this 
synod that Vorstius was declared unworthy of the office to which he 
had been appointed, and exiled from Holland for ever. For two years 
Vorstius and his family lived in concealment, and his life was 
threatened more than once by persons who thought it a religious duty 
to kill a man who was capable of doing so much injury to the 
Christian religion, At last the Duke of Holstein offered Vorstius and 
the scattered remnants of the Arminians a place of refuge in his own 
duchy, and assigned to them a tract of land, on which they built the 
town of Friedrichstadt. Vorstius arrived in Holstein in the summer 
of 1622, but he was taken ill soon after, and died on the 29th of 


September of the same year at Ténningen, His body was carried to 
Friedrichstadt, and buried honourably. 

Vorstius was a pious and devout man. There is no evidence what- 
ever that he had adopted the Arminian doctrines previous to his going 
to Leyden. Bayle justly remarks that the persecutions of his enemies 
for errors of which he was.not guilty drove him into them; for that 
he was an Arminian during the last period of his life is attested by 
his own evidence, Vorstius was a man of considerable learning, ( 
independence of mind, and of sound judgment. He wrote a great 
number of works, most of which are of a controversial nature, and 
directed partly against the doctrines of the Church of Rome, and 
partly against his opponents among the Protestants, Some few are of 
a devotional and religious character. Most of them are written in 
Latin, some in German, and some in Dutch, Lists of them are given 
in Jécher’s ‘ Allgemeines Gelehrten-Lexicon,’ and in Bayle’s ‘ Diction- 
naire Historique et Critique.’ 

(Sandius, Bibliotheca Antitrinitariorum ; Gualterus, Oratie in obitum 
Conradi Vorstii.) zs 

VOS, MARTIN DE, one of the most remarkable painters of his 
time, was born at Antwerp in 1520, or more probably 1531, His 
father, Peter de Vos, who was likewise a painter and a member of the 
Academy of Antwerp, gave him the first instruction in his art, and he 
afterwards attended the school of the celebrated Frans Floris, From 
the school of Floris he went to Italy, where he studied some time at 
Rome, and at Venice with Tintoretto, whose style he adopted, and for 
whom he painted several landscapes as backgrounds to some of his 
pictures. He distinguished himself in history and portrait, and 
painted many partzsite for the house of Medici. After a stay of eight 
years in Italy he returned to Antwerp, and brought home with him, 
besides other studies, a large collection of drawings from ancient vases, 
&c., from Greek and Roman monuments, which he made use of to 
great advantage in several pictures of feasts and such subjects. In 
1559, shortly after his return, he was made a member of the Academy 
of Antwerp. He executed an immense number of works: there are 
more than six hundred prints after his designs; he painted more 
pictures than any man of his time. He amassed a consi 
fortune, and died in 1603, aged seventy-two, or, according to the 
common account, in 1604, aged eighty-four. 

De Vos had great ability, and many of his great pictures are composed, 
designed, and coloured in a masterly style, yet his figures, like those 
of his model Tintoretto, are often forced and exaggerated in their 
attitudes. He formed a good school, and educated several excellent 
scholars; the most distinguished were his nephew William de Vos, 
and Wenceslaus Koeberger or Coubergher. 

William de Vos was one of the painters whose portraits were painted 
by Vandyck for the collection of the distinguished artists of his time. 
There were several other painters of this name, of the same and of 


different families. There was a Peter de Vos, the brother of Martin; 7 


a Simon de Vos (born at Antwerp in 1603, and died in 1662), the 
scholar of Rubens, who excelled in portrait and in animal painting; a 
Paul de Vos (born at Aelst about 1600, died in 1654), a celebrated 
battle-painter, and. his son Cornelius, who was a good historical 
painter; he died at Antwerp in 1751, aged sixty-one. There was 
another Cornelius de Vos, who studied under and imitated Vandyck ; 
and there was also a Lambert de Vos of Mechlin, who, in 1574, went 
to Turkey and made many excellent water-colour drawings of Turkish 
costume. A volume of these drawings upon Turkish paper is or was 
in the gymnasium library of Bremen. 
VOSS, JOHANN HEINRICH, was born on the 20th of February 


1751, at Sommersdorf, near Wahren in Mecklenburg. His father was a ; 


4 


originally a farmer; but, soon after the birth of his son, he got 


office of collector of the tolls for Count Malzahn in the little town of 


Penzlin, and had a house and the privilege of brewing and distillin 

In this place Johann Heinrich received his first education, H 

showed such an extraordinary memory and such a desire to learn, that 
his father, although his circumstances were continually growing 
worse, sent him to the public school at Neu-Brandenburg. Bene- 
volent friends and relatives contributed towards the expenses of his 
education, as he showed all the signs of extraordinary talent. Greek 
was then taught at Neu-Brandenburg in a very unsatisfactory way. 


Voss felt it; and being already charmed with the beauties of that 


language, he and some of his schoolfellows had their weekly meetings, 
in which they communicated to one another what they had learned in 


private, and thus studied the Greek writers themselves. German — 
poetry also was read and discussed at these meetings, and Voss — 


already commenced writing German poetry which attracted the 
attention of his friends and acquaintances. After having been at Neu- 


Brandenburg for two years, he saw that a longer stay would be useless; 4 
and as he had no means of continuing his studies at a university, he — 


gladly accepted a place as private tutor in the family of a country 
gentleman near Penzlin, He entered this situation in 1769. As he — 
had not yet been at a university, his salary was less than that of the 


cook in the family ; and he had to endure many humiliations which — 


might have broken his spirits if he had not thoughtit his duty to hold — 


out in order to get a small sum which might enable him at least to — 


begin his academical career. Another circumstance which helped — 
him over the difficulties of his position was the friendship of a neigh- — 
bouring clergyman, who saw the great talents of Voss, made him — 


ae 


S 


oe 


— oo 


| 
4 
4 
a 


i ee Be 
a ae ns 


POS nal 
ASST, 


Soe 


Te 


se 


ile 


453 VOSS, JOHANN HEINRICH. 


VOSS, JOHANN HEINRICH. Abs 


acquainted with the German poets, and drew his attention to Shaks- 
ere, to understand whose works Voss immediately began to learn 
nglish. Boie, who was then the editor of the ‘ Géttinger Musenal- 
manach,’ received some of Voss’s poems as contributions, and was so 
pleased with them, that he invited the author to come to Gottingen, 
where he promised him all the assistance in his power, After 
repeated invitations Voss went, in 1772, to Gottingen, where, through 
the mediation of Boie, he obtained free board (Freitisch), and also the 
means of making a small income. Here Voss became acquainted with 
Heyne, who received him as a member of the philological seminary. 
- The influence of Boie and of the numerous circle of aspiring young 
men then assembled at Gottingen, who formed: a society under the 
name of Hainbund, for the purpose of cultivating poetry and improving 
the national taste, soon drew out the genius of Voss, and he took a 
very prominent part in the proceedings of the society. He had come 
to Gottingen with a view to study theology, but he changed his views 
and devoted himself to the study of philology, with the hope of 
obtaining the office of teacher in some public school. In his critical 
exercises in the philological seminary he occasionally differed from 
Heyne, and thus excited his ill-will; the consequence was that Voss 
did not attend the seminary so regularly as was expected, though he 
continued his studies the more zealously in private. This ill-feeling 
-between Heyne and Voss was the foundation of all their subsequent 
disputes and enmity. During his stay at Géttingen Voss made the 
acquaintance of Klopstock and Claudius ; and in 1774, when Boie left 
Gottingen, the editorship of the ‘Musenalmanach’ was given to him. 
In 1775 Voss also left the university, spent some time at Hamburg, 
and then went to his friend Claudius at Wandsbeck. In 1777 he 
married Boie’s youngest sister, and the year after he was appointed 
rector of the public school at Otterndorf, in the county of Hadeln. 
Soon after settling there he announced his intention of publishing a 
German translation of the ‘ Odyssey’ in hexameter verse ; and in order 
to convince the world of his competence, he published, in 1780, a dis- 
sertation on the island of Ortygia in the ‘Deutsches Museum,’ and 
another on the Ocean of the ancients,in the ‘Gottinger Magazin,’ 
which was edited by Forster and Lichtenberg. The peculiar mode 
which he adopted of writing Greek names drew upon him the severe 
censure and sneers of Lichtenberg, who was at the same time one of 
the champions of Heyne. This completed the breach between Voss 
and Heyne, and the disputes with Lichtenberg continued for several 
years, and became at last mixed up with such personalities, that Voss 
found it necessary to write an essay in vindication of his own charac- 
ter in the ‘ Deutsches Museum.’ In 1781 Voss published his German 
translation of the ‘Odyssey,’ which was received with the unanimous 
me per of all competent judges, The marshy district of Ottern- 
dorf being detrimental to the health of Voss, through the influence 
of his friend Count Frederic Leopold Stolberg he was invited to 
the rectorship of the gymnasium of Eutin. He arrived here in 1782, 
and his circumstances, which had hitherto been extremely limited, 
were soon greatly improved, and he was*further honoured with the 
title of ‘Hofrath.’ Being thus in easy circumstances, he devoted his 
time to the discharge of his duties and to the study of the ancients, 
whose works it was his pride to nationalise among his countrymen. 
At the same time he continued to write original poems, which are 
among the best in the literature of Germany. In 1789 he published 
his edition of Virgil’s ‘Georgics,’ with a German translation, a com- 
mentary, and several engravings representing various forms of ancient 
ploughs. A new and much improved edition appeared in 2 vols. 8vo, 
1800, In 1793 he published his translation of the. ‘Iliad’ and 
‘Odyssey,’ in 4 vols. in 8vo and 4to. That of the ‘ Odyssey’ was an 
improvement upon the edition already published ; but although it is 
more correct its character is less simple than that of the first edition. 
During this time he was also engaged with researches on ancient 
geography and mythology; and in order to counteract the views on 
mythology proposed by G, Hermann, in his ‘Handbuch der Mytho- 
logie,’ which was extravagantly praised by Heyne and his friends, 
Voss wrote an essay on Apollo, which was soon after followed by his 
Letters on Mythology (‘ Mythologische Briefe,’ 2 vols. 8vo, Kénigs- 
berg, 1794), which were mainly directed against Heyne, <A second 
and enlarged edition of these letters appeared in 3-vols, 8vo, Stuttgard, 
1827. No year passed without proofs of the genius and learning of 
Voss. In 1797 there appeared, in 2 vols., his edition of Virgil’s 
*Eclogues,’ which, like the ‘ Georgics,’ was accompanied by a German 
translation and an excellent commentary. ‘Two years later he pub- 
lished his translation of all the works of Virgil, but without a com- 
mentary. The numerous original poems, which had appeared either 
in small collections or in periodicals, were now collected and published 
in 4 vols. 8vo, 1802. This collection contains, in an appendix, an 
essay on German prosody (‘Zeitmessung der Deutschen Sprache’), In 
this year he also produced a new edition of his translation of Homer, 
to which he added a map of the Homeric world, and a plan of the 
palace of Odysseus, 

His intense study and incessant literary activity, together with his 
heavy duties as rector and teacher of the gymnasium of Eutin, and 
various other painful occurrences, had so much weakened his consti- 
tution that it was impossible for him to continue in his office. His 
physician urged the necessity of a residence in Southern Germany. 
Duke Peter Frederic of Holstein-Gottorp, though with great reluctance, 


not only allowed Voss to resign his office, but granted him an annual 
pension of 600 thalers. In the autumn of 1802 Voss went to Jena, 
where he lived for some years in private, enjoying the friendship and 
esteem of the professors in that university, and of all the illustrious 
personages then assembled at Weimar. 

It was during his stay at Jena that he wrote the review of Heyne’s 
edition of Homer, which created a general sensation in Germany 
(‘Jenaer Allgem. Literaturzeitung, for May 1803). In 1805 Voss 
received a letter expressing the desire of the elector of Baden that 
he should come to Heidelberg, and give a few lectures in the univer- 
sity; or, if his health should not permit him to lecture, the elector 
offered him a pension of 500 florins if he would merely settle at 
Heidelberg. While Voss was hesitating whether he should leave all 
his friends at Jena and Weimar, a second letter arrived, offering him 
an annual pension of 1000 florins if he would settle at Heidelberg, and 
by his mere presence give lustre to the university. This generous 
offer, which raised him above all want, was gratefully accepted ; and 
in the summer of 1805 Voss arrived at Heidelberg. The mild climate 
of this place, with its beautiful environs, produced a great change in 
him. He felt himself again cheerful and young, and with renewed 
ardour he devoted himself to his literary pursuits. The results were 
improved editions of his earlier works, as well as many new ones, 
His fourth and last edition of Homer appeared in 1814, in 4 vols., 
and a revised edition of his translation of Virgil in 1821. Among the 
new translations of ancient writers which appeared during his residence 
at Heidelberg, were those of Horace (1806 and 1821), Hesiod (1806), 
Theocritus, Bion, and Moschus (1808), Tibullus and Lygdamus (1810), 
of which, in 1811, he also published the original text, corrected from 
manuscripts, his translation of Aristophanes (1821), and Aratus (1824). 
Voss had occasionally translated works from the English and French 
into-German: in 1819 he determined, in conjunction with his two 
sons Henry and Abraham, to translate Shakspere. The work was not 
completed till several years after the death of Voss, This translation 
is not quite what it should be, but it is a proof of the bold spirit and 
of the unwearied activity of Voss. In 1823 he published the first 
volume of a work entitled ‘ Antisymbolik,’ which was directed against 
the mythological work of Creuzer. The second volume was edited 
after his father’s death by Abraham Voss, Frederic Stolberg, who 
had once been a kind and sincere friend to Voss, had become a convert 
to the Roman Catholic religion in the year 1800; and many years 
afterwards, in 1819, Voss, seeing the intrigues employed by the Mystics 
and the Roman Catholics in Germany, wrote an essay called ‘ Wie 
ward Fritz Stolberg ein Unfreier’ (in Paulus’s ‘Sophronizon,’ part iii.). 
This was the opening of a literary campaign against Roman Catholi- 
cism, the Protestant Mystics of Germany, and despotism and aristo- 
cratic haughtiness, for these were the causes to which Voss attributed 
the conversion of Stolberg. The sensation which these attacks created 
divided all Germany into two parties; but both agreed that Voss 
treated the friend of his youth too severely, and they condemned the 
personalities in which he indulged. The truth is that Voss and Stol- 
berg were such opposite natures that they could not understand each 
other: Voss was unable to comprehend the real causes of Stolberg’s 
conduct, as has since been made evident by the letters of Stolberg. 
Voss died at Heidelberg, on the 30th of March 1826, 

Johann Heinrich Voss is one of the most remarkable men of 
modern times. He possessed a generous, upright character, without 
the least affectation. In his family and in his relations to his friends 
there was a kind of patriarchal simplicity and cordiality. But it can- 
not be denied that his own opinions of what was right and wrong 
rendered him frequently blind to what was good in others, and made 
him appear obstinate and quarrelsome. Asa writer Voss ranks among 
the first that Germany can boast of. His knowledge of antiquity was 
immense, and the life of the ancients was nearly as familiar to him as 
that of his contemporaries. His commentaries on Virgil’s Georgics 
and Eclogues are among the best that have been written on any 
ancient author, and Niebuhr used to say that nothing was left for 
any future commentator on those poems, for Voss had done all that 
could be desired. Heis one of the great fathers of modern philology, 
and worthy to stand by the side of Lessing and F. A. Wolf. As a 
translator Voss is unrivalled, and the principles which he laid down 
are still followed by the best translators in Germany. No nation of 
modern Europe can boast of translations of Homer, Virgil, Hesiod, 
and Theocritus equal to those of Voss, which are real substitutes for 
the originals. It was the consequence of his own peculiar nature that 
he was more successful in his translations of epic and idyllic, than of 
lyric and dramatic poetry. Asa poet he must be classed among the 
first of his country. His expression is strong and vigorous, his senti- 
ments true und pure, and the amiable part of the German character is 
perhaps not séen in any modern poet more clearly than in the poems 
of Voss. The simplicity and the natural charms of his idyllic poems 
have never been equalled by any German poet, and his epico-idyllic 
poem, ‘Luise,’ is the most beautiful production of its kind in any 
language. His essays have been collected under the title ‘ Kritische 
Blatter, nebst Geographischen Abhandlungen,’ Stuttgard, 2 vols. Svo. 
1829. 

(Paulus, Lebens- und Todeskunden von J. H. Voss, Heidelberg, 1826 ; 
Briefe von J. H. Voss, nebst erléuternden Beilagen, edited by Abraham 
Voss, Halberstadt, 8 vols. 8vo, 1820-33; Leben des Dichters J. H, 


455 VOSSIUS, GERARD. 


VOUET, SIMON, 456 


Voss, by i E. Th. Schmid, in Voss’s Poetical Works, Leipzig, 1835, 
p. i-xxxix, 

VO’SSIUS, GERARD. As his father’s name was Johannes Vossius, 
he called himself Gerardus Johannis Vossius, that is, Gerard Vossius, 
the son of Jobn. His real family name was Vos, which he Latinised 
into Vossius, He was born in 1577, in the neighbourhood of Heidel- 
berg, whither his father, who had once resided at Roermonde, in Hol- 
land, had gone after he had embraced the Protestant religion. In the 
year after the birth of his son Johannes Voasius returned to Holland, 
and settled finally at Dortrecht. Gerard was only seven years old at 
the time of his father’s death. He began his studies at Dortrecht, 
and, after having acquired a considerable knowledge of Latin and 
Greek and of the elements of philosophy, he went, in 1595, to the 
University of Leyden, where the range of his studies was considerably 
extended. In 1598 he took his degree in philosophy, and began to 
devote himself with great zeal to the study of theology, ecclesiastical 
history, and the Hebrew language. About the year 1600 the Univer- 
sity of Leyden was on the point of giving Vossius a professorship, 
when he left the place, being invited by the town of Dortrecht to 
undertake the head-mastership of the public school there. Soon after 
his arrival at Dortrecht he married. His wife died in 1607, after 
having borne him three children. In about six months he married 
his second wife, who bore him five sons and two daughters, Of all 
his children none survived him except his son Isaac. 

Gerard Vossius was an intimate friend of Hugo Grotius. Grotius 
had severely chastised the Dutch clergy in his work ‘ Pietas Ordinum 
Hollandiz,’ and Voszius, although he took the pains to avoid being 
entangled in the theological disputes then going on in Holland, was 
suspected of entertaining heretical opinions. In 1614 the professor- 
ship of theology at Steinfurt was offered to him, and owing to the 
hostility which some of the Dutch clergy evinced towards him, he was 
inclined to accept the invitation; but at the same time the rectorship 
of the theological college at Leyden was offered to him. Vossius 
accepted this distinguished post to which, some years after, the’ pro- 
fessorship of eloquence and chronology in the university was added. 
In 1618 he published a history of the Pelagian controversy (‘ Historia 
Pelagiana’), from which his enemies inferred that he was guilty of that 
heresy. A report also was spread that he was an Arminian, and a 
secret friend of C. Vorstius. All this increased the number and 
bitterness of his enemies, and the synod of Tergou was prevailed upon, 
in 1620, to deprive Vossius of the rectorship of the theological college 
at Leyden. The synod of Rotterdam however restored him, in 1621, 
to his office, on condition that he should neither say nor write anything 
against the synod of Dortrecht, which had condemned Arminianism. 
During these troubles Vossius tranquilly continued his studies and 
literary labours. In 1564 the University of Cambridge offered him a 
professorship, but he yielded to the wishes of the curators of the 
University of Leyden, not to quit the place, and the States of Holland 
showed him their esteem and confidence by commissioning him to 
write a Latin and a Greek grammar for the use of the public schools 
in Holland. In 1626 another unsuccessful attempt was made to get 


Vossius over to England; but he continued at Leyden, where his. 


lectures and the reputation of his learning attracted crowds of students. 
The work on Pelagianism, which had called forth so many enemies in 
Holland, gained him the favour of Archbishop Laud, who procured 
Vossius a prebend in the cathedral of Canterbury, the emoluments of 
which were to be transmitted to him at Leyden. In 1629 he came 
over to England to be installed, and after having been honoured with 
the degree of Doctor of Laws at Oxford he returned to Holland. In 
1630 the city of Amsterdam founded a gymnasium, and invited 
Vossius to the chair of history. Notwithstanding the opposition of 
the University of Leyden, Vossius accepted the offer, partly because 
the new office afforded him more leisure, and better opportunity for 
the education of his children. In 1633 Vossius went to Amsterdam, 
where he exerted himself to raise the new establishment. Although 
the successive losses of his children caused him deep and lasting grief, 
he did not allow these family afflictions to interfere with his official 
duties or to interrupt his literary activity. He died at Amsterdam in 
1649. One day when he was ascending the ladder in his library, the 
et ing broke, and Vossius was found dead, and buried under his 
oks, 

Vossius was a man of extraordinary learning, and had a powerful 
memory; he boasted that he never forgot anything. He was an 
humble and devout man, and always ready to serve others, Extremely 
careful in employing his time, he scarcely ever allowed a friend to stay 
with him more than a quarter of an hour. He hated nothing more 
cordially than the theological squabbles and the calumnies with which 
the scholars of that time assailed one another. His writings, most of 
which relate to classical antiquity, are very numerous, and some of them 
necessary to a scholar. They were collected at Amsterdam, 1695- 
1701, in 6 vols. folio. The following list contains those which are still 
of great value :—1, ‘ Aristarchus, sive de Arte Grammatica Libri VIL,’ 
4to, Amsterdam, 1635, and often reprinted; 2, ‘De Historicis Latinis 
Libri Tres,’ 4to, Leyden, 1627; a second edition appeared at Leyden, 
in 1651. It contains an account of all the writers that ever wrote on 
historical subjects in the Latin language, down to his own time. 3, 
‘De Historicis Grecis Libri Tres,’ Of this work a most useful edition 
was published by A. Westermann, 8vo, Leipzig, 1838, which contains 


many additions and corrections. It gives an account of all the Greek 
historians down to the taking of Constantinople by the Turks. 4, ‘De 
Veterum Poetarum Temporibus Libriduo qui sunt de Poetis Gracis et 
Latinis,’ 4to, Amsterdam, 1652; 5, ‘De Logices et Rhetoricee Natura 
et Constitutione Libri Duo,’ 4to, Hage, 1658; 6, ‘De Philosophorum 
Sectis Liber,’ 4to, Hage, 1657. I 

(Nicéron, Mémoires des Hommes Illustres, yol. xiii.; Colomesii 
Epistole G. J. Vossii, London, 1690.)> 

VOSSIUS, ISAAC, a son of Gerard Vossius by his second wife, was - 
born at Leyden, in 1618. His education, like that of all his brothers 
and sisters, was conducted exclusively by his father. After he had 
completed his studies he travelled for three years through Italy, 
France, and England, during which time he collected many valuable 
manuscripts of ancient writers. Queen Christina invited him, in 
1648, to Sweden, and Vossius enjoyed for many years her esteem and 
friendship, and had also the honour of giving her instruction in the 
Greek language. On his father’s death the professorship of history at 
Amsterdam was offered to him, but he refused it, and although he 
occasionally visited his native country, yet he spent the greater part of 
his time in Sweden. Salmasius (Saumaise) was one of the scholars whom 
Christina drew to ber court, and for whom she entertained a very high 
regard. But Salmasius always treated Vossius in an insolent manner, 
and when at last the queen was informed that Vossius was going to 
write against him, she refused to admit him to her presence, where- 
upon Vossius immediately went back to Holland, in 1658, and never 
returned to Sweden. In 1663 King Louis XIV. of France sent him a 
handsome letter, accompanied by a considerable sum of money, partly 
as an acknowledgment of the great merits of his father Gerard 
Vossius, and partly as an encouragement to Isaac to continue his 
literary labours. Shortly after this the States of Holland requested 
Vossius +o write a history of the war between England and Holland, 
and on his refusal, he was deprived of the pension which he had 
hitherto enjoyed. This appears to have induced him to leave his 
country, and in 1670 he arrived in England. At Oxford he was made 
a Doctor of Laws, and in 1673 King Charles II. made him a canon of 
Windsor, and assigned to him apartments in the castle, where he 
remained until his death, on the 10th of February 1688, The splendid 
library of books and manuscripts which he had collected, and which 
was considered one of the most complete private collections in Europe, 
was purchased by the University of Leyden. 

Isaac Vossius was almost as learned as his father, but his character 
was not so blameless. When he attended Divine service in the chapel 
at Windsor, it is said that he used to read Ovid’s ‘ Amores’ and ‘ Ars 
Amandi,’ instead of his prayer-book, and he was much given to women. 
He knew all the European languages without being able to speak one 
of them correctly. He was familiar with the manners and customs of 
the ancients, but profoundly ignorant of the world and of the affairs of 
ordinary life. Although a canon of Windsor, he did not believe in the 
Divine origin of the Christian religion, and he treated religious matters 
with contempt, although in all other things he was exceedingly credu- 
lous. Charles II. on one occasion said, “This learned divine is a 
strange man: he will believe anything except the Bible.” On his 
deathbed he refused the Sacrament, and was only prevailed upon to 
take it by the remark of one of his colleagues, that if he would not do 
it for the love of God, he ought to do it for the honour of the chapter 
to which he belonged. His literary merits are great, though his works 
are not so valuable as those of his father. The following list contains 
his principal works :—1, ‘Periplus Scylacis Caryandensis et Anonymi 
Periplus Ponti Euxini, with a Latin translation and’ notes, 4to, 
Amsterdam, 1639. 2, ‘Justinus, Historia Philippica,’ with notes, 
12mo, Leyden, 1640. 8, ‘Ignatii Epistole, et Barnabe Epistola,’ 
with a Latin translation and notes, 4to, Amsterdam, 1646. 4, ‘Pom- 
ponius Mela, de Situ Orbis,’ 4to, Hage, 1648; a second edition 
appeared in 1700, at Franecker. His notes on Mela are chiefly directed 
against Salmasius. 5, ‘Dissertatio de vera Aitate Mundi, 4to, Hage, 
1659. In this work he endeavours to establish the chronology of the 
Septuagint in opposition to that of the Hebrew text. This involved him 
in various disputes with other divines, especially Horne. 6, ‘ De Sep- 
tuaginta Interpretibus, eorumque Translatione et Chronologia, Disser- 
tationes,’ 4to, 1663. 7, ‘De Sibyllinis aliisque que Christi Natalem 
preecessere Oraculis,’ Oxford, 1679. 8, ‘Catullus et in eum Isaaci 
Vossii Observationes,’ 4to, London, 1684. 9, ‘ Variarum Obserya- 
tionum Liber,’ 4to, London, 1685. This volume contains a number of 
dissertations, some of which had been printed separately, but most of 
them show that he had no critical spirit. 10, ‘Observationum ad 
Pomponium Melam Appendix,’ &c., 4to, London, 1686. This appen- 
dix is an attack upon Jacob Gronovius, who had censured Vossius’s 


edition of Mela. Isaac also edited the ‘ Annales Hollandiz et Zelandia, _ 


Sexcentorum fere Annorum i Theodorico I usque ad Translatum & 
Jacobo in Philippum Imperium,’ which had been written by his brother 
Matthias Vossius, who died before the work was completed. 

(Nieéron, Mémoires des Hommes Iilustres, vol. iii.; Andres Biblio- 
theca Belgica ; Wood, Athenee Oxonienses.) 

VOUET, SIMON, commonly considered the founder of the French 
school of painting, was born at Paris in 1582. He was instructed by 
his father Laurent Vouet, a painter of moderate ability, and distin- 
guished himself at a very early age. Baron de Sancy, French ambas- 
sador to the Porte, took Vouet with him to Constantinople in 1611, 


i‘ 


& 


4 


5 


457 VRIES, HANS FREDEMAN DE. 


WACE, ROBERT. 


453 


where he painted from memory, after a single interview, an excellent 
portrait of the Sultan Achmet I. From Constantinople he went to 
Venice, and: from that place, in 1613, to Rome. In Venice he was 
attracted by the works of Paul Veronese, but in Rome he forsook for 
a time his style for that of Carravaggio. His reputation procured 
him a pension from Louis XIII. while he was in Rome, where he was 
made president of the Academy of St. Luke; and in 1627 Louis 
recalled him to Paris, gave him the title of principal painter to the 
king, and apartments in the Louvre. In Paris he had so much to do 
that he found occupation for a numerous school of young painters, 


among whom were Le Brun, Le Sueur, Mignard, Du Fresnoy, Testelin, 


Perrier, the elder Dorigny, and several others. His commissions were 
so numerous that he was obliged to entrust nearly the entire execution 
of many of his works to these painters. He painted ceilings, galleries, 
altarpieces, small religious pieces and other easel pictures, as well as 
portraits both in oil and in crayons. He painted with great facility in 
a style peculiar to himself; it was gay, yet feeble in colouring, owing 
to a want of harmony in the composition of colour: he was mannered 
likewise in his drawing, especially in the hands and in the heads, 
which he painted too frequently in profile; he was also deficient in 


_ invention and expression, and there is little merit in his compositions. 


Yet notwithstanding these defects, Vouet greatly improved the French 
school of painting, and he is allowed by the French historians of art 
‘to have done as much for painting as Corneille did for the drama 
in France. He is however more distinguished for the several excellent 
painters who were educated by him than for his paintings. He died 
in Paris in 1641. There are about 200 prints after his works, the 
principal of which are—the chapel and gallery of the Palais Royal; 
some works in the Hotel de Bullion; a ceiling in the Hétel de Breton- 
villiers, &c. ; also altarpieces in St. Eustache, St. Nicholas des Champs, 
St. Merry, and in the chapel of St. Francois de Paule, Place Royale: 
there is likewise a.good picture by him in the Academy of Painting. 
VRIES, HANS FREDEMAN DE, a Dutch architectural and per- 
spective painter, born in 1527, at Leeuwaarden in Friesland. He was 
bound for five years at Leeuwaarden, toa painter of Amsterdam, of the 
name of Gerritsz, and designed becoming a glass-painter. He painted 
some time at Mechlin, and settled for a time at Antwerp, where, in 
1549, he was employed with other painters to paint the triumphal 
arches erected in honour of the entry of Charles V. and his son Philip. 
He afterwards visited many cities of Germany, in all of which he 
added to his reputation by his works. De Vries was a complete 
master of perspective; he published a treatise upon the science, which 
was afterwards enlarged by Samuel Marolois. His paintings, large 
and small, are very true ; they consist of gardens, exteriors and interiors 
of buildings; and some of them are embellished with figures by other 
masters, His drawings and designs were very numerous. There have 


been published twenty-six books of prints by him, illustrating various 
styles of architecture, with views of buildings, villas, &c, He wasa 
great admirer of the works of Vitruvius and Serlio, which he studied 
in the Flemish translations of Peter Kock. Hans had two sons, Paul 
and Solomon de Vries, who painted in the same style as their father; 
but though well, with less success. Solomon died in the Hague in 
1604, before his father, the date of whose death is not known; the 
date 1588, in Pilkington’s ‘ Dictionary’ (ed. 1829), isan error. Paul 
executed some extensive works at Prague. When he died is also 
unknown; he was living at Amsterdam in 1604, according to Van 
Mander ; the date therefore of 1598, given in Pilkington’s ‘ Dictionary’ 
as the year of his death, is also an error. 

Hans de Vries is called sometimes Frisius. There is a portrait of 
him in Van Mander’s work Leven der Schilders, &c. 

VRIES, MARTIN GERRITZON, a Dutch navigator of the 17th 
century. In 1643, Van Diemen, at that time governor-general of the 
Dutch possessions in India, gave him the command of an expedition 
destined to examine the countries north of Japan, and the west coast 
of Tartary as far north as the 56th degree of latitude. Vries hoisted 
his flag on board the Kastricum, aud had under him Henrik Cor- 
neliszen Schaep, in command of the Breskens. The two vessels sailed 
from Batavia on the 3rd of February 1643. They were separated 
on the 26th of May, in astorm off Niphon, and did not meet again 
till September. During the interim, the Kastricum partially ex- 
amined the islands in the vicinity of Perouse’s Straits, and some were 
accurately delineated by that navigator and Krusenstern. When Vries 
rejoined the Breskens, he found the captain and part of the crew had 
been imprisoned by the Japanese, on a suspicion of their having 
smuggled some Portuguese priests into the island. The prisoners were 
not released till the 24th of July 1644. A brief account of the voyage 
of Vries was published at Amsterdam in 1646. Thevenot inserted an 
abstract of it in his collection of voyages ; the instructions given to 
Vries have been printed in the ninth volume of the ‘ Philosophical 
Transactions.’ D’Anvyille. corrected a part of the coast-line of the 
Jesuits’ map of China from a large manuscript chart of the track of 
the Kastricum which came into his hands. <A copy of part of this 
chart on a reduced scale was published in the account of La Perouse’s 
voyage. Both Krusenstern and La Perouse speak with great respect 
of Vries’s talents as a navigator; his astronomical observations are 
wonderfully accurate, considering the state of instruments in his time. 
The narrative of his voyage contains some graphic details respecting 
the appearance of the country he visited and the customs of the 
inhabitants. Buache, who was not acquainted with the Dutch lan- 
guage, calls Vries by mistake Uries, and the error has been perpetuated 
in the Voyage of La Perouse. Of the history of Vries, prior and 
subsequently to his voyage, nothing appears to be known. 


W 


_ *\{7AAGEN, GUSTAV FRIEDRICH, an eminent German critic and 


writer on art, was born at Hamburg in 1794. In that city 
he prosecuted his early studies in art till they were for a time inter- 
rupted by the war with the French. Afterwards he renewed his 
favourite pursuits with fresh zeal in various places and especially in 
Munich ; but he eventually settled in Berlin, where he some years 
later received the appointment of Director of the Royal Gallery of 
Paintings. As an author Dr. Waagen first made himself known by 
the publication of a pamphlet ‘ Ueber die in der kéniglich bair. Samm- 
lung der Akademie der Wissenschaften befindlichen Mumien und 
andere iigypt. Alterthiimer’ (‘On the royal Bavarian Collection of the 
Academy of Sciences, particularly as to the Mummies and other 
Egyptian Antiquities’), Miinch, 1820. This was followed by a 
monograph ‘ Ueber Hubert und Johann van Eyck,’ Breslau, 1822; and 
by a controversial work ‘ Hirt als Forscher iiber die Geschichte der 
neuern Malerei’ (‘Hirt as an Inquirer into the History of modern 
Painting’), Berlin, 1832, in which he defended himself against an 
attack by Hirt. But his most elaborate work, and that which made 
him first generally known to English readers, was his ‘ Kunstwerke 
und Kiinstler in England und Frankreich,” 4 vols. Berlin, 1837, of 
which the first, relating to this country, was translated in 1838 under 
the title of ‘Works of Art and Artists in England.’ A new and 
greatly extended edition of this work, or rather a new work based 
upon it, was published in English in 3 vols. 8vo, in 1854, under the 
title of ‘The Treasures of Art in Great Britain ; being an Account of 
the chief Collections of Paintings, Sculptures, Drawings, Illuminated 
MSS., &c.’; and a fourth and supplemental volume to be called ‘ Addi- 
tional Art-Treasures in Great Britain, being an Account of Forty 
Galleries, visited in 1854 and 1856, and now for the first time 
described,’ is announced as now (Sept. 1857) nearly ready for publi- 
cation, Dr. Waagen has had opportunities afforded him beyond any 
other person of becoming acquainted with the contents of the Art- 
Galleries of this country, which have been, both private and public, 
laid open to him without reserve ; and he is familiar with the contents 
of all the principal picture-galleries on the Continent. He has more- 
over dedicated his life to the study of pictures, and he is regarded as 


one of the most accomplished living connoisseurs. His carefully- 
conducted survey of the picture-galleries of England carries with it 
therefore necessarily a great amount of authority, and his work is in 
all respects the most complete and valuable which has been published. 
As a critic in all technical matters he is eminently learned and 
judicious ; in the higher mental, poetic, or xsthetic qualities he is, 
though equally conscientious, less trustworthy : his point of view is 
too exclusively that of the gallery-trained connoisseur. He has recently, 
1857, published a useful little brochure, ‘A Walk through the Art- 
Treasures Exhibition at Manchester: What to Observe,’ in which 
these characteristics are strikingly displayed. The only other work of 
his which requires to be particularly mentioned is his ‘ Kunstwerke 
und Kiinstler in Deutschland,’ 2 vols. Leipzig, 1843-45; but he has 
also written a sketch of the life of Rubens, and some other minor 
works. As director of the gallery at Berlin, to Dr. Waagen was assigned 
the task of newly arranging that noble collection, and this he did 
upon a chronological plan, by which the progressive development of 
the art in the various countries was sought to be as far as possible 
illustrated. This method of arranging pictures, which Dr. Waagen 
was the first to carry out to its full extent, has since been much 
canvassed, but it is being followed more or less strictly in the various 
galleries of the Continent. In England the plan has been adopted 
with admirable taste and skill by Mr. Scharf in arranging the works of 
the old masters in the Art-Treasures Exhibition at Manchester, and 
where there is so fine a collection of works of a high class the plan is 
unquestionably capable of producing a pleasing as well as an instruc- 
tive result. Dr. Waagen was invited during one of his visits to this 
country, by the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the future 
management of the National Gallery, to state his opinion respecting 
the arrangement of the pictures, and it is understood that his views 
have found acceptance, but the present building quite precludes the 
practical carrying of them into effect, if even the collection were 
sufficiently complete to admit of such an arrangement. 

WACE, MASTER ROBERT, The name of this early Anglo-Nor- 
man poet is variously written in different manuscripts of his poems, 
and in the ancient writings which make mention of him, The most 


459 WACE, ROBERT. 


WADDING, LUKE. oe 


usual forms are Wace, Gasse, Gace, Guaze, Huace, and Huistace, 
names which appear to be abbreviations of Eustache or Eustace. His 
Christian name is likewise doubtful, as he never styles himself other- 
wise than ‘ Master Wace. Du Cange supposed it to have been 
Matthew, and Huet is the first writer who calls him Robert. He was 
born in the island of Jersey about the year 1112, and received his 
early education at Caen; he completed his studies, which appear to 
have been chiefly connected with the clerical profession, during a resi- 
dence of some time in the territories of the King of France, and he 
afterwards returned to Caen, where Henry I. usually held his court. 
In this town he spent the greatest portion of his life; his chief occu- 

ation was the composition of metrical romances, so called from their 
Being written in the Roman or vulgar dialect. The ‘Roman du Rou, 
which he completed in 1160, was dedicated to Henry II, and was 
presented to him by Wace in person, who was rewarded with a 
canonry in the cathedral church of Bayeux; this preferment, accord- 
ing to the ancient capitularies of that church, he held from 1161 to 
1171. Ashe frequently styles himself ‘clere lisant,’ reading clerk, it 
has been supposed that he was attached to the private chapel of 
Henry II. He complains however, and that somewhat bitterly, that 
the reward he received from the Dukes of Normandy neither answered 
his anticipations nor came up to the promises they had made him. 
He is said to have died in England, about the year 1184. 

The principal details in this brief notice of the life of Wace, are 
given to us by himself in his ‘Roman du Rou,’ 


*‘ Lunge* est la geste des Normanz, 
Et a metre est grieve en Romanz. 
Si l’on demande qui ¢o dist ¢ 
Ki ceste estoire{ en Romanz mfst ; 
Jo§ di é dirai ke jo sui, 

Wace, de V’isle de Gersui, 

Ki est en mer vers occident. 

Al fieu|| de Normendie appent.{[ 
En Visle de Gersui fu nez, 

A Caen fu petis portez, 

Tloec ** fu a letres mis, 

Puis fu lunges en France apris. 
Quand de France jo repairai, tf 

A Caen lunges conversai ; Tf 

De Romanz fere m’entremis, 

Mult §§ en ecris et mult en fis. [$$ Beaucoup.] 
Par Deu aie|||| & par li Rei i ii Aidé,] 

Altre {YJ fors li servir ne dei. [%1{] Autre excepté lui.] 
Me fut donnée, Dex li rende, 
A Baieues une provende ; *** 
Del rei Henri segund vos di. 
Nevou Henri, pére Henri.” 


[*Longue.] 


[fT Qui dit cela.] 
({ Histoire. ] 
tea 


{|| Fief. . 4 Appartient.] 


[** La.] 


[tt Je revins.] 
[{{ Demeurai.] 


[*** Prébende.] 


The rhymed chronicle from which this extract is taken is entitled 
‘Le Roman du Rou (Rollo) et des Ducs de Normandie,’ and is the best 
known of the writings of Wace; it is held in high esteem as a monu- 
ment of the language and as an historical document, which, though 
incorrect in some of its details and sometimes inexact in its dates, 
presents a faithful picture of society during that period. It contains 
the history of the Dukes of Normandy from the first invasion by 
Rollo down to the eighth year of King Henry I., and not simply, as 
Hallam states, the narrative of the battle of Hastings and conquest of 
England by the Normans. The first, or introductory part, is written 
in lines of eight syllables, and presents us with the history of the first 
irruption of the Normans into England and France. The second part 
or section is written in Alexandrine verse, and relates the principal 
events which took place in the reign of Rollo; the third, in the same 
metre, the history of William Longsword and his son Richard, the 
first Duke of Normandy of that name; in the fourth part, which is 
alone longer than the three preceding, he resumes the eight-syllable 
measure, and presents us with a sequel of the history of Richard, and 
that of his successors to the year 1106. The whole poem contains 
exactly 16,547 lines. He generally follows Dudon and William of 
Jumiéges as his guides in the relation of historical facts, but he adds 
many interesting and curious details which he reports to have received 
from hearsay. 

His description of the battle of Hastings is given with considerable 
minuteness of detail, and has been largely drawn upon by succeeding 
historians. Among the disadvantages under which the English 
laboured, Wace says that they could not fight on horseback, nor 
shelter themselves under a buckler with one hand, while with the 
other they directed their blows against the enemy. 

The other chief recognised poem of Wace is ‘Le Brut d’Angle- 
terre, a work which preceded his ‘Roman du Rou. The date of it as 
ascertained by some lines near the end of the poem is 1155. The 
principal incidents in it are derived from a Latin translation, by 
Geoffrey of Monmouth, of a poem composed in the dialect of Lower 
Brittany. The subject of it is a certain Brutus, who is imagined to 
have been the great-grandson of Aineas, and who ruled over Great 
Britain. It contains nearly eighteen hundred lines, in the same metre 
as those above quoted, and is by some supposed to have been the 
first work containing the origin of Arthur's round table, his knights, 
and tournaments. [ArrHour.] 

The next authentic work of Wace is styled ‘La Chronique ascen- 
dante des Ducs de Normandie :’ it commences with Henry II. and 


goes back to Rollo. It is a short poem of only three hundred and 
fourteen Alexandrine verses, and is published in the first volume of 
the ‘ Mémoires de la Société des Antiquaires de la Normandie,’ p. 144. 
It must have been written later than 1173, as it makes mention of 
troubles excited in Normandy during that year by the revolt of the 
sons of Henry II. against their father. - ne 

The other two remaining poems of Wace possess less interest, and 
are not so generally known. The first of them is entitled ‘L’Esta- 
blissement de la Feste de la Conception, dicte la Feste as Normands ;’* 
the second, ‘La Vie de S. Nicolas,’ of which Hickes has published 
several extracts in his ‘Thesaurus Litterature Septentrionalis.’ 

The above-mentioned works are the only ones which have been 
preserved, and on their authenticity no doubt exists. Two other 
poems have been ascribed to him, ‘Le Roman du Chevalier au Lion,’ 
and ‘Le Roman d’Alexandrie;’ but, though they are undoubtedly — 
productions of the 12th century, they are now generally supposed by 
the best critics not to belong to Wace. oo 

The manuscripts of his poems are very numerous; there aré comi= _ 
plete manuscripts of the ‘Roman du Rou’ both at the Royal . 
of Paris, No, 7567, and at the library of the Arsenal; that in the 
Royal Library is supposed to have been written in the 14th century. 
The most ancient is in the British Museum, and was probably written 
in the first years of the 13th century; it contains however only the __ 
fourth part of the ‘Roman du Row.’ A 

There is a valuable essay on the manuscripts of the ‘ Roman du 
Rou’ by M. de Brequigny, in the fifth volume of his ‘ Notices des 
MSS. de la Bibliothéque Royale,’ ; aa 

In 1827, there was published at Rouen a remarkably fine edition 44 y 
the ‘Roman du Rou,’ in two octavo volumes, with very valuable 
notes, by M. Frederic Pluquet, who had devoted several years to the _ 
laborious task of carefully collating the text of the various manu- 
scripts in existence. iy : 

The following works may be consulted for a more ample account of 
the life and writings of Wace :—1. Capefigue, ‘ Essai sur les Invasions 
Maritimes des Normands dans les Gaules,’ 1823; 2. Depping, ‘Histoire  _ 
des Expeditions Maritimes des Normands,’ 1826; 3. Wheaton, ‘History 
of the Northmen,’ London, 1831. In these two works there are 
copious and interesting extracts from the ‘Roman du Rou;’ Depping 
particularly has very justly appreciated the value of Wace asa La. 
and an historian. 4. Pluquet, ‘Notice sur la Vie et les Eerits de 
Robert Wace, suivie de Citations extraites de ses Ouvrages,’ Rouer : 
1824. In this work will be found the most complete account of the 
writings of Wace. Roquefort, ‘ Glossaire de la Langue Romane,’ Paris, 
2 vols. 1808, will be found useful to the readers of Wace. aa 

WACHTER, JOHN GEORGE, a distinguished scholar and archwo- 
logist, was born at Memmingen in Suabia, in 1673. Hestudied classical, _ 
oriental, and modern languages, and became early known for his 
learning ; he was also thoroughly acquainted with numismatics, Com- __ 
bining great sagacity and a sound judgment with an extensive stock of _ 
knowledge, he was able to produce works, some of which arestillamong 
the best of their kind. For some time he was employed in the 
Museum of Antiquities in Berlin, and was chosen member of the 
Royal Academy of Sciences of that city. However, the first kings of 
Prussia, Frederic I. and William L, showed little disposition to promote 
the arts and sciences, and Wachter left Prussia for Leipzig, where he 
was appointed first librarian and director of the Museum of Anti- 


quities. He died in 1757. His principal works are:—1, ‘ Glossarii 
Germanici, &c. Specimen ex ampliore Farragine decerptum,’ Leipzig 
8vo, 1727: this work was the forerunner of, 2, ‘ Glossarium Germanicum 
continens Origines et Antiquitates totius Lingue Germaviee,’ Leip 
2 vols. fol., 1736-37. This is his principal work, and is still consid 
a standard book. Wachter understood all the dialects of the H 
and Low German languages, and he had also a complete knowle 
of the Persian language, which enabled him to establish the meaning 
and etymology of a great number of words. He was one of the most 
distinguished founders of the school of comparative grammar. 3, 
‘Archeologia Numaria,’ &c., in ‘Nova Acta Eruditorum,’ and sepa- 
rately, Leipzig, 4to, 1740. The chief object of this work was the — 
explanation of the difficulties connected with the study of numis- 
matics. In the last chapter the author discusses several passages of 
Pliny (‘ Hist. Nat.’), concerning coins, and although these passages had 
already been illustrated by eminent men, such as Father Hardouin — 
and others, the results°of Wachter were much more satisfactory. — 
4, ‘Nature et Scripture Concordia, Commentario de Literis ac Nume- 
ris Primevis illustrata et Tabulis Auneis depicta,’ Leipzig, 4to, mee 
without the author’s name, Besides these and other works on similar 
subjects, Wachter wrote a great number of valuable memoirs for the — 
‘Miscellanea Berolinensia’ (first series) and the ‘Nova Acta Erudito- — 
rum,’ such as ‘ Tyrannus in Veteri Gemma monstroso et portentoso 
emblemate representatus ;’ ‘De Alphabeto Nature et Literarum non — 
Naturalium 3 Naturalibus Origine Animadversiones ;’ ‘Ad Disserta- 
tionem Eruditam Viri Clarissimi Swentoni de Lingua Etruria, &e. 
Annotatiuneula,’ &. In his last will Wachter left the manuscript of ae 
his great Glossary, which he had enriched with notes and numerous 
additions, to the library of his native town, Memmingen, where it is - 
still kept. Other valuable linguistic dissertations in manuscript are i 
the Royal Library at Dresden. AO .. sae 
WADDING, LUKE, a Roman Catholic priest of great learningand 


; “ : ,* 
ine ee ee ¥ Wei lin AcE tat 


= Pe 


3 we ee 


—* 


vrs 
Ft 


eee a ee 
c ae 


{ His 


PRL mos Gee Le en + 


461 WADSTROEM, CARL BERNS. 


WAGENSEIL, JOHN CHRISTOPHER, 462 


ability, was born at Waterford, in Ireland, October 16th, 1588, Having 
been sent abroad in his fifteenth year to complete his education for 
the ecclesiastical profession, he first spent six months at an Irish 
seminary belonging to the Jesuits at Lisbon; and then, having joined 
the order of the Franciscans in 1605, he continued his studies in their 
convents at Liria, at Lisbon, and at Coimbra, On taking priest’s orders 
he went to Salamanca, and, after residing for some time in that uniyer- 
sity, was made superintendent of the students and lecturer in divinity. 


In these offices he acquitted himself so much to the satisfaction of the 


heads of his order, that, in 1618, when Anthony-d-Trejo, the vicar- 


> general of the Franciscans, was promoted to the bishopric of Carta- 


a, and was sent as legate from Philip II. of Spain to Pope Paul V. 
for the settlement of the dispute which divided the Romish Church 


_ about the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, he took Wadding 


with him to Rome as chaplain to the embassy, an appointment of 
distinction and influence, which was coveted by the most eminent 
members of the order. Wadding did not spend his time in idleness 
while holding this office: the result of his researches in the libraries 
not only of Rome, but of Assisi, Perugia, Naples, and many other 


- cities, was the publication at Louvain, in 1624, of a history of the 


embassy, in a folio volume, entitled ‘Legatio Philippi III. et IV,, 
panies Regum, ad Sanctissimos DD, Paulum V. et Gregorium XV. 
et Urbanum VIIL., pro definienda Controversia Conceptionis B, Maria 


Virginis ; per illustrissimum Anthonium-)-Trejo.’ He had also, before 


this great work appeared, written three pamphlets on the point in 
controversy; and although, after the bishop of Cartagena returned to 
Spain, the whole weight of the negociation, made over nominally to 
the Spanish ambassador, the duke of Albuquerque, rested upon his 
shoulders, he found leisure to carry through the press, and to write a 
learned introduction to, the great Hebrew Concordance of Marius de 
Calasio, which accordingly appeared at Rome, in 4 vols. folio, in 1621. 
De Calasio had died at Rome after completing his manuscript, and 
the funds for printing the work were obtained on the application of 
Wadding from Paul V. and Benignus-’-Genua, the general of the 
Franciscans. A second and superior edition of this Concordance was 
published at London, in 4 vols. folio, in 1747 and following years, 
under the care of the Rev. William Romaine. Wadding also prepared 
an edition of certain writings of St. Francis from manuscripts in the 
libraries at Rome, which was brought out at Antwerp in 1623, under 
the title of ‘Sancti Francisci Libri Tres.’ He spent the rest of his life 
at Rome, where, in 1625, he founded the college of St. Isidore, for the 
education of Irish students of the Franciscan order, and where he was 
also instrumental in precuring the establishment and endowment of 
various other institutions for the advancement of theological learning. 
From 1630 to 1634 he held the appointment of procurator for the 
Franciscans at Rome; and in 1645 he was appointed vice-commissary 
of his order, but resigned that dignity in 1648. Of several other 
works which he edited, the most important is a complete collection of 
the writings of Duns Scotus, which appeared at Lyon in 12 vols. folio, 
in 1639, now of great rarity. Of his original works the greatest is his 
* Annales Minorum, seu Historia Trium Ordinum 2 §, Francisco insti- 
tutorum,’ which was printed in 8 yols. folio, the first seven at Lyon, in 
1647 and following years, the eighth at Rome in 1654. There isa 
second and improved edition of this work, brought out under the care 
of Joseph Maria Fouseca, in 19 vols. folio, at Rome, 1731-1744 ; anda 
Supplement to this was published in one volume, folio, at Rome, in 
1806, a posthumous work of a Franciscan named Joannes Hyacinthus 
Sbaralea. Wadding also published at Rome, in 1 yol. folio, in 1650, a 
valuable bibliographical history of the Franciscans, under the title of 
‘Scriptores Ordinis Minorum,’ To this a supplement was published, 
at Salamanca, in 1 vol. 4to, in 1728, by Friar Joannes & Divo Antonio, 
Wadding, after declining the offer of a cardinal’s hat, died at Rome, 
November 18th, 1657, 

WADSTROEM, CARL BERNS, was born at Stockholm, in the year 
1746. He entered the Swedish service as an engineer. His acquire- 
ments in mineralogy and mechanics procured for him (1767-8) the 
direction of the works at Trolhgtta on the Wener canal, In 1769 
he was appointed superintendent of the copper-mines at Atvedaberg. 
He was subsequently promoted to be chief director of the Royal 


_ Assay and Refining Office, and enjoyed the confidence of the king. 


While thus steadily advancing in his professional career, Wadstroem 
found leisure at intervals to visit many parts of Europe. He had con- 
tracted a prejudice against commerce and commercial men; his 
enthusiastic and imaginative turn of mind had adopted many of the 
views of Raynal and Rousseau ; it is also alleged—with what degree 
of truth is uncertain—that the tenets of Swedenborg had made some 
impression upon Wadstroem, Be this as it may, he conceived, about 
the beginning of 1787, the idea of a journey into the interior of 
Africa. The botanist Sparrman and the mineralogist Arrhenius were 
persuaded to accompany him; and Gustavus III. advanced funds for 
the expedition. M. de Stiiel, Swedish minister at Paris, entered 
zealously into the project, and mainly through his instrumentality, a 
free passage in a French ship from Havre to Senegal was obtained 
for the three associates. They sailed in August 1787. After their 
arrival at Senegal they made several excursions in the vicinity of 
St. Louis, but finding the obstacles in the way of their advance into 
the interior insurmountable, they repaired to the English settlement 
at Sierra Leone, in hopes of finding there the means of their carrying 


their intentions into effect, Here again they were disappointed, and 
they left the colony for England towards the close of 1788. 

The question of the abolition of the slave-trade was anxiously dis- 
cussed at the moment of their arrival. Wadstroem had visited London 
two years earlier, and contracted some acquaintances, As soon as it 
was known that he and his companion Sparrmanun were just returned 
from the coast of Africa, they were invited to give evidence, in the 
first place, before the privy council, and afterwards before a com- 
mittee of the Houseof Commons. Wadstroem now set himself for the 
first time to study the slave question with earnestness and attention. 
As might have been anticipated from his turn of mind, the inquiry 
terminated in his becoming a zealous advocate of the views of Clark- 
son, Granville Sharpe, and Wilberforce. In the course of the year 
1789 he published a pamphlet intended to promote the views of the 
slave-trade abolitionists, ‘Observations on the Slave Trade, and a 
Description of some part of the Coast of Guinea during a Voyage made 
in 1787 and 1788, in company with Dr. A. Sparrman and Captain Arrhe- 
nius.’ From an advertisement at the end, we learn that the author 
had already given to the world ‘ Two Views of the Coast of Guinea, 
with separate Descriptions, embellished with four small prints;’ and 
from an incidental remark in the body of the pamphlet we learn 
that he contemplated publishing the whole of his voyage. This latter 
undertaking was never realised, 

‘In his ‘ Observations on the Slave Trade,’ the idea of establishing 
colonies on the west coast of Africa as a means of civilising the natives 
and ultimately destroying the slave-trade, appears to have been thrown 
out for the first time. The hint was acted upon, and to it we are 
indebted for the British settlement at Sierra Leone (on its present 
footing), and for that on the island of Bulama. To the discussions 
which arose in the course of realising the project we are in all 
probability indebted for.‘An Essay on Colonisation, particularly 
applied to the Western Coast of Africa, with some free Thoughts on 
Colonisation and Commerce; also brief Descriptions of the Colonies 
already formed or contemplated in Africa, including those of Sierra 
Leone and Bulama.’ The first part of this work appeared in 1794, 
the second part early in 1795. The book is not without signs of 
talent; it bears ample traces of enthusiastic benevolence, but its 
views are crude in the last degree. 

The devastation of Sierra Leone by a French squadron (1794) 
appears to have supplied the inducement which carried Wadstroem to 
Paris in 1795. He memorialised the’ Directory and the legislative 
body in that year, urging an agreement between France and England 
to recognise in future Sierra Leone, Bulama, and many similar settle- 
ments that might be made in Africa as neutral territories, In 1796 
Wadstroem induced his old friend De Stiiel to strengthen his represen- 
tations by a letter to Lacroix, the minister for foreign affairs. Their 
united representations were fruitless. The accession of Talleyrand to 
office, whose predilection for colonising was known, appears to have 
stimulated Wadstroem to another effort. In 1798 he published a 
brief sketch of the history of Sierra Leone and Bulama, appended to it 
De Stiiel’s letter, and one from Afzelius, a Swedish naturalist, who had 
been in Sierra Leone at the time the colony was attacked by the French; 
and also an abstract of his own essay on colonisation, and dedicated the 
whole to the minister. The only effect of this publication appears to 
have been the exciting the Chief Consul’s curiosity to see Wadstroem’s 
essay. The interruption of all communication with England rendered 
it impossible to procure his book from this country, and Wadstroem 
had the gratification (to him it was a gratification, for he admired 
Bonaparte) of presenting to the French ruler the only copy in France, 
Wadstroem did not long survive this incident; he died of a pulmonary 
consumption in the spring of 1799. His only publications are the 
works mentioned above. 

WAKEL, or WAAL, CORNE’LIUS DE, a clever battle-painter, born 
at Antwerp, in 1594. He was the son and,pupil of John de Wael, a good 
figure-painter. Cornelius went with his brother Lucas, a landscape- 
painter, to Genoa, with the intention of remaining only a short time 
there, and then of visiting Rome to prosecute his studies. Some of his 
pieces however being very much admired in Genoa, he was induced to 
remain there, and he found employment for sixteen years. He 
painted pictures of various descriptions, but he excelled chiefly in land 
and sea fights, in which he always introduced a great many very 
excellent figures of a small size. De Wael at last visited Rome, but 
found the climate disagree with him, and he returned to Genoa after a 
year. He was induced however to try a second visit; and after return- 
ing a second time to Genoa for a short period, he went a third time to 
Rome, where, says Soprani, he died a few days after his arrival, in 
1662. His best pieces, says Houbraken, were painted for Philip III. 
of Spain, and for the Duke of Aarschot. Cornelius de Wael etched 
many good plates after his own designs. 

Lucas DE WAEL was born likewise at Antwerp, in 1591. After he 
had received some instruction from his father, he studied with John 
Breugel, and painted many pictures in his style. Lucas lived in Italy 
with his brother, and painted in Genoa many excellent landscapes 
both in fresco and in oil, Lucas returned to Antwerp about 1660 ; 
when he died, Houbraken has not mentioned. Pilkington’s ‘Dictionary’ 
(ed. 1829) gives 1676 as the date of his death. 

WAGENSEIL, JOHN CHRISTOPHER, a learned German, whose 
reputation however was much greater than his real merit, He was 


463 WAGER, SIR CHARLES, ADMIRAL. 


WAGNER, RICHARD, 464 


born at-Niirnberg, in 1633, and educated in Sweden: he finished his 
academical studies at Rostock and Greifswald. Gifted with a pro- 
digious memory, he made himself a name by showing what he had 
learned. In 1657 he accompanied some young German noblemen as 
tutor, on a tour through Western Europe; the party remained six 
years abroad. During their stay in Italy Wagenseil was chosen mem- 
ber of the Academies of Literature and Sciences of Padua and Turin, 
and in Turin he discovered, in the Museum of Antiquities of the Duke 
of Savoy, the celebrated Table of Isis, which was formerly in possession 
of the Duke of Mantua, from whose library it unaccountably dis- 
appeared in 1630. The faculty of law at Orleans conferred upon him 
the degree of Doctor in Law; and Colbert, according to the system of 
bribery then adopted by France with respect to German philosophers 
and scholars of reputation, gave him a pension of 1500 livres, in order 
that he might “‘blow the trumpet of glory for King Louis XIV. in 
Spain,” whither Wagenseil and his pupils were going. In 1667 
Wagenseil became professor of history in the University of Altdorf; 
he also lectured on canon law and Oriental languages: he knew 
Hebrew well. In 1673 the professorship of Oriental languages at 
Leyden was offered to him, but he declined it. In 1676 he was 
appointed chief tutor of the young counts palatine. He died in 1705. 
His daughter Helena Sibylla, married to Professor Mollern, was 
renowned for her learning, and was chosen member of the Academy of 
Padua. Wagenseil published a great number of works and treatises 
on very different subjects. The principal are :—1, ‘Sota: hoc est, 
Liber Mischnicus de Uxore Adulterii suspecta,’ 4to, Altdorf, 1674; a 
large volume, containing the Hebrew text and a Latin translation of 
the Mishna and Ghemara: the author’s notes are much esteemed by 
Hebrew scholars. 2, ‘Tela Ignea Satanz: hoc est, Arcani et Hor- 
ribiles Judeorum adversus Christum Deum et Christianam Religionem 
*Avéxdoro1, 2 vols. 4to, Altdorf, 1681. This is a collection of the prin- 
cipal works written by Jews against the Christian faith, with a Latin 
translation of Wagenseil, who refutes the Jews in his notes. 3, ‘ De 
Re Monetali Veterum Romanorum Dissertatio,’ 12mo, Altdorf, 1691. 
4, ‘De Cena Trimalcionis nuper sub Petronii Nomine vulgata Disser- 
tationes H. Valesii et J. C. Wagenseilii,’ 8vo, Paris, 1666. 5, ‘ Exerci- 
tationes Varii Argumenti,’ 4to, 1719, published after the author’s 
death by Roth-Scholtzius, who has added a biography of Wagenseil. 
A ‘Vita J. C. Wagenseilii, with a catalogue of his works and an 
analytical examination of them, was published at Niirnberg, 4to, 
1719. 

WAGER, SIR CHARLES, ADMIRAL, was born in 1666. He was 
appointed captain of a fireship in 1692, and was promoted in 1697 to 
the command of a ship of war. Having been sent out in 1707 to the 
West Indies as commodore, in May 1708, with only four ships of war, 
he attacked seventeen Spanish galleons, which were sailing close along 
shore from Carthagena to Porto Bello in South America. The battle 
began at sunset. Soon after dark the Spanish admiral’s ship blew up, 
and the cargo, which was very valuable, was entirely lost. About two 
in the morning the rear-admiral struck his colours. The vice-admiral 
escaped in a shattered condition, and some of the other galleons 
were saved by running them behind a dangerous shoal off Carthagena, 
More property was lost thap. taken, yet Commodore Wager’s share of 
the prize-money was said to have amounted to 100,000/. For his con- 
duct in this action he was knighted by Queen Anne, and promoted to 
the rank of rear-admiral. 

Sir Charles Wager afterwards commanded a fleet in the Mediter- 
ranean till the peace of Utrecht in 1713, when he was made vice- 
‘admiral, and was also elected a member of the House of Commons. 
In 1726 he was sent with a squadron to the Baltic, to keep the 
Russians in check and to support the Swedes and Danes, and com- 
pletely effected the objects for which he was sent out. In 1731, 
having been advanced to the rank of admiral, he escorted Don Carlos, 
the infant of Spain, to Leghorn, and was soon afterwards appointed 
first lord of the admiralty. 

Sir Charles Wager and Lord Sundon had been the representatives of 
the city of Westminster in the parliament which terminated in 1741, 
and it was expected that they would have been triumphantly re- 
elected ; but Admiral Vernon and Mr. Edwin were proposed by the 
opposition, and in the mean time Admiral Wager was summoned by 
the king to convoy him to Holland. The contest was severe, and the 
tumult so great on the day of election, that Lord Sundon imprudently 
got the magistrates to sanction the calling out of a party of soldiers, 
and while the military surrounded the hustings, the high-bailiff returned 
Lord Sundon and Sir Charles Wager as duly elected. The return 
was opposed in the new parliament, the new members were unseated, 
the magistrates were summoned before the House to be reprimanded, 
and a resolution was passed that the presence of armed soldiers at an 
election of members of parliament is a manifest violation of the 
freedom of election, and an open defiance of the laws and constitution. 

In 1742, on the defeat of Sir Robert Walpole’s ministry, Sir Charles 
Wager resigned his office as first lord of the admiralty, which he had 
held about nine years. He died at his house at Chelsea, June 4, 
1743, and was buried in Westminster Abbey. Sir Charles Wager had 
some reputation for mathematical and physical knowledge, and had 
devoted a good deal of attention to ship-building. In private life he 
was much esteemed ; his political influence was considerable, and his 
character as a public man was unblemished. 


WAGHORN, LIEUT. THOMAS, R.N., was born in the early part 
of the year 1800, at Chatham, in Kent. He entered the royal navy as 
a midshipman, November 10, 1812. Before he had quite completed his 
sixteenth year he had passed in navigation for a lieutenant before the 
Royal Naval College, at Portsmouth. He was paid off in 1817, and 
after serving some time as a mate in a free trader to Calcutta, was 


till 1824. He then volunteered for the war in Arracan, and was 
appointed to the command of the Matchless, East India Company's 
cutter, and of a division of the gunboats connected with the flotilla and 
army. He was employed in much service by land as well as by sea, 
was in five engagements, and was once wounded in the right thigh. 
He returned to Calcutta in 1827, and soon afterwards entered into 
communication with the government authorities there with respect to 
a project which he had conceived of communication by steamers 
between Great Britain and the East Indies. Having returned to 
England with recommendations from some of the chief members of 
the Bengal government, he immediately began to advocate in London, 
Liverpool, Glasgow, and other large towns, as he had previously done 
at Madras, Mauritius, and the Cape of Good Hope, the great project 
which he had in contemplation, and to the accomplishment of which 
he applied the whole force of his energetic mind and will. Unfortu- 
nately the chief authorities of the post-office, as well as nearly the 
‘whole of the East India directors, were adverse to his project. But in 
October 1829, Lord Ellenborough, president of the Board of Control, 
and Mr. Loch, chairman of the Court of Directors, engaged him to 
proceed through Egypt to Hindustan with despatches for Sir John 
Malcolm, governor of Bombay, and he was directed to join the 
Enterprise steamer at Suez on the 6th of December. The Enterprise 
however having broken her machinery on the voyage from Caleutta to 
Bombay, was not there, and Mr. Waghorn, rather than return to 
England with the despatches, sailed down the Red Sea in an open 
boat, without chart or compass, directing his course by the sun and 
stars. 
Arabia, a distance of 628 miles, whence he proceeded by sbip to 
Bombay. This journey convinced him of the advantages of the line 
! of communication through Egypt, and by Suez down the Red Sea to 
Bombay. With unabated energy and perseverance, supported only by 
the Bombay Steam Committee, he was enabled to complete the over- 
land route three entire years before it was taken up by the British 
government, He accomplished the building of the halting-places and 
the establishment of the hotels on the desert between Cairo and Suez. 
He supplied carriages, vans, and other necessaty means of conveyance, 
and also placed small steamers on the canal of Alexandria and on the 
Nile, as well as suitable steamers on the Red Sea. From 1831 to 1834 
the overland mails to and from the East Indies were worked by him- 
self. In 1832 he brought under the notice of the Pasha of Egypt the 
advantages which would result to that country from the formation of a 
railway between Cairo and Suez, but that improvement of the overland 
route has not yet been undertaken. He attained the naval rank of 
lieutenant March 23, 1842, after which he retired on half-pay. In the 
winter of 1847 Lieutenant Waghorn effected a saving of thirteen days 
by performing the journey by the way of Trieste, instead of through 
France, and he also explored other routes, by Genoa, and through the 
Papal States, taking steamer at Ancona. The prosecution of the 
Trieste line in 1846 involved Lieutenant Waghorn in pecuniary 
engagements, from which the sacrifice of his entire property was 
insufficient to release him. A short time before his death a pension 
was granted him by the British government, of which he lived to 
receive only the first quarterly payment. He died January 7, 1850, at 
Pentonville, London, in the forty-ninth year of his age, worn out by a 
life of anxious labour and exposure to inclemencies of weather and 
climate. A small pension was granted by the British government to 
his widow, to which a small addition was made by the East India 
Company from a fund at their disposal. 

*WAGNER, RICHARD, a German dramatic composer of the 
present day, was born at Leipzig in 1813. He had attained an 
eminent position in his profession at Berlin; but, having been in- 
volved in the political disturbances which originated in the year 
1848, he was under the necessity of leaving Prussia, and has sub- 
sequently resided chiefly at Ziirich, He passed the season of 1855 in 
London, having been engaged as conductor of the orchestra of the 
Philharmonic Society. Herr Wagner is chiefly known as the author 
of several German operas, especially ‘ Tannhauser’ and ‘ Lochengrin,’ 
both of which have acquired considerable popularity in Germany, 
though they are unknown to the English public, only a few fragments 
of his compositions having ever been performed in this country. In 


critics he is extolled as a great musical reformer, who has thrown 


aside the established forms andconventionalities of the art, and laid the _ 


foundation of an entirely new style, founded on true esthetic prin- 
ciples. By others, however—and they appear to form the majority— 


his music is characterised as obscure and fantastic, destitute of melody _ 


and symmetry of form, and full of crude and discordant combinations. 
He has himself expounded, in some literary essays, the principles 


are tinged with the mysticism which prevails in German philosophy 


and which often renders it so incomprehensible to the English in- — 


appointed in 1819 to the Bengal Pilot Service, in which he remained 


In six days and a half he reached Jiddah, on the coast of — 


Germany, his character as an artist is a disputed question, By some — 


which his compositions are designed to illustrate, but these writings - 


— | 


a. aa ee ee ee ee 


“ee 


=. Th aaah 
=e Peles 


ae ee 


Te 
¥ 


i 
b 
. 
t 


65 


WAHHAB, ABDU-L-. 


WAHHAB, ABDU-L-, 


466 


tellect. Wagner himself designates his music as “ the Music of the 
Future :” whether it will really be adopted by “the Future,” or 
whether it will pass away, among other dreams of misdirected genius, 
time only can show. 

WAHHAB, ’ABDU-L-, a Mohammedan sheikh, who flourished in the 
12th century of the Hejira, the 18th century of the Christian era, and 
the founder of the Wanapurs, or WauuHa’BI/s, a Mohammedan sect 
in Arabia, The origin of this sect is intimately connected with the 
following circumstances. When Sultan Selim I. had conquered Egypt 
and deposed the last kalif of Cairo, Al-muta-wakkel in A.H. 922 (A.D. 
1517), he was acknowledged as successor of the kalifs by Berekiat, the 
ed sherif of Mecca, who presented him with the keys of the Ka’bah. 

rom this time the sultans of the Osmanlis were the protectors of the 
Mohammedan faith, though only recognised as such by the Sunnites; 
they were the guardians of the holy cities, Mecca and Medina; and 
they had the privilege and the duty of protecting the numerous cara- 
vans of hajis, or pilgrims, which annually travel to Mecca. A Turkish 
pasha resided at Jidda, and sometimes also at Mocha, and while the 
fertile provinces of Hejaz and Yemen in Western Arabia seemed to 
obey the Sultan, the pashas of Baghddd and Basrah made frequent 
attempts to establish the Turkish authority in the province of El- 


Hassa in Eastern Arabia. The Mohammedan religion had generally 


departed from its primitive purity, and was particularly corrupted 
among the Turks. The Mohammedans had introduced novelties into 
their religion, which were rather calculated to please the senses, and 
which found favour among people who have always loved to follow the 
bent of their imagination. Mohammed gradually received honours 
like God himself; virtuous men became saints, and the miracles they 
were said to have performed were eagerly believed by the people; 
many austere rules of the Kordn were forgotten or-left to the extra- 
vagances “ofa few derwishes and fakirs;” and the places of worship 
were adorned by the princes and the rich with the arts and luxuries 
of the East, while the poorer Mohammedans indulged their passion for 
religious buildings by erecting a rude tomb to some unknown saint, 
surmounted by a cupola of painted brick-work. To this we must add 
that the Kordn ceased to be the sole source of religious knowledge, 
and that traditions concerning Mohammed were considered by his 


disciples as pure and trustworthy as the Kordn itself. Although the 


Arabs had deviated from the rule of the Kordn, there was a striking 
difference between them and the Turks. The Turks used opium and 
wine; not satisfied with polygamy, they indulged in various licentious 
practices, which are strictly prohibited by the Kordn, and more than 
once holy hajis of the Turkish caravans had polluted the sacred cities 
with their scandalous conduct. The caravans especially, those congre- 
gations of pious men assembled for the purpose of performing one of 
the most sacred duties of their faith, presented a revolting aspect to 
the simple and uncorrupted believers among the Beduins of the desert. 
Their leaders gave full licence to debauchery, and although it was gene- 
rally their riches which tempted the Beduins, and excited them to pre- 
datory attacks, it often happened that the Son of the Desert unsheathed 
his sword, indignant at the pride and vices of men who, from the 
moment they reached Mecca, proudly assumed the holy title of ‘haji.’ 

Such was the state of the Islim, when, in the beginning of the last 
century, a Mohammedan sheikh conceived the project of reforming 
the religion of Mohammed, and restoring it to its primitive purity: 

This sheikh was ’ABDU-L-WAHHAB (‘the servant of Him who gives 
(us) every thing’), who, according to Burckhardt, was born at El- 
Hauta, a village five or six days’ journey south of Der’aiyeh, the 
capital of the province of Nejd, on the road from this town to the 
district called Wadi Dowdsir. In the life of ’Abdu-l-Wahhdb, in 
the ‘ Universal Biographical Dictionary,’ his birth-place is called ’Al- 
Aynah, in Nejd; and in the ‘ Annals of the Turkish Empire,’ by Izi, 
Constantinople and Skutari, a.u, 1198 (a.p. 1784), p. 207, in fine, it is 
called Aiyineh, which seems to be El-Ayeyneh, near Der’aiyeh. Scott 
Waring calls it Ujunu, a bad orthography for Ajana. ’Abu-l-Wahhdb 
was born at the beginning of the 12th century of the Hejira, which 
corresponds to the end of the 17th century of ourera. His father 
was the sheikh or chief of the Beni Wahhdb, a branch of the great 
tribe of Temim, which occupies a considerable part of Nejd. *Abdu-l- 
Wahhib received his education in the schools of Basrah, where he 
Studied divinity. He made the usual pilgrimages to Mecca and 
Medina, and he lived several years at Damascus, where he had frequent 
disputations with the divines on religion, but as he displayed great 
zeal in the abolition of abuses, bis doctrine was considered as schis- 
matic, and being exposed to persecutions, he fled to Mosul. After 
some time he returned to Arabia, but the doctrines which he preached 
to the natives, and his violent attacks on Turkish tyranny and vice, 
became so many causes for new persecutions, and he led a wandering 
life till he settled at Der’aiyeh, the residence of the Sheikh Monam- 
MED Ibn Sa’Gp. This intelligent chief listened to the words of the 
reformer. He became his disciple; he married his daughter; and 
soon drew his sword to propagate the new doctrine among the tribes 
of Arabia. Mohammed Ibn Sa’Gd thus laid the foundations of a 
powerful empire on theocratical principles, of which his descendants 
remained masters for nearly a century. 

When Sa’id, the grandson of Mohammed Ibn Sa’tid, conquered 


_ Mecca, he ordered a kind of confession of faith to be published, the 
_ substance of which is as follows ;-— 


BIOG, DIV. VOL. VI. 


*“Abdu-l-Wahhiab’s doctrine teaches the salvation of mankind. It is 
divided into three parts: L, the knowledge of God; II., the knowledge 
of religion ; III., the knowledge of the prophet. In the first part, God, 
it is said, is one Almighty, and we acquire the knowledge of him by 
adoring him. The second part, knowledge of religion, is threefold, 
and contains—1l, The Islém, or resignation to the will of God; 2, 
faith; 8, good works. The Islém contains five things: 1, The belief 
that there is only one God, and that Mohammed is his prophet; 2, 
the five daily prayers; 3, alms, one-fifth of the annual income; 4, 
fasts during the month of Ramazan; 5, the pilgrimage to Mecca. The 
faith contains six things, viz.:—1, The belief in God; 2, in his angels ; 
8, in his Holy Seripture; 4, in his prophets; 5, in his divine and 
perfect qualities; 6, in the day of judgment. Good works are only 
the consequence of the rule that we should adore God as if he were 
present to our eyes; and though we cannot see him, we must know 
that he sees us, The knowledge of the prophet, which is the most 
important part of Wahhdbism, is based on very positive principles. 
Mohammed, the prophet, was a mortal, like all other men, and he 
preached for all the nations of the world, and not for one only, the 
Arabs; no religion is perfect and true in all its parts except his, and 
after him no other prophet will come; Moses and Jesus were virtuous 
men, though inferior to Mohammed, notwithstanding he was not of 
divine nature. Those who do not fulfil their religious duties are to be 
severely punished. The reformed religion shall be propagated with the 
sword, and all those who refuse to adopt it are to be exterminated. 

*Abdu-l-Wahhdb not only forbade the adoration of Mohammed and 
of saints, but he also ordered their splendid tombs to be destroyed, 
and he declared tradition to be an impure source, He made several 
other prohibitions concerning social and religious abuses, such as the 
habit of using wine, opium, and tobacco, the use of the rosary for 
prayers, and he preached strongly against those unnatural practices 
which were and are still so frequent among the Turks. 

The doctrine of ’Abdu-l-Wahhdéb was no new religion: it was 
Mohammedanism reduced to a pure deism, and so little did it deviate 
from the Kordn, that even to the present day many theologians of 
Syria and Egypt do not venture to say that it is schismatic, Yet 
this reformer maintained that there had never been any man directly 
inspired by God, and that there was no scripture or book whatsoever 
which was entitled to be called divine. Hence it follows that accord- 
ing to “Abdu-l-Wahhdb there is no revealed religion; and if he calls 
the Mohammedan a divine religion, it is not because he believed that 
it had been transmitted directly from God to man, but merely on the 
ground of its perfection. , 

The reformed Mohammedanism made rapid progress, especially 
among the nomadic Arabs or Beduins, who had never adored Moham- 
med as a divine person, nor viewed the Kordn as a divine book, 
although they considered themselves to be as orthodox Mohammedans 
as any of the other nations which have adopted the Isldm, 

The inhabitants of the towns were less inclined to«adopt Wah- 
hdbism, but Mohammed Ibn Sa’id nevertheless succeeded in conquer- 
ing the greater part of Nejd, of which he was the temporal chief, while 
?Abdu-l-Wahhéb was the spiritual chief. The system of government 
established by these two men was strictly conformable to the political 
prescriptions of the Kordn, and very like that of the first kalifs. The 
chief authority lay in the hands of the temporal chief, but this autho- 
rity was confined to the direction of important affairs; the governors 
of the provinces and the under-governors were kept in strict obe- 
dience to the orders of the prince, but their authority over the Arabs 
was not very great. The ulema of the capital, Der’aiyeh, who gene- 
rally belonged to the clan or family of Said, formed a council 
or ministry for religious and legislative affairs, and in time of war 
the governors used to assemble in Der’aiyeh for the purpose of 
concerting the plan of the campaign. Trade and agriculture were 
well protected. The revenues of the Wahhdéb empire were com- 
posed of :—1, One-fifth of the booty taken from heretics; the remain- 
ing four-fifths were for the soldiers. 2, the tribute, called ‘alms’ in 
the Kordn: it was a certain part of the property, which varied 
according to the nature of the property; for fields watered by rain 
or rivers it was one-tenth of the yearly produce; for fields watered 
artificially, ,one-twentieth only; merchants paid one and a half per 
cent, of their capital. The Beduins, who had always been tax-free, 
disliked these ‘alms’ very much, but they were indemnified by the 
frequent occasions of plunder. 8, Revenue from the chief's or prince’s 
own estates, and from the plunder of rebellious towns. The punish- 
ment for a first rebellion was a general plunder, one-fifth of which 
belonged to the fiscus; in case of a second rebellion, all the grounds 
belonging to the town were confiscated and became the property of 
the reigning chief; and as such rebellions were very frequent, the 
chief acquired immense estates. The greater part of them were after- 
wards confiscated by Mehemet Ali, the pasha of Egypt. Except a few 
hundred men who formed the prince’s life-guard at Der’aiyeh, the 
Wahhidbis had no standing army, but assembled when the prince 
designed some expedition. ‘'wo or three great expeditions were made 
every year. ‘ 

The name of the Wahhdbis soon became known in the Turkish 
provinces adjacent to Arabia. The Turkish government was not 
aware that this sect had as much warlike and religious energy as the 


Avabs under the first kalifs, but it is unjust to accuse he diwan, as 
H 


467 WAHHAB, ABDU-L-. 


WAILLY, NOEL-FRANCOIS DE. 468 


Rousseau, the French consul-general at Baghdad did, of looking at the 
memorable events in Arabia “ with a stupid eye, as usual.” As early 
as A.H, 1161 and 1162 (a.p. 1748 and 1749) Abmed El-H4ji, pasha of 
Baghdad, and formerly grand-vizir, displayed great activity against the 
adherents of Mohammed Ibn ’Abdu-l-Wahhdb, whose “impious doc- 
trine sapped the fundamental principles of Islém, and who set him- 
self up as the head of a new religion.” (Izi, cited above: ‘Universal 
Biographical Dictionary,’ Life of Ahmed Pasha El-Hdji.) The simple 
fact that, if Wahhdbism had become predominant, the sultan would 
have ceased to be the ‘ visible’ chief of the believers, leads us to con- 
clude that the diwan had never looked with a stupid eye on the 
religious reform in Arabia. ; 

Mohammed Ibn Sa’id died in a.H, 1179 (a.v. 1765), and ’Abdu-l- 
Wahhdb died on the 29th of Shawwdl a.H. 1206 (14th of June 
A.D. 1787). 

The pa sal of Mohammed Ibn Sa’id was his son, ’Abdu-l-Aziz, 
under whom the power of the Wahhdbis was extended over the 
greater part of Arabia, and became the terror of Turkey. As early as 
1792-93 the Wahhdbis made a successful campaign against Ghdleb, the 
grand sheikh of Mecca. : ; 

The provinces of Basrah and Baghdad, adjacent to Nejd, had 
suffered from the incursions of the Wahhdbis from the time of their 
coming into political power. In 1797 Soliman, pasha of Baghdad, 
made a fruitless attempt to attack them in the province of El-Hassa; 
his troops were obliged to retreat, the victorious Arabs overran 
the neighbourhood of Basrah, and took the holy town of Imém Husein, 
where they destroyed the famous temple and robbed it of the immense 
treasures which had been deposited there by the pious generosity of 
the sultans of the Osmanlis and the shahs of Persia. Another Turkish 
army, reinforced by a strong body of Arabs from Irdk Arabi, entered 
Nejd in 1801, and was only five or six journeys from Der’aiyeh, when 
Thoeni, the sheikh of the Beni Montefik and commander of the Arab 
auxiliaries of the Turks, was murdered by a fanatical Wahhdbi. It is 
said that the other chiefs of the Turks were bribed by ’Abdu-l-Aziz, 
for they retreated suddenly, but were nevertheless attacked on their 
march, and the whole Turkish army was destroyed, In the same 
year, 1801, ’Abdu-l-Aziz, at the head of more than 100,000 men, made 
a fresh expedition against Mecca. Othmdn-el-Medhayfah, the brother 
of Ghdleb, the sheikh of Mecca, joined the Wahhdbis, and having 
been put at the head of a considerable body by ’Abdu-l-Aziz, he took 
Tayef, a large town east of Mecca, and Konfodah, a port on the Red 
Sea. The rest of Hejd4z was conquered by ’Abdu-l-Aziz, who took Mecca 
early in 1803, after an obstinate siege. He would have taken Mecca 
earlier, but for the arrival of the great caravan of Damascus, com- 
manded by the pasha of Damascus, which was allowed to remain in 
Meeca for three days, after which the Wahhdbis entered the town 
without resistance. They killed many sheikhs and other believers 
who refused to adopt Wahhdbism ; they robbed the splendid tombs of 
the Mohammedan saints who were interred there; and their fanatical 
zeal did not even spare the famous mosque, which they robbed of the 
immense treasures and costly furniture to which each Mohammedan 
prince of Europe, Asia, and Africa had contributed his share. The 
fall of Mecca was followed by that of Medina in 1804, and the tomb 
of Mohammed was robbed and destroyed. ’Abdu-l-Mayn, a brother of 
Ghdleb, was appointed governor of Mecca, but he soon lost his post; 
Ghidleb, who had fled to Jidda, having bribed the chief of the Wah- 
hdbis, and succeeded in being appointed governor on promising to 
adopt Wahhdbism, which he did. Previously to the fall of Medina, 
and as early as 1803, ’Abdu-l-Aziz was murdered by a fanatical Shiite, 
a native of Persia; his successor was his eldest son, Sa’Gd, whose com- 
plete name was Sa’Gd Ibn ’Abdu-l-Aziz. Ghdleb, anxious to obtain his 
former dignity and independence, intrigued against Sa’id. In the 
hope of kindling a general war between Turkey and Arabia, from 
which he might derive advantage, he persuaded Sa’td to forbid the 

‘khotbah, or public prayers, to be said in the name of the sultan. 
Sa’Gd gave the order, and from that moment the sultan, in the eyes of 
the people, ceased to be the protector of the holy towns and the 
visible chief of their religion. 

If during the course of the Thirty Years’ War a Protestant army 
had taken possession of Rome and put a married priest on the seat of 
St. Peter, the scandal and confusion produced by such an event 
among the Roman Catholics could not have been greater than the 
horror and general consternation which spread throughout the East 
when the people heard that the tomb of the prophet had been 
despoiled, and that the first temple in the Mohammedan world was in 
the hands of heretics. The pilgrimages were stopped: from 1803 to 
1809 no great caravan ventured to cross Arabia; and from the Atlantic 
to the banks of the Ganges and the frontiers of China every pious 
Mohammedan felt deeply grieved at the thought that henceforth he 
would be prevented from performing a duty which he considered most 
sacred. Persia was unable to give aid, and the diwan, absorbed by 
the danger to Turkey from the wars in Europe, was compelled to 
resignation. 

In the time that followed the conquest of Mecca and Medina, Sa’id, 
the greatest chief of the Wahhbdbis, established his authority in the 
remainder of Arabia, except Hadhramaut and Omdn, where he found 
a formidable adversary in the Imdm of Maskat. Sa'tid conquered the 
whole province of El-Hassa, the islands.of Bahrein, and several Arabic 


towns on the coast of Persia. The Gulf of Persia was then infested 
by Arab pirates, who, after Sa’tid had taken possession of the greater 
part of the coasts, were either Wahhdbis or at least made common 
cause with them. The British commerce in those seas was 
injured by these pirates, who were severely chastised by the | 
forces under Captain Wainwright, the commander of the fleet, and — 
Colonel (afterwards General) Sir Lionel Smith. The British troops acted 

in concert with the forces of the Imdm of Maskat, and the war was 
finished early in 1809, é 

The very existence of Turkey being menaced by the Wahhdbis, who — 
overran Syria and concluded an alliance with Yusuf, the rebellious — 
pasha of Baghdad, the diwan at last found a man who was able to 
subject these terrible enemies. This man was Mehemet Ali, the late 
pasha of Egypt. 

Mehemet ’Ali made his first preparations in 1809. To save hisarmy — 
from marching round the northern gulfs of the Red Sea, he ordered ~ 
the timber for a flotilla of twenty-eight vessels to be got ready at 
Bulak, the port of Cairo, whence it was carried on camels to Suez, 
where the ships were constructed. The commander of the expedition — 
was Tiiztin-Bey, the second son of Mehemet Ali, then eighteen $ 
old, who was seconded by Ahmed Agha, surnamed Napoleon or a 
parte. Tiizin-Bey entered Arabia in 1811; in 1812 he was beaten by — 
the Wahhdbis near Medina, but he took this town in the course of the — 
same year, a conquest which was mainly due to the impetuous courage 
of Thomas Keith, a Scotch renegade, known as Ibrdhim Agha, who 
took the outworks of Medina by storm. Mecca was taken in 1813, and 
Ghileb, notwithstanding he had favoured the Egyptian invasion, was — 
made prisoner, and sent to Salonica in European Turkey, where he 
died in 1816. “ 

In 1814 Sa’tid died, and was succeeded by his eldest son Abdullah, — 
The death of Sa’id was the forerunner of the ruin of the Wabhdbis, — 
In 1815 the Egyptians suffered a defeat at Zohrin, but they obtained — 
a signal victory at Bissel. TtizGn-Bey paid six dollars for every head — 
of a Wabhdbi; and having obtained 6000 heads, he ordered them to — 
be piled up ina pyramid. Peace was concluded during the course of — 
the same year (1815) on unfavourable conditions to Abdullah, who 
sent an ambassador to Cairo named ’Abdu-l-Aziz, a learned sheikh, — 
whose further negociations were interrupted by the sudden outbreak — 
of fresh hostilities, ; 

The commander of the new Egyptian expedition was the celebrated 
Tbréhim Pasha, the son of Mehemet Ali, who entered Arabia in 1816. 
After an obstinate resistance, the Wahhdbis retreated to Der'aiyeh in 
1818, where ’Abdullah was besieged by Ibrdhim. The siege was long, 
but it was carried on by Ibréhim with skill, boldness, and admirable 
perseverance till the month of December 1818, when Abdullah sur- 
rendered, He and several of his family were sent to Constantinople, 
and after having been promenaded through the streets for three a 
they were beheaded, and their bodies were exposed to the outrages of — 
the mob. The greater part of the territories conquered by the Wah- 
habis fell under the authority of Mehemet Ali. Thus the power of 
the Wahhdbis was broken, and though they were not exterminated, 
they have not since been able to make head against the Egyptian 

ower. 

WAILLY, NOEL-FRANCOIS DE, one of the most esteemed of 
Fréich grammarians, was the son of a municipal officer at Amiens, 
where he was born on the 81st of July 1724. At first he was intended 
and educated for the priesthood, but he was withdrawn from that 
vocation by his attachment to general literature, and a more than — 
common aptitude for the study of living languages. In order to © 
pursue this study he went to Paris, where he obtained a preceptor’s — 
place in the school conducted by M. de Prétot, one of the best edu- — 
cators of that day, who became his patron. In 1754 he published his 
‘Principes généraux et particuliers de la Langue Frangaise,’ which | 
was at once received as an original work of real value, It raised the 
author to an eminent position among grammarians, and introduced 
him to the friendship of Beauzée, Duclos, the Abbé Girard, and Mar- — 
montel. This celebrated book went through several editions during — 
his lifetime, and was repeatedly revised by the author. M. de Wailly — 
had dedicated his Grammaire to the University of Paris, by whom it — 
was considered as one of the best elementary treatises, and its use — 
urgently recommended to public schools in preference to those of 
Restaut and Olivet. Some critics however have alleged that it still 
exhibits serious deficiencies and peremptory decisions peculiar to the 
author. Restaut,in his grammar, had not treated the syntax asa 
distinct subject, a separate division; and, like all his predecessors, 
had adopted the Latin form of declension with the nouns, which De 
Wailly felt to be irrelevant, as the article alone clearly pointed out the 
distinction of cases. He likewise greatly simplified the theory of Fe f 
article and pronouns. His grammatical reforms were also extended 
to the French verbs; but in this case his innovations were not so 
favourably received by the learned. His opinions on the subject of 
orthographical reform were considered to be impossible in By 
however well founded in themselves. It was somewhat on the phonetic 
prineiple, which has been, with similar ill success, endeavoured to be — 
introduced into the English language. His other works were, ‘ Prin- 
cipes de la Langue Latine,’ of which the ninth edition was published 
in 1773; ‘De YOrthographe, au Moyens simples et rai de 
diminuer les imperfections de nétre orthographe ;’ ‘ Introduction & la 


460 WAKE, WILLIAM, D.D. 


WAKEFIELD, EDWARD GIBBON. 470 


Syntaxe Latine, traduit de l’Anglais,’ published in 1773; the ‘ Dic- 
: tionnaire portatif de la Langue Frangoise,’ 2 vols., 1774; the ‘ Diction- 
naire des -Rimes;’ the ‘ Histoires choisies du Nouveau Testament ;’ 
but especially his ‘ Nouveau Vocabulaire Frangais, ou Abrégé du Dic- 
tionnaire de l'Académie,’ deserve mention: this last work, in which 
he was assisted by his son, and to which his grandson afterwards con- 
tributed, went through thirteen editions. He also revised the standard 
translations of Persius, Quintilian, Sallust, Cicero, Caesar, and Eutro- 
ose He was a member of the Institute from its foundation, and 
_____- was also a member of several academies. He married in 1766; he had 
____ several children, and lived in the midst of his family, in comparative 
 __ tranquillity, through the Revolution, the Reign of Terror, and the 
first years of the Consulate. He died at Paris, April 7, 1801. 
- _ Epreynyn-Avcustin pn WairLuy, his son, was born on the Ist of 
_ November 1770, and died in June 1821. Besides the assistance he 
___ rendered his father in compiling lexicographical works, he produced 
an edition of the works of Jean-Baptiste Rousseau, the lyric poet, with 
notes, and a translation in verse of the first three books of Horace’s 
Odes, In this translation he has adopted the metre of Rousseau, 
_ which he greatly admired. From 1802 to 1810 he was one of the 
editors of the ‘Mercure de France.’ Shortly before his death he was 
‘a os pm for the Académie Frangaise, with every likelihood of his 
> yeing elected. 


_ _ Cuartes pe Wartty (born November 1729, died November 1798), 

_ the principal founder of the Society of the ‘ Amis des Arts,’ and dis- 

e — in his day as an architect, was a member of the same 
family. 

WAKE, WILLIAM, D.D., a distinguished English prelate, was 
born in 1657 at Blandford in Dorsetshire, where his father, William 
Wake, Esq., the descendant of an old family, possessed considerable 
property. In 1672 he was admitted a student of Christchurch, 
Oxford ; and having taken his degree of B.A. in 1676, and that of 
M.A. in 1679, he resolved to enter the church, although his father is 
: said to have designed him for a commercial life. Having accordingly 

taken holy orders, he went in 1682 to Paris as chaplain with Viscount 
Preston, despatched as envoy-extraordinary to that court. Returning 
home with his lordship in 1685, he was soon after elected preacher to 
; Gray’s Inn. His first publication appears to have been ‘ A Preparation 
for Death, being a Letter to a young Gentlewoman in France,’ a fourth 
___ @dition of which appeared in 1688. In 1686 he published a tract in 
_ 4to, entitled ‘Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England,’ 
in answer to Bossuet’s recently-published ‘ Exposition of the Roman 
Catholic Faith,” which Wake charged the author with having found 
himself compelled by the objections of the doctors of the Sorbonne to 
alter materially from the form in which he had originally written it, 
and in which it had not only been extensively circulated in manuscript, 
but actually printed. This tract, which is commonly called ‘Wake’s 
Catechism, gave rise to a long controversy, in the course of which 
Wake published ‘ A Defence’ of his Exposition in 1686, and ‘ A Second 
_ Defence,’ in two parts, in 1688. He also took an active part in the 
_ general controversy between the Romish and Protestant churches, 
which was carried on in England through the press in 1687 and 1688. 
oo. Tn October of the latter year. he married Miss Ethelred Hovel, daughter 
of Sir William Hovel, of Illington in Norfolk. Immediately after the 

_ Revolution he was appointed deputy-clerk of the closet to King 
William ; and in June 1689 he was preferred to a canonry of Christ- 

_ church, Oxford. He now either accumulated his degrees in divinity, 
, or, according to another account, was created D.D. In 1693 he 
obtained the rectory of St. James’s, Westminster ; and the same year 
he published one of his principal works, ‘An English Version of the 
Genuine Epistles of the Apostolic Fathers, with a Preliminary Dis- 
course concerning the use of those Fathers, He greatly improved 


_ published in 1697 an octavo tract entitled ‘The Authority of Christian 
__ Princes over their Ecclesiastical Synods asserted ;’ in 1698,¢ An Appeal 


t _ present times.’ To this elaborate work no answer was attempted by 
me Atterbury or any of his fellow-disputants on the other side. In 1701 
__ Wake had been made dean of Exeter, and in 1705 he was raised to 
& the bishopric of Lincoln. In the earlier years of his episcopacy he 
___- continued to adhere to what was called the Low Church party; but 
____ he afterwards became more conservative at least, and if he did not 
actually change his principles and go over to the other side, he was 
____ thrown in opposition to those who were now the leaders of the party 
_ with which he had originally acted. In January 1716, on the death 
____ of Archbishop Tenison, he was translated to Canterbury ; and in 1718 
___ he exerted himself in the House of Lords to prevent the repeal of the 
_ Schism and Occasional Conformity Bill, and the year following, more 
_ ‘Successfully, against the attempt to repeal the Test and Corporation 
he Acta. About the same time his zeal broke out in a Latin letter 

4 d against Bishop Hoadly and his partisans, which he addressed 


to the superintendent of Ziirich, and which was immediately published 
in that city. It exposed him to some severe strictures. In 1721 also 
he got into a controversy with Whiston, whom he had formerly endea- 
voured to protect, by the part he took in support of the bill for the 
more effectual suppression of blasphemy and profaneness, brought into 
the House of Lords by the Earl of Nottingham, which was understood 
to be chiefly levelled against Arianism, but did not pass. he most 
remarkable affair however in which Archbishop Wake was involved 
was the negociation which he entered into with M. Dupin and some of 
the heads of the Jansenist party in France, for the bringing about of a 
union between the church of that country and the Church of England. 
The correspondence upon this subject, which commenced on the part 
of Dupin in 1718; is most fully given in an appendix to Maclaine’s 
translation of Mosheim’s ‘ Ecclesiastical History,’ published in 1768. 
The part which Wake took subjected him long afterwards, while the 
facts were but imperfectly known, to much obloquy, especially from 
Archdeacon Blackburne, in ‘The Confessional,’ published in 1766; 
but it does not appear that he really made any concession of principle 
to his Romish correspondents, or indeed went farther than merely to 
express his willingness to assist in bringing about the proposed union 
if it could be managed without any such concession. The last years 
of Archbishop Wake’s life were clouded by great infirmity; and he 
died at Lambeth January 24th, 1737. He bequeathed his library and 
his collection of coins, together valued at 10,0002, to Christchurch 
College, Oxford. A collection of his ‘Sermons and Charges,’ in 3 vols, 
8vo, was published after his death. By his wife, who died in 1731, he 
left six daughters, who all made good marriages. He was succeeded 
in the primacy by Dr. John Potter. a ae 

* WAKEFIELD, EDWARD GIBBON, is a son of Edward Wake- 
field, who died May 18, 1854, aged 86, and who published ‘An 
Account of Ireland, Statistical and Political,’ 2 vols. 4to, 1812. This 
bulky compilation was chiefly intended to be an exposition of the 
industrial resources of Ireland, and much of it is consequently occu- 
pied with observations on matters connected with political economy. 
Edward Gibbon Wakefield seems to have become interested in the 
speculations which engaged so much of his father’s attention, and in 
1833 published ‘England and America, a Comparison of the Social 
and Political State of both Nations, 2 vols. 8vo. This work was 
distingttished not only by the popular boldness of the author's 
opinions on questions relating to the government and administration 
of Great Britain and the United States, but by many original and 
correct views of the social condition and peculiarities of the respective 
countries. The greatest part of the second volume is occupied with a 
treatise on Colonisation, in which the author shows very distinctly what 
have been the causes of failure and success in modern colonies, and lays 
down the principles which ought to be observed in their foundation 
and establishment. In this treatise he restricts the meaning of the 
words colonisation and colony to ‘the removal of people from an old 
to anew country, and the settlement of people on the waste land of 
the new country.” The author was probably connected, though not 
ostensibly, with the South Australian Land Company, instituted in 
1832, the object of which was to found a colony on the shores of 
Spencer’s Gulf. Lord Goderich, then minister for the colonies, refused 
to grant a charter, and the company was dissolved. The work of E. 
G. Wakefield, ‘ View of the Art of Colonisation,’ published in the 
following year, attracted much attention, but seems not to have led to 
any result till.1837, when he became the founder of the New Zealand 
Association, which was also refused a charter by the colonial office. 
The Association however, with permission of the government, resolved 
to acquire land and form settlements in New Zealand in the manner 
which had been previously sanctioned by the crown. With this view 
a number of persons were collected who were disposed to go out as 
settlers under the direction of an agent, who was instructed to acquire 
land from the natives by the usual method of purchase, but if possible 
upon a far larger scale than had ever been necessary for purposes of 
cultivation and trading by individuals. 

The agent appointed by the association was Colonel William Wake- 
field, a brother of E. G. Wakefield, who was authorised to select the 
spot, purchase land, and make preparations for the reception and 
settlement of the colonists. Colonel Wakefield, accompanied by a 
few passengers, including Edward Jerningham Wakefield, a son of E. 
G. Wakefield, set sail from Plymouth May 12, 1839, in the Troy, a 
fine new vessel of 400 tons, which entered Cook’s Strait on the 16th 
of August. Colonel Wakefield selected the vicinity of Port Nicholson, 
at the south end of the North Island, or New Ulster, as a suitable 
locality for a colony, and there he purchased land, and prepared for 
the reception of the emigrants, of whom the first shipment arrived 
early in 1840. The colony flourished, other emigrants came, and a 
town was founded on the eastern shore of Port Nicholson, and was 
named Britannia, but the name was afterwards changed to Wellington. 
At length, in the early part of 1841 New Zealand was proclaimed an 
independent colony, the association was incorporated by royal charter, 
and a governor was appointed by the crown. New Plymouth was 
founded by the association on the west coast of New Ulster, and 
another set of colonists afterwards arrived, under the direction of 
Captain Arthur Wakefield, a naval officer, and another brother of E. 
G. Wakefield, by whom the town of Nelson was founded at the bottom 
of Blind Bay, at the north-western end of the Middle Island, or New 


a 


WAKEFIELD, REV. GILBERT, 


471 


St ee ee ee 


WAKEFIELD, REY. GILBERT. 


Leinster. Captain Wakefield and. some others were murdered by a 
party of hostile natives June 17, 1843. Edward Jerningham Wake- 
field returned to England in 1844, and in 1845 published ‘ Adventure 
in New Zealand from 1839 to 1844, with an Account of the Begin- 
ning of the Colonisation of the Islands,’ 2 vols, 8vo, an interesting and 
apparently a trustworthy narrative. ; 

Edward Gibbon Wakefield did not take any active part in the 
carrying out of his own system. Indeed in 1839, when the New 
Zealand colonisation was taking place, he accompanied the Earl of 
Durham to Canada as his private secretary, and his advice is under- 
stood to have had great weight in the measures there adopted. In 
addition to the works above mentioned he published in 1831 ‘Facts 
on the Punishment of Death in the Metropolis,’ 8vo, and commenced 
in 1835 an edition of Smith’s ‘ Wealth of Nations,’ which was however 
left incomplete. Mr. E. G. Wakefield bas latterly resided in France. 

WAKEFIELD, REV. GILBERT, was born the 22nd of February 
1756, in the parsonage-house of St. Nicolas of Nottingham, and was 
the third son of the Rev. George Wakefield, then rector of that parish. 
After having been taught to read at home, Gilbert was sent, in May 
1759, to a school kept by an old lady at Nottingham; in his fifth 
year he was put to a writing-school ; from that he went at the age of 
seven to the Nottingham free grammar-school ; which two years after 
he exchanged for that of Wilford, in the neighbourhood of his native 
town. In 1767, on his father’s removal to Kingston, or rather to 
Richmond, where he took up his residence, that chapelry being 
annexed to the vicarage, he was put to a school kept by his father’s 
curate, under whom he began the study of Greek ; from this teacher, 
whom he describes as miserably incompetent, he was transferred 
two years after to the charge of the Rev. Richard Wooddeson, at 
Kingston, with whom he remained till that gentleman gave up his 
school and removed to Chelsea in 1772; when Wakefield, now in his 
seventeenth year, was sent to Jesus College, Cambridge. 

Here he applied himself almost exclusively to classical studies. In 
the third year of his residence he wrote for Dr. Brown’s three medals ; 
and although he admits that his Greek Ode and his two epigrams (one 
Greek, the other Latin) were worthless, he maintains that his Horatian 
Latin ede, which also failed, deserved a better fate. In 1775 he com- 
menced the study of Hebrew; having accidentally discovered what he 
calls “the abominable stupidity—a stupidity which no words can 
sufficiently stigmatise—of learning that language with the points,” 
and obtained a Masclef’s Grammar, which enabled him, he says, in the 
course of ten days, by the help only of Buxtorf’s ‘ Lexicon, to read 
nine or ten of the first chapters in Genesis, “ without much difficulty 
and with infinite delight.” é 

In January 1776 he took his Bachelor’s degree, andin April following 
he was elected to a fellowship in his college. In the same year appeared 
his first publication, a small 4to volume of Latin poems, ‘ Poemata 
Latine partim scripta, partim reddita,’ which was printed at the Univer- 
sity press. In March 1778, Wakefield was ordained deacon by Dr. 
Hinchcliffe, bishop of Peterborough. He had been from hisearliest years, 
as he continued to the end of his life, strongly attached to the study of 
theology; but his opinions had already begun to take that deviation 
from the common standard which ultimately carried him out of the 
pale of the church in which he had been born and educated. About 
three weeks after his ordination he left the University for the curacy 
of Stockport in Cheshire, of which the Rev. John Watson was incum- 
. bent; but he remained in this situation only for a few months, 

_ quitting it before the end of the year for the curacy of St. Peter’s at 
Liverpool, —“ principally,” he states, “‘ with the view of establishing a 
day-school in that town, if a suitable opportunity should present 
itself.’ In March 1779, he married Miss Watson, the niece of his late 
rector. ‘* While I continued at Liverpool,” he says, “I persevered in 
reading the New and Old Testaments with all possible attention and 
assiduity. My objections to the creed of my forefathers were daily 
multiplying, and my determination was already made to quit the 
church for some other line of life on the first opportunity. My 
attachment however to theology would never suffer me to think with 
tranquillity of transferring myself to any other profession inde- 
pendently of additional objections of a very serious nature to such an 
alteration in my plan of life.” 

In August 1779, on the invitation of the trustees of the Dissenting 
Academy at Warrington, he removed thither to fill the situation of 
classical master in that establishment, While here, he published, in 
1781, his first theological work,‘A New Translation of the First 
Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians,’ 8vo, This was fol- 
lowed in the same year by ‘ A Plain and Short Account of the Nature 
of Baptism,’ 12mo; and an ‘Essay on Inspiration,’ 8vo. All three 
publications were brought out at the Warrington press, as was also 
‘A New Translation of the Gospel of St. Matthew,’ 4to, which he pro- 
duced in the following year. For the first six years after his leaving 
college, he intimates, the Greek and Roman writers received a very 
small portion of his attention ; but while at Warrington he prosecuted 
the study of Hebrew, learned Syriac and Chaldee, acquired, he says, a 
perfect knowledge of the Samaritan and Syro-Chaldaic, formed some 
acquaintance with the Aithiopic, Arabic, and Persian, and read the 
Coptic version of the New Testament. He remained at Warrington 
till the Academy was broken up in 1783, after it had existed twenty- 


Bramcoate in Nottinghamshire, with the intention of taking pupils 

into his house; but he did not succeed in procuring any. While here 

he published anonymously, at London, a small tract in 12mo, entitled 

‘ Directions for the Student in Theology,’ and also the first volume, in 

8vo, of his ‘Enquiry into the Opinions of the Christian Writers of the 
Three First Centuries concerning the Person of Jesus Christ,’ a work 
which he never carried farther. In May 1784, he removed to his 
brother's parish of Richmond in Surrey, and advertised for pupils 
there, but was as unsuccessful as at Bramcoate; and at Michaelmas in 

the same year he took up his residence in his native town of Notting- i 
ham. Upto this time he had continued to preach occasionally; a  __ 
sermon which he preached at Richmond on the 29th of July 1784, the 
thanksgiving-day on account of the peace, was soon after printed ; and 
he also appeared two or three times in the Nottingham pulpits in 1785 
and 1786. But from that last date he became not only wholly alienated 
from the established church, but its open and bitter assailant, although 
he never joined any body of dissenters. Indeed he came at last to 
the conclusion that public worship in any form was wrong. 

He got some pupils at Nottingham, and remained there for six 
years. During this period his publications were—an edition of * The 
Poems of Mr. Gray, with Notes,’ 8vo, Lond., 1786; an edition of 
Virgil’s ‘ Georgics,’ 8vo, 1788, from the Cambridge University press; 
‘Remarks on Dr. Horsley’s Ordination Sermon,’ Lond., 12mo, 1788 ; 
‘Four Marks of Antichrist,’ Lond., 8vo, 1788; ‘A New Translation of 
those parts of the New Testament which are wrongly translated in — 
our Common Version,’ Lond., 8vo, 1789; ‘An Address to the In- 
habitants of Nottingham’ (on the Test Laws), Lond., 8vo, 1789; 
‘Remarks on the Internal Evidence of the Christian Religion, Lond., 
8vo, 1789; ‘Silva Critica, sive in Auctores Sacros Profanosque Commenta- 
rius Philologus, Pars prima,’ 8vo, 1789, from the Cambridge University 
press; ‘An Address to Dr. Horsley, Bishop of St. David's, on the 
Liturgy of the Church of England,’ Birmingham, 8vo, 1790; ‘Silva 
Critica, Pars secunda,’ Cambridge, 8vo, 1790; and ‘Cursory Refiec- 
tions on the Corporation and Test Acts,’ Birmingham, 8vo, 1790. He 
always wrote with extraordinary rapidity, and certainly often with 
very little consideration, and he generally rushed to the press with 
his manuscript before the ink was dry. He was however in his waya — 
hard student, methodical, punctual, and a great economist of his time, 
In this way he found leisure for a good deal of society, and also for 
some rather singular indulgences. “ During my abode at Nottingham,” 
he relates, “I never failed to attend all the capital punishments that — 
took place there; courting at all times every circumstance which 
might read me a wholesome lecture on mortality, or suggest an 
additional motive of gratitude to God for the comforts of my own — 
condition.” 

In July 1790 however he was induced to leave this and the other — r. 
attractions of Nottingham by an invitation.to become classical tutor in 
the dissenting academy at Hackney. But this situation he only held 
till June 1791. A quarrel with his colleagues finally induced him 
to give in his resignation, after some minor causes had contributed to 
make him disgatisfied with his position. 44 

Towards the end of the year 1791 he published at London one of — 
his most considerable works, his ‘ Translation of the New Testament, — 
with Notes,” in 3 vols. 8vo. This performance, in which he had — 
the good taste to adhere to the words of the existing translation 
wherever he thought they conveyed the correct sense, was not 
unfavourably received, and he produced a second edition of it,in 2 
vols.,in 1795. Its first publication was immediately followed by ‘An 
Enquiry into the Expediency and Propriety of Public or Social 
Worship,’ 8vo, London, 1791, a tract which made some noise, was 
twice reprinted in this and the next year, and drew forth several 
answers, to which he replied in two additional expositions of his views” 
published in 1792. In 1792 also appeared a third part of his ‘Silva 
Critica, printed, like the two former parts, at the Cambridge Uni- 
versity press. And in the same year he published, in 1 vol. 8vo, his — 
‘Memoirs’ of his own life, which he says that he wrote “all to a little | 
polish,” in twelve days. The work certainly has the appearance of 
having been rapidly composed. i” 

For the next six years his biography is merely the history of the 
appearance of his successive publications: for, continuing to reside at 
Hackney, he now sought no other employment than writing for the 
booksellers. In 1793 he brought out a fourth part of his ‘Silva 
Critica,’ at London, at his own expense, the curators refusing him the 
further use of the Cambridge press. The same year he published, in 
8vo, a treatise on the ‘Evidences of Christianity,’ being an enlarged 
edition of the tract on the same subject he had published in 17§ 
He now turned for the first time to politics, or to theologico-poli 
discussion, and in 1794 published three pamphlets: ‘ The Spiri 
Christianity compared with the Spirit of the Times in Great Brit 
which went through three editions; an answer to Paine, under t 
title of ‘An Examination of the Age of Reason,’ of which a sec 
edition was called for the same year; and a vehement phil; 


ee eee ae a ae ae ha ee ee’ 


Orders of the Duke of York to his Army.’ Then, striking into anc 
new path, he produced his first complete edition of an ancient 
a Horace, with notes, and what he called an amended text—in 2 
12mo, London,’ 1794. It is renowned fora proposed conversion 


six years. On this he retired in the first instance to the village of 


*O beate Sexti,’ in the 4th ode of the 1st book, into ‘O bea te, Se 


‘oe 


—— a Se 


2 ee ee 


ae 


re 
ee ak Ak ce 


-- ae 
> 


Cah cl 
pas 


473 


WALCH, JOHANN GEORG. 


474 


which is set down without a thought being given to the inadmissibility 
of such a reading on the most obvious metrical grounds. The Horace 
was followed the same year by a selection of Greek Tragedies, in 2 
vols. 8vo, and that by a first volume of an edition of the ‘ Works of 
Pope,’ 8vo, Warrington, which was not continued. A fifth part of the 
*Silva Critica,’ 8vo, London, a 12mo volume of ‘ Poetical Translations 
from the Antients,’ an edition, in a volume of the same size, of the 
remains of Bion and Moschus, and a ‘ Reply to the Second Part of 
Paine’s Age of Reason,’ 8vo, all appeared in 1795. His publications of 
the next year were :—an edition of Virgil, with a few notes, in 2 vols. 


- 12mo; an 8vo volume of ‘ Observations on Pope;’ ‘A Reply to the 


Letter of Edmund Burke, Esq., to a Noble Lord,’ which went through 
three editions; and a new edition, with notes, of Pope’s Translation 
of the Iliad, in 11 vols. 8vo. This year also appeared the first volume, 
in 4to, of his Lucretius, of all his editions of ancient authors the 
one that was most wanted and upon which he has bestowed the 
greatest pains, and the only one that remains in any estimation. The 
second and third volumes followed in the course of the succeeding 
Ph 1797; which gave birth besides to a Latin pamphlet—‘ Diatribe 

temporalis, as he entitled it—on Porson’s new edition of the 


_-*Hecuba;’ ‘A Letter to Jacob Bryant, Esq., concerning his Disserta- 


tion on the War of Troy,’ 4to; and ‘A Letter to William Wilberforce, 


_Esq., on the subject of his late Publication’ (his ‘Practical View of Chris- 
 tianity’). 


The last-mentioned publication reached a second edition. 
In January 1798, Dr. Watson, bishop of Llandaff, came forward in 
the new character of a champion of the war, in a pamphlet which he 
entitled ‘An Address to the People of Great Britain.’ Both the drift 
of this address, and what seemed to him the apostacy of the writer, 
kindled Wakefield’s very combustible temper; and on the evening of 
the day on which it came into his hands he finished a very vehement 
‘Reply to some parts of the Bishop of Llandaff’s Address,’ which he 
immediately sent to the press. It was published by Mr. John Cuthell, 
of Middle Row, Holborn, a dealer in old books, to whom he brought 
it without any intimation of its nature. Cuthell was thereupon in- 


' dicted for the publication of a seditious libel; and being tried before 


Lord Kenyon and a special jury at Westminster, on the 21st of 
February 1799, was found guilty, and on the 18th of April follow- 
ing was sentenced to pay a fine of thirty marks, Wakefield repaid 
Cuthell all the expenses to which he had been put, amounting to 
1531, 4s. 8d., a sum which he afterwards described as equal to the 
clear annual income of all he was worth. Wakefield himself was also 
tried at Westminster the same day with Cuthell; and Johnson, a 
bookseller, who had sold some copies of the pamphlet, a few days after 
before the same judge at Guildhall: we are not informed what was 
Johnson’s sentence; but Wakefield, who, in the interim between the 
conviction of Johnson and his being himself brought up for judgment, 
published ‘ A Letter to Sir John Scott, his Majesty’s attorney-general, 
on the subject of a late trial in Guildhall’ (that of Johnson), was 
sentenced by Mr. Justice Grose, on the 30th of May, to be imprisoned 
in Dorchester jail for two years, and to give security for his good 
behaviour for five years after the expiration of that term, himself in 
500/., and two others in 2501. each. A subscription was immediately 
raised for him among the friends of opposition politics, which 
ultimately amounted to about 5000/. He printed and gave away, 


but did not regularly publish, his ‘Defence,’ and two subsequent 


addresses to the Court of King’s Bench, one actually delivered, the 
other only intended to have been delivered; and he bore with forti- 
tude and good humour his two years’ incarceration, which with the 
exception of some impositions in money matters by the jailor, does 
not appear to have been attended with any unusual hardship. While 
in prison he printed an imitation, in English verse, of the Tenth 
Satire of Juvenal, 12mo, 1800; and also the same year a translation, 
in an 8vo pamphlet, of ‘Some Essays of Dion Chrysostom, with Notes.’ 
In 1801 he published a small 12mo tract on some discoveries which he 
supposed he had made as to the laws of Greek hexameter verse, under the 
title of ‘ Noctes Carcerariz.’ His release took place on the 29th of May 
1801; upon which he immediately hurried to London, and commenced 
a course of lectures on the Second Book of the Aineid, the delivery of 
which occupied him till the beginning of July. On the 27th of 
August he was taken ill of what turned out to be typhus fever, which 
carried him off on the 9th of September. He left, besides his widow, 
four sons and two daughters, 

All Wakefield’s publications have been mentioned in the above 
sketch, except an ‘An Essay on the Origin of Alphabetical Characters’ 
(endeavouring to prove that they must have been revealed from 
Heayen), which he communicated, in 1784, to the Literary and Philo- 
sophical Society of Manchester, and which is printed in the second 
volume of their Transactions, and, in an enlarged and amended form, 
with the second edition of his Memoirs; and many papers which he 
contributed to various periodical publication’, especially the ‘ Theo- 
logical Repository’ and the ‘Monthly Magazine.’ He had also made 
‘considerable collections for a Greek and English Lexicon, which 
remained after his death in possession of his family. A new edition 
of his Memoirs, extended to two volumes, and brought down to the 
close of his life, was published by his friends, Messrs. John Towill 
Rutt and Arnold Waivewright, in 1804; and a ‘Collection of Letters’ 
that passed between him and Charles Fox, chiefly upon points of 
classical criticism, has since been published. 


His scholarship, in its amount and character, has been ably esti- 
mated by Dr. Parr, in a letter printed in the second edition of his 
Memoirs, vol. ii., pp. 437-453, although his deficiencies may perhaps 
be thought to be touched by his friend and admirer with a lenient 
hand. He had evidently read rapidly a great deal of Greek and Latin, 
and, by the help of amemory which he used to complain of as too 
good, had retained an unusually large proportion of the miscellaneous 
intellectual sustenance which he had thus taken in; but, partly from 
imperfections in the manner in which he had been educated, partly 
from defects of mental character, he was not and never could have 
become either a profound or a refined scholar. Both his Latin style 
and his English are vicious and barbarous in the extreme. Honest and 
high-minded he certainly was, as well as warm-hearted ; but his ardour 
became intemperance and ferocity whenever it encountered opposition, 
and his honesty only made him the more intolerant of difference of 
opinion upon any subject in another, a thing for which he had no 
name except only knavery or imbecility: No man ever adhered to the 
most maturely considered conclusions with more pertinacity than 
he did to judgments which he would form in the most precipitate 
manner. 

WALAFRI’DUS, or WALHAFRE’DUS, surnamed ‘Strabo,’ or 
‘Strabus,’ because his eyes were awry, was a German monk who lived 
in the first part of the 9th century. Some writers have thought that 
he was an Anglo-Saxon, and a brother of Bede, but Fabricius proves 
by the monk’s own words that he was a native of Suabia in Germany, 
an opinion which now seems to be general. He received his educa- 
tion in the monastery of St. Gallen, which was then one of the most 
famous schools in Germany, and he finished his studies in the monas- 
tery of Fulda, under the celebrated Rabanus Maurus. After having 
taken orders, he became dean of St. Gallen, and in 842 he was chosen 
abbot of Reichenau (Augia Dives) in the diocese of Constance, It is 
said that for some time he was head master of the school in the 
monastery of Hirsfeld. He died in 849, in France, where he was 
travelling on some business. Walafridus was a learned man for his 
time; he is the author of several works on divinity, ecclesiastical his- 
tory, and botany; the most remarkable are :—‘ De Officiis Divinis, 
sive de Exordiis et Incrementis Rerum Ecclesiasticarum,’ which is - 
contained in the ‘ Bibliotheca Patrum Maxima, and in several other 
collections of early writers on divinity ; ‘Vita B. Galli Confessoris,’ 
in Goldast’s ‘Scriptores Rerum Alemannicarum ;’ ‘ Vita 8, Othmari 
Abbatis,’ in Goldast’s ‘Vita S. Blaitmaici Abbatis, Hiiensis, et Mar- 
tyris,’ in ‘ Acta Sanctorum,’ ‘ Bibliotheca Patrum Maxima,’ and in seve- 
ral other collections; ‘ Hortulus ’—this little work on botany, which was 
much esteemed, is written in Latin verse; it was published at Niirn- 
berg, 4to, 1512; 8vo, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1530; 8vo, Frankfurt-on- 
the-Main, 1564, 1571 ; Venice, 1547; Basel, 1627; it is likewise con- 
tained in several collections, as in the ‘ Bibliotheca Patrum Maxima,’ 
in the ‘ Bibliotheca Patrum Coloniensis,’ &c.; ‘Glossee Latino-Barba- 
rice de Partibus Humani Corporis rursum ex Doctrina Rabani Mauri 
per Walafridum descripte,’ in Goldast cited above. ‘Gloss ordi- 
narice interlineares in Scripturam Sacram:’ it has been supposed that 
Rabanus Maurus is the author of it, and that Walafridus only put it 
together. Editions of it are contained in the different ‘ Bibliothece 
Patrum,’ as well as in some other collections cited above. The first 
edition is a large finely-printed folio, without date or place, and sup- 
posed to have been printed at Venice about 1480. Some French 
writers attribute to Walafridus the beginning of the celebrated 
‘Annales Fuldenses.’ A complete catalogue of the works and other 
literary productions of Walafridus is contained in Fabricius, ‘ Biblio- 
theca Latina Mediz et Infime A®tatis.’ 

WALCH, JOHANN GEORG, a distinguished German divine, was 
born at Meiningen, in 1693. His father was general superintendent 
of the Protestant church in the duchy of Saxe-Weimar. In 1710 he 
went to the university of Jena, where he studied divinity and philology, 
and of which he became afterwards one of the first ornaments. In 
1724 he was appointed extraordinary professor of divinity in the uni- 
versity of Jena; and in 1726 he took his degree of D.D., and was 
appointed ordinary professor of divinity, an office which he held till 
his death in 1775. 

Walch distinguished himself as a scholar at a very early age. In 
1712, when he was only nineteen, he published a good edition of 
Velleius Paterculus, which he accompanied with an index and valuable 
notes; in 1714 he published ‘ Diatriba de Vita et Stilo C. Cornelii 
Taciti, a work characterised by sound judgment, though the produc- 
tion of a youth of twenty-one. His works are numerous, the principal 
are :—1, ‘ Philosophisches Lexicon, darin die in allen Theilen der 
Philosophie fiirkommenden Materien und Kunstworter erklirt werden,’ 
8vo, Leipzig, 1726. This work ran through four editions, and was a 
standard book till new philosophical terms came in use, together with 
the establishment of the school of Kant, which in its turn was super- 
seded by the systems of Fichte, Hegel, and Schelling. 2, ‘ Historia 
Critica Latine Lingus,’ 8vo, Leipzig, 1716; ran through four edi- 
tions. 3, ‘Historische und Theologische Einleitung in die vor- 
nehmsten Religions-Streitigkeiten, 5 vols. Svo, Jena, 1724-36. 4, 
‘Historische und Theologische Einleitung in die vornehmsten Reli- 
gions-Streitigkeiten der Kvangelischen Kirche,’ 5 vols. 8vo, Jena, 
1730-39. 5, § Bibliotheca Patristica literariis Adnotationibus instructa, 
8vo, Jena, 1720; 2nd edition, Jena, 1834, by Professor Danz. 6, 


+ 


475 WALCH, JOHANN ERNST IMMANUEL. 


WALDEGRAVE, EARL. 476 


‘ Bibliotheca Theologica selecta, literariis Adnotationibus instructa,’ 
4 vols. 8vo, Jena, 1757-65. 7, Dr. Martin Luther's ‘Siimmtliche 
Schriften,’ 24 vols. 4to, Halle, 1740-50. A carefully revised edition of 
the works of Luther; the 14th volume contains Luther's Latin version 
of the Bible, which was separately published by Walch in 1745. Walch 
also published an edition of Lactantius, Leipzig, 1715; 2nd edition, 
1735. Walch was the father of three sons, Johann Ernst Immanuel, 
Christian Wilhelm Franz, and Karl Friedrich, noticed below, each of 
whom attained a high rank in the learned literature of Germany. 

WALCH, JOHANN ERNST IMMANUEL, the eldest son of 
Johann Georg Walch, was born at Jena on the 29th of August 1725. 
He studied divinity at Jena, and in 1747 undertook a long journey 
with his brother Christian Wilhelm Franz, to France, Italy, and seve- 
ral other countries. Though the two brothers were rather young, the 
name of their father procured them everywhere a favourable reception. 
They thus were on intimate terms with Assemani, the cardinals Maffei 
and Passionei, as well as with several other celebrated men at Rome. 
It is said that they were presented to Pope Benedict XIV., who asked 
them if they were the sons of the celebrated heretic J. G. Walch. In 
1759 J. E. 1. Walch was appointed professor of divinity at Jena, his 
name being already known by several works on ecclesiastical history. 
Next to divinity, natural history was his favourite science, which he 
cultivated with great success, as may be seen from his works on natural 
history, cited below. He was a member of many learned societies in 
Italy, Germany, and other countries. He died on the 1st of December, 
1778. His principal works are—1, ‘ De Christianorum sub Diocletiano 
in Hispania Persecutione,’ 8vo, Jena, 1751; 2, ‘Marmor Hispaniae 
antiquum Vexationis Christianorum Neronianae insigne Documentum 
illustratum,’ 4to, Jena, 1750; 2nd edition, under the title ‘ Persequu- 
tionis Christianae Neronianae in Hispania ex antiquo Monumento 
probandae uberior Explanatio,’ 4to, Jena, 1753; 3, ‘Acta Societatis 
Latinae Jenensis, edita, 4 vols. 8vo, Jena, 1752-55. The ‘ Transac- 
tions’ of this Society, which were under the care of Walch for several 
years, contain many of his minor productions. 4, ‘ Dissertationes in 
Acta Apostolorum, 8 vols. 4to, Jena, 1756-61; 5, ‘De Arte critica 
yveterum Romanorum Literaria, 8rd edition, Jena, 1771; 6, ‘Das 
Steinreich systematisch entworfen’ (a system of mineralogy), 2 vols. 
8vo, 2nd edition, Halle, 1769; 7, ‘ Antiquitates Medicae selectae,’ 8vo, 
Jena, 1772; 8, ‘Sigillum Medici Ocularii Romani nuper in Agro 
Jenensi repertum et Observationibus illustratum, 4to, Jena, 1763; 9, 
‘Georg Wolfgang Knorr’s Sammlung von Merkwiirdigkeiten der Natur 
und den Alterthiimern des Erdbodens welcher petrificirte. Corper 
enthilt, herausgegeben mit Classifications-Tabellen, &c., von J. E. I. 
Walch, mit illuminirten Kupfertafeln, etc,’ 7 parts, in 3 vols. folio, 
Niirnberg, 1768-73. This collection of Knorr’s was celebrated all over 
Europe. Statius Miiller had published a catalogue of it, with a 
description of the different objects, but this work was incomplete and 
without any systematical order, The work of Walch however is still 
considered a model for similar works: a French translation of it was 
published in 1775, and a Dutch in 1779. 

(Lebensgeschichte des wohlseligen Herrn Hofraths Johann Ernst 
Immanuel Walch, 8vo, Jena, 1780, contains a complete catalogue of 
his works and minor productions: a Leben und Character des Prof. 
Joh. Ernst Im. Walch’s zu Jena appeared at Weimer, 8vo, 1799.) 

WALCH, CHRISTIAN WILHELM FRANZ, one of the greatest 
divines of Germany, was the second son of Johann Georg Walch. He 
was born at Jena in 1726, and after having studied divinity iu that 
university, travelled with his brother Immanuel in France and Italy. 
The learned Italian Gori invited him and his brother to contribute to 
his ‘Symbola Literaria,’ and Gori wrote several memoirs for the 
‘Transactions’ of the Societas Latina at Jena. In 1750 Walch was 
appointed extraordinary professor of philosophy in the University of 
Jena; in 1753 he was chosen president of the Societas Latina in this 
town; in 1754 he went to Gdttingen as extraordinary professor of 
divinity ; he became ordinary professor of divinity in 1757. He died 
suddenly in 1784, whilst talking with his wife and children. 

Walch wrote many works on classical literature, divinity, and eccle- 
siastical history, some of which are among the best of their kind, and 
they all bear the marks of a superior mind and extensive learning. 
A complete catalogue of his works is given in the authority cited 
below ; and the greater part of them are in the library of the British 
Museum. The following are the principal works :—1, ‘ Antiquitates 
Pallii Philozophici veterum Christianorum, Jena, 1746. The first 
section of this book treats of the pallium of the ancient philosophers; 
and the second of the pallium assumed by Christian philosophers. 2, 
*Oratio de Eloquentia Latina veterum Germanorum, 1750; an in- 
teresting little book, in which the author shows that a considerable 
number of ancient Germans, among whom was Arminius, the con- 
queror of Varus, were well acquainted with the Roman language and 
literature: there are no hypotheses or opinions in this book; it is 
founded on facts stated by Roman authors. 3, ‘ Historia Patriarcha- 
rum Judsorum quorum in Libris Juris Romani fit Mentio, 1751. The 
object of this work is to show that even during the later period of the 
Roman Empire the Jews continued to live under the moral inspection 
of ‘ patriarchs,’ a Greek word translated from the Hebrew, and which, 
according to Walch, was first used by the ‘Seventy’ of Alexandria; 
the Roman laws referred to by the author are the tituli, ‘ De Judeis,’ 


4, ‘Compendium Historiae Ecclesiasticae recentissimae,’ Gottin- 
gen, 1757. 5, ‘Entwurf einer vollstiindigen Historie der Kirchen- 
Versammlungen,’ Leipzig, 1759. 6, ‘ Monimenta Medii Aivi ex Biblio- 
theca Regia Hanoverana,’ 2 vols, 8vo, Gottingen, 1758. 7, ‘Grund- 
siitze der Kirchengeschichte des Neuen ‘Testaments,’ 4 vols. 8vo, 2nd 
edition, Gottingen, 1772-74. . 8, ‘Grundsiitze der Natiirlichen Gottes- 
gelehrsamkeit,’ 2nd edition, Gottingen, 1775. 9, ‘ Kritische Unter- 
suchung vom Gebrauch der Heiligen Schrift unter den alten Christen 
in den ersten vier Jahrhunderten,’ Leipzig, 1779. 10, ‘ Neueste Reli- 
gions Geschichte,’ 9 vols. 8vo, Lemgo, 1771-83. 11, ‘Bibliotheca 
Symbolica vetus ex Monimentis Quinque priorum Seculorum maxime 
collecta,’ &c., Lemgo, 1770. 12, ‘ Bibliotheca Philologica,’ 3 vols. 8vo, 
Gottingen, 1770-77. 138, ‘Entwurf einer vollstiindigen Historie der 
Ketzereien, Spaltungen, und Religions-Streitigkeiten, bis auf die Zeiten 
der Reformation,’ 11 vols. 8vo, Leipzig, 1762-85. This work made 
great sensation throughout all Europe, and the Germans call its author 
generally, Der Ketzer-Walch (Ketzer signifies a heretic), in order to 
distinguish him from his brothers, his father, and so many other 
writers whose name is Walch. Walch is also the author of an excel- 
lent biography of Catherine von Bora, the wife of Luther, which is 
preceded by her portrait engraved after the original painting of Lucas 
Cranach. Kart Frrepricu, the younger brother of Christian Walch, 
born in 1734, was professor of law at Gottingen; and afterwards at 


nian. 


Jena, where he died in1799. He is the author of several distinguished 


works on jurisprudence, such as, ‘Glossarium Germanicum In 
tationi Constitutionis Criminalis Caroline interserviens,’ Jena, 1790. 
The ‘ Constitutio Criminalis Carolina,’ or the Criminal Code issued by 
the Emperor Charles V., is still in use in some parts of Germany, as 
the duchy of Brunswick and the Kingdom of Hanover. 

(Strodtmann, Das Neue Gelehrte Europa, part 14, in vol. iv.) i 

WALDECK, PRINCES OF. The house of Waldeck is one of the 
oldest dynasties of Northern Germany. It is of Saxon origin, and is 
descended from one of those powerful dukes of ancient Saxony who 
commanded in the wars against Charlemagne, perhaps from Wittekind, 
although this cannot be historically established. They were formerly 
counts, but the title of prince was conferred upon Count George 
Frederic in 1682. This prince, born in 1620, was a celebrated general 
of the emperor Leopold L, and obtained several signal victories over 
the Turks and the French. Delille, the French poet, has addressed to 
him his ode ‘De la Pitié,’ praising him for his humane conduct towards 
the French. The republic of the United Provinces of the Netherlands 
appointed him commander-in-chief of the Dutch armies, He died in 
1692, His brother, Count Josias, had equal military reputation. The 
republic of Venice put him at the head of her armies, and after his 
death, in 1711, had a splendid monument erected to his memory in 
the church of Wildungen, in the principality of Waldeck. Josias was 
the founder of a younger branch of the house of Waldeck, upon 


Christian Augustus, born in 1744, signalised himself as an able geueral 
in the wars against the French during the revolution. He commanded 
a part of the imperial armies. In 1793 he directed the passage of the 
imperial troops over the Rhine near Selz, for the purpose of attacking 
the rear of the famous lines of Weissenburg, defended by the French : 
they were assailed in front by Field-Marshal Wurmser, the Austrian 
commander-in-chief, and Field-Marshal Kalckreuth, the Prussian gene- 
ralissimo. This combined attack, which resulted in the taking of the 
lines, and was followed by a general rout of the French, is considered 
one of the most brilliant mancouvres executed in modern times. It is 
said that the Prince of Waldeck, who had the most difficult share in 


took the fortress of Kehl, opposite Strasbourg, and afterwards com- 


of Germany appointed him member of the military council at Vienna, 
and commander-in-chief of the militia of Bohemia. In 1797 the 
Prince Regent of Portugal addressed himself to the emperor for the 
purpose of obtaining his permission to put the Prince of Waldeck at 
the head of his armies, which were in a very disorgani state. The 
permission having been granted, the prince went to Lisbon, but died 
in 1798, before he had carried into effect his plans for reorgenising the 


reigning prince, was born in 1831, and succeeded his father, Prince 
George Frederic Henry, in 1845. 

WALDEGRAVE, JAMES WALDEGRAVE, Srconp EARL, was 
the son of James, first Earl Waldegrave, K.G., who was descended 
from ancestors originally settled at Walgrave in Northamptonshire, 


James II., by Arabella Churchill, sister of the Duke of Marlborough, 
Paris on the Revolution, died there in 1689. The earl had conformed 


pole, who placed great confidence in him, as ambassador, first at Paris” 
and afterwards at Vienna, from 1725 to 1740. He was created Vis~ 
count Chewton and Earl Waldegrave in 1729, and died in 1741, at the 
age of fifty-seven, six months after he had obtained leave to return to 


‘ Coelicolis,” and ‘Samaritanis,’ in the Codes of Theodosius and Justi- 


¢ 


England for the recovery of his health. He had married in 1714, 


\ i2 : en 4 F 
Pe ee ee i Ry ee ee ee ey ee 


which however the title of prince has not been conferred, Prince — 


this undertaking, also conceived the idea of the whole plan. Healso a 


manded in Flanders, displaying such superior talents that the emperor — 


Portuguese troops. His great-grandson, George Victor, the present — 4 


and in later times distinguished for their attachment to the Roman 
Catholic faith. The first Earl Waldegrave derived his oldest title 
of Baron Waldegrave of Chewton, in thé county of Somerset, from his 
father Henry, who having married Henrietta, natural daughter of — 


was raised to the peerage in 1686, and, following his father-in-law 0. 8 
to the Established Chureh in 1722, and served under Sir Robert Walk 


i) j 
a 


——= a 


r 
a 
+ 


a 


477 WALDEMAR I. 


WALDEMAR ILI. 478 


Mary, daughter of Sir John Webbe of Hatherop, in the county of 
Gloucester, Baronet, — 

James, who was his eldest son, was born on the 14th of March, 1715. 
Attaching himself to the court, and becoming a favourite of George IL, 
he was in 1748 appointed a lord of the bedchamber; and in April 
1751, among the changes which took place on the death of Frederick, 
Prince of Wales, he was made steward and warden (or master) of the 
ge About a year and a half after this, in December 1752, 

rd Waldegrave, at the earnest request of the king, was prevailed 

to accept the office of governor to the young Prince of Wales, 
Ww Lord Harcourt had resigned. In 1756 Lord Waldegrave ob- 
tained a grant of the reversion of one of the tellerships of the exche- 
quer, and in less than two months after he came into possession of this 
lucrative appointment by the death of Horace, Lord Walpole. In 
1759 he married Maria, the second of the three natural daughters of 
Sir Edward Walpole, K.B, (second son of Sir Robert), by Maria Cle- 
ments, a milliner’s apprentice, whose father was postmaster at 
Darlington, This lady, equally distinguished by her beauty and her 
virtues, was twenty years younger than the earl; and in 1766, after 
his death, remarried William Henry, duke of Gloucester, brother of 
George III., whom she also survived, dying in 1807, at the age of 
seventy-two. She was the mother of the late Duke of Gloucester, and 
of the Princess Sophia Matilda of Gloucester. 
_. The most important political transaction in which Earl Walde- 
grave was engaged, was the attempt into which he was forced by 
the king, in June 1757, to form a ministry, with himself at its head. 
‘He was actually appointed first lord of the treasury. ‘The public,” 
says Walpole, “ was not more astonished at that designation than the 
earl himself.” Of the negociations connected with this project, which 
was abandoned after a few days, a sketch is given by Walpole (‘ Me- 
moires,’ ii. 220-223), but the most ample details have been preserved 
by the earl himself. Proposals were also made to him to take office in 
the last days of Lord Bute’s administration, in the end of March 1763. 
The day after he had finally declined these overtures, on the 1st of 
April, he was attacked by small-pox, and his death followed on the 


4 28th of that month. Leaving only three daughters, he was succeeded 


in the earldom by his brother John. 

An account of the political and court transactions of a portion of his 
own time by Earl Waldegrave was published under the title of 
‘Memoirs from 1754 to 1758, in a quarto volume, in 1821. This 
work, which had evidently been prepared with the intention that it 
should be given to the public, is a clear, full, and trustworthy narra- 
tive, and throws much light upon the restless and complicated in- 
trigues of the latter part of the reign of George II, It leaves a very 
favourable impression of the writer, of his clear-headedness, as well as 
of his sincerity and frankness, although it has nothing of the manner 
of an anxious or systematic defence of his conduct. 

WALDEMAR L,, King of Denmark, reigned from A.D. 1157 to 1181, 
He was the son of Knud, or Canut, duke of Sleswig, and king of the 
Obotrites in Mecklenburg, a prince of the first royal dynasty of Den- 
mark. He was born on the 15th of January 1131, eight days after the 
murder of his father, who perished during the civil troubles which 
then desolated Denmark. ‘To save her son from a similar fate, his 
mother, Ingeborg, a Russian princess, fled with him. to her native 
_country, where the young prince lived during the earlier part of his 
youth. He afterwards returned to Denmark, and on the death of 
King Erik 1V., Emund, in 1139, Waldemar was chosen king, but on 
account of his youth he was put under the guardianship of Erik, sur- 
named Lam, the son-in-law of the late King Erik III., Hiegod. Erik 
Lam, disregarding the rights of his ward, usurped the royal authority 
and reigned as Krik V., till 1147, when he resigned and retired to a 
convent. The guardianship of young Waldemar was now disputed 
between Svend Kriksen and Knud Magnusen, both royal princes, and 
the contest having been terminated by a decision of the Emperor 
Frederic I., Barbarossa, which was favourable to Svend, that prince 
assumed the title of king, and in 1156 murdered Knud, who had like- 
wise styled himself king, and reigned in a part of Denmark as Knud or 
Canut V. Svend also intended to murder Waldemar, who however 
escaped and made war on Svend, commonly called Sueno IV., whom 
he defeated in the battle of Viborg, when the usurper was slain by 
some plundering peasants. This battle was fought on the 22nd of 
September 1157, and from this day dates the reign of Waldemar, 
whose rights to the crown were no longer disputed. 

During the first years of his reign Waldemar was occupied with 
restoring domestic peace to his kingdom. In 1168 he made an alliance 
with Henry the Lion, duke of Saxony, for the purpose of subjugating 
the Obotrites and other Wendish or Slavonian nations in the north- 
eastern part of Germany, over which the kings of Denmark and the 
emperors of Germany had hitherto exercised a nominal authority. 
The Danish army and navy were commanded by Absalon, the warlike 
archbishop of Roeskild, who took Arcona, the capital of the Wendish 
empire, in the island of Riigen, and broke the idols of Swantewit and 
_ other gods of the heathen Wendes. In 1170 he took Julin, the Con- 
_ stantinople of the north (Krantz, ‘ Wandalia,’ lib. iii.), and the northern 
limit of an overland trade with Asia Minor, Persia, and India, the 
direction of which we may now trace, since the discovery of numerous 
Arabic coins along the banks ofthe Dnieper and the Volga. (Rasmussen, 


‘De Orientis Commercio cum Russia et Scandinavia Medio Aevo ;’ a 


rare book, extracts from which are given in ‘ Journal Asiatique,’ vol. v., 
1824, p. 340, &c.) 

After these defeats the Wendes of Riigen, Mecklenburg, and the 
most western part of Pomerania reeognised the Danish king as their 
sovereign, and Waldemar did homage for his conquests to the Emperor 
Frederic I, whom he met at Lons-le-Saulnier, in the present Franche- 
Comté. It has been said that he also did homage for his kingdom of 
Denmark, and this opinion, which has roused the national pride of so 
many Danish historians, is not without foundation. The title of 
King of the Wendes, which is still retained among the other titles of 
the kings of Denmark, dates from the conquests of Bishop Absalon. 
Waldemar also acquired the most southern part of Norway, which he 
took from King Erling. The latter years of his reign were troubled 
by a rebellion of Eskild, bishop of Lund, in Scania, which province 
belonged to Denmark at that time. Waldemar died on the 12th of 
May 1181 (some say 1182), at Wordingborg, and it was said that he 
was poisoned. Waldemar I. was not a warrior only, he is equally dis- 
tinguished as a legislator; he ordered the laws of several of his 
provinces to be collected, and he added his own, which are still pre- 
served in the great collections of the Danish law. The Danes call him 
‘the Great ;’ but, without prejudice to his merits, this title is more 
than he deserves. Waldemar’s successor was his eldest son Knud or 
Canut VI., whom he had by Sophia, princess of Pomerania, 

_ (Holberg, Baron af, Dannemark’s Riges Historie, vol. i., p. 208-247 ; 
Krantz, Saxonia ; Wandalia ; Mallet, Histoi*e du Danemark.) 

WALDEMAR IL, surnamed Seier, or ‘ the Victorious,’ king of Den- 
mark, who reigned from 1202 to 1241, was the second son of Walde- 
mar I. His brother, King Knud, or Canut VI, conferred upon him 
the duchy of Sleswig, and was assisted by him in the consolidation of 
the Danish government in the Baltic provinces, which had been con- 
quered by Waldemar I., and in those of which some parts were 
conquered during the reign of Kunud VI., namely, Estland, Kurland, 
and Livonia. During the rebellion of Waldemar, bishop of Sleswig, 
who likewise belonged to the royal house of Denmark, and who was 
assisted by Adolphus III., count of Holstein, he took the field for his 
brother, and they succeeded in conquering Holstein, and in driving 
out the rebellious prelate, who fled to Germany (1200). After the 
death of Knud in 1203, Waldemar ascended the throne, and his 
subjects, as well as his neighbours, soon found that Denmark was 
ruled by a great king. He finally established the Danish authority in 
the Wendish provinces, the population of which, a headstrong but not 
uncivilised race, was still ready for rebellion. The Danish possessions 
in Esthland, Kurland, and Livonia having been menaced by the natives, 
Waldemar availed himself of the occasion to carry a plan into exe- 
cution which, if not his own idea, was at least realised by him. This 
was to found a Baltic empire, consisting of Denmark, the key and 
centre of the whole, Holstein, Mecklenburg, all Pomerania, Kurland, 
Livonia, Esthland, the large islands in the middle part of the Baltic, 
and the southern part of Sweden and Norway. ‘The same plan was after- 
wards conceived and partly realised by the great Gustavus Adolphus of 
Sweden, and similar empires were founded by the Carthaginians in the 
Mediterranean, by Mithridates round the Pontus, and on a smaller 
scale by Venice round the Adriatic Sea and the Archipelago. If this 
Danish empire was of short duration, it was the result of two causes 
which have been and always will be equally dangerous to such 
empires. The immense extent of narrow tracts along the sea-shore 
afford innumerable points of attack to the continental nations who 
are excluded from the coast by those tracts, and they can only be 
defended by a great navy, the chief condition of which is an extensive 
commerce, Now Denmark being the centre and key of that empire, 
only the military condition of its existence was fulfilled, while the 
commercial condition only existed temporarily. The Sound was not 
then, as it is now, frequented by ships of all nations, for the commerce 
in the Baltic had a more southerly direction from Russia towards the 
coasts of Pomerania and Holstein, whence the merchandise was carried 
overland to Germany and France. However, for a short period, 
Waldemar, being in possession of Wisby, Julin (or at least the mouth 
of the Oder, for the town is said to have been entirely (?) destroyed by 
Bishop Absalon), and also of Liibeck, was enabled, by the advantages 
which he derived from the merchandise cf those towns, to raise that 
formidable force, the greater part of which he employed in the con- 
quest of Livonia and the adjoining provinces. His army consisted of 
160,000 men, and he had a navy of 1200 ships. He sailed for Livonia 
in 1219. The main body of the army, consisting of Danes, and com- 
manded by Andreas, bishop of Lund, was surprised by the natives and 
in danger of being cut to pieces, when it was relieved by the king’s 
Wendish and German auxiliaries, who won the day. Tradition says 
that in the midst of danger a flag fell from heaven, at the sight of 
which the Danes recovered their courage. This was the ‘ Danebrog,’ 
in memory of which the Order of the Danebrog was founded. The 
campaign resulted in the conquest of Esthland, Livonia, and Kurland, 
and a Danish bishop took up his residence at Riga. During the con- 
test of Frederic IT. and Otho of Brunswick for the imperial crown, . 
Waldemar assisted Frederic, who in his turn acknowledged him as 
king of the Slavonians or Wends, a title which had already been 
assumed by Waldemar I. Waldemar was now the ruler of the North, 
but his greatness was humbled by the treachery of a petty German 
count. Henry, count of Schwerin, had some reason to complain of 


WALDEMAR IIL 


479 


WALES, WILLIAM. 430 


the king, and not having obtained satisfaction, he treacherously seized 
him in the island of Laaland, brought him on board a vessel ready for 
that purpose, and carried him to Schwerin, The numerous enemies of 
the king protected the count, and even Frederic II. acted in a way 
which clearly showed that he was pleased with the fate of his rival in 
the North. Pope’ Honorius III, alone took the part of the captive 
king, whose assistance he wished to have in his contest with the 
emperor; and by his mediation Waldemar was released in 1225, on 
condition of paying 45,000 marks of silver, an enormous sum for the 
time, ceding Holstein to its legal possessor Count Adolphus LY., and 
renouncing the sovereignty of Mecklenburg, which from that time was 
governed by the descendants of its ancient Slavonic kings, the pro- 
genitors of the present house of Mecklenburg, who did homage to 
the emperor. No sooner was Waldemar restored to liberty than he 
forgot his promises, and aimed at recovering those provinces which he 
had ceded, and which had been occupied by his enemies. The first in 
importance among his enemies were Count Adolphus IV. of Holstein, 
and the citizens of Liibeck, who, during the military government of 
Waldemar, had prudently attracted to their town the commerce of 
the Baltic. Waldemar had now to learn that all power was transient 
which owes its existence merely to the military genius of a king, and 
is not the result of the well-directed activity of the community. The 
king was powerful, without having the means of preserving his power, 
and those industrious citizens, being possessed of such means, were for- 
midable even before they knew it. In the battle of Bornhévd, a village 
not far from Eutin in Holstein, the Danish army was totally routed, 
by tho united forces of Liibeck, Holstein, and some neighbouring 
princes, and the king narrowly escaped death or captivity. He con- 
cluded peace in 1229, and was fortunate in escaping new humiliations. 
He renewed the war with Liibeck in 1234, but his navy was destroyed, 
and he was compelled to grant extensive privileges to the commerce of 
this town, which soon became known as the head of the Hanseatic 
confederation. Waldemar employed the rest of his life in the peaceful 
government of the remainder of his empire. During his reign the 
clergy and nobility rose to great influence, and the freemen gradually 
lost their political rights, which we may conclude from the circumstance 
that the ancient ‘things, or ‘dings,’ that is, meetings of the whole 
community, were changed into ‘herredage,’ or ‘lords’ days,’ that is, 
assemblies of the lords temporal and spiritual. Waldemar ordered the 
laws of Jiitland to be collected: this is the ‘Jydske Lov,’ which is still 
in use in Jiitland. It is contained in the great collections of the Danish 
laws, and there are also several separate editions of it. Waldemar IL., 
sometimes called the Great, and with more justice than his father, 
died on the 28th of March 1241. His first wife was Margaretha 
Dankmar, daughter of Przemisl Ottokar I., king of Bohemia. After 
her death he married Berengaria, daughter of Sancho I., king of 
Portugal. His eldest son Waldemar, who was married to Eleonora, 
daughter of Alphonso IL, king of Portugal, died before his father, 
without leaving issue. He was Duke of Sleswig, and is often called 
King Waldemar III., but he never reigned. The successor of Walde- 
mar II. was his second son, Erik VI., Plogpenning. 

WALDEMAR IIL (LV.), surnamed Atterdag, was the son of King 
Christopher, who was deposed and banished in 1326, Waldemar was 
chosen king in his stead, but on account of his youth he was placed 
under the guardianship of Gerd, or Gerhard, count of Holstein, of the 
house of Schauenburg, surnamed the Arbiter of the North. The 
Danes, haying been oppressed by Gerd, recalled Christopher, in whose 
hands young Waldemar voluntarily placed his authority. Gerd forced 
. the king to cede him half of his kingdom, and after the death of 
Christopher, in 1331, he again became guardian of Waldemar, and 
continued so for nine years. His pupil however was not in Denmark, 
but was educated at the court of Louis of-Bavaria, emperor of Ger- 
many. After the murder of Gerd, in 1340, the Danes recalled Walde- 
mar, who made his peace with the sons of Gerd, and sold the province 
of Scania to Magnus, king of Sweden. In 1347 he also sold Esthland, 
Kurland, and Livonia, which had been conquered by Waldemar IL, 
to the grand-master of the Teutonic Order in Prussia, for 18,000 marks 
of silver. With the money he raised an army, and although he 
renounced Livonia and the sister-provinces, he attacked King Magnus 
of Sweden, in 1361, and forced him to cedeScania, He also conquered 
the island of Gothland, which remained a Danish province till 1645. 
He was less successful in two wars with the Hanseatic towns, and he 
did not obtain peace until he had given up almost the whole commerce 
of Denmark into the hands of those powerful citizens, who treated the 
king with great haughtiness. The treaty by which the second war 
was finished, in 1864, was particularly humiliating for the king: the 
treaty of peace begins :—‘ We, the burgomasters, aldermen and citizens 
of the towns of Liibeck, &c., promise to grant an eternal peace to 
Waldemar, king of Denmark, the Wends, and Goths, This is the 
first instance of the title of king of the Goths having been given to the 
king of Denmark, and it seems that Waldemar assumed it after the 
conquest of the island of Gothland. The title is still used in Den- 
mark, In 1363 Waldemar gave his daughter Margaretha in marriage 
to Hagen or Hakon, the son and heir of Magnus, king of Norway. In 
1369 be was again involved in war with the Hanseatic towns, and 
after the destruction of his navy, as well as his army, he begged for 
peace, in 1370, and ceded to these towns the province of Scania for 
fifteen years, 


Waldemar III. died:in 1373, the last of the first Danish dynasty, 
which had ruled in Denmark from the beginning of Danish history, 
He left two daughters : Ingeborg, married to Henry, duke of Mecklen- — 
burg; and Margaretha, married to Hakon of Norway, as already 
observed, After the death of Waldemar, one part of the Danes 
wished to chose Albrecht, duke of Mecklenburg, the son of Ingeborg, 
for their king, while another part voted for Olaus, the son of Marga- 
retha, A civil war broke out, which however was soon terminated by 
an agreement that Olaus should be king. But on account of his 
youth, Olaus was put under the guardianship of his mother Marga- 
retha, who afterwards succeeded in uniting the three Scandinavian . 
kingdoms by the Union of Kalmar. >a 

WALDO, or VALDO, PETER, was born at Vaux, on the borders ; 
of the Rhone, in France, early in the 12th century. He acquired a 
large fortune by commerce in Lyon, when the sudden death of a 
friend occasioned him to devote himself to a religious life. He sold 7 
his goods, and gave the produce to the poor; he caused the Four 
Gospels to be translated into his native language by Stephanus de _— 
Eva, about 1160, and read and explained them to the recipients of his _ 
alms. In 1170, from a frequent reading of the Scriptures, he arrived . 
at the conviction that he had equally with the priests the right of 
preaching the word of God. This theory involved him immediately 
in a persecution. In 1179 the doctrine was formally condemned by a 
general council held in the Lateran at Rome, and the condemnation 
has been repeated more than once. Forced to quit Lyon he retired 
to the mountains of Dauphiné, and thence, it is said, to those of Pied- 
mont. Here his followers and adherents increased, and he has thence 
been assumed to be the founder of the reformed ereed of the Vandois; 
though Theodore Beza, and Jean Léger, the historian of the sect, con- 
tend, and we think with justice, that the sect was of an earlier origin 
than the time of Waldo, or rather, that the Waldenses, the followersof 
Waldo, differ in some degree from the Vaudois, and the two were often 
confounded by the uninitiated. Mosheim is of the contrary opinion. — 
It is probable however that the nature of his tenets, so well according — 
with those of the Vaudois, may have had considerable effect in con- — 
solidating and fixing their creed, and a translation of the Scriptures 
into the Vaudois tongue is attributed to him. In the earlier persecu- 
tions of his followers they were frequently styled Leonists, from the 
Latin name of the city of Lyon, to which Peter had belonged. He is 
said. to have visited Bohemia, and to have spread his doctrines there ; 
and Protestants admit him as a precursor of Luther. The period of 
his death is uncertain, but it probably took place about 1190. ; 

WALES, WILLIAM, an English mathematician and astronomer, 
was born about the year 1734, of parents in humble circumstances. It 
is not known in what manner he received the rudiments of education, 
and it is probable that he was one of the many persons who, for their 
attainments in science, owe more to nature and intense application 
than to the precepts of a teacher. ' 

He first distinguished himself as a contributor to the ‘ Ladies’ Diary, 
a work containing an extensive collection of mathematical propositions 
with their solutions. It was begun in the year 1704; and under the 
able direction of Beighton, Thomas Simpson, and Dr. Charles Hutton, 
it had no small influence in promoting the advance of science in this 
country during the 18th century: it may be added that it still 
nurabers among its contributors several eminent mathematicians. 
Many of the solutions which were given by Mr. Wales, are signed 
with his own name, but occasionally they appear under fictitious 
signatures. 

The. merit shown in these solutions appears to have procured for 
him a recommendation to the government; and in 1768 he was ap- 
pointed, together with Mr. Dymond, to go to Hudson’s Bay, for the 
purpose of observing in that region the transit of Venus over the sun’s 
disc, which was to take place in the following year (June 1769). The 
observations were made at Fort Prince of Wales, and each of the © 
observers was so fortunate as to witness the exterior and interior con- 
tact at both the commencement and end of the transit. Mr. Wales 
made at the same place a great number of astronomical observations, 
an account of which was published in the ‘ Philosophical Transactions” 
for 1769; and again, in 1772, in a separate work, entitled ‘General 
Observations made at Hudson's Bay,’ &c., 4to, London. He also, prin- 
cipally, as he observes, for amusement during the many dreary hours — 
which he passed on the shores of Hudson’s Bay, computed tables of 
the equations to equal altitudes, for facilitating the solution of the 
problem relating to the determination of time: these tables were first 
published in the ‘ Nautical Almanac’ for 1773 ; and again, in the year 
1794, in his tract entitled ‘The Method of Finding the Longitude by 
Timekeepers,’ Svo. rz 

Mr. Wales returned to England in 1770, and in 1772 he published — 
‘The two books of Apollonius concerning Determinate Sections,’ 4to, 
London. In the same year he was appointed, together with Mr. Pa . 
and with the title of astronomer, to accompany Captain Cook in his 
second voyage for the circumnavigation of the earth; and on the ~ 
return of the expedition he was (in 1776) elected a fellow of the Royal 
Society. The series of astronomical observations which had been 
made during the voyage, with an introduction by Wales, was published 
in 1777, at the expense of the Board of Longitude, in a quarto volume, 
with charts and plates. In the same year was published by Walesa — 
tract entitled ‘Observations on a Voyage with Captain Cook ;’ andin — 


a Wee 


~~ if 


Pee yh. 


' the excesses of prerogative. 


431 WALKER, CLEMENT. 


WALKER, REV. GEORGE. AS2 


1778, his strictures on an account of the same voyage, which had been 
published by John George Forster, who, with his father, had sailed 
with the expedition as naturalist. [Forsrer, J. R.; Forster, J. G.] 
In this work the accusations made by the elder Forster against the 
captain and his officers are shown to be entirely without foundation, 
In 1776 Mr, Wales again embarked with Captain Cook in the Reso- 
lution, on the third voyage of that navigator to the Pacific Ocean: he 
returned with the expedition in 1780; and soon afterwagds, on the 
death of Mr. Harris, he was appointed mathematical master of Christ's 
Hospital, He was subsequently made secretary to the Board of Lon- 
gitude; and both these posts he filled with credit till his death, 
which happened in the year 1798, when he was about sixty-four years 


age. 

He published, in 1781, ‘An Enquiry concerning the Population of 
England and Wales ;’ and in 1788, ‘ Astronomical Observations made 
in the Voyages of Byron, Wallis, Carteret, and Cvok,’ 4to, London. 

In 1739 the French captain De Bouvet had discovered, to the south 
of the Cape of Good Hope, an island, to which he gave the name of 
Tle Bouvet, or Cap Circoncision ; but its geographical position being 
erroneously stated, Captain Cook, in his voyages to the south, had 
been unable to find it, and he was led to suspect that the French 
seaman had mistaken some bank of ice for anisland, On this occasion 
Lemonnier ungenerously stated, in a paper which was read at a sitting 
of the Académie des Sciences, that Cook from jealousy had sought for 
the island under a meridian different from that which had been 
assizned to it; and Mr. Wales published a pamphlet in which the 
statement is disproved. The island, or cape, is now supposed to 
have been that which was, in 1808, discovered by the Swan and the 
Otter in 54° 20’ S. lat. and about 2° E. long. from Greenwich. 

Mr. Wales is said to have been the author of the dissertation on the 
achronychal rising of the Pleiades, which is annexed to Dr. Vincent's 
€ Voyage of Nearchus.’ 

WALKER, CLEMENT, is known as the author of a work entitled 
‘The History of Independency,’ the first part of which was published 
inasmall 4to, under the pseudonyme of Theophilus Verax in 1648, 
in two editions, one much more extended than the other; the second 
(a much more considerable volume) in 1649; the third, under the 
title of ‘The High Court of Justice, or Cromwell’s New Slaughter 
House,’ in 1651. A fourth part, by a different writer, who calls him- 
self ‘T. M., Esq., a Lover of his King and Country,’ appeared in 1661, 
along with a reprint of the other three parts, in which the second 
has the new title of ‘Anarchia Anglicana.’ In this edition the work 
is entitled ‘The Compleat History of Independency.’ The first part 
has been reprinted by Baron Maseres, in his ‘ Select Tracts relating to 
the Civil Wars,’ 2 vols. 8vo, 1815. 

The little that is known of the personal history of Clement Walker 
is chiefly to be found in Wood’s ‘ Athenze Oxoniensis’ and in his own 
work, He was born at Cliffe, in Dorsetshire, towards the close of the 
16th century, and there he appears to have spent the early part of 
his life: the register of that parish, according to Hutchins, in his 
‘ History of Dorsetshire, records the births or baptisms of three sons 
of Mr. Clement Walker and Frances his wife: Thomas in 1626, 
Antony in 1629, Peter in 1681. Wood mentions another son, John, 
“sometime a commoner of Lincoln College,” Oxford. This John told 
Wood that his father had studied at Christchurch in that university, 
but no record of his matriculation there remained. Before the 
breaking out’of the contest between the king and the parliament, he 
lived, Wood tells us, on an estate he had at Charterhouse, near Wells, 
in Somersetshire, and held the appointment of usher of the Exchequer. 
At this time he was reputed both a sound royalist and a.good church- 
man, holding puritanism as well as dissent in avowed dislike. Never- 
theless, when matters came to a crisis he declared himself for the 
popular party, and was on that profession returned as one of the 
members for the city of Wells to the memorable second parliament 
of 1640. But notwithstanding what is thus asserted by the Oxford 
antiquary, we must not too hastily assume that Walker at this time 
really changed either his professions or his principles. He appears to 
have continued to the end of his life attached to the monarchical part 
of the constitution, and he had probably been from the first opposed to 
In parliament he necessarily acted with 
the Presbyterians, as on the whole coming nearest, in the course they 
followed, to his own principles, and his ability and reputation for 
integrity soon acquired him considerable ascendancy with his party. 
But his book is by no means, as it has been generally represented, an 
indiscriminating defence and Jaudation of that section of the house. 
He is however, it must be admitted, unsparingly acrimonious in his 
castigation of the dominant Independent faction, and can see nothing 
but hypocrisy, fraud, violence, and the destruction alike of all order 
and liberty in the proceedings.of Cromwell and his associates, Yet 
his work has preserved a good many minute facts not elsewhere to 
be found; and although the author sees no sense, and no good of any 
kind, either to the right hand or to the left of the middle way in 
which he and his friends attempted to walk, it throws a considerable, 
though it may be a highly-coloured, light on the events and characters 
of the time. Walker also published anonymously several other short 
tracts against the republican government, a list of which, so far as 
they are known, may be seen in Wood : the most important of them 
are incorporated in his History. His authorship of that work was 

BiIoG, DIY. VOL. VI. 


discovered soon after the appearance of the second part, upon which 
he was immediately consigned by Cromwell to the Tower, but he 
was not debarred the use of his weapon, the pen, and while in con- 
finement he wrote and sent to the press the third part of his History, 
which, as may be conjectured from the title, is the most violent 
portion of it. In fact he never recovered his liberty, but died in the 
Tower, in October 1651. 

Walker was one of the two prosecutors (William Prynne being the 
other) of Colonel Fiennes before the council of war, at St. Albans, in 
November 1643, for the surrender of Bristol. (See the proceedings 
in ‘State Trials, iv. 185.) Lord Clarendon upon this occasion 
describes Walker as a gentleman of Somersetshire, of a good fortune, 
and by the loss of that the more provoked; who had been in the 
town when it was lost, and had strictly observed all that was done.” 

WALKER, SIR EDWARD, is said to have been the son of a 
Roman Catholic gentleman, Edward Walker of Roobers, in Nether- 
stowey, Somersetshire. In early life he appears to have held some 
office in the household of Thomas, twentieth Karl of Arundel (the 
collector of the Arundelian Marbles), by whose interest he was 
made in 1637 Rouge Dragon Pursuivant-at-Arms in ordinary, 
and Chester Herald-at-Arms; and, having accompanied the Earl of 
Arundel as his secretary on the expedition to Scotland in 1639, he 
then became known to Charles I, who, after taking him into his 
service, made him his secretary-at-war, and to that added, in June 
1644, the appointment of clerk extraordinary of the privy council. 
In this latter year also, while he was with the king at Oxford, the 
university conferred on him the degree of M.A.; and, in 1645, he 
received the honour of knighthood, After the execution of his royal 
master, Walker fled to Charles II., whom he accompanied to Scotland 
in 1650, and, after the failure of that enterprise, rejoined on the 
Continent. Charles, during his exile, made him Garter King at Arms; 
and after the Restoration, he was appointed one of the clerks of the 
privy council. Both these offices he held till his death, at Whitehall, 
19th February 1677. 

Walker is several times mentioned by Lord Clarendon, whom he is 
said to have assisted in the parts of his history which relate to military 
transactions. 

In 1705 there was published in London a folio volume, entitled 
‘ Historical Discourses upon several occasions, by Sir Edward Walker, 
Knight, &c.’ It is dedicated to the queen in an address signed Hugh 
Clopton, and there is also a dedication of the Discourses by Walker 
himself, “ to his grandchild, Edward Clopton, Esq. of Clopton,” dated 
1664, followed by a postscript, dated 1674, at Clopton, near Stratford- 
on-Avon, directing them to be made public after his death. It is 
quite clear that all the Discourses were printed for the first time in 
1705. In 1820 was published, in London, in an 8vo volume of 131 
pages, with plates, ‘A Circumstantial Account of the Preparations for 
the Coronation of his Majesty King Charles the Second, and a minute 
detail of that splendid ceremony, &c., from an original manuscript by 
Sir Edward Walker, Knight, Garter principal King at Arms at that 
period,’ 

The common biographical accounts attribute to Sir Edward Walker 
a work on tactics, entitled ‘Military Discoveries,’ published in folio, 
in 1705; and also the following works, which are stated to have ap- 
peared in his lifetime, but the dates of none of which are given:— 
‘Iter Carolinum, being a succinct account of the necessitated marches, 
retreats, and sufferings of his Majesty King Charles L, from January 
10, 1641, to the time of his death, in 1648, collected by a daily attend- 
ant upon his sacred Majesty during all that time,’ folio; ‘ Acts of 
Knights of the Garter in the Civil Wars;’ ‘Account of the Celebra- 
tion of St. George’s Day at Windsor in 1674.’ We have not been able 
to ascertain the existence of any of these alleged works. The sub- 
stance of the ‘Iter Carolinum,’ however, appears to be contained in 
the ‘ Historical Discourses,’ the first of which is entitled ‘The History, 
Progress, and Success of the Arms of King Charles I., from 30 March 
to 23 November 1644, written by his Majesty’s special command, and 
corrected almost in every page with his own hand;’ and the second, 
‘ Memorials of his Majesty’s unfortunate success in the year following.’ 
The seventh discourse is entitled ‘Observations on L’Estrange’s 
Annals of Charles I.;’ and the eighth is a Review of the entire reign 
of that king. The third is a ‘Journal of the Expedition of Charles 
II. to Scotland in 1650-51.’ The fourth discourse is entitled ‘ The Life 
and Actions of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel and Surrey.’ The 
fifth professes to be a full answer to William Lilly’s ‘Monarchy or No 
Monarchy ;’ and the sixth consists of ‘Observations’ upon the incon- 
veniences of the frequent promotions to titles of honour since the 
accession of James I. 

WALKER, REVEREND GEORGE, the heroic defender of Lon- 
donderry, was born of English parents in the county of Tyrone in 
Ireland, and, after being educated in the University of Glasgow, took 
orders in the established Church, and became rector of Donoughmore. 
When King James landed in Ireland after the revolution, Walker 
raised a regiment at his own expense to oppose him. On the approach 
of James to Londonderry, he went out to meet him at the head of a 
body of troops at Long Causeway, but after a resolute defence was 
obliged to retire into the town, which he found Lundie, the governor, 
preparing in all haste to leave. Destitute as the place was of all 


apparent means of standing a siege, Walker and Major PORE who had 


REY. JOHN. 


483 WALKER, 


WALKER, OBADIAH. 484 


succeeded Lundie in the command of the garrison, determined to 
hold out as long as possible, in-the hope that King William would, 
before they were exhausted, be able to throw in supplies by sea. This 
was about the middle of April 1689. The besieged were soon reduced 
to the most terrible extremities. Baker died on the 20th of June, 
and then the sole command devolved on Walker, who however showed 
himself quite equal to the emergency, directing and assisting in every 
operation, preserving the strictest discipline under the most difficult 
circumstances, and dividing himself between the most opposite duties, 
—now heading a sallying party, now reviving the hearts of soldiers and 
citizens by a rousing sermon in the cathedral. The end was, that the 
siege was at last raised, on the 30th of July, by Major-General Kirk 
making his way with three ships over a boom which James had thrown 
acrossthe river. Walker soon after came over to England, and having 
published a narrative of the scenes in which he had been engaged, 
under the title of ‘A True Account of the Siege of Londonderry,’ in 
a quarto pamphlet, he received in November the thanks of the House 
of Commons for his heroic exertions. His account provoked some 
controversy : he defended himself against some of his assailants in a 
vindication published the same year; this was followed by an anony- 
mous ‘Apology for the Failures charged on the Rev. G. Walker's 

rinted Account,’ also 4to, 1689; and that by a ‘ Narrative of the 

iege, &c., by the Rev. John Mackenzie, 4to, 1690, professing to 
rectify Walker’s mistakes, which was answered the same year by a 
friend of Walker, in another quarto pamphlet, entitled ‘Mr. John 
Mackenzie’s Narrative a False Libel.’ Meanwhile Walker, having been 
created D.D. by the University of Oxford, had been nominated by King 
William to the bishopric of Derry; but having resolved to serve 
another campaign before entering upon his episcopal duties, he was 
killed at the battle of the Boyne, on the 1st of July 1690. 

There is in the British Museum a pamphlet of ten pages, entitled 
‘The Substance of a Discourse, being an Encouragement for Protes- 
tants, or a happy prospect of glorious success, &c., occasionally (sic) 
on the Protestants’ victory over the French and Irish Papists before 
Londonderry, in raising that desperate Siege. By Mr. Walker, 
Minister, Governor of the City. London, printed by A. M. in the 
year 1689.’ This was probably a reporter's publication, Prefixed on 
the title-page is a rude wood-cut, which seems to be intended to be 
taken for a portrait of Walker. 

WALKER, REVEREND JOHN, is the author of a work entitled 
‘An Attempt towards recovering an Account of the Numbers and 
Sufferings of the Clergy of the Church of England, Heads of Colleges, 
Fellows, Scholars, &c., who were sequestered, harassed, &c. in the late 
times of the Grand Rebellion ; occasioned by the Ninth Chapter (now 
the Second Volume) of Dr. Calamy’s Abridgement of the Life of Mr. 
Baxter: together with an examination of that Chapter,’ folio, London, 
1714. It contains a long list of subscribers, is dedicated to “The 
Archbishops, Bishops, and Clergy, now assembled in Convocation,” 
and commences with a preface of above 50 pages, in which the author 
gives a very detailed account of his sources of information and the 
extensive researches he had made both in printed books and in public 
and private repositories. The body of the work consists of two parts, 
the first in 204 pp., the second in 486. 

On his title-page the author designates himself ‘M.A., Rector of St. 
Mary’s the More in Exeter, and sometime Fellow of Exeter College, 
in Oxford.’ In Watt’s ‘Bibliotheca’ he is called ‘ Vicar of Ledbury, 
Herefordshire ;’? and there are attributed to him, besides the above- 
mentioned work, two single Sermons, both published in 1710, and 
‘Conscience Displayed, in several Discourses on Acts xxiv. 16,’ 8vo, 
1729. But whether different writers be not confounded in this notice 
may be doubted. In Gorton’s ‘ Biographical Dictionary’ Walker is 
stated to have’ been a native of Devonshire, to have been, after the 
publication of his work on the Sufferings of the Clergy, complimented 
by the University of Oxford with the honorary degree of D.D., and to 
have died at Exeter in 1730. This information professes to be given 
on the authority of the ‘Biographia Britannica;’ but there is no 
account of Walker either in that work or in any of the other collec- 
tions of English biography which we have had an opportunity of 
consulting. 

Walker's ‘ Account of the Sufferings of the Clergy’ has been severely 
attacked for its misstatements and exaggerations by Puritan and dis- 
senting writers. It was replied to soon after its first appearance 
by Dr. Calamy, in a tract entitled ‘The Church and Dissenters com- 
pared as to Persecution ;” and also by the Rev. John Withers, a 
dissenting minister of Exeter. Several of its assertions are disputed 
by Neal, in various passages of his ‘ History of the Puritans;’ and 
there is a general notice of the book in the preface to the third volume 
of that work, published in 1735, in which it is denounced as written 
“ with notorious partiality, and in language not fit for the lips of a 
clergyman, a scholar, or a Christian.” It must be admitted that 
Walker was a man of a coarse and violently prejudiced mind, without 
any critical judgment, and with little learning or ability of any kind : 
he boasts indeed’ of his unusual ignorance of the history of the time 
to which his work relates when he undertook its compilation, as rather 
a qualification for the task; and with all his parade of inquiry and 
preparation, it is evident that, partly from incompetency, partly from 
haste, he has set down many things upon very insufficient authority. 
His style is illiterate to the point of barbarism, and he complains 


pathetically of the laborious occupation he found writing for the press 
to be. Yet, after all deductions that may justly be made from the 
value of his book, it must be allowed to have preserved much curious 
information that in all probability would otherwise have been lost. 
Walker makes the entire number of the episcopal clergy who were 
“imprisoned, banished, and sent a starving,” to have amounted to 
seven or eight thousand. ug 

WALKER, JOHN, was born at Colney-Hatch, in the parish of Friern- 
Barnet, Middlesex, 18th March 1732, and was brought up to trade, but 
adopted the profession of an actor, which he followed with no great 
success till 1767, when he quitted the stage, and joined Mr. James 
Usher in establishing a school at Kensington Gravel-pits. This 
nership lasted only about two years, after which Walker set up for 
himself as a teacher of elocution, and soon became y distingui 
in that capacity. Not confining his instructions to the metropolis, he 
visited Scotland; Ireland, and various provincial towns, especially 
Oxford, where early in his career the heads of houses invited him to 
give a course of private lectures in the University. He soon also 
began to employ the aid of the press in disseminating what he con- 
sidered to be correct views on the art which he professed. The settle- 
ment of the pronunciation of the English language upon analogical. 
principles, and according to the best usage, was inly 
by Walker more systematically than by any preceding writer; and his 
various works, characterised as they all are by good sense and careful 
inquiry, as well as a respectable amount of information, cannot be 
denied to have done considerable service in that matter. His first 
publication was a prospectus of his Pronouncing Dictionary, under the 
title of ‘A General Idea of a Pronouncing Dictionary of the English 
Language,’ which he printed in quarto in 1772. This was followed in 
1775 by ‘A Dictionary of the English Language, answering at once 
the purposes of rhyming, spelling, and pronouncing;’ afterwards 
reprinted, at- least twice, under the title of ‘A Rhyming Dicti 
...... in which the whole Language is arranged according to its 
Terminations, &c. In 1781 appeared his ‘ Elements of Elocution,’ 
which has gone through many editions. In 1783 he published a- 
pamphlet, entitled ‘Hints for Improvement in the Art of 4 
The greater part of this tract he afterwards incorporated in his ‘ Rhe- 
torical Grammar,’ first published in 1785, and since often reprinted, as 
well as his ‘Academic Speaker,’ and two or three other similar com- 
pilations. In 1787 he published a small 8vo tract of 70 pages, entitled 
‘The Melody of Speaking delineated, or Elocution taught, like Music, 
by visible Signs;’ which is not much known. His ‘ Critical Pronoun- 
cing Dictionary, and Expositor of the English Language,’ the work 
which had occupied most of his attention, and upon which his repu- 
tation principally rests, first appeared in 1791. It has been eminently 
successful, having since gone through some thirty editions, and havin 
superseded all other previous works of the same nature. Several o 
the later editions contain also his ‘ Key to the Classical Pronunciation 
of Greek, Latin, and Scriptural Proper Names,’ which was first pub- 
lished a few years after the Dictionary, and of which there are also 
many editions in a separate form. His last publication was his‘Out- 
lines of English Grammar,’ which appeared in 1805. Mr. Walker, 
who was brought up a Presbyterian, but became a Roman Catholic, } 
and a very strict one, in his latter days, died on the lst of August 
1807, and was buried among his co-religionists in Old St. Pancras 
church-yard, London. ; 

WALKER, OBADIAH, was born at Worsbrough, near Barnesley, 
in the West Riding of Yorkshire, probably in the year 1616, and was 
educated at University College, Oxford, where he took his degree of 
M.A. in July 1635, and was chosen Fellow of his college in August 
following. In April 1638, he took his master’s degree, and entered 
into holy orders. Becoming now very distinguished as a college tutor, — 
he remained at Oxford till he was expelled from his fellowship by the 
parliamentary visitors in May 1648; on which he retired to Rome, 
On the Restoration he was reinstated in his fellowship; but hesoon 
after paid another visit to Rome in the capacity of travelling tutor, 
Returning home in 1665, he might then have been elected master of 
his college, but declined the appointment. He accepted it however on 
the death of Dr. Richard Clayton in 1676, 

Walker's tutors at Oxford had been Mr. Anderson and Mr. Abraham 
Woodhead, both of whom appear to have been then inclined towards 
popery, which Woodhead afterwards openly professed. Their instruction 
and his visits to Rome had pr6bably made Walkera convert to the same 
faith long before his election to the mastership of University College. 
Indeed it is asserted by Anthony Wood that at the time of his Fi 
pointment to this office he was actually assisting Woodward in 
seminary at Hogsdon, or Hoxton, near London, in which young 
men were educated in the Romish religion. It was not however 
1678 that attention was drawn to his principles and conduct by the 
publication of his Latin translation of Sir John Spelman’s Life of — 
King Alfred, which appeared at Oxford in a magnificent folio in 1678. — 
In October of this year, in the ferment excited by the death of Sir 
Edmundbury Godfrey, complaint was made in the House of Commons 
of the dangerous tendency of some of the notes to this work, and also 
of Walker’s connection with the seminary at Hoxton. But no con- 
sequences followed; and, although the matter was mentioned again in 
April 1679, the master of University College remained still un- 
molested, At last, on the accession of James IL. in 1685, Walker 


485 WALKER, ROBERT. 


WALLACE, SIR WILLIAM. 486 


openly declared himself a papist, and, after having paid a visit to 
London, during which he is understood to have been consulted by the 
king on the measures to be taken for restoring the old religion, he not 
only had mass celebrated in his lodgings, but converted two of the rooms 
of his college, forming the lower half of the side of the quadrangle 
next the chapel, into a Romish chapel, which he opened for public use 
on Sunday the 15th of August 1686. He at the same time obtained a 
mandate from the king to sequester the revenue of a fellowship 
towards the maintenance of his priest, and erected a statue of James 
over the inside of the college gate; and the next year he set up a press 
in the back part of his lodgings in the college, under letters-patent 
‘ from his majesty, for the avowed purpose of printing books against 
the established religion. Many tracts, principally written by Wood- 
___- ward, issued in the course of the next two years from this press. 

_ These rash proceedings of course made him a marked man when 
the Revolution came. He left Oxford on the 9th of November 1688; 
andon the llth of December following, he, Andrew Pulton, a Jesuit, 
and others, put themselves into a coach at London, in the hope of 
making their escape to France; but hearing that the populace in Kent 
were seizing all papists that attempted to leave the kingdom, the 
_ party turned back. They were however pursued, seized, and carried 
first to Feversham, and thence to London, where Walker was com- 

mitted to the Tower. On the 4th of February following, the vice- 
chancellor and doctors of the University declared him no longer 

master of University College; and on the 15th of the same month 
_ his place was filled up by the election of Edward. Ferrer, the senior 
fellow. 

On the 25th of October Walker was brought up by habeas corpus to 
Westminster Hall, and sued for bail; but he was immediately sent for, 
with other prisoners in the same circumstances, to the bar of the 
House of Commons ; and the result of his examination there, in which 
he denied that he had ever altered his religion, the principles which 
he now professed being, he said, the same which had been taught him 

in his youth by his tutor Mr. Anderson, was that he was remanded to 

the Tower on a charge of treason. But on the 81st of January 1690, 
being again brought up to the court of King’s Bench, he was allowed to 

give bail and was set at liberty; nor was he further troubled, although 

he was excepted out of the Act of Pardon soon after passed (the 2 
Will, & Mar., sess. 1, c. 10). He spent the remainder of his days in 
retirement, and partly abroad; but he died at London, on the 2lst of 
January 1692, in the house of Dr, Radcliffe, who was one of his old 

upils, and by whom he had been some time principally supported. 

was buried, at Radcliffe’s expense, in old St. Pancras churchyard, 
the common place of interment of London Roman Catholics of the 
upper classes. 

Walker, who is admitted on all hands to have been a man of learn- 
ing and talent, is the author of various works, of which the principal 
are, ‘A brief Account of Ancient Church Government,’ Lond., 4to, 
1662; a 12mo. tract, entitled ‘Of Education, especially of Young 
Gentlemen,’ first printed at Oxford in 1673, and for the fourth time in 
1683; a Latin treatise on Lozic, entitled ‘ Artis Rationis, maxima ex 
sche ad Mentem Nominalium, Libri Tres,’ Oxford, 8vo, 1673 ; ‘ Some 

nstructions concerning the Art of Oratory,’ 2nd edition, Oxford, 4to, 

1682; ‘ An Historical Narration of the Life and Death of Our Saviour 
Jesus Christ,’ Oxford, 4to, 1685 (the sale of which was prohibited by the 
vice-chancellor of the University, on the ground of the alleged popish 

tendency of some things in it); ‘Some Instructions in the Art of 

Grammar,’ Lon. 8vo, 1691; and ‘ The Greek and Roman History illus- 

trated by Coins and Medals,’ Lon., 8vo, 1692; a work which formerly 

had a high reputation. 

WALKER, ROBERT, a clever English portrait-painter contemporary 
with Vandyck, and the principal painter employed by Cromwell. 
Walker painted several portraits of Cromwell, and those of most of his 
officers, military and naval. One of these portraits of Cromwell is 
now in the Pitti Palace at Florence. It was purchased by the reigning 
-grand-duke in Cromwell’s lifetime for 5007.: he sent a person to 
England for the express purpose of procuring a portrait of the Pro- 
tector. Theagent had much difficulty in procuring one to his satis- 
faction; but he at last found this by Walker, in the possession of a 
lady who was related to Cromwell, and who, being unwilling to sell 
the picture, in order to get rid of the importunity of the agent, 
asked him what appeared to her the exorbitant sum of 5001. forit. The 
amount was however immediately paid, and she was obliged to part 
with her picture. A portrait by Walker of the Protector (half-length) in 
armour, and holding a truncheon in his hand, is in the British Museum ; 
of this portrait Mr. J. Tollemache has a duplicate. Another was in 
_ the possession of Lord Mountford, at Horseth in Cambridgeshire, to 
_ whom it was given by Mr. Commissary Greaves, who found it at an 
inn in that county. There is a gold chain upon Cromwell’s neck, to 
which is appended a gold medal with three crowns, the arms of 
Sweden, and a pearl: it was sent to him by Christina of Sweden in 
return for his picture by Cooper, on which Milton wrote a Latin 
epigram. Another was in the possession of the earl of Essex at 
Cashiobury; and another in Lord Bradford’s collection, with the 
portrait of Lambert in the same piece. 

“From one of R. Symondes’s pocket-books,” says Walpole, “in 
which he has set down many directions in painting that had been 
«communicated to him by various artists, he mentions some from 


Walker, and says the latter received ten pounds for the portrait of 
Mr, Thomas Knight's wife to the knees; that she sat thrice to him, 
four or five hours at a time. That for two half-lengths of philosophers, 
which he drew from poor old men, he had ten pounds each in 1652 ; 
that he paid twenty-five pounds for the Venus putting on her Smock 
(by Titian), which was the king’s, and valued it at sixty pounds, as he 
was told by Mrs. Boardman, who copied it, a paintress of whom I find 
no other mention; and that Walker copied Titian’s famous Venus, 
which was purchased by the Spanish ambassador, and for which the 
king had been offered 2,500/. He adds, Walker cries up De Critz for 
the best painter in London.” 

Walker had for some time apartments in Arundel House: he died a 
little before the Restoration. There is a portrait of him by himself in 
the picture-gallery at Oxford, and there was another at Leicester 
House: there is also a good print of Walker, holding a drawing, by 
Lombart. Wadham College possesses a portrait of Blake—said to be the 
only portrait of the great admiral—by Walker. Walpole speaks of a 
capital half-length of General Monk at the countess of Montrath’s, 
Twickenham Park, which he supposes to be by Walker: he mentions 
also by this painter a fine whole-length, sitting in a chair, of Keble, 
keeper of the great seal in 1650. Buckeridge says that Walker's works, 
by their life, best speak their own praises. His portrait of Cromwell 
in the Pitti Palace is painted in a masterly style: in the catalogue of 
that gallery this picture is incorrectly attributed to Sir Peter Lely. 

WALLACE, SIR WILLIAM. ‘The life and exploits of this most 
popular national hero of the Scots have been principally preserved in 
a legendary form by poetry and tradition, and are only to a very 
small extent matter of contemporary record or illustrated by authentic 
documents. There is no extant Scottish chronicler of the age of 
Wallace. Fordun, the earliest of his countrymen from whom we 
have any account of him, is his junior by nearly a century. Wynton, 
the next authority, is still half a century later. His chief celebrator 
is the metrical writer Blind Harry, or Harry the Minstrel, whose work 
confesses itself by its very form to be quite as much a fiction as a 
history, and whose era at any rate is supposed to be nearly two cen- 
turies subsequent to that of his hero. Some few facts however may 
be got out of the English annalists Trivet and Hemingford, who were 
the contemporaries of Wallace. 

There are contradictory statements of the year of his birth, but it 
is probable that he was born about 1270. His family was one of some 
distinction, and he is said to have been the younger of the two sons of 
Sir Malcolm Wallace of Elderslie and Auchinbothie, in the neighbour- 
hood of Paisley. His mother, who, according to one account was Sir 
Malcolm’s second wife, is stated by:the genealogists to have been 
Margaret, daughter of Sir Raynald or Reginald (other authorities say 
Sir Hugh) Crawford, who held the office of sheriff of Ayr. 

The history of Wallace down to the year 1297 is entirely legendary, 
and only to be found in the rhymes of Harry the Minstrel; though 
many of the facts which Harry relates also still live as popular tradi- 
tions in the localities where the scenes of them are laid, whether 
handed down in that way from the time when they happened, or only 
derived from his poem, which long continued to be the chief literary 
favourite of the Scottish peasantry. Harry, who, it may be observed, 
professes to translate from a Latin account written by Wallace’s 
intimate friend and chaplain, John Blair, makes him to have been 
carefully educated by his uncle, a wealthy churchman, who resided at 
Dunipace, in Stirlingshire, and to have been afterwards sent to the 
grammar-school of Dundee, Here his first memorable act is said to 
have been performed, his slaughter of the son of Selby, the English 
governor of the castle of Dundee, in chastisement of an insult offered 
him by the unwary young man: Wallace struck him dead with his 
dagger on the spot. This must have happened, if at all, in the year 
1291, after Edward I. of England had obtained possession of all the 
places of strength throughout Scotland on his recognition as Lord 
Paramount by the various competitors for the crown, which had become 
vacant by the death of the infant Margaret, the Maiden of Norway, in 
September, 1290. 

This bold deed committed by Wallace, who in making his escape is 
asserted to have laid several of young Selby’s attendants as low as 
their master, was immediately followed by his outlawry. He now 
took to the woods, and gifted as he was with eloquence, sagacity, and 
other high mental powers and accomplishments (to this the testimony 
of Fordun is as express and explicit as that of his poetical biographer), 
not less than with strength and height of frame and all other personal 
advantages, he soon found himself at the head of a band of attached as 
well as determined followers, who under his guidance often harassed 
the English soldiery, both on their marches and their stations, 
plundering and slaying, as it might chance, with equally little remorse. 
Particular spots in nearly every part of Scotland are still famous for 
some deed of Wallace and his fellow-outlaws performed at this period 
of his life; but for these we must refer to the Blind Minstrel. The 
woods in the neighbourhood of Ayr would seem to have been his 
chief haunt; and some of his most remarkable feats of valour were 
exhibited in that town, in the face and in defiance of the foreign 
garrison by which it was occupied. Both his father and his elder 
brother ‘are said to have fallen in rencontres with the English during 
this interval. It was now also that he fell in love with the orphan 
daughter of Sir Hew de Bradfute, the heiress of Lamington, haying, it 


487 WALLACE, SIR WILLIAM. 


488 


WALLACE, SIR WILLIAM. 


is said, first seen her at. a church in the neighbourhood of Lanark. 
The Scotch writers affirm that this lady, whom he appears to have 
married, and who at any rate bore bim a daughter, a year or two 
after forming her connection with Wallace fell into the hands of bis 
enemies, and was barbarously executed by order of Hazelrig, the 
English sheriff or governor of Lanark, while her husband, or lover, 
was doomed to witness the spectacle from a place where he lay in 
concealment. Such private injuries were well fitted to raise his public 
hatred to an unextinguishable flame, 

How far the guerilla warfare maintained by Wallace and his asso- 


ciates contributed to excite and spread the spirit of resistance to the , 


English government, we have scarcely the means of judging; but it 
seems probable that it aided materially in producing the general insur- 
rection which broke out in the spring of 1297. The accounts we have 
of the commencement of that movement represent Wallace at its head, 
in command of a considerable force, and in association with some of 
the most distinguished persons in the kingdom, such as the Stewart of 
Scotland and his brother, Wishart, bishop of Glasgow, Sir William 
Douglas, &c. Soon after this he was joined by the younger Robert 
Bruce (afterwards King Robert I.), who had hitherto, as well as his 
father, still alive (the son of the original competitor for the crown), 
professed to adhere to the English king. 

This however appears to have been but an ill-cemented confederacy. 
When the force despatched by Edward to quell the revolt presented 
itself before the Scottish army posted near Irvine, in Ayrshire, the 
leaders of the latter, throwing off the authority of their nominal chief, 
could no more agree what to do than whom to obey; and the result 
was that Bruce, the Stewart, Douglas, and others of them, availing 
themselves of the diplomatic talents of the bishop of Glasgow, con- 
cluded a treaty on the 9th of July, by which they agreed to acknow- 
ledge Edward as their sovereign lord. All the rest ultimately acceded 
to this arrangement, except only Wallace and his friend Sir Andrew 
Moray of Bothwell. The treaty of Irvine, which is printed by Rymer, 
is, we believe, the first of the few public documents in which mention 
is made of Wallace: to the instrument (which is in French) are sub- 
joined the words, ‘Escrit & Sir Willaume;’ the meaning of which 
Lord Hailes conceives to be, “ that the barons had notified to Wallace 
that they had made terms of accommodation for themselves and their 
party.” The words moreover, on the supposition that they refer to 
Wallace, of which there seems to be little doubt, show that he had 
before this date obtained the honour of knighthood. It had probably 
been bestowed upon him (as was then customary) by some other 
knight, one of his companions in ams, since his elevation from being 
the captain of a band of outlaws to be the commander-in-chief of the 
national forces. 

Wallace now retired to the north, carrying with him however a 
considerable body of adherents, to whom additional numbers rapidly 
gathered, so that he soon found himself in a condition to recommence 
aggressive operations. Directing his force on the north-eastern coast, 
he surprised the castle of Dunottar, cleared Aberdeen, Forfar, Brechin, 
and other towns of their English garrisons, and then laid siege to the 
castle of Dundee. While he was engaged in this last attempt, news 
was brought that the English army was approaching Stirling; upon 
which, leaving the siege to be carried on by the citizens of Dundee, he 
hastened to meet the enemy in the field. The result was the complete 
defeat and rout of the English at the battle of Stirling Bridge, fought 
on the 11th of September 1297—a battle which once more, for the 
moment, liberated Scotland. The English were immediately driven 
or on from every piace of strength in the country, including Berwick 
itself. 

Availing himself of this panic, and of the exhilaration of his country- 
men, Wallace pursued the fugitives across the border; and putting 
himself at the head of a numerous force, he entered England on the 
18th of October, and remaining till the 11th of November, wasted the 
country with fire and sword from sea to sea, and as far south as to the 
walls of Newcastle. It was during this visitation that the prior and 
convent of Hexham obtained from him the protection preserved by 
Hemingford. It is dated at Hexildesham (Hexham), the 7th of No- 
vember, and runs in the names of “ Andreas de Moravia, et Wilhelmus 
Wallensis, duces exercitus Scotiae, nomine praeclari principis Joannis, 
Dei gratia, Regis Scotiae illustris, de consensu communitatis regni 
ejusdem,” that is, “ Andrew Moray and William Wallace, commanders- 
in-chief of the army of Scotland, in the name of King John, and by 
consent of the community of the said kingdom.” The John here 
acknowledged as king of Scotland, was Baliol, now in the hands of 
Edward, and living in a sort of free custody in the Tower of London. 
Wallace's associate in the command was the young Sir Andrew Moray, 
son of his faithful friend of that name who had retired with him from 
tele of Irvine, and who had fallen at the battle of Stirling 
ridge. 

One of the most curious of the few public papers in which the name 
of Wallace occurs, was afew years since discovered by Dr. Lappen- 
burg of Hamburg, in the archives of the ancient Hanseatie city of 
Liibeck. It isa letter, in Latin, addressed to the authorities of Liibeck 
and Hamburg, informing them that their merchants should now have 
free access to all the ports of the kingdom of Scotland, seeing that the 
said kingdom, by the favour of God, had been recovered by war from the 
power of the English, The letter is dated ‘apud Badsingtonam [the 


true word, it has been suggested, is probably Haddingtonam], the 11th 
of October, 1297, that is, a few days before the invasion of Cumberland 
and Northumberland. It is in the name of “ Andreas de Moravia et 
Willelmus Wallensis, duces exercitus regni Scotiae, et communitas 
eiusdem regni”—like the Hexham protection—but without any men- 
tion of King John: the letter is printed in the Appendix to ‘The 
Life of Sir William Wallace, by John D. Carrick,’ 8vo, London, 1840, 
p- 113. 

After his triumphal return from bis incursion into England, Wallace 
assumed the title of Guardian of the Kingdom in the name of King 
John, whether formally invested with that dignity or only hailed as 
such by the gratitude of his country. In a charter, printed in Ander- 
son’s ‘ Diplomata,’ conferring the constabulary of Dundee on Alexan- 
der Skirmischur [Scrimgeour] and his heirs, and dated at Torphichen 
(in the county of Linlithgow) the 29th of March 1298, he styles him- 
self * Willelmus Walays miles, Custos Regni Scotiae, et ductor exer- 
cituum ejusdem, nomine praeclari principis Domini Johannis, Dei gratia 
Regis Scotiae illustris, de consensu communitatis ejasdem.” The 
grant is stated to have been made with the consent and approbation 
of the nobility (“ per consensum et assensum magnatum dicti regni”), 

But this supreme elevation did not last long. Supported only by 
his own merits and the admiration and attachment of his humbler 
fellow-countrymen, Wallace, a new man, and without family connection, 
would probably have found it difficult or impossible to retain his high 
place, even if he had had nothing more to contend with than domestic 
jealousy and dissatisfaction. Fordun relates that many of the nobility 
were in the habit of saying, “ We will not have this man to rule over 
us.” Meanwhile the energetic English king, who had been abroad 
when the defeat of Stirling Bridge lost him Scotland, had now returned 
home, and was already on his march towards the borders, at the head 
of a powerful army. A body of English, which had landed in the 
north of Fife, led by Aymer de Vallois, earl of Pembroke, is said by 
the Scottish authorities to have been attacked and routed by Wallace 
on the 12th of June 1298, in the forest of Blackironside, in that 
county ; but when the two main armies met on the 22nd of July, in 
the neighbourhood of Falkirk—the Scots commanded by Wallace, the 
English by their king in person—the former, after a gallant and obsti- 
nate resistance, were at last forced to give way, and the battle ended 
in a universal rout accompanied with immense slaughter. 

This defeat did not put an end to the war; but it was taken adyan- 
tage of by the Scottish nobility to deprive Wallace of his office of 
guardian or chief governor of the kingdom. The Scottish accounts 
say that he voluntarily resigned the supreme power; it is certain, at 
any rate, that Bruce, his rival Comyn, and Lamberton, bishop of St. 
Andrews, were now appointed joint guardians of Scotland, still in the 
name of Baliol. 
are slight and obscure; but he appears to have returned with a chosen 
band of followers to the practice of the desultory warfare in which he 
had originally distinguished himself. The legendary histories continue 
to detail his deeds of prowess performed in harassing the enemy both 
on their marches and in their camps and strongholds, And to fill up 
the story they also make him to have paid two visits to France—the 
first in 1300, the second in 1302. The next well-ascertained fact 
regarding him is, that when the Scottish leaders were at last obliged 
to submit to Edward at Strathorde, on the 9th of February 1304, 
Wallace was not included in the capitulation, one of the clauses of 
which (printed in the original French in Ryley’s ‘ Placita Parlamen- 
taria’), is to the effect that as for Wallace (Monsieur Guillaume de 
Galeys), he might if he pleased give himself up to the king’s mercy 
(“qu'il se mette en la volunté et en la grace nostre seigneur le Roy, 
si lui semble que bon soit”). He was soon after summoned to appear 
before a parliament, or convention of Scotch and English nobility, 
held at St Andrews; and upon their not presenting themselves, he 
and Sir Simon Frisel or Fraser were pronounced outlaws. For some 
time his retreat remained undiscovered, although his active hostility 
still continued occasionally to make itself felt. A principal person 
employed in the attempts to capture him appears to have been Ralph 
de Haliburton; but how he was actually taken is not known. Sir 
John Menteith (a son of Walter Stewart, earl of Menteith), to whose 
treachery his delivery to the English king is attributed by Blind Harry 
and popular tradition, appears to have really done nothing more than 
forward him to England after he was brought a prisoner to Dumbarton 
Castle, of which Menteith was governor under a commission from 
Edward. Mr. Carrick, who has attempted to refute what is said upon 
this matter by Lord Hailes, has taken no notice of the further vindi- 
cation of Sir John Menteith in Mr. Mark Napier’s ‘ Memoirs of John 
Napier of Merchiston,’ 4to, Edinburgh, 1834, pp. 527, &c.,, and in 
‘Tracts, Legal and Historical,’ by J. Riddell, Esq., 8vo, Edinburgh, 
1835, pp. 145-149, 4 

On being brought to London, Wallace was lodged in the house of 
William Delect, a citizen, in Fenchurch-street ; and on the next day, 
being the eve of St. Bartholomew, he was brought on horseback to 
Westminster, and in the hall there, “ being placed on the south bench,” 
says Stow, “ crowned with laurel, for that he had said in times past 
that he ought to bear a crown in that hall,” he was arraigned as a 
traitor, and on that charge found guilty, and condemned to death, 
After being dragged to the usual place of execution—the Elms in 


West Smithfield—at the tails of horses, he was there hanged onahigh 


For some years after this our accounts of Wallace 


a 2 


<= 


a ae SS 


wy 


‘himself master of their contents. 


489 WALLACE, WILLIAM. 


WALLENSTEIN. 490 


gallows on the 28rd of August 1305, after which he was “drawn and | 
quartered ”’—the usual punishment of persons convicted of treason. 
His right arm was set up at Neweastle, his left at Berwick, his right 
leg at Perth, his left at Aberdeen; his head on London Bridge. 
Wallace’s daughter by the heiress of Lamington married Sir William 
Bailie of Hoprig, whose descendants through her inherited the estate 
of Lamington. : 

WALLACE, WILLIAM, a mathematician of eminence, was born 
on the 23rd of September 1768, at Dysart, in Fifeshire, N.B., in which 
town his father, a manufacturer of leather, had settled. He received 
the rudiments of education at a dame’s school in his native town, and 
at seven years of age he was sent to aschool in which, under a master, 
he acquired the power of writing; but to his father he was indebted 
for instruction in arithmetic. In 1784 his father, after the failure of 
his business at Dysart, having gone with his family to reside at Edin- 
burgh, he was placed with a bookbinder in that city, to whom soon 
afterwards he was bound as an apprentice. Without any encourage- 
ment from his master, the youth derived some advantage from the 
opportunities which occasionally presented themselves of perusing the 
books which he was employed to bind; and having besides found 
means to purchase some mathematical works, he succeeded in making 
It is said that before he was 
twenty years of age he had acquired a knowledge of elementary 


- geometry and trigonometry, algebra with fluxions, conic sections, and 


astronomy. 

About the same time he became acquainted with a man who was 
employed by Dr. Robison as an assistant in making the experiments 
by which the subjects of his lectures were exemplified ; and when the 
term of his apprenticeship expired he accepted the offer of this person 
to introduces him to that distinguished professor. Dr. Robison finding, 
after an examination, that the young man had attained to considerable 
proficiency in mathematical science, and being made acquainted with 
his humbie condition in life, kindly permitted him to attend the course 
of lectures on natural philosophy which was then about to commence, 
of which permission he thankfully availed himself. Dr. Robison soon 
afterwards proposed to him to give lessons in geometry to one of his 
own pupils; he also introduced him to Professor Playfair, who, taking 
an interest in his welfare, contributed both by advice and by loans of 
books to facilitate his progress in acquiring a knowledge of the higher 
branches of mathematics, In the hope of obtaining more time for the 
prosecution of his studies, Wallace accepted the situation of ware- 
houseman in a printing-oflice ; and while engaged in this employment 
he acquired, with the assistance of a student in the university, a 
knowledge of Latin, and soon afterwards he began the study of the 
French language. He subsequently became a shopman to one of the 
principal booksellers of Edinburgh, and while holding this situation 
he gave lessons occasionally in the evenings in mathematics. 

In 1793 his inereasing love for science, and a desire to have greater 
opportunities of cultivating it, led him to resign his employment and 
become a private teacher of mathematics; he however followed this 
occupation about a year only (during which time he attended the 
lectures of Professor Playfair and a course of lectures on chemistry), 
for in 1794 he was appointed assistant teacher of mathematics in the 
Academy at Perth. He married soon afterwards, and during the 
vacations he regularly visit:d Edinburgh, where his talents procured 
him an introduction to the distinguished scientific men of that city. 
Mr. Wallace continued to fulfil the duties of his appointment at Perth 
during nine years: but in 1803 he was appointed one of the mathe- 
matical masters in the Royal Military College, which had then recently 
been formed at Great Marlow, in Buckinghamshire. The institution 
was afterwards removed to Sandhurst, in Berkshire; and at both 
places he performed the duties of his post greatly to the satisfaction of 
the persons in authority. In 1818 it was determined that a half-yearly 
course of lectures on practical astronomy should be given for the 
benefit of the students, and that these should be combined with 
instruction on the manner of making celestial observations ; for these 
purposes the plan of a small observatory was furnished by. Dr. 
Robison, of Oxford, and Mr. Wallace, who was appointed to deliver 
the lectures, superintended the details of its construction. Such 
instruments were provided as suffice for the object proposed ; and it 
may be said that the establishment of a course of astronomy at the 
college has contributed materially to the efficiency of military officers 


_ holding staff appointments abroad. 


In the following year the death of Professor Playfair and the appoint- 
ment of Mr. (Sir John) Leslie to succeed him in the chair of Natural 
Philosophy at Edinburgh, left a vacancy in the chair of Mathematics ; 
and Mr. Wallace, whose highest ambition had always been to obtain a 
professorship in a Scottish university, immediately became a candidate 
for the post. He was elected, after a severe contest, by a majority of 
votes, and he held the appointment till 1838, when, on account of ill 
health, he resigned it. On this occasion the university conferred on 
him the honorary title of Doctor of Laws, and he received from 
government a persion in consideration of his attainments in science, 
as well as of his services in the Military College and at the University 
‘of Edinburgh. 

Mr. Wallace died at Edinburgh, respected and regretted, on the 
28th of April 1843, and consequently in the seventy-fifth year of his 


age, after an illness which for several years had prevented hin from 


entering into society. He had been a Fellow of the Royal Astrono- 
mical Society from the time of its formation: he was also a Fellow of 
the Royal Society of Edinburgh, a corresponding member of the 
Institution of Civil Engineers, an honorary member of the Cambridge 
Philosophical Society, and a few weeks before his death he was elected 
an honorary member of the Royal Irish Academy. 

In 1796 he presented to the Royal Society of Edinburgh his first 
paper, which was entitled ‘ Geometrical Porisms, with Examples of 
their Applications to the Solution of Problems;’ it contains some new 
porismatic propositions, investigated according to the method of the 
ancient geometers, and affords proof of considerable inventive power. 


-About the same time he contributed the article ‘Porism’ to the third 


edition of the ‘ Encyclopedia Britannica,’ In 1802 he presented to the 
Royal Society of Edinburgh a paper containing a new method of 
expressing the co-efficients in the development of the formula which 
represents the mutual perturbation of two planets; and, in an appen- 
dix, he gave a quickly converging series for the rectification of an 
ellipse. In one point the subject ofthe paper had been previously 
investigated by Le Gendre, but the works of that great mathematician 
were then little known in this country, and apparently Mr. Wallace 
had not seen them. Six years afterwards he presented to the same 
society a third paper, entitled ‘ New Series for the Quadrature of the 
Conic Sections, and the Computation of Logarithms,’ which contains 
some remarkable formule for the rectification of circular ares and the 
sectors of equilateral hyberbolas, and for computing logarithms. In 
1823 he presented a paper on the ‘Investigation of Formule for finding 
the Logarithms of Trigonometrical Quantities from one another;’ and 
in 1831 one entitled ‘Account of the Invention of the Pantograph, 
and a description of the Eidograph,’ the latter being an instrument 
which he had invented in 1821. In 1839 he gave a paper on the 
‘ Analogous Properties of Elliptic and Hyperbolic Sectors ;’ and his 
last contribution to the society was one entitled ‘Solution of a Fune- 
tional Equation, with its Application to the Parallelogram of Forces, 
and the Curve of Equilibration :’ this paper, which was published in 
vol. xiv, of the ‘Transactions,’ contains a table to ten decimal places 
of the values of the ordinates and arcs of a catenary. Mr. Wallace 
contributed to the ‘ Transactions of the Royal Astronomical Society’ 
a paper entitled ‘Two Elementary Solutions of Kepler’s Problem by 
the Angular Calculus,’ which is published in the volume for 1836; 
and in the sixth volume of the ‘Transactions of the Cambridge Philo- 
sophical Society’ there is a paper by him under the title of ‘ Geo- 
metrical Theorems and Formule, particularly applicable to some 
Geodetical Problems.’ In 1838, while suffering from sickness, he 
composed a work on the same subject, which he dedicated to his friend 
Colonel Colby. 

In his early life Mr. Wallace was a contributor to Leybourne’s 
‘Mathematical Repository’ and ‘ The Gentleman’s Mathematical Com- 
panion;’ he also wrote the principal mathematical articles for the 
‘Edinburgh Encyclopedia,’ and for the fourth edition of the ‘ Ency- 
clopeedia Britannica,’ 

WALLENSTEIN. Atsrecut WenzeL Evsksius, DUKE OF MECK- 
LENBURG, FRIEDLAND, and SAGAN, COUNT OF WALDSTEIN, commonly 
called WALLENSTEIN, was the third son of Wilhelm, baron von 
Waldstein, and Margaret Smirricka, baroness Smirricz. He was born 
in his father’s castle of Hermanic, in Bohemia, on the 15th of 
September 1583. The family of Waldstein, as the name indicates, is 
of German origin, and had belonged to the high nobility (Herrenstand) 
of Bohemia from the 13th century. In 1290 a knight or lord named 
Waldstein appeared at the court of King Ottokar of Bohemia, accom- 
panied by his four-and-twenty sons, who, down to the youngest, bore 
coats of arms and the armour of knights. 

From his earliest youth Albrecht von Waldstein showed a spirit of 
independence and haughtiness which often exposed him to the 
reproaches of his parents. He was only seven when, being chastised 
by his mother for a boyish fault, he cried out indignantly, ‘‘ Why, am 
I not a prince? nobody should venture to flog me;” and his uncle 
having once reproached him with being as proud as a prince, he coolly 
answered, “ Was nicht ist kann noch werden” (What is not may be 
yet). His delight was to be in the company of the military friends of 
his father. He lost his mother in 1593, and his father in 1595, and, 
although he was a younger son, he inherited considerable estates. 
The family of Waldstein belonged to the established Protestant church 
of Bohemia (the Utraquists); but this circumstance did not prevent 
Albrecht’s uncle and guardian, Albrecht Slawata, lord of Chlum, a 
Roman Catholic, from putting his ward under the Jesuits at Olmiitz, 
where he was to receive his education. The Jesuits soon succeeded in 
converting young Albrecht, an event which has been adorned with 
much fable. After having finished his education he set out for Italy, 
accompanied by Peter Verdungus, the friend of Kepler, a good mathe- 
matician and a famous astrologer. He continued his studies at Pavia 
and Bologna, where Argoli, the astronomer, taught him the principies 
of the Cabbala. Besides the Cabbala and astrology, Albrecht acquired 
a thorough knowledge of the ancient and almost all European lan- 
guages; of the Roman, the canon, and the German law; and of 
mathematics and other sciences connected with the military art, 
which was always the chief object of his studies. Before he went to 
Italy he stayed some time in the University of Altdorf, where he sig- 
nalised himself by many extrayagances, if we may trust the stories 


491 WALLENSTEIN. 


WALLENSTEIN. 492 


with which credulous contemporaries or later generations have 
disfigured the memory of the most lofty gepius of his time. Argoli 
told him that he would be a great man. Wallenstein believed it. He 
always believed in astrology, and in later years the astrologer Seni was 
one of his principal councillors. 

Anxious to signalise himself by military deeds, Waldstein left Italy 
and went to Hungary, where the imperial armies were fighting against 
the Turks. . At the siege of Gran he was amongst the foremost 
stormers, and his commander-in-chief, General Basta, appointed him 
captain on the walls of the conquered fortress. After the peace of 
Sitvatorok, in 1606, Waldstein returned to Bohemia, and married an 
aged but wealthy widow, Lucretia Nikessin, baroness of Landeck, who 
died in 1614, and left him fourteen large estates in Moravia. During 
his marriage, and till 1617 Waldstein devoted himself exclusively to 
the mandgement of his estates; he proved an excellent farmer; he 
increased his wealth by economy; and he deposited large sums in the 
banking-houses of the Fugger and Welser, at Augsburg, who were 
then the richest merchants in Europe. In 1617 he raised a body of 
200 dragoons, with which he assisted the Archduke Ferdinand of 
Austria, duke of Styria, who was at war with the Venetians; he saved 
the fortress of Gradisca, which was hard pressed by the Venetians ; 
and by paying his soldiers well, and keeping open table, he became the 
idol of the Styrian army. In a short time he saw himself at the head 
of several thousand men, and after the campaign was finished, towards 
the end of 1617, to the advantage of the Archduke Ferdinand, the 
Emperor Matthias made him bis chamberlain and colonel in his armies, 
and soon afterwards created him count. Immediately afterwards he 
married Isabella Catherine, the daughter of Count Harrach, who was 
the favourite of the emperor, who on this occasion conferred upon 
Waldstein the dignity of a count of the Holy Roman Empire. The 
states of Moravia appointed him commander of the Moravian militia ; 
and at the outbreak of the war between the Bohemians and the 
emperor, the Bohemians offered him an independent command in 
their armies. The Protestant members of the family of Waldstein 
were partly among the anti-imperial or Bohemian party ; but Albrecht, 
less from religious than from political motives, refused to make com- 
mon cause with the Bohemians, in consequence of which the Moravian 
states deprived him of his command of the militia, and confiscated his 
estates. Waldstein saved the military chest of Moravia, a considerable 
sum, which he put into the hands of the trustees of the emperor, who, 
to reward him for his services, appointed him quartermaster-general of 
the imperial army, which, in concert with the troops of Maximilian, 
duke of Bavaria, was to take the field against Frederic V., count 
palatine, who had been chosen king by the Bohemians. The counts 
Mansfeld and Thurn having advanced as far as the neighbourhood of 
Vienna, and attacked the imperial general Bouequoi, near Teyn (10th 
of June 1619), Waldstein hastened to the assistance of Boucquoi, 
defeated the enemy, and thus saved the emperor from being made a 
captive in his own capital. In the battle on the Weisse Berg, near 
Prague (Sth of November 1620), the cavalry of Waldstein signalised 
themselves by their impetuous charges, but Waldstein was not present 
at the battle, being obliged by his commission as quartermaster-general 
to procure the necessary supplies for the imperial army. It seems 
that, the resources of the emperor being exhausted, Waldstein gave 
large sums for the support of his master, for which however he got 
an ample indemnification. After the overthrow of King Frederic of 
Bohemia, the estates of his adherents were confiscated, and the greater 
part were either sold by the emperor Ferdinand II, or given as 
rewards to his faithful servants; on many occasions also Ferdinand 
used to combine generosity and interest by selling them ,at a low 
price. The reward of Waldstein was the lordship of Friedland, 
worth about 600,000 gulden, for which he paid 150,000 gulden; and 
he bought more than sixty other lordships and estates, the value of 
which was estimated, at a very low rate, at 7,290,228 gulden, of which 
however Waldstein only paid a part, his sacrifices and services being 
taken into account. As the value of money was then at least three 
times greater than it is now, the amount of the property acquired by 
Waldstein in consequence of the Bohemian war was at least 24,000,000 
gulden (3,000,000/.) according to the present value of money, to which 
must be added the value of his personal estate. 

Waldstein was neither intoxicated by his triumph nor by his wealth, 
In 1621 he took the field against Betlen Gabor, the prince of Transyl- 
vania, who stood on the frontiers of Germany, and was going to effect 
a junction with John George, markgrave of Brandenburg-Jigerndorf, 
who was encamped near Jiigerndorf, in the south-east corner of the 
then province of Silesia. Waldstein successively defeated both his 
adversaries, prevented their junction, and forced Betlen Gabor to sue 
for peace, which was granted on condition that he should give up his 
claim to the crown of Hungary, which he did. During the two 
ensuing years Waldstein was principally occupied with the manage- 
ment of his estates. But Betlen Gabor having again taken up arms 
against the emperor, Waldstein hastened to Hungary, and arrived 
just in time to save the imperial army under the Marquis of Caraffa, 
who was besieged in his camp at Gding, on the frontiers of Moravia, 
by the prince of Transylvania, Count Thurn, and John George of 
Brandenburg-Jiigerndorf. As a reward for his victory, the emperor, 
towards the close of 1623, conferred upon him the title of prince, and 
in the following year, 1624, created him duke of Friedland and prince 


of the Holy Roman Empire, an act which caused much jealousy 
among the other princes of the empire. In 1627 Wallenstein bought 
the sequestrated duchy of Sachan in Silesia for 150,800 gulden, which 
was a little more than one-fourth of its value; and althongh he had 
acquired it as a free estate, he preferred to take it as a fief from the 
emperor, who invested him with it in 1628. tw 

The declaration of war of the Union of Lower Saxony, headed by 
Christian IV., king of Denmark, put the emperor into great embar- 
rassment. His army was partly disbanded, and with his remaining 
troops he was unable to open the campaign, notwithstanding the assist- 
ance of the army of the Ligue, commanded by Tilly: his finances 
were exhausted. Waldstein offered to raise an army of 40,000 men. 
He proposed to raise this force with his own funds, but he said, when 
once in the field, the army would subsist and be paid by ran: 
those hostile provinces through which he should leadthem. After long 
hesitation the emperor agreed to the proposition, and in two months 
Waldstein was at the head of 28,000 men with whom he marched 
towards the Lower Elbe. The renown of his military skill, his wealth, 
and his unbounded liberality towards the soldiers, was so great, that 
men flocked to his camp from all parts of Europe. Germans, French- 
men, Irishmen, Scotchmen, Walloons, Croates, Poles, Hungarians, and 
Cossaks, formed an army of very heterogeneous elements, but the — 
iron hand of their commander kneaded them into a well-united mass. 
His co-operation with Tilly, his victories over Mansfeld, his parallel 
march with this general towards Moravia, where Mansfeld and Betlen 
Gabor projected to join their armies, and the glorious result of this 
campaign for the imperialists, belong to the history of the ‘ pis 
Years’ War.’ The campaign was begun and finished in 1626. Wal 
stein lost 20,000 men by disease and fatigue, but in the beginning of 
1627 he was again at the head of 50,000 men. His second campaign 
from Silesia to Denmark, and his junction with Tilly on the Lower 
Elbe, likewise belong to the general history of the war. We shall 
only allude to the rapidity of his marches and the irresistible force of 
his advances. On the Ist of August 1627, he was at Troppau, which 
he left for Sagan, where he stayed till the 19th for the purpose of 
making the necessary preparations for the memorable campaign which 
he was going to undertake. His army was incumbered by a heavy 
ordnance carried on clumsy carriages, by many women and children, 
by a host of servants and grooms of every description, and he had to 
cross a broad sandy tract where provisions were scarce, and where the 
roads were in their natural state. The towns were occupied by Danish — 
garrisons. Yet once put in motion by the power of his genius, this 
heavy body advanced with irresistible rapidity. On the 21st of August 
Waldstein was at Cottbus; on the 27th at Havelberg; and on the 30th 
he took Domitz in Mecklenburg, after having performed a march of _ 
250 miles in eight days, through a miserable country—a march which __ 
it would be difficult to perform for a modern army unincumbered Ms 
heavy ordnance and moving on excellent roads. On the 27th of Sep- 
tember, his lieutenant, Count Schlick, defeated the Danes near Aalborg — 
in Jiitland, and King Christian saved the remnant of his army by 
flying to his ships and escaping to the Danish islands. Waldstein 
hastened to the Belt, and it is said that, being unable to cross this 
channel for want of ships, in a fit of anger he ordered the sea to be 
bombarded with red-hot bullets. 

The Danish war was finished by the peace of Liibeck (12th of May 
1629). Waldstein’s reward were the duchies of Mecklenburg, with 
which he was invested by the emperor on the 16th of June 1629, after 
the Dukes Adolphus Frederick and John Albrecht had been dispos- 
sessed of them, for felony, by an imperial degree in 1628. “Waldstein 
choose Wismar, the best port for a navy on the southern coast of the 
Baltic, for his residence, and obtained from the emperor the title of 
Admiral of the Baltic and the Oceanic Sea (the German Sea), for __ 
which ignorant historians have charged him with childish vanity. His 
plan was to form a navy with the assistance of the Hanseatic towns, 
and to prevent Gustavus Adolphus, the king of Sweden, from choosing 
Germany for the theatre of his ambition. From the begi of the 
Danish war Waldstein had penetrated the secret views of that king. 
* Bitt,” wrote he to his lientenant Arnim, “der Herr hab fleissig A: 
sicht auf den Schweden, denn er ist ein geftihrlicher Gast ” (“I beg Zou 
sir, to observe well the Swede, for he is a dangerous fellow”). “Dem 
Gustav Adolph soll man keinen Glauben schenken, denn miinniglich 
sagt dass er die Leute gern bei der Nase herumfiihrt” (“You must 
not trust Gustavus Adolphus, for every man says that he likes to lead 
the people by thenose”). Den Schweden will ich gern zum Freunde 
haben, aber dass er nicht zu miichtig ist, denn amor et dominium non 
patitur socium” (“I should wish to have the Swede for my friend, but 
that he should not be too strong, for love and power cannot agree”). 
At a moment when his funds were much exhausted, he ordered 35,000 
dollars to be raised immediately, which he intended to give as areward 
to a ** certain merchant who was to do something in Sweden.” It has 
been pretended that Waldstein had formed the plan of murdering 
Gustavus Adolphus, but there are no grounds for this accusation, and 
it appears that the merchant had proposed to burn the Swedish fleet 
in Karlskrona, The plan was not put into execution. During the 
siege of Stralsund, Waldstein cried out that he would haye the town 
if it were fastened to the sky with iron chains; but he was compalles ¥ 
to abandon the siege. \ ; 

No sooner was Waldstein invested with Mecklenburg, than his 


7. eS se — 


403 , WALLENSTEIN. 


WALLER, EDMUND. 494 


numerous secret enemics changed their calumnies and intrigues into 
open accusations, The Duke of Bavaria, Maximilian, was Waldstein’s 
declared enemy. By the extraordinary success of the imperial arms, 
the power and influence of the Ligue, of which Maximilian was the 
head, had become secondary. Tilly hated Waldstein as his greatest 
rival. The pride of the princes of the empire was hurt by the eleva- 
tion of a general who, though a lord in Bohemia, was only a nobleman 
of lower rank with respect to the nobility of the empire, and yet had 
been raised to the dignity of duke of Mecklenburg; and they re- 
proached him with dispossessing the former dukes of Mecklenburg of 
their estates, an act of injustice however for which the emperor was 
a more blameable than Waldstein. The despotic character of 

aldstein, the haughtiness with which he treated both friends and 
enemies, his rapacity in the provinces either conquered or merely 
oecupied by him, and the greediness ‘of his officers and soldiers, were 
the cause of many charges. Waldstein often endeavoured to stop the 
rapacity of his lieutenants, and he severely punished several Italian 
and Spanish officers, who in revenge called him ‘il tiranno’ (the 
tyrant). To this was added the aversion which Waldstein showed to 
all foreigners, especially Italians and Spaniards, who crowded to the 
court and the army; and his hatred of priests, and principally the, 


‘Jesuits, who were powerful at the imperial court. Maximilian of 


Bavaria, at the head of all the enemies of Waldstein, declared to the 


~emperor that he and all Germany would be ruined if the “dictator 


imperii” remained longer at the head of the imperial armies. Fer- 
dinand, after long hesitation, dismissed Waldstein from his command 
in 1630, at the very moment when Gustavus Adolphus left the coast 
of Sweden for the invasion of Germany. 

Waldstein, without making any complaints, retired to Bohemia, and 
resided alternately at Prague and at Gitschin. He lived with such 
splendour as to make the emperor himself jealous. 

The invasion of Gustavus Adolphus, the defeat of the imperial 
armies at Leipzig, the conquest of Bavaria by the Swedes, and the 
death of Tilly, followed. The empire was on the brink of ruin, and 
there was only one man who could save it. This man was Waldstein. 
When the emperor requested and at last implored him to resume the 
command, he showed that he felt all his importance. After having 
declined the proposition several times, he at last agreed to it on the 
following conditions: that Waldstein should have the sole control of 
the army, which he promised to raise; and there should be no imperial 
authority within his camp; no peace should be concluded without his 
consent; he, as duke of Mecklenburg, being one of the belligerent 
parties ; he should have full power to manceuvre and to take up his 
quarters however and wherever he should find it convenient; that he 
should have the sovereignty of the provinces that he might conquer; 
and that the emperor should give him as reward one of his hereditary 
states (Bohemia ?), of which he should be the sovereign, though as a 
vassal of the emperor. 

The campaign of Waldstein against Gustavus Adolphus has been 
noticed in the article Gustavus Apotruus. It would require the 
knowledge of a consummate general to decide whether Waldstein or 


Gustavus was the greater captain. But from the moment that Wald- 


stein resumed the command, he directed all its operations, and 
Gustavus Adolphus acted under the impressions which he received 
from the plans of Waldstein. Waldstein’s defence of the lines near 
Niirnberg can only be compared with the defence of the lines of 
Torres Vedras by the Duke of Wellington. The march of the King 
of Sweden towards Bavaria, after his fruitless attempt on the lines 
near Niirnberg, was a great fault; and although the king soon per- 
ceived his error, and changed his plan by rapidly following Waldstein, 
this circumstance is another proof of what we have just said. It is 
true that Waldstein lost the battle of Liitzen (6th November 1632), 
but able judges have given it as their opinion that on this occasion 
Waldstein showed his superiority to the king in the choice of the 
battle-field, while the king is said to have showed greater ability in 
the direction of his attacks. But the successful part of these attacks 
was the merit of Duke Bernhard of Saxe-Weimar, the king having 
fallen in the beginning of the battle, while engaged in rallying his 
troops, which were disorganised in consequence of those fruitless 
attacks which he directed. 

As to the military conduct of Waldstein after the battle of Liitzen, 
we shall only add that he punished with death many generals, 
colonels, and inferior officers who had not behaved well in that battle. 
He soon repaired his losses, and his arms were victorious in Saxony 
and Silesia. But his haughtiness became insupportable, and he openly 
manifested his design to make himself a powerful member of the 
empire. This design had been sanctioned by the emperor, as already 
explained. The Jesuits and foreign generals at the court of the 
emperor availed themselves of the inactivity of Waldstein after the 
battle of Liitzen to calumniate him to the emperor; and Waldstein 


- having refused to relieve the Duke of Bavaria, preferring a campaign 


in Silesia, this prince, his old enemy, joined the secret enemies of 
Waldstein. They represented him as designing to overthrow Ferdi- 
nand’s power in Germany, and the emperor was the more ready to 
believe the accusation, as it transpired that France had offered to 
Waldstein to aid him in obtaining the crown of Bohemia; but Wald- 
stein rejected these propositions, and continued to show his earnest 
desire to drive all foreigners out of Germany, enemies as well as 


friends. The emperor ordered him to withdraw from Bohemia and 
Moravia, and to take up his winter-quarters in Lower Saxony (Decem- 
ber 1633); but Waldstein neither would nor could obey this order, 
which he regarded as a violation of the conditions on which he had 
resumed the command. Upon this Maximilian of Bavaria urged the 
emperor to dismiss his disobedient general; and Waldstein, having 
been informed that the emperor had resolved to do it, declared that he 
would resign his command, His faithful lieutenants urged him not 
to abandon them, for they were all creditors of the emperor, who paid 
them very irregularly, and they were sure that they would never be 
paid at all if their commander should resign. In order to prove their 
invariable attachment, they signed a declaration at Pilsen, on the 12th 
of January 1634, in which they promised to stay with Waldstein as 
long as he would be their commander. This is the famous declaration 
which has always been represented as a plot against the emperor. 
Piccolomini, Gallas, and several other Italian and Spanish officers 
availed themselves of the occasion to ruin Waldstein, whose wealth 
they were eager to divide among themselves; and the emperor, believ- 
ing their misstatements, signed an order by which Waldstein was 
deprived of his command and declared a rebel (24th of January). 
Piccolomini and Gallas were commissioned to take Waldstein, dead or 
alive. The order was kept secret, but something transpired, and 
Waldstein, in order to prove his loyalty, relieved his lieutenants from 
their promise to stay with him till the last moment (20th of February), 
On the following day he sent two officers, Colonels Mohrwald and 
Breuner, to the emperor to declare in his name that he was ready to 
resign, and to justify his conduct; but Colonel Butler, an Irishman, 
treacherously informed Piccolomini of it, and the two officers were 
seized and not allowed to see the emperor, who was still deceived by 
the enemies of Waldstein. On the 20th of February the emperor 
ordered Waldstein’s estates to be confiscated; and Pallas and Piccolo- 
mini approached Pilsen for the purpose of surprising Waldstein. 
In this extremity Waldstein took refuge within the walls of Eger ; 
and in order to save his life, sent Duke Franz Albrecht of Saxe-Lauen- 
burg to Duke Bernhard of Weimar, requesting him to re¢eive him 
with a small body of faithful officers and soldiers. Bernhard, as well 
as the Swedish chancellor Oxenstierna, declined the proposition, 
thinking that it was only a trick. During this time Waldstein 
remained in the castle of Eger, He was accompanied by his most 
faithful officers, among whom were Terzky, Kinsky, Illo, Neumann, and 
some traitors, such as Gordon, Butler, and Leslie, who were bribed by 
Piccolomini, and had promised to execute the bloody order of the 
emperor. : 

On the 25th of February, Gordon, who was commandant of Eger, 
gave a splendid entertainment to Waldstein’s officers, at which the 
duke was not present on account of his ill-health. After dinner an 
armed band rushed in, and the friends of Waldstein fell beneath their 
swords, Waldstein heard the cries of the murdered men. He opened 
a window and asked a sentinel what it meant. Suddenly Captain 
Deveroux, at the head of thirty Irishmen, rushed into his apartment; 
and while his men shrunk back at the sight of their great commander, 
who stood before them defenceless and in his night-dress, Deveroux 
advanced and cried out, “‘ Art thou the traitor who is going to ruin 
the emperor?” With these words he lifted his partisan. Waldstein, 
without uttering a word, opened his arms and received the deadly 
blow in his breast. He was always thoughtful, and spoke little, and 
so he was in his last moment: he fell and died silently. 

His wealth was partly divided among his enemies, each of whom 
received a large share, for the revenue of Waldstein was estimated at 
3,000,000 gulden (375,0002., or 1,125,0002. according to the present 
value of money.) Part of his estates were kept by the emperor, who 
paid for 3000 dead masses to be read for the soul of his great general. 

Almost to the present time it has generally been believed that 
Waldstein formed those treasonable schemes of which he was accused 
by his enemies; but the treason of Waldstein has never been proved. 
About thirty years ago, Dr. Friedrich Féster from Berlin discovered 
many autograph letters of Waldstein in the family archives of the 
Count of Arnim, at Boitzenburg, in consequence of which discovery 
he was admitted, by order of the emperor Francis I, to the secret 
part of the archives of the military council at Vienna, which had 
hitherto not been used by the biographers of Waldstein and the 
writers on the Thirty Years’ War. Foster found a considerable 
number of letters, which he published under the title ‘ Waldstein’s 
Briefe, 3 vols. 8vo, Berlin, 1828-29. Having been invited by the 
counts of Waldstein, who are descended from the brothers and uncles 
of Albrecht, to continue his researches, he was enabled to prove the 
complete innocence of Waldstein, and that he had fallen a victim to 
the intrigues of Piccolomini and his party. He published his results 
under the title * Wallenstein, Herzog zu Mecklenburg, Friedland, und 
Sagan, als Feldherr und Landesfiirst,’ &c., 1 vol. 8vo, Potsdam, 1834. 

WALLER, EDMUND, a celebrated English poet, was born on the 
8rd of March, 1605, at Coleshill, in the county of Hertford. His 
father, Robert Waller, Esq., of Agmondesham, or Amersham, in 
Buckinghamshire, in which parish Coleshill is situated, represented a 
branch of an old Essex family, and had in early life followed the pro- 
fession of the law. Edmund was the eldest of several sons and ~ 
daughters, but he was still in his boyhood when his father died, 
leaving him an estate of 3500/. a-year. Waller's mother was Anne 


495 WALLER, EDMUND. 


WALLER, EDMUND. 496 


daughter of Griffith Hampden of Hampden in Buckinghamshire, apd 
aunt of the patriot, who was consequently the poet’s cousin. The 
relationship, if it is to be so called, of Edmund Waller to Cromwell, 
about which there has been some controversy or misconception, con- 
sisted in his uncle, William Hampden, the father of the patriot, 
having married Cromwell's aunt, Elizabeth; so that Hampden the 
patriot was first cousin both to the poet and to the protector. 
(Noble’s ‘Memoirs of the Protectoral House of Cromwell,’ ii. 65-67, 
where however Waller’s estate is erroneously set down at 35,000/ 
per annum, and his father is in one place called Richard, instead of 
Robert.) : 

Waller was educated at Eton, whence he proceeded to King’s College, 
Cambridge. His earliest biographer, the writer of a memoir prefixed 
to the edition of his poems published in 1711, says that he obtained a 
seat in the House of Commons, at the age of sixteen, for the borough 
of Amersham. If so, he would appear to have been returned to the 
third parliament of James I, which met in January 1621, and to 
which this borough of Amersham claimed the right of sending repre- 
sentatives, after having ceased to do so ever since the second year of 
Edward II. The claim was eventually allowed; but it may be 
doubted if Waller, although he may have been elected, was permitted 
to take his seat, or at least was recognised as a member, although he 
may have sat sub silentio, as was then sometimes done. No members 
for Amersham, or for Wendover and Great Marlow, which were 
similarly circumstanced, are given in the common lists of this parlia- 
ment. Whether Waller was returned to the next, James's fourth and 
last parliament, which met in February 1623, is not known ; but it is 
probable that he was. In the first parliament of Charles 1, which 
met in 1625, he was returned for Chipping-Wycombe. It is not 
certain that he sat in the next, which was called together in the 
following year; but he represented Amersham in Charles’s third par- 
liament, which sat from March 1627 to 1628, and also both in the 
short parliament of April 1640, and in the Long Parliament which 
assembled in November of the same year. 

The earliest of Waller’s poems is commonly assumed to have been 
produced towards the end of 1623, when the event which it celebrates 
happened, the escape of the prince (afterwards Charles I.) from being 
shipwrecked in the road of St. Andero, on his return from Spain. Yet 
it certainly was not published till some years later; and not only the 
title, ‘On the danger his Majesty (being Prince) escaped,’ &c., but 
even the verses themselves seem rather to imply that they were not 
composed at the time of the escape. Be this as it may, it is remark- 


able that the style and versification of this poem have quite as much | 


neatness and finish as those of his latest days; so that, as has been 
said by one of his editors, as quoted by Johnson, “ were we to judge 
only by the wording, we could not know what was wrote at twenty 
and what at fourscore.” Dryden has stated (in the preface to his 
* Fables’) that Waller himself attributed the polish and smoothness of 
his versification to his diligent study of Fairfax’s translation of Tasso. 
Clarendon says expressly that “at the age when other men used to 
give over writing verses (for he was uear thirty years when he first 
engaged himself in that exercise, at least that he was known to do so), 
he surprised the town with two or three pieces of that kind; as if a 
tenth Muse had been newly born, to cherish drooping poetry.” In 
truth, there were only two or three of the poems that could have 
been written before his twenty-fifth year. 

Some years before this date he had married Ann, daughter of 
Edward Banks, Esq., a very wealthy citizen of London, having gained 
the heart and hand of the lady against all the interest of the court 
exerted in favour of a rival suitor, By this match he considerably 
augmented his fortune, His wife, after bringing him a son, who died 
young, and a daughter, who when she grew up married Mr. Dormer 
of Oxfordshire, died in childbed, and “left him,” as Johnson says, “a 
widower of about five and twenty, gay and wealthy, to please himself 
with another marriage.” The older accounts make him to have lost 
his wife in 1629 or 1630, 

It could hardly then have been, as is commonly represented, almost 
immediately or very soon after this that he began to pay his addresses to 
the Lady Dorothea Sidney, the eldest daughter of the Earl of Leicester, 
whom he has made famous in many of his love verses under the name 
of Sacharissa, The high-born beauty rejected his suit, and in 1639 
married Henry, lord Spencer, who, in 1643, was created Karl of 
Sunderland, and was killed in September the same year, at the first 
battle of Newbury. As Lord Spencer at the time of his marriage was 
certainly not quite nineteen, it is not probable that his bride could 
have been old enough to be sought in marriage eight or nine years 
before. Sacharissa, who, after the death of her first husband, married 
Mr. Robert Smythe, survived till 1683, Another of Waller's tem- 

orary attachments at this period of his life was to the Lady Sophia 

urray, whom he has celebrated under the poetical name of Amoret. 
At last, soon after the marriage of Sacharissa, but in what year is not 
precisely known, he married a Miss Mary Bresse, or Breaux, of whom 
nothing is recorded, except that she brought him thirteen children, 
five sons and eight daughters, and that she was, according to Aubrey, 
the antiquary, distinguished both by her beauty and her good sense, 

When the government by parliaments was resumed, after an inter- 
ruption of twelve years, in 1640, and Waller found himself again in 
the House of Commons, he joined the party in opposition to the court, 


where, although his fortune, wit, and poetical reputation had made 
him a distinguished figure, he is said to have been always looked upon 
with some suspicion as the near kinsman of Hampden. But his 
temper and position alike withheld him from going very far with the 
reformers or revolutionists; and on the approach of the crisis he 
seceded from his party, and seems to have withdrawn from the House, 
When the king set up his standard at Nottingham, in August, 1642, 
Waller sent him a thousand broad pieces; and, although he soon after 
returned to his place in parliament, he is supposed to have done so by 
his majesty’s permission or direction. In the House he now spoke 
openly on the royal side—“with great sharpness and freedom,” says 
Clarendon, “which, now there was no danger of being outvoted, was 
not restrained ; and therefore used, as an argument against those who 
were gone upon pretence that they were not suffered to deliver their 
opinion freely in the House; which could not be believed, when all 
men knew what liberty Mr. Waller took, and spoke every day with 
impunity against the sense and proceedings of the House.” 

Waller was one of the commissioners sent by the parliament to the 
king at Oxford, after the battle of Edgehill, in January 1643; and it 
was soon after this, in the end of May, that the design known as 
Waller's plot was discovered. It is difficult to say what was really 
the object of the so-called plot or conspiracy. The parliament 
denounced it as “a popish and traitorous plot for the subversion of 
the true Protestant religion and liberty of the subject,” &¢.; and 
May, in his ‘ History of the Parliament,’ gives a minute account of the 
plans of the conspirators for taking into their own hands all the 
powers of government, and arresting the chiefs of the parliamentary 
party, On the other hand it is alleged that Waller and his friends had 
really no further object than to ascertain the state of opivion in the ~ 
city of London, by making lists of the inhabitants, and dividing them 
into royalists, parliamentarians, and moderate men opposed to the 
excesses of either faction, There can be little doubt however that 
this is very much of an under-statement. Yet it may be questioned if 
Waller's design really had anything to do with another which was 
detected about the same time—a project of a loyal London merchant, 
Sir Nicholas Crispe, to raise an armed force, when a fit opportunity 
should occur, to act against the parliament, for which purpose he 
obtained a commission of array from the king. Waller’s chief con- 
federate was his sister’s husband, Mr. Tomkyns, who held the office of 
clerk of the queen’s council, and had an extensive connexion and 
influence in the city ; and their proceedings were discovered, according 
to one account, by a servant of Tomkyns, who, while lurking behind 
the hangings, overheard a conference between his master and Waller; 
according to anotber version of the story, by a sister of Waller, who 
was married to a Mr, Price, “a great parliamentarian,” and her chap- 
lain Goode, who stole some of his papers. The commission of array 
granted to Crispe was found in the possession of Tomkyns; but this is 
explained as having happened through an accident, and Waller always 
denied that he knew anything of Crispe’s scheme. In other respects 
his confessions were ample enough, ‘“ Waller,” says Clarendon, “ was 
so confounded with fear, that he confessed whatever he had heard, 
said, thought, or seen; all that he knew of himself, and all that he 
suspected of others, without concealing any person, of what degree or 
quality soever, or any discourse which he had ever upon any occasion 
entertained with them,” Various ladies of rank, to whose intimacy 
he had been admitted, were implicated by his lavish revelations, In 
the end Tomkyns, and another person named Challoner, who were 
charged with having had a commission to raise money for the king, 
were hanged at their own doors: Tomkyns in Holborn; Challoner in 
Cornhill, Alexander Hampden, another relation of Waller’s, was kept 
in prison till he died; and some others had their estates con l, 
and were long detained in confinement. Others made their escape to 
the king at Oxford. As for Waller, undoubtedly the prime contriver 
of the design, whatever it amounted to, his life was saved, but the 
facts connected with his deliverance are variously related. In the 
Life prefixed to his Works it is expressly asserted that he was 
arraigned at Guildhall along with Tomkyns and the rest, and con- 
demned to death. Lord Clarendon, on the contrary, states that 
“ Waller, though confessedly the most guilty, with incredible dissimu- 
lation affected such a remorse of conscience, that his trial was put off, 
out of Christian compassion, till he might recover his understanding.” 
After he appeared to be in a more com state, he was brought to 
the bar of the House of Commons, on the 4th of July, and there 
delivered a speech, which is printed in his Works, and which certainly 
indicates nothing like insanity, but is perhaps without a parallel for 
servility and baseness of spirit, He begged that he might not be 
exposed to a trial by a council of war, and Clarendon says that he pre- 
vailed in that request, and thereby saved his “ dear-bought life;” but, 
according to Whitelocke, he was actually made over to the tribunal he 
so much dreaded, and being tried and condemned, was reprieved by _ 
Essex. He lay in prison a year, and was then set at liberty on the. 
understanding that he should leave the country, Of his property, all 
that was exacted from him was a fine of 10,000/.; but it is affirmed by 
his first biographer, that he expended three times that sum besides in 
bribes. Altogether, we are informed, he was obliged to sell estates to 
the value of 1,000/. per annum on this occasion. 

On his release, Waller retired to France, and took up his residence 


first at Rohan, afterwards in Paris, where, we are told, he lived in 


eS ee eee ee eae a eS 


Highness ‘and this Nation.’ 


497 WALLER, EDMUND. 


WALLIN, JOHANN OLOF. 493 


great splendour. We are led to suppose that he was allowed to draw 
the rental of so much of his large estates as he had not been obliged 
to sell; but according to the ‘Biographia Britannica,’ “the chief 
support of this magnificent way of life was derived from his wife's 
jewels, which he had taken away with him;” and then we are told 
that, after ten years thus spent, he found himself reduced to what he 
called the Rump jewel. It was during his exile that, in 1645 (not 
1640, as misprinted in the ‘ Biographia Britannica’), he published in 
8yo, the first collection of his poetry, under the title of ‘ Poems, &c., 
written by Mr, Edmund Waller, of Beckonsfield, Esq., lately a member 
of the Honourable House of Commons.’ At last, apparently about 
1653, through the interest of Colonel Scrope, who was married to one 
of his sisters, he obtained Cromwell’s permission to return to England: 
and came over and established himself at Hail Burn (Johnson calls it 
Hall-barn), a house he had built near Beaconsfield. Although his 
mother, who lived at Beaconsfield, and often, it is said, entertained the 
Protector in her house, continued a professed royalist, Waller soon 
insinuated himself into great familiarity and favour with Cromwell, to 
whom in 1654 he addressed one of the most elaborate and successful 
of his poetical performances, under the title of ‘A Panegyrie to my 
Lord Protector, of the present greatness and joint interest of his 
In a similar strain he afterwards took 
occasion, in celebrating Blake’s victory over the Spanish fleet, in 


September 1656, to recommend to Cromwell the assumption of the 


name, as well as the power of aking. The next of his poems is still 
in the same vein,‘On the Death of the Lord Protector ;’ but this is 
immediately followed in the collection by one ‘To the King, upon his 
Majesty’s happy Return,’ which, if not as animated as his poem to 
Cromwell, is at least as adulatory. The Restoration however restored 
Waller to his former position more completely than his recall by 
Cromwell had done. He now became once more a first figure both at 
court and in the state. It does not appear that he sat in what is 
called the Convention Parliament, which brought the king back; but 
to the next, or Charles’s Long Parliament, which met in March 1661, 
and continued in existence till 1679, he was returned for Hastings ; in 
the next, which met in March 1679, he sat for Chipping-Wycombe; he 
does not appear to have been a member either of Charles’s fourth par- 
liament, which met in October 1680, or of his fifth and last, which 
met in March 1681; but to the first and only parliament of James IL, 
which met on his accession in May 1685, the octogenarian poet was 
returned as one of the members for Saltash ; and, as appears from the 
‘Parliamentary History,’ he continued, old as he was, to take an active 
part in the debates. Burnet, in his ‘History of his Own Times,’ says, 
under the year 1675, “ Waller was the delight of the House; and even 
at eighty he said the liveliest things of any among them: he was only 
concerned to say that which should make him be applauded. But he 
never laid the business of the House to heart, being a vain and empty 
though a witty man.” : 

Tn 1665 Waller asked and obtained from King Charles the provost- 
ship of Eton College; but Clarendon refused to put the seal to the 
grant, on the ground that the office could be held only by a clergy- 
man. This incident is supposed to have instigated the vindictive poet 
to take a keen part in the proceedings of Buckingham and his faction, 
which brought about the destruction of the chancellor. After Claren- 
don’s banishment, the provostship again: became vacant, and Waller 
asked it again of the king; upon which his majesty referred the 
petition to the council, before whom the question was argued by 
counsel for three days, and was finally determined as before. 

One of Waller’s latest poetical performances was a copy of verses 

entitled ‘A Presage of the Ruin of the Turkish Empire,’ which he 
presented to James II, on his birthday (in what year is not stated). 
He was treated by James with kindness ‘and familiarity ; but does not 
appear to have shown any disposition to go along with him in his 
illegal courses. He did not live to witness the Revolution; he died 
at Beaconsfield, on the 21st of October 1687. It is noted that his heir 
joined the Prince of Orange. 
’ Of the children he had by his second wife, the eldest son, Benjamin, 
we are told in the ‘ Biographia Britannica,’ was “so far from inheriting 
his father’s wit, that he had not a common portion, and therefore was 
sent to New Jersey in America.” He left his estate to his second son 
Edmund, who repeatedly represented Amersham in parliament, attach- 
ing himself in the House to the neutral party called the Flying 
Squadron, was esteemed in his county “a very honest gentleman and 
aman of good sense,” was not “ without a taste in poetry,” and ended 
by becoming a Quaker in his latter days. His third son, William, 
was a merchant in London; the fourth, Dr. Stephen Waller, became 
an eminent civilian ; of the fifth nothing is known. 

The merits of Waller as a poet have been elaborately discussed by 
Johnson, He will scarcely be now admitted to have been even in his 
own day what he is called by the writer of his life in the ‘ Biographia 
Britannica,’ “the most celebrated lyric poet that England has ever 
produced ;” unless perhaps we are to consider a lyric poet as meaning 
a poet who has written nothing but lyrics, and then the title would 
not be applicable to Waller. He was certainly, in so far as respects 
diction and versification, the most correct poetical writer that we had 
before Pope ; and it cannot be questioned that his example had con- 
siderable effect in regulating the form and refining the manner of our 
poetry, although it may also have helped somewhat to tame its spirit. 

BIOG, DIV. VOL. VI. 


Yet, although there is not much glow of imagination in Waller, there 
is often a great deal more than mere prettiness or even elegance; his 
more serious pieces have frequently much dignity and elevation of 
thought, as well as of expression. And generally his language has 
the high merit of being a lucid mirror and exponent of his meaning, 
giving out with perfect distinctness at least the lines and formal 
features of the idea, however deficient it may be in the power of 
reflecting coloured light, or rather, however little of that there may 
be for it to reflect. 

WALLER, SIR WILLIAM, a distinguished military commander 
on the side of the parliament in the civil wars of the 17th century, 
was of the same family of the Wallers of Spendhurst in Kent, from 
which the poet Waller was descended, and was born in 1597. After 
pursuing his studies for a time at Magdalen Hall and Hart Hall, 
Oxford, he went to complete his education at Paris; and while abroad 
he entered the service of the confederated powers (Sweden, Holland, and 
the Protestant princes of Germany) in the war which they carried on 
against the emperor after their league of the year 1626. On his return 
home he received from Charles I. the honour of knighthood. In 1640 
Sir William Waller was returned to the Long Parliament for Andover ; 
and he immediately took his place among the opponents of the court. 
His foreign education and service had given him a strong attachment to 
Presbyterianism ; and he had also, it is said, smarted under the severi- 
ties of the Star-chamber. On recourse being had to arms, Sir William 
was appointed one of the parliamentary generals, and he greatly distin- 
guished himself on various occasions, especially in the reduction of 
Portsmouth in September 1642. He was however defeated at Lans- 
down near Bath, on the 5th of July 1643; at Roundway Down near 
Devizes, by Lord Wilmot, on the 13th of the same month; and at the 
same place again on the 8th of September. On the 29th of March 
1644, Waller defeated Lord Hopeton at Cherryton Down near Win- 
chester; but on the 29th of June following he was in turn worsted by 
the royal forces at Cropredy-bridge in Oxfordshire. Some of these 
reverses which Waller sustained gave rise to warm counter-accusations 
between him and Essex; he charging the commander-in-chief with 
wishing to sacrifice him; Essex retorting upon Waller with reproaches 
of want both of conduct and courage. Waller however was through- 
out stoutly supported by his party, the Presbyterians. The self 
denying ordinance (passed April 3rd, 1645), deprived Waller of his 
command; but he continued to be looked upon as one of the leaders 
of the Presbyterian party in the House of Commons till the impeach- 
ment of the eleven members, of whom he was one, by the army (June 
23rd, 1647), when he withdrew with the rest from the House. He 
returned however after a time, and continued to attend until he was 
driven out by force, along with all thé other members of his party, by 
Colonel Pride, on the 6th of December 1648. From this time we hear 
no more of him till after the death of Cromwell, when, in August 1659, 
he was taken up on the charge of being engaged in the Cheshire 
insurrection, headed by Sir George Booth, and was detained in custody 
till November following, when he was released on bail. He probably 
resumed his seat in the House of Commons, with the other secluded 
members, in February 1660; and he was nominated one of the Council 
of State constituted by the House on the 25th of that month. To the 
Convention Parliament, which met in April, he was returned as one of 
the members for Middlesex ; but he does not appear to have sat in any 
subsequent parliament. He died at Osterley Park in Middlesex, on 
the 19th of September 1668. He had been three times married ; and 
from his daughter Margaret, by his first wife, daughter and heiress of 
Sir Richard Reynell of Ford, in Devonshire, who married Sir William 
Courtenay of Powderham Castle, is descended the present Earl of 
Devon; from his daughter Anne, by his second wife, the Lady Anne 
Finch, daughter of the first Earl of Winchelsea, who married Sir 
Philip Harcourt, was descended the late Earl Harcourt. 

Sir William Waller is the author of a work entitled ‘ Divine Medita- 
tions upon several Occasions; with a Daily Directory,’ which was 
printed in an octavo volume at London in 1680; and also of a ‘ Vindica- 
tion’ of his own character and conduct, which was first published from 
his manuscript, in 8vo, with an introduction by the editor, at London 
in 1793. Both these works give a favourable impression of his honesty 
and ingenuousness, as well as of his shrewdness and general intellectual 
ability ; and the second is of considerable historical value. 

WALLIN, JOHANN OLOF, an eminent Swedish poet and preacher, 
was born in Dalecarlia on the 15th of October 1779, studied at the 
university of Upsal, and took holy orders in 1806. He was known as 
a poet before he became a clergyman, and received three times the 
prize of a golden medal from the Swedish Academy, but his pro- 
ductions were rather distinguished for fluency and elegance of language 
than for poetical fervour, and he did not discover the vein in which 
he was destined to achieve a great celebrity till the cultivation of it 
became a kind of professional task. In 1811 a committee was ap- 
pointed to revise and augment the Swedish Psalm and Hymn Book, 
and Wallin, who in the preceding year had been elected “ One of the 
Eighteen” of the Swedish Academy, was appointed one of the mem- 
bers. He disagreed with the majority of his colleagues with respect 
to retaining some of the old hymns, which they considered too homely, 
and finally published a separate collection, in which several of these old 
hymns were freed from everything objectionable, by trifling alterations 


of language, and several new ones of Wallin’s own were eine which 
K 


0 WALLIS, JOHN. 


WALLIS, JOHN. 500 


are universally admitted to display a genius for that class of composi- 
tion ofarare order. As in the case of-our own Dr. Watts, the poet’s other 
verses may be said to be forgotten, while his hymns are the delight of 
thousands.. They have been adopted in the authorised Swedish 
Psalm and Hymn-Book, of which they form the principal ornament, 
though several other contributions from modern poets have assisted 
to raise the collection to the rank which it now takes of one of the 
best in Europe. Wallin, who in 1812, began to occupy a pulpit in 
Stockholm, soon became a popular preacher and was selected to impart 
theological instruction to Prince Oscar, now (1857) king of Sweden. 
After filling various ecclesiastical dignities, he was appointed in 1833 
archbishop of Upsal, the highest post in the Swedish church. He 
died on the 30th of June 1839, universally respected and admired. 
Three volumes of ‘ Religious Discourses on various occasions,’ ‘ Reli- 
gions-Tal vid atskilliga Tillfiillen’ (Stockholm 1827-31), and three of 
sermons, ‘Predikninger, published after his death, are unsurpassed in 
Swedish literature as specimens of pulpit eloquence. His literary 
works ‘ Witterhets Arbeten,’ were published in two volumes at Stock- 
holm in 1848. 

WALLIS, JOHN, was the eldest son of the Rev. John Wallis, in- 
cumbent of Ashford in Kent, where he was born November 23, 1616, 
The life of this eminent mathematician is very fully given in the 
‘ Biographia Britannica,’ which is our sole authority for the facts now 
to be stated respecting him. 

The father of Wallis died when he was six years old, leaving five 
children to the care of his widow. Ashe died wealthy, his eldest son was 
brought up with great care and intended for a learned profession. In 
that day mathematical studies were rarely preparatory to the higher 
kind of pursuits; in the case of Wallis, even common arithmetic seems 
to have been neglected. He was fifteen years old when his curiosity 
was excited by seeing a book of arithmetic in the hands of his younger 
brother, who was preparing for trade. On his showing some curiosity 
to know what it meant, his brother went through the rules with him, 
and in a fortnight he had mastered the whole. At the age of sixteen, 
which was rather late at that time, he was entered at Emmanuel 
College in Cambridge, where he soon obtained reputation. Among his 
other studies, anatomy found a place; and he is said to have been the 
first student who maintained, in a public disputation, the doctrine of 
the circulation of the blood, which had been promulgated by Harvey 
four or five years before. There were no mathematical studies at that 
time in Cambridge, and none to give even so much as advice what 
books to read : the best mathematicians were in London, and the science 
was esteemed no better than mechanical. This account is confirmed 
by his contemporary Horrocks, who was also of Emmanuel, and whose 
works Wallis afterwards edited. After taking the degree of master of 
arts, the county of Kent not being vacant in his own college, he was 
ehosen fellow of Queen’s, and took orders, in 1640, He was then 
chaplain in one and another private family, residing partly in London, 
till the breaking out of the civil war, in which he took the side of the 
Parliament. He made himself useful to his party by deciphering 
intercepted letters, an art in which he was eminent. Vieta, as we have 
seen [VirTA, FRANCIS, vol. vi. col. 361.], had deciphered, and Baptista 
Porta had written something on the subject, but only with reference 
to simple ciphers. In 1643, the sequestered living of St. Gabriel, 
Fenchurch Street, was given to him ; and in the same year he published 
‘Truth Tried, or Animadversions on the Lord Brooke’s Treatise on the 
Nature of Truth.’ In this year also he came into a handsome fortune by 
the death of his mother, In 1644 he was appointed one of the secre- 
taries of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster. He has given a 
succinct account of the proceedings of this body. (See the ‘ Biographia 
Britannica.’) In this year alsohe married. In 1645 he was among the 
first who joined those meetings which afterwards gave rise to the Royal 
Society: but we do not hear of any particular attention to mathe- 
matics on his part till 1647, when he met with Oughtred’s ‘ Clavis,’ 
at which time he says he was a very young algebraist, being then 
more than thirty years old. He and James Bernoulli are alike in this, 
and differ from most others of the same celebrity, that they showed no 
strong tendency to mathematical pursuits at a very early age. When 
the Independents began to prevail, Wallis joined with others of the 
clergy in opposing them; and in 1648 subscribed a remonstrance 
against the execution of Charles I. He was then rector of St. Martin’s 
Church in Ironmonger Lane, but in 1649 he was appointed Savilian 
professor of geometry at Oxford by the Parliamentary visitors, his 
predecessor, Dr. Turner, having been ejected. He now removed to 
Oxford, and applied himself diligently to mathematics. In 1650 ap- 
peared his ‘Animadversions’ on the celebrated Richard Baxter’s 

Aphorisms of Justification and the Covenant,’ a moderate piece of theo- 
logical controversy, undertaken, Wood supposes, at the desire of Baxter 
himself. At the end of 1650 he first met with the method of indivisibles 
in the writings of Torricelli, and from this time the researches begin, 
of which we shall presently have to speak, In 1653 he published, in 
Latin, an English grammar for the use of foreigners, with a treatise on 
the formation of articulate sounds prefixed. In the same year he 
deposited in the Bodleian Library a collection of deciphered letters, 
which afterwards caused some controversy. In 1654 he took the 
degree of doctor of divinity, and in the following year he published 
his ‘Arithmetica Infinitorum,’ with a treatise on Conie Sections pre- 
fixed, In 1655 he began his controversy with Hobbes, who, in his 


‘Elementorum Philosophie Sectio Prima,’ had given a quadrature of 
the circle. Wallis answered this in a tract entitled ‘Elenchus Geo- 
metrics Hobbiane.’ Hobbes replied in ‘Six Lessons to the Professor 
of Mathematics at Oxford :’ on which Wallis published ‘ Due Correction 
for Mr. Hobbes, or School Discipline for not saying his Lesson right,’ 
Oxford, 1656. Hobbes defended himself in Srryuas, or ‘ The Marks of 
the absurd Geometry, &c. of Dr. Wallis,’ London, 1657. Wallis 
answered in ‘Hobbiani Puncti Dispunctio, in answer to Mr. Hobbes’s 
Srrypuas,’ Oxford, 1657. The controversy was renewed by Mr. Hobbes 
in 1661, in ‘ Examinatio et Emendatio Mathematicorum hodiernorum,’ 
to which Wallis replied in ‘Hobbius Heautontimoreumenos,’ Oxford, 
1663, Wallis, as may be supposed, had the right on his side; and 
we are disposed to regret that he did not allow his part of the con- 
troversy to appear in the collection of his works, though we cannot 
but respect the motive, namely, the desire not to attack an opponent 
after his death. In 1656 he published his treatise on the angle of 
contact, and a defence of it in 1685, 

In 1657 Wallis published his ‘Mathesis Universalis, and in 1658 
appeared, under the title of ‘Commercium Epistolicum,’ a corres- 
pondence arising out of a problem proposed to him by Fermat; also a 
sermon, ‘Mens sobria serio commendata,’ and a commentary on the 
Epistle to Titus. In 1658 the questions of Pascal on the eycloid 
appeared, which were answered by Wallis, and led to a controversy, 
About this time Wallis, who with others desired the restoration of the 
kingly power, employed his art of diciphering on the side of the 
Royalists ; so that at the Restoration he was received with favour by 
Charles IL, confirmed in his professorship and in the place of keeper 
of the archives at Oxford, and was made one of the royal chaplains. 
In 1661 he was one of the clergy appointed to review the Book of 
Common Prayer. He was of course one of the first members of the 
Royal Society, and from this to his death his life is little more than 


the list of his works. His tract on the Cuno-cuneus, or circular wedge, - 


was published in 1663; his tract ‘De Proportionibus,’ and his treatise 
on the laws of collision, in the same year: his new hypothesis on the 
tides, ‘De Aistu Maris,’ in 1668; and the treatise on mechanics at 
different times, in 1669, 1670, and 1671. In 1673 he edited the works 
of Horrocks; the Arenarius and quadrature of Archimedes appeared 
in 1676; his edition of Ptolemy’s Harmonies (to which other ancient 
musicians were afterwards added) in 1680, His algebra appeared in 
English in 1685, and was translated into Latin with additions in the 
collection of his works ; in the same year also, his treatise on Angular 
Sections and on the Cuno-cuneus. In 1685 he wrote theological 
pieces on Melchisedec, Job, and the titles of the Psalms. In 1687 
appeared his celebrated work on logic. In 1688 he edited Aristarchus 
and fragments of Pappus. In 1691 he published his pieces on the 


Trinity, and on the baptism of infants; and, in 1692, his defence of — 


the Christian sabbath against the Sabbatarians, or observers of Satur- 
day. The collection of his works by the curators of the University 
press began to be made in 1692 ; the three volumes bear the disordered 
dates of 1695, 1693, and 1699. In 1692 he was consulted upon the 
adoption of the Gregorian calendar, or new style, against which he 
gave a strong opinion, and the design was abandoned. In 1696, when 
the first two volumes of his works appeared, he was the remote occa- 
sion of beginning the controversy between the followers of Newton 
and Leibnitz. Some remarks were made on his assertions as to the 
origin of the differential calculus in the Leipsic Acts, which produced 
a correspondence, and this correspondence was published in the third 
volume. He died October 28, 1703, in his 88th year. 

The character of Wallis as a man was attacked upon one occasion 
only, in which it was asserted that he had deciphered the king’s letters 
after the battle of Naseby, to the great detriment of the royal ca 
and its followers. It was also said that the collection of deciphered 
letters which he gave to the University had some of its contents 
withdrawn by him when the Restoration was approaching. Wallis 
himself denied that he had deciphered the king’s letters on that occa- 
sion, though had he done so, it would, granting his adherence to the 
parliament to be justifiable, have been no more than his duty. A sort 
of repugnance exists to a decipherer, though common sense tells us 
that those who intercept and open an enemy’s letter which, being 
written in common language, is in some sort confided to those into 
whose hands it may fall, are much more obnoxious to any charge than 
the decipherer of a letter which, being written in cipher, more 
resembles a defiance. 

All that can be said against Wallis, if it amounts to anything, is just 
this, that when he desired the downfall of the kingly power, he used 
his talents against the king, and then, when, at another time and 
under very different circumstances, he wanted the restoration, he 


his talents for it. And as to the charge of withdrawing the letters 4 


from the Bodleian, it ought to have been added, that when he pre- 
sented them, it was with a written reservation to add or withdraw. 
The best testimony to the general character of Wallis is as follows :— 
He was exceedingly obnoxious to the high church party at Oxford, 
both from his low church principles, and from his having been forced 
upon the University by external and democratic power. But all that 
his contemporary Wood, who will not admit him into the ‘Athens 
Oxonienses’ as an Oxford writer, can say or hint punts 
to as much as we have mentioned. And yet there was no want of 
disposition to disparage a presbyterian in Wood, as witness the foll 


against him, amounts 


ee ea oS a ee ee 


501. WALLIS, JOHN. 


WALMESLEY, CHARLES, 


ing liberal sentiment: ‘‘The senior proctor, according to his usual 
perfidy (which he frequently used in his office, for he was born and bred 
a Presbyterian), did pronounce,” &e, &e. (§ Ath, Oxon.,’ ii. 1045.) 
Wallis, in: his literary character, is to be considered as a theologian, 
a scholar, and a mathematician. Asa divine, he would probably not 
have been remembered, but for his eminence in the other characters. 
His discourses on the Trinity are still quoted in the histories of 
opinions on that subject, At the time of South and Sherlock, much 
was written on the Athanasian Creed which was meant to be of an 
explanatory character: those who read South and Sherlock on the 
Trinity, may also read Wallis, who will be found inferior to neither; 
but many have considered him scarcely orthodox, If the character of 


_ Wallis has been elevated as a divine by his celebrity as a philosopher, 


his services as a scholar have for the same reason been, if not under: 
rated, at least thrown into shade. He was the first editor of Ptolemy's 
Harmonies, of the commentary on it by Porphyrius, and of the later 
work of Briennius; as also of Aristarchus of Samos. His editions contain 
collateral information of the most valuable character, tending to throw 
light upon his author, and exhibit an immense quantity of labour. 

As a mathematician Wallis is the most immediate predecessor of 
Newton, both in the time at which he lived and the subjects on which 


the worked. Those who incline to the opinion that scientific dis- 


coyeries are not the work of the man, but of the man and the hour, 


-that is, who regard each particular conquest as the necessary conse- 


quence of the actual state of things, and as certain to come from one 
quarter or another when the time arfives, will probably say that if 
Wallis had not lived, Newton would but have filled his place, as far 
as the pure mathematics are concerned. By far the most important 
of his writings is the ‘Arithmetica Infinitorum, a slight account of 
which we shall preface by some mention of the others. The ‘ Mathesis 
Universalis’ was intended for the beginner, and contains copious dis- 
cussions on fundamental points of algebra, arithmetic, and geometry, 
mixed with critical dissertations. The tract against Meibomius’s 
dialogue on the fifth book of Euclid is wholly controversial. The 
treatise on the cycloid is that which was sent in answer to Pascal’s 
prize questions, revised. The work on mechanics is the largest and 
most elaborate which had then appeared, though now principally 
remarkable from the use of the principle of virtual velocities. The 
voluminous treatise which it contains on the centre of gravity, though 
showing in every page how near Wallis approached to the Differential 
Calculus, is not so interesting, even in that particular, as the ‘ Arith- 
metica Infinitorum,’ The treatise on algebra, which first appeared in 
English in 1685, was reprinted in Latin (in the collected edition) in 
1693, with additions. It is the first work in which a copious history 
of the subject was mixed with its theory. The defect of this history 
has been adverted to in Vieta, col. 370; but when this is passed over, 
it may safely be said that the algebra of Wallis is full of interest, even 
at the present time, not only as an historical work, but as one of inven- 
tion and originality, The tracts on the angle of contact, on the tides, 
on grayitation, &c., are now completely gone by, and are only useful 
as showing the state of various points of mathematics and physics. 
The ‘ Arithmetica Infinitorum’ is preceded by a treatise on Conic 
Sections, in which the geometrical and algebraical methods are both 
exemplified. At the commencement, though it is not immediately 
connected with any application to these curves, he opens with a 
declaration of his adherence to the method of Cavatrert, that of 
indivisibles, but preferring the juster notion of compounding an area 
out of an infinite number of infinitely small parallelograms. At the 
beginning of the work Wallis arrives by this method at the areas of 
various simple curves and spirals. Those who understand how either 
the method of Cavalieri is employed, or that of differentials, without 
the use of the organised methods, will easily see how close an approach 
is made to the integral calculus, from one instance :—In the latter 


science > fea, beginning at « = 0, is 423: the corresponding theorem 


of Wallis is that the limit of 12+2?+....+m? divided by n’ is the 
fraction 3. He then proceeds step by step until he is able to repre- 
sent the whole or part of the area of any curve whose equation is 
y = (a? + x)"; n being integer: having previously found the arca of 
any curve contained under y = ax”, n being positive or negative, whole 
or fractional. And it is here to be remarked that, though he does not 


absolutely exhibit such symbols as x~®, ae, he makes use of fractional 
and negative indices, applying the fractions and negative quantities, 
though not explicitly writing them in the modern manner. This 
step was a most important one, as it put under his control, in effect, 
ali that the integral calculus can do in the case of monomial terms 
and their combinations. Wallis was eminently distinguished by this 
power of comparison and generalisation, and he had a large portion of 
the faith in the results of algebra which has led to its complete 
modern establishment, in which hardly any of that sort of faith is 
wanted, And those who would smile at his idea of negative quantities 
which are greater than infinity, should remember what results patience 
and inquiry have produced out of the equally absurd notion of 
those same quantities being less than nothing. It is not quite certain 
that the former phraseology will not yet take its place, under defini- 
tions, by the side of the latter, 

This talent of generalisation, in which Wallis was superior to any pre- 


ceding mathematician, enabled him to avail himself of ideas which the 
ordinary processes of arithmetic and algebra had offered for centuries 
without results. Having, by his use of fractional indices, been able 


to supply every case of / x”d, or an equivalent result, it struck him 
that f (a*—«x’)” da, still using modern symbols, must be capable of 


a similar interpolation. The case of n = 4 obviously gives the circle, 
and after making various attempts, he was enabled to present the 
well-known result, which is still remembered as a result; but the 
method, which produced it is, though anything but forgotten, not 
always duly remembered as belonging to Wallis. This result is as 
follows, in modern terms :—7 being the ratio of the circumference to 
the diameter, i lies between 


2?, 42,62. 1... (2n)? | 
: and 
12,87, 52. 044. (2n—1)? * Qn+1 
2? ,.42,62 1... (Qn)? - 1 
17.3.5? 2... (2n—1)? n+2 


whatever integer n may be. It is frequently expressed thus :— 
ow 24 46 6 8 


£8e G0 ne Len Cn 
The works of Wallis contain many other results which must be 
considered as advanced specimens of the integral calculus in every- 
thing but form; such as the rectification of the parabola, which he 
showed to depend upon the quadrature of the hyperbola. The 
Binomial Theorem was a corollary of the results of Wallis on the 
quadrature of curves, the sagacity of Newton supplying that general 
mode of expression which it is extraordinary that Wallis should have 
missed. 

We have not spoken of the work on logic, which is not only of the 
highest excellence, but is perhaps, owing to the change of notation 
and methods in mathematics, the only work of Wallis on the elements 
of a subject which we could now recommend a student to read, In 
conclusion, we may say of the subject of this article, that it rarely 
happens that there is so singular a union of originality and labour. 

WALLIS, SAMUEL, the first navigator after Quiros (assuming that 
Quiros’s Sagittaria is Tahiti) who discovered the island of Tahiti. 
The date of Wallis’s birth and his parentage are unknown. In 1755 he 
was lieutenant of the Gibraltar, a twenty-gun ship, from which he was 
promoted to be lieutenant of the Torbay seventy-four, Vice-Admiral 
Boscawen’s flag-ship. On the 8th of April 1757, he received his com- 
mission as captain of the Port Mahon, of twenty guns, and was sent 
to North America with Holburne, who commanded the expedition 
against Louisburg. In 1760 he was sent to Canada in command of 
the Prince of Orange, a reduced third-rate; and on his return was 
employed on the home station. There is no account of him from 
this time till his being appointed to the Dolphin in August 1766. He 
was sent with the Dolphin (24 guns) and the Swallow (14 guns, 
Captain Carteret) to continue and extend the discoveries of Com- 
modore Byron in the Pacific. They sailed on the 22nd of August 
1766, from Plymouth. The Dolphin and Swallow parted company 
on the 11th of April 1767, as they were clearing the western end of 
the Straits of Magalhaens ; the Dolphin returned to the Downs on the 
19th of May 1768; the Swallow did not arrive at Spithead till the 
20th of March 1679. After parting company with his consort, Wallis 
discovered Easter Island on the 8rd of June 1767; and on the 19th 
of June, Tahiti, which he called King George’s Island, and Cook 
called Otaheite. He left the island on the 27th of July, reached 
Tinian on the 17th of September, Batavia on the 30th of November, 
the Cape of Good Hope on the 4th of February 1768, and the Downs, 
as mentioned above, on the 19th of May. The only record preserved 
of Wallis’s cireumnavigation of the globe is that printed in Hawkes- 
worth’s * Voyages to the Pacific.” It appears to be a literal tran- 
script of the navigator’s diary. It indicates a painstaking, sensible, 
and veracious man. He was the first to bring down the fabulous 
stature of the Patagonians to its real altitude. It was Wallis who 
recommended Tahiti as the station for observing the transit of Venus 
over the sun’s dise in 1769. 

After his arrival in England, Wallis remained without employment 
till 1771, when, on the equipping of a naval force in consequence of 
the rupture with Spain about the Falkland Islands, he was appointed 
to the Torbay seventy-four. He retired from active service in the 
following year, and never again commanded a ship, except for a short 
time in 1780. In that year he was appa extra-commissioner of 
the navy, an office which he held till the peace, when it was fora 
time discontinued. It was revived in 1787, and Wallis was again 
nominated to fill it, which he did till his death, in 1795. 

WALMESLEY, CHARLES, an English mathematician and astro- 
nomer, was born in 1721: being a member of the Roman Catholic 
church, he became a monk of the Benedictine order in this country, 
and he took the degree of doctor in theology in the Sorbonne. In 
1750 he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of London, and six 
years afterwards he was made a bishop, and apostolical vicar of the 
western district of England. 

His principal work, which is an extension of the 


+s. ad infinitum. 


‘ Harmonia Men- 


£08 WALPOLE, SIR ROBERT. 


WALPOLE, SIR ROBERT. 504 


surarum ’ of Cotes, is entitled ‘Analyse des Mesures des Rapports et 
des Angles, ou Réduction des Intégrales aux Logarithmes et aux 
Arcs de Cercle,’ 4to, Paris, 1749; in the- same year he published his 
‘Théorie du Mouvement des Apsides,’ 8vo, and in 1758 the treatise 
* De Ineequalitatibus Motuum Lunarium,’ 4to, Florence. 

Dr. Walmesley was one of the mathematicians employed in regulat- 
ing the calendar in this country, preparatory to the change of the style, 
which took place in 1752, and he wrote several papers on astronomical 
subjects, which were published in the ‘Philosophical Transactions.’ 
As a theological writer he is known only by his commentaries on, and 
explanations of the Apocalypse, Ezekiel’s vision, &e. He died at Bath, 
in the seventy-sixth year of his age. 

WALPOLE, SIR ROBERT, Earl of Orford, was the third son of 
Robert Walpole, Esq., M.P. for Castle Rising, by Mary bis wife, only 
daughter and heiress of Sir Jeffery Burwell, and was born at Houghton, 
on the 26th of August 1676. He was educated at a private school at 
Massingham, and afterwards on the foundation at Eton, and at King’s 
College, Cambridge ; and although he was naturally averse to study, 


he applied himself with sufficient diligence to become a good classical - 


scholar. On the death of his eldest surviving brother, in 1698, he 
gave up his scholarship at King’s College, and very shortly withdrew 
from the university, and resided with his father in the country. On 
the 30th of July 1700 he married Catherine, daughter of Sir John 
Shorter, lord mayor of London; and on the 28th of November 
following his father died, and left him in possession of the family 
estate. He immediately entered parliament as member for Castle 
Rising, and at once engaged in business with much activity, and joined 
the Whigs in promoting the Protestant succession, Although his first 
attempt at oratory does not appear to have been very successful, he 
was not long in distinguishing himself as an able and practical debater 
and an acute politician. He attracted the attention of the great leaders 
of the Whig party ; andin March 1705, when their influence had risen 
in parliament and in the cabinet, he was appointed one of the council 
to Prince George of Denmark, then lord high admiral, In this capacity 
he showed so much prudence and firmness under peculiar difficulties, 
that he won the esteem and confidence of Godolphin and the Duke of 
Marlborough. Henceforward he assumed a high position in parliament, 
and in 1708, on his promotion to the office of secretary-at-war, the 
management of the House of Commons was intrusted to him by his 
party. In 1710 he was appointed one of the managers for the 
impeachment of Sacheverel. He had strongly opposed that proceed- 
ing in private; but when it had been determined upon, the duty of 
conducting it chiefly devolved upon him. He afterwards published a 
pamphlet, entitled ‘Four Letters to a Friend in North Britain upon 
the publishing the Trial of Dr. Sacheverel,’ in which he laboured to 
identify the party who supported Sacheverel with the Jacobites who 
were plotting to raise the Pretender to the throne. By the intrigues 
of Mrs. Masham and the Tories, and by disunion among themselves, 
the Whig administration was shortly broken up, when Harley thought 
so highly of Walpole’s talents and influence that he vainly endea- 
voured to persuade him to accept a place in the new administration, 
and declared him to be worth half his party. Party spirit was then 
most virulent, and in order to crush their opponents the Tory govern- 
ment, under Harley and St. John, charged the ex-ministers with 
extensive corruption and inaccuracy in the public accounts. The 
defence of his colleagues was ably conducted by Walpole; but he was 
punished for his zeal on their behalf, by a similar accusation directed 
against himself personally. On the 17th of January 1712, a majority 
of the House resolved that while secretary-at-war he had been “guilty 
of a high breach of trust and notorious corruption,” and that he 
should be committed to the Tower and expelled the House of Com- 
mons. He refused to make any acknowledgment or concession, and 
remained a prisoner in the Tower until the prorogation, Meanwhile 
his friends looked upon him as a martyr to their cause, and flocked to 
his apartments, which bore, it is said, the appearance of a crowded 
levée, rather than of a prison. He was re-elected for Lynn; but (in 
accordance with a doctrine afterwards declared illegal in the case of 
Wilkes) was declared incapable of sitting in that parliament. He did 
more for his vindication with his pen while in prison, than he could 
have done in the face of his enemies, who had already condemned 
him. A pamphlet published by him at that time was declared by his 
party to be a complete refutation of the charges affecting his character. 
Whether this be so or not, his expulsion was no obstacle to his future 
advancement, but rather increased his influence. At the dissolution, 
in August 1713, he again entered parliament as member for Lynn, and 
took a distinguished part in all the debates and in the counsels and 
intrigues of his party. 

On the accession of George I., Walpole, with his brother-in-law 
Viscount Townshend, had a principal share in the formation of the 
Whig administration. He was himself appointed paymaster-general of 
the forces and of Chelsea Hospital. The dissolution of 1715 having 
gained a large majority for the Whig ministry, they had an oppor- 
tunity of avenging themselves for the persecution they had suffered 
from their predecessors in office. The intrigues of many of the leading 
Tories in favour of the Pretender during the last four years of the 
reign of Queen Anne had been notorious; and, apart from political 
expediency, it became the duty of the ministers of the first king of 
the house of Hanover to denounce, and if possible extinguish the 


faction that had nearly succeeded in altering the succession to the 
throne. Walpole drew up the report on which the impeachments and 
attainders that followed were founded, and took a leading part in all’ 
the prosecutions, The rebellion in favour of the Pretender soon 
afterwards broke out, in the midst of which Walpole was appointed 
first lord of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer. The 
fatigue and anxiety of that alarming time brought on a severe illness. 
Before his recovery the memorable Septennial Bill, which had been 
prepared with his concurrence, was passed. It was perhaps scarcely 
justifiable on constitutional grounds to prolong the duration of a 
parliament that had only been chosen for a shorter term; but the 
extraordinary circumstances of the country, a threatened invasion, a 
strong party—possibly even a parliamentary majority—favourable to 
the claims of the Pretender, rendered a dissolution at that time highly 
dangerous to the public peace and to the safety of the crown. Di 
union in the cabinet and the constant intrigues of the Hanoverian 
courtiers and the king’s mistresses broke up this administration, which 
would otherwise have had a fair chance of stability ; and in April 
1717 Walpole delivered up his seals to the king, in spite of his 
majesty’s earnest solicitations that he would retain them in connection 
with a new ministry. Before his resignation Walpole had submitted 
to parliament a plan for reducing the interest of the national debt, 
and for establishing a sinking-fund. The resolutions had already been 
agreed to, but the bill for giving effect to them was left to his succes- 
sors to carry through. (See 5 Geo. I. c. 3.) Walpole remained in 
opposition until 1720. Meanwhile he distinguished himself by the 
ability and practical knowledge with which he opposed the measures 
of government. He exposed tlie South Sea scheme for liquidating the 
national debt when first propounded by the government; and though 
parliament was deluded by its plausibility and magnificence, and 
scarcely listened with patience to his arguments, the country had soon 
reason to remember his remarkable prediction, that “Such will be the 
delusive consequences, that the public will conceive it a dream.” 

In June 1720 he consented to take office, and was appointed pay- 
master-general of the forces, while Lord Townshend was made presi- 
dent of the council ; but he did not cordially support the administra- 
tion or engage much in business until the ruinous panic caused by the 
failure of the South Sea speculations had verified his prediction. He 
was then unanimously called upon to devise measures for the restora- 
tion of public credit, No minister was ever placed in a more difficult 
position. The terror and phrenzy of the public, the indignation of 
parliament, the helplessness of his colleagues, and the equivocal con- 
nection of some of them with the scheme, were obstacles to the proper 
consideration of so pressing a subject. It was indeed impossible to 
repair the mischief already done, or to indemnify parties for the losses 
they had sustained, but he sueceeded in restoring public credit; and 
he undoubtedly showed both firmness and moderation in the punish- 
ment of those who had been guilty of participation in the frauds of 
the company. Lord Sunderland had been accused of receiving 
fictitious stock, but by the exertions of Walpole he was acquitted. 
He was not however sufficiently clear in public estimation to retain 
his office of first lord of the treasury, and on his resignation, in April 
1721, Walpole was appointed in his place, with an administration 
highly favourable to his interests. 

Having settled for a time the financial affairs of the country, Wal- 
pole immediately turned his attention to commerce. He found heavy 
taxes and restrictions upon the imports and exports of many of the 
most important articles of commerce, and, with a spirit far in advance 
of his age, he removed them. One hundred and six articles of British 
manufacture were allowed to be exported, and thirty-eight articles of 
raw materials to be imported, duty free. In June 1723 the king 
created Walpole’s son a peer, by the title of Baron Walpole of Wal- 
pole, in the county of Norfolk. Walpole had declined this honour 
himself, from the fear of losing his influence over the House of Com- 
mons if removed to the Upper House, but other marks of royal favour 
were not wanting. In 1724 he was created a Knight of the Bath, and 
in 1726 was installed a Knight of the Garter. But though strong in 
parliament, and standing well with the king, Walpole was continually 
in danger from the intrigues of the court. On the accession of 
George II. however Walpole was so fortunate as to find a protector in 
Queen Caroline, whose influence over the king enabled her to maintain “ 
Walpole in office, although a change had been determined upon, and 
afterwards to support him against the persevering machinations of all 

arties. 

To follow Sir Robert Walpole through the events of his long 
administration would require little less than a history of his times, 
There were no important debates in parliament, no deliberations in 
the cabinet, no negociations with foreign states, in which he did not 
bear the most conspicuous part as the first statesman of his day. The 
most remarkable measure proposed by him, and that which is perhaps 
the most creditable to his talents as the minister of a commercial 
country, was his Excise scheme, brought forward by him in 1733, 
The object of this measure was to convert the Customs’ duties payable 
upon certain articles of import immediately on their arrival in port 
into Excise duties payable on taking them out of warehouses for home 
consumption. He also proposed to confine the taxed commodities to 
a few articles of general consumption, and to exempt from taxation 
the principal necessaries of life and all the raw materials of manu- 


. 
q 
: 


——— 


lla 


—— 


505 WALPOLE, SIR ROBERT, 


WALPOLE, HORACE. 506 


facture. The plan itself and the arguments by which he supported it 
prove the soundness of his views of taxation and commerce ; but 
unhappily the measure was artfully misrepresented as a scheme for a 
general Excise, and the country being misled by the able writers 
opposed to the minister, by the clamours of those interested in exist- 
ing abuses, but more than all by the unpopular name of ‘Excise,’ were 
almost unanimous in its condemnation. Public feeling became at 
length so excited that a popular outbreak seemed to threaten any 
further progress with the bill; and Sir Robert was very reluctantly 
obliged to abandon it, He was fully persuaded of its great advantages 
to the country, but said, “I will not be the minister to enforce taxes at 
the expense of blood.” j 

In 1737 the influence of Walpole was much shaken, first by the 
quarrel between the king and the Prince of Wales, and-the avowed 
hostility of the latter to the king’s government, and especially to 
Walpole, who had been chiefly consulted by the king; and, secondly, 
by the death of Queen Caroline. The high regard of the queen for 
Walpole was testified even on ber death-bed. Turning to the minister, 
who, with the king, was standing by her bedside, she said to him, “I 
hope you will never desert the king, but continue to serve him with 
your usual fidelity ;” and, pointing to the king, she added, “I recom- 
mend his majesty to you.” Shortly afterwards the king showed Wal- 
pole an intercepted letter, in which it was affirmed that the minister 
chad now lost his sole protector. “It is false,” said he; ‘you remember 
that on her death-bed the queen recommended me to you.” 

Walpole was soon in the midst of great embarrassments. The king, 
the people, a strong minority in the Commons, a majority in the Lords, 
and a preponderance in the cabinet, were eager for war with Spain. 
Walpole endeavoured to avert it as a national calamity, but was over- 
powered by the union of so many parties in its favour. He then felt 
how much his popularity had suffered from his opposition to the war, 
and feared that any failures would be laid to his charge. He entreated 
the permission of the king to resign, but his majesty exclaimed, “ Will 
you desert me in my greatest difficulties?” and refused to accept his 
resignation. In the midst of the discussions upon the Spanish war, 
he had also been deserted by the Duke of Argyle, whose talents in 
debate and personal influence became a serious obstacle to his 
measures. Discord ensued in the cabinet, and the opposition in 
parliament became more strenuous than ever. In February 1740 a 
motion was made, by Sandys, for an address to the crown for the 
removal of Sir Robert Walpole “from his majesty’s presence and 
counsels for ever.” No distinct charges were made against the 
minister to justify so strong an address; but every complaint 
against the measures of his government, foreign or domestic, during 
the last twenty years, was used as a reason for his dismissal. “If it 
should be asked,” says Sandys, “why I impute all these evils to one 
person, I reply, because one person grasped in his own hands every 
branch of government; that one person has attained the sole direction 
of affairs, monopolised all the favours of the crown, compassed the 
disposal of all places, pensions, titles, ribands, as well as all prefer- 
ments, civil, military, and ecclesiastical.” Walpole defended himself 
with becoming boldness and dignity, and referred with pride to the 
successes of his administration. ‘The motion was negatived by a large 
majority, and a similar motion in the House of Lords met with the 
same fate. But, notwithstanding this triumph, his power was nearly 
exhausted. A dissolution immediately followed; his opponents were 
active at the elections; many of his friends kept back; he himself was 
indolently confident of success; and on the mesting of the new par- 
liament he found himself in a bare majority. After several close 
divisions, he was, on the 2nd of February 1742, left in a minority of 
sixteen, on the Chippenham election case. On the 9th he was created 
Earl of Orford by the king, and on the 11th he resigned. On taking 
leave of him the king burst into tears, expressed his regret for the loss 
of so faithful a counsellor, and his gratitude for his long services, 

No sooner was a new administration formed under Puiteney (which, 
through the influence and address of Walpole, had been composed 
chiefly of Whigs), than an attack was made upon the ex-minister, On 
the 9th of March, Lord Limerick moved in the House of Commons 
for a secret committee to inquire into the administration of Sir Robert 
Walpole during the last twenty years, but his motion was lost by a 
majority of two. Lord Limerick very soon made a second motion, 
but proposed to include only the last ten years in his inquiry. This 
motion was carried by a majority of seven, and a committee of secresy 
was appointed. Of the twenty-one members of this committee, nomi- 
nated by ballot, all except two had been Walpole’s uniform opponents, 
The committee, failing to obtain the evidence of corruption which 
they had expected, endeavoured to pass a bill of indemnity to all 
persons who would make discoveries, but this invidious and unjust 
measure was rejected by the House of Lords. The committee never- 
theless made a report, in which they charged Walpole—1, with having 
used undue influence at elections ; 2, with grants of fraudulent con- 
tracts; and, 3, with peculation and profusion in the expenditure of 
the secret service money. These charges were but ill supported, and 
considering the clamours that had been raised against the minister, 
the decided enmity of the committee, and the ample means at their 
disposal, the report must be regarded, if not as a verdict of acquittal, 
at least as one of not proven. A motion for renewing the inquiry was 
repeated in the following session, but was defeated by a large majority, 


From this time Walpole took very little part in public affairs. He 
was frequently consulted by the king, and retained much political 
influence, but rarely epoke in the House of Lords, having observed to 
his brother that he had left his tongue with the Commons. After 
dreadful suffering from the stone, which he bore with admirable forti- 
tude, he died on the 18th of March 1745, in the sixty-ninth year of ~ 
his age, and was buried in the parish church at Houghton. 

The character of no public man has ever been more misrepresented 
than that of Walpole. He had the misfortune to be actively opposed 
by the first wits of his day. The brilliant talents of Bolingbroke, 
Chesterfield, Swift, and Pope, filled the press with sarcasms, and mis- 
led the public by the most artful misconstruction of his acts, Even 
the stage was made subservient to opposition. In parliament he also 
had able opponents, men of greater talents and acquirements than 
himself, but not perhaps more able and ready in debate. Supported 
as they were by the literary talents of their friends, and having more 
plausible and popular topics to dilate upon, they succeeded in main- 
taining a perpetual outcry against the minister. How far he deserved 
it may in some measure be judged from the fact that no points of his 
policy met with so much execration as his Excise scheme and his 
resistance to the Spanish war; both of which have since been 
applauded by posterity. As regards the corruption with which he 
was charged, Burke affirmed that he was less chargeable with it than 
any minister who ever served the crown for so great a length of time. 
At all events the Commons, being then comparatively unrestrained by 
popular election, were more open to corruption than at the present 
day, and the low morality of the times encouraged it. The extremely 
difficult circumstances in which Walpole was placed by the claims of 
the Pretender and the unpopularity of the house of Hanover, must 
also be pleaded in his justification. His zeal for the Protestant suc- 
cession was certainly the main principle of his political life and 
administration. The same great authority who vindicated him from 
the charge of systematic corruption thus sums up his services :— 
“The prudence, steadiness, and vigilance of that man, joined to the 
greatest possible lenity in his character and his politics, preserved the 
crown to this royal family, and with it their iaws and liberties to this 
country.” (Burke’s ‘ Appeal from the New to the Old Whigs,’ p. 63.) 

In private life he was distinguished by his hearty good nature and 
social dispositions. His conversation and manners were somewhat 
coarse and boisterous, but he had the happy art of making friends, and 
great powers of persuasion. For business of all kinds he had an 
extraordinary capacity, and the ease with which he executed it led 
Lord Hervey to say that “he did everything with the same ease and 
tranquillity as if he was doing nothing.” 

WALPOLE, HORACE, Earl of Orford, was the third and youngest 
son of Sir Robert Walpole, by Catherine Shorter, his first wife, and 
was born on the 5th of October 1717. When he had finished his 
education at Eton, and at King’s College, Cambridge, he left England 
and travelled on the Continent for more than two years. For the 
greater part of this time he was accompanied by Gray, the poet, with 
whom he had formed a friendship at school; but a difference unfor- 
tunately arose between the two friends, and they parted at Reggio, in 
July 1741, and returned to England by different routes. On his 
return home, in September 1741, Walpole took his seat in the House 
of Commons as member for Callington, for which place he had been 
elected during his absence. His father’s administration was at that 
time in the midst of the difficulties which shortly afterwards caused 
its downfall, and he could not fail to be deeply interested in all that 
passed. He did not however take any prominent part in the debates. 
His first speech was delivered in March 1742, on a motion for inquiring 
into the conduct of Sir Robert Walpole for the preceding ten years of 
his administration, and was favourably noticed by Mr. Pitt, afterwards 
Lord Chatham, and by Secker, at that time Bishop of Oxford. When 
the interest excited by his father’s affairs had subsided, he was very 
rarely induced to address the House. He moved the address in 
1751, and spoke in 1756 on the question of employing Swiss regiments 
in the colonies. In 1757 he exerted himself with much ardour in 
favour of the unfortunate Admiral Byng. These are the chief events 
of his public life, although he remained in parliament till 1768, a 
period of twenty-eight years. In 1744 he had exchanged his seat for 
Callington for Castle Rising; and from 1754 he represented King’s 
Lynn, the borough which had returned his father for many years to 
parliament. Public life was not suited to Horace Walpole’s pursuits 
and tastes, but he was always much interested in politics. His family 
connections had early identified him with the Whig party, but his 
speculations verged upon republicanism. To show his reverence for 
popular rights and his affected hatred of kings, he hung up in his 
bedroom an engraving of the death-warrant of Charles I., and wrote 
upon it, “ Magna Charta.”” These abstract opinions however were not 
likely to lead him into any practical extravagance, for his habits and 
temper of mind were fastidiously aristocratic. 

The principal amusement and business of Walpole for many years 
of his life were the building and decoration of his Gothic villa of 
Strawberry Hill, at Twickenham. It was originally a cottage, which 
he purchased in 1747, but grew under his hands into a so-called 
mansion of considerable extent. It would be difficult to compliment 
his taste in architecture, but the Gothic style was not at that time in 
vogue, and many faults and absurdities which are now apparent at _ 


£07 WALPOLE, HORACE. 


WALSINGHAM, SIR FRANCIS. 508 


Strawberry Hill must be referred to the novelty of the attempt to 
apply to a modern domestic residence the characteristics of an ancient 
style. He collected works of art and curiosities of every description 
to ornament his house and gratify his taste—prints, pictures, minia- 
tures, armour, books, and manuscripts, He was enabled to indulge in 
these expensive pursuits by the profits of three sinecure offices which 
his father had obtained for him, namely, usher of the exchequer, 
comptroller of the pipe, and clerk of the estreats. 

To the tastes of a virtuoso he added those of a man of letters. 
His earliest compositions were in verse, and though many of them are 
sprightly and agreeable, they are not imaginative, and evince but little 
aptness for versification, In 1752 he published his ‘Aides Walpo- 
lianze,’ a work of little pretension, being in fact a catalogue of his 
father’s pictures at the family seat of Houghton Hall in Norfolk; but, 
like other literary works of the same author, it was consistent with his 
favourite pursuits and studies, while it ministered to his family pride. 
In 1761 he commenced the publication of ‘ Anecdotes of Painting in 
England,’ which were not completed until 1771; and in 1763 he 
added a ‘Catalogue of Engravers.’ Both these works were founded 
upon materials supplied by Vertue, the celebrated engraver, which 
Walpole worked up into several entertaining volumes of anecdote and 
criticism upon the fine arts. In 1758 he published his ‘ Catalogue of 
Royal and Noble Authors.’ In this work he contrived to enliven a 
long list of peculiarly dull writers with agreeable anecdotes, and a 
smart and happy style of writing, for which he is remarkable. 

Walpole’s celebrated novel, the ‘Castle of Otranto,’ appeared in 
1764, as a translation, by William Marshall, from the Italian of 
Onuphrio Muralto, which the author intended as an anagram of his 
own name, This romance, being in a new style, excited various 
opinions at the time, but it was, on the whole, eminently popular and 
successful, and is still read with interest as one of our standard novels. 
Four years later, another work of imagination was published. The 
tragedy of ‘The Mysterious Mother’ is founded upon a disgusting 
tale of incest “ more truly horrid even than that of Gidipus,” as Walpole 
himself describes it, and is worked up with great dramatic spirit. 

His next publication was the ‘Historic Doubts on the Life and 
Reign of King Richard III,’ an ingenious and acute examination of 
the evidence upon which historians have founded their accounts of the 
principal events of that period. Besides these larger works, he was 
continually publishing minor compositions, such as various papers in 
the ‘ World’ and other periodicals, his ‘Essay on Modern Garden- 
ing,’ the ‘Hieroglyphic ‘ales,’ and ‘Reminiscences of the Courts of 
George I. and II.’ He also prepared ‘Memoirs’ of the last ten years 
of the reign of George II., which were not published until after his 
death ; and of the first twelve years of the reign of George III., which 
first appeared, in 4 vols. 8vo, in 1844, &c., under the editorship of Sir 
Denis le Marchant. These contain many curious events not recorded 
elsewhere, but little reliance can be placed upon them as an historical 
work, for the author’s prejudices and political partialities are too open 
to entitle his evidence or judgment to much weight. 

But the cleverest and certainly the most entertaining of all Walpole’s 
writings are his letters, addressed to various friends, collected by him- 
self, and published at different times since his death. Walter Scott 
calls him ‘the best letter-writer in the English language,” and Byron 
speaks of his letters as “incomparable.” Another writer remarks that 
“his epistolary talents have shown our language to be capable of all 
the charms of the French of Madame de Sévigné.” No one indeed 
can fail to be entertained by the inexhaustible fund of anecdote, of 
gossip, of lively and fanciful conceits, of scandal, and bons-mots, with 
which nearly every page is enriched. The style is gay and sprightly, 
and admirably suited for correspondence. Had his letters been the 
spontaneous communications of a friend unbending his mind in 
familiar intercourse with another, and writing without forethought or 
labour, they could only have been the work of a man of the highest 
talent; but a less exalted opinion is necessarily formed of the man, 
when we discover that the ease and freedom of style which we have 
been entrapped into admiring as natural, were the result of laborious 
care and study, He was always on the alert collecting anecdotes, and 
dressing up epigrams which he afterwards inserted in his letters as if 
they had occurred to him at the moment. And, both in his Letters 
and his History “his want of accuracy, or veracity, or both, is,” as 
Mr. Hallam very justly remarks, (‘Constitutional Hist.,’ iii. 383,) “so 
palpable (above all in his verbal communications), that no great stress 
can be laid upon his testimony.” Many of his letters were published 
in the 4to. edition of his works in 1798, and subsequently his letters 
to Mr. Montagu and Mr. Cole, to Lord Hertford and the Rev. Henry 
Zouch, and to Sir Horace Mann, have appeared at different times. 
The whole of the letters of Horace Walpole have since beey collected, 
and were published, in six volumes, octavo; anda new and complete 
edition of the ‘ Entire Correspondence of Horace Walpole’ is now in 
course of publication under the editorship of Mr. Peter Cunningham. 
Hag an comprises a period of more than sixty years, from 1735 
0 , 

Horace Walpole had not been contented with collecting rare and 
curious books and publishing his own works, but, still further to 
gratify his literary tastes, he established in 1757 a private printing- 
press at Strawberry Hill. Here he printed the Odes of Gray with 
Bentley's illustrations ; his own ‘ Anecdotes of Painting :’ a ‘Deserip- 


tion of Strawberry Hill;’ a quarto edition of ‘ Lucan,’ with the notes 
of Grotius and Bentley; a ‘Life of Lord Herbert of Cherbury,’ by 
himself ; Hentzner’s ‘Travels ;’ and Lord Whitworth’s ‘ Account 
Russia.’ He had also, so early as the year 1768, formed an intention 
of printing a quarto edition of his own works, which he soon after- 
wards commenced, But he never proceeded beyond the second 
volume, in consequence (as his editor, in 1798, says) of his “ frequent 
indispositions, and the unimportant light in which, notwithstanding 
the very flattering reception they had met with from the world, he 
always persisted in considering his own works,” 
In 1791 he succeeded his nephew, George, third earl of Orford, in 
the title and estates of his family, and it is curious that, notwithstand- 
ing his high respect for rank and title, he was not gratified by his 
accession of dignity. He never even took his seat in the House of 
Lords, and rarely used the title when he could avoid it. Some of his 
letters after that period were signed by “the uncle of the late earl of 
Orford.” He lived for six years afterwards, in the fall possession of 
all his faculties, though his limbs had been paralysed by the fi 
attacks of the gout, from which he had suffered. He died in the 
eightieth year of his age, at his house in Berkeley-square, on the 2nd 
of March 1797, oF 
Horace Walpole cannot be regarded either as a wise or as a great 
man, Weakness, vanity, and inconsistency_were prominent features of 
his mind, and his works do not prove it to have been susceptible of 
great elevation of thought or principle. He had a natural taste for 
small and trifling things, and an aversion to the more important 
business of life; but then it is true that he always professed to be a 
gentleman of ease and fashion, whose literary efforts were ken 
not for fame, but for recreation. He affected to disclaim the cha- 
racter of a man of letters, but was acutely sensitive to criticism, greedy 
of praise, and envious of the fame of others. He pretended to 
despise the court, yet all his thoughts were of kings, princes, and 
courtiers. He was a republican and an aristocrat, He worshipped 
rank, yet when it fell to his lot was reluctant to assume it. In private 
life he showed no remarkable virtues, nor is he chargeable with 
any serious faults. ; 
WALSINGHAM, or WALSYNGHAM, SIR FRANCIS, an English 
statesman of distinguished ability, was descended from an ancient 
family, and was born at Chiselhurst in Kent, it is commonly stated in 
the year 1536. The authority for this date we believe to be an 
account, transmitted by a correspondent to the publishers of a work 
ealled ‘ British Biography,’ vol. iii., 8vo, London, 1767, of an original 
picture of Walsingham painted in 1578, making him then forty-two 
years of age. (See note to p. 295.) He was the third and youngest 
son of William Walsingham, Esq. of Scadbury, in the parish of Chisel- 
hurst; and of Joice, daughter of Edmund Denny, Esq. of Cheshunt 
in Hertfordshire. 
After studying at King’s College, Cambridge, Walsingham went to 
travel on the Continent; and he remained abroad, making active use 
of his opportunities of examining the state of foreign countries and 
acquiring their languages, till after the accession of Elizabeth. On his 
return to England his accomplishments recommended him to the 
notice of Cecil, under whom he was soon introduced to high and con- 
fidential employment in the public service. His first important 
mission is generally assumed to have been to France in the earlier part 
of the reign of Charles IX., but nothing further is known of it than 
what is stated in his epitaph, that after reaching the age of manhood 
(matura jam ztate) he was Queen Elizabeth’s orator, or representative, 
at the court of the King of France (apud Gallum), for several years, 
ina most turbulent time. But it does not appear why the words in 
the epitaph may not refer to what is generally called Walsingham’s 
second French embassy, upon which we know that he was sent in 
August 1570, and which detained him at Paris till April 1573. On 
his return home he was appointed one of the principal secretaries of 
state and sworn of the Privy Council; and soon after he was knighted. 
In 1578 he was sent as ambassador to the Netherlands; in 1581 again 
to France; and in 1583 to Scotland. In October 1586, having had all 
along the chief direction of the measures that were taken for the 
detection of Babington’s conspiracy, he served as one of the commis- 
sioners at the trial of Mary, Queen of Scots. Soon after this, accord- 
ing to his epitaph, he was made chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster ; 
but he appears to have still occupied himself chiefly with the conduct 
of foreign affairs, and it must have been in 1587 that, if we are to 
believe a story which is commonly told, he managed to retard for a 
whole year the preparation of the Spanish Armada, by getting the bills 
upon which the money was io be raised protested at Genoa, through 
the agency of Sutton, the founder of the Charter House, having pre- 
viously discovered the design of the King of Spain in fitting out that 
armament by having the letter of his majesty to the pope, in which 
the secret was intimated, stolen from the cabinet in which it was 
locked up, through the medium of a Venetian priest retained as his 
spy at Rome, who got a gentleman of the bedchamber to take the ke 
out of his holiness’s pocket while he was asleep. Such a proceedin 
strange as it now sounds, was not at.all foreign to the spirit or practice 
of the statesmanship of that age, and was quite after the manner of 
Walsingham, whose system was founded upon and maintained by 
bribery, espionage, and all the forms of deception. “ ‘Io him,” says 
his warm admirer and panegyrist, Lloyd, ‘ men’s faces spake as: much 


the Benedictine abbey of St. Albans. 


“native city. 


609 WALSINGHAM, THOMAS. 


WALTER, JOHN. 610 


as their tongues, and their countenances were indexes of their hearts. 
He would so beset men with questions, and draw them on, that they 
discovered themselves whether they answered or were silent, He out- 
did the Jesuits in their own bow, and overreached them in their own 
equivocation and mental reservation ; never settling a lie, but warily 
drawing out and discovering truth. So good was his intelligence, that 
he was confessor to most of the papists before their death, as they had 
been to their brethren before their treasons. He maintained fifty- 
three agents and eighteen spies in foreign courts; and, for two pistoles 
an order, had all the private papersin Europe. . .. . Few letters 


- escaped his hands; and he could read their contents without touching 


the seals.” 
For all this, Walsingham was the very reverse of a man of mere 


policy and expediency. His personal integrity and disinterestedness. 


are unquestionable ; his morality was strict, to the verge of asceticism; 
his religious zeal drew him all his life towards puritanism, and in his 
latter days lifted him alike above the enjoyments and the cares of this 
world. For some time before his death he seems to have retired from 
‘business, and to have spent his time, with little or no society, at his 
house at Barn-Elms. Here he died on the 6th of April 1590. Camden 
says that he had “watched the practices of these men [the papists] 


‘with so great an expense, that he lessened his estate by that means, 


and brought himself so far in debt, that he was buried privately by 
night, in St. Paul’s Church, without any manner of funeral solemnity.” 
Elizabeth, with all her professed appreciation of Walsingham’s diligence 
and important services, seems to have kept him throughout‘his life on 
short allowance. Even of honours, if we except his knighthood and 
the offices to which he was appointed, he had none. Camden says he 
was a Knight of the Garter, and has been generally followed in that 
statement ; but we believe it is unfounded. 

Walsingham was married to a lady of the name of St. Barbe, and 

by her he left one daughter, Frances, who became successively the 
wife of Sir Philip Sidney, of Robert Devereux, the unfortunate Earl 
of Essex, and of the distinguished soldier Richard Burgh, created 
by Charles II. Earl of St. Albans in the English peerage, but better 
known by his inherited Irish title of Earl of Clanricarde. She died, 
after bringing her last husband a son, in 1602. 
The history of Walsingham’s French embassy of 1570-73 is con- 
tained in Sir Dudley Digges’s ‘Complete Ambassador; or, Two 
Treatises of the intended Marriage of Queen Elizabeth, of glorious 
memory; comprised in letters of negotiation of Sir Francis Wal- 
singham, her resident in France; together with the answers of the 
Lord Burleigh, &c., folio, London, 1655. There is a short paper by 
Walsingham, entitled ‘Sir Francis Walsingham’s Anatomising of 
Honesty, Ambition, and Fortitude, in the ‘Cottoni Posthuma; or, 
Divers and Choice Pieces of Sir Robert Cotton,’ London, 4to, 1672. 
His authorship of the treatise entitled ‘Arcana Aulica; or, Wal- 
singham’s Manual, or Prudential Maxims,’ which has been several 
times printed, is doubtful. 

-WALSINGHAM, or WALSINGHAMUS, THOMAS, an English 
historian of the 15th century, was a native of Norfolk, and a monk of 
Bishop Nicolson conceives that 
he was “ very probably Regius professor of history in that monastery 
about the year 1440.” He is the author of two: historical works which 
have come down to us, the one entitled ‘ Historia Brevis, ab Edvardo 
primo ad Henricum quiutum’ (it extends in fact from 1273, the first 
year of Edward I., to 1422, the last year of Henry V.); the other, 
*Ypodigma Neustriae, vel Normanniae, ab irruptione Normannorum 
usque ad annum 6 regni-Henrici quinti’ (1418). Both these works 
were published together by Archbishop Parker, in folio, London, 1574. 
Both are also contained in Camden’s ‘ Anglica, Normannica, Hibernica, 
Cambrica, x Veteribus Scripta,’ folio, Francof., 1603; the ‘ Historia 
Brevis,’ from p. 57 to 408 ; the ‘ Ypodigma Neustriae,’ from p. 409 to 
592. Walsingham, in his ‘ Historia Brevis,’ takes up the narrative 
from the point where Matthew Paris ends; “and he might well,” 
Nicolson observes, “seem to be Paris’s continuator, were his language 
answerable to his matter.’ But although his style is not to be com- 
mended, Walsingham has in both his works preserved many facts 
which are not elsewhere to be found. His account of the reign of 
Edward IL, according to Nicolson, is wholly borrowed from Sir 
Thomas de la More, or Moor, a contemporary writer, who drew up a 
Life of Edward II. in French, of which there is also a Latin translation 
in Camden’s ‘ Anglica,’ &c., pp. 593-603. 

WALTER, JOHANN GOTTLIEB, a celebrated anatomist, was 
born at Kénigsberg in 1739; the ‘ Biographie Universelle’ says 1734. 
He early evinced a desire to study medicine, but his father was opposed 
to it, and on his death-bed made his son promise that he would devote 
himself to the study of jurisprudence. _ But so strong was his desire 
to pursue medical science, especially anatomy, that he broke his 
promise to his father, and commenced the study of medicine in his 
He afterwards went to Frankfurt-on-Oder, where he 
graduated in 1757. From this place he removed to Berlin for the 
purpose of studying under the celebrated Meckel, and such was the 
progress he made in anatomy, that in 1762 he was appointed second 
professor in the anatomical theatre of the Collegium Medico-Chirurgi- 
cum of Berlin. On the death of Meckel in 1774 he was appointed first 
professor of anatomy, and also professor of midwifery. He died on 
the 4th of January 1818. During the whole of his life he was remark- 


able for the zeal and activity with which he pursued his favourite 
science of anatomy, and more especially that department which was 
connected with the branch of practical medicine which he taught. He 
collected a valuable museum of anatomical and pathological specimens, 
which was purchased by the king of Prussia for 100,000 dollars in the 
year 1804, and which still exists at Berlin under the name of Walter's 
Museum. This museum consisted of nearly 3000 specimens, the result 
of the dissection of upwards of 8000 dead bodies. He wrote several 
works on various departments of anatomy and midwifery. In addition 
to numerous essays and papers, he published the following works :— 
‘Abhandlung von troknen Knochen’ (A Treatise on the Bones of the 
Human Body), 8vo, Berlin, 1762; ‘ Observationes Anatomicze,’ folio, 
Berlin, 1775; * Myologisches Handbuch’ (A Manual of Myology), 8vo, 
Berlin, 1777; * Von den Krankheiten des Bauchfelles und der Schlag- 
flusse’ (On Diseases of the Abdomen and on Apoplexy), 8vo, Berlin, 
1785. Of these the anatomical works have gone through several 
editions, and his miscellaneous papers are valuable contributions to 
medical science. A complete list of his numerous works and papers is 
given in the ‘ Biographie Universelle’ and in the ‘ Neuestes Conversa- 
tions-Lexicon, 

WALTER, JOHN, late manager and principal proprietor of ‘ The 
Times’ newspaper, was born in 1784. His father, John Walter, was 
born in 1739. He was known as the logographic printer, from his 
having obtained a patent for an invention named Logography, or the 
art of printing with entire words, their roots, and terminations, in- 
stead of the arrangement of single letters. On the Ist of January 
1788, he published the first number of ‘ The Times, and was during 
eighteen years printer to the Board of Customs, but that employment 
was taken from him about 1805, in consequence of the opinions 
expressed in ‘ The Times’ with reference to Lord Melville’s administra- 
tion at the Admiralty. He died November 16, 1812, at Teddington, 
Middlesex, 

The late John Walter became a joint proprietor and the exclusive 
manager of ‘ The Times’ at the commencement of the year 1803. It 
would not be easy to describe the improvements which were made in 
‘The Times’ under his management. The munificent sums paid to 
the editor and to those literary gentlemen of the highest class who 
furnished the leading articles, the large staff of reporters at liberal 
salaries for parliamentary debates, law proceedings, and public meet- 
ings, the large amount and accuracy of information, the almost 
universal correspondence, the competition even with the government 
for priority of intelligence, the distinct arrangement of the matter, the 
application of steampower for the printing, and the marvellous rapidity 
with which the whole is produced, have raised ‘The Times’ to a 
position of social and political importance in which it is without a rival 
not only in Great Britain but in Europe. 

The invention of the printing-machine, and the use of the steam- 
engine as a moving power have produced so great a revolution in the 
process of printing, as to require a brief statement of the origin and 
progress of the invention. As early as 1804 an ingenious compositor 
named Thomas Martyn had made the model of a machine for printing, 
which met with the approval of Mr. Walter, who expended a conside- 
able sum in the attempt to complete the machine; but having 
exhausted. his own funds, and his father, who had hitherto assisted 
him, having refused him any further aid, the attempt was abandoned. 
About the same period Mr. Konig, a native of Germany, had made 
some progress in the contrivance of a machine for printing, but meet- 
ing with no encouragement in his own country, came to England. He 
was introduced to Mr. Bensley, a well-known printer, who being satis- 
fied as to the feasibility of the projected improvement, supplied the 
necessary funds. An ingenious assistant of the name of Bauer was 
also engaged, and the work proceeded till the year 1809, when Mr. 
Bensley, requiring additional funds, invited the late Mr. George 
Woodfall, and Mr. Richard Taylor, both well-known printers, to join 
him and Mr. Koenig in taking out a patent, which they did, the 
machine even then being so far advanced as to satisfy them as to the 
prospect of success, and to enable them to have the specifications 
drawn up. The first patent bears date March 29,1810. It was taken 
out in the name of Frederic Koenig, and was assigned by articles of 
partnership to the firm of Bensley, Koenig, Woodfall, and Taylor. 
Mr. Koenig states (‘The Times,’ December 8, 1814) that “sheet H of 
the ‘New Annual Register’ for 1810, ‘Principal Occurrences,’ was 
printed by my machine, and it is, I have no doubt, the first part of a 
book ever printed by a machine.” The machine was set to work 
regularly in April, 1811. Another patent for a machine on an im- 
proved plan was taken out October 30, 1812. It was completed in 
December that year, and printed about 800 copies an hour. A third 
patent for another improved machine was taken out July 23, 1813. 
Mr. Koenig’s first machines were worked by hand, the machines in 
fact being independent of the motive power. Mr. Perry, of the 
‘Morning Chronicle’ was applied to, but declined to purchase a 
machine, Mr. Walter however, seeing the invention accomplished and 
the machine in full operation, gave an order for two machines, which 
were to be worked by the power of a steam-engine. Notwithstanding 
violent opposition from the pressmen, the machines were completed 
on adjoining premises, and on the 29th of November 1814, ‘The 
Times’ was printed for the first time by machines worked by steam- 
power, The number impressed in the hour was then about 1100, 


611 WALTHER, BALTHASAR. 


WALTHER, MICHAEL. 512 


Great improvements have since been made by the late Professor 
Edward Cowper and others, in the machines for printing books as well 
as newspapers. About 12,000 per hour is the number now printed 
of ‘The Times,’ and the total number per day is upwards of 50,000. 

Mr. Walter married in 1818. Having purchased a fine estate in 
Berkshire, he became a candidate for the representation of that county 
in December 1832, and was returned. He was re-chosen in 1835, but 
in 1837 resigned his seat in consequence of the opinions of the majority 
of those who had elected him being opposed to his own on the 
question of the new Poor Laws. In 1840 he offered himself for the 
borough of Southwark, but was rejected. In April 1841 he was 
returned for the borough of Nottingham, and at the general election 
the same year announced himself as a candidate, but in consequence 
of serious rioting, withdrew half an hour before the poll was opened. 
He died July 28, 1847, at his residence, Printing-House Square, Black- 
friars, London. 

* Jonn WaLtER, son of the late John Walter, and his successor in 
the proprietorship and management of ‘ The Times,’ was born in 1818 
in London. He was educated at Eton College and at Exeter College, 
Oxford, where he took the degrees of B.A. in 1840, and M.A. in 1843. 
In 1847 he was called to the bar of Lincoln’s Inn. In 1843 he con- 
tested the borough of Nottingham, without success, but was returned 
for it in 1847, and has since continued to represent it as a moderate 
Liberal. He conducts ‘The Times’ on the principles of his father, 
and with undiminished success, 

WALTHER, BALTHASAR, Latinised WattHERvs or GUALTERUS, 
was born at Allendorf in Thuringia in the latter part of the 16th 
century. He studied divinity at Jena, and paid great attention to 
classical and oriental languages. He was appointed professor of 
Greek and Hebrew at Jena, and subsequently became superintendent 
of the Lutheran church in the duchy of Saxe-Gotha, and in the duchy 
of Brunswick-Wolfenbiittel. He died at Brunswick on the 15th of 
November 1640. He is the author of, 1, ‘ Diatriba elenctica de Con- 
stantini Magni Baptismo, Donatione, et Legatione ad Concilium Nicae- 
num, contra Baroninus;’ 2, ‘ Problemata Hebraica, Chaldaica, Syriaca, 
Graeca;’ 3, ‘De Papae Primatu ef Anti-Christo;’ 4, ‘ Lutherus 
natus, denatus, & Papicolarum Calumniis vindicatus;’ 5, ‘ Vierzig 
Fragen von der Seelen Urstand, Essenz, Wesen, Natur und Eigen- 
schaft, wider Jacob Béhmen.’ This werk isa refutation of the doc- 
trines of the celebrated theosophist Jacob Bohmen. The Life of 
Walther is not in Freherus, ‘Theatrum Virorum eruditione clarorum,’ 
as Jocher pretends, in his ‘ Allgemeines Gelehrten-Lexicon,’ 

(Comp. Zeumerus, Vitae Professorwm Jenensium.) 

WALTHER, CHRISTIAN, was probably born in Hesse, in the 
beginning of the 16th century. He studied divinity, took orders, and 
lived a considerable time in a convent in Germany, the name of which 
is unknown. He afterwards left his convent and adopted the Pro- 
testant faith. Having settled at Wittenberg, he became acquainted 
with several of the great Protestant divines of the 16th century, such 
as Flacius, Rorarius (Rérer), Aurifaber (Goldschmid), and Amsdorf, 
who esteemed him for his extensive learning. He also became ac- 
quainted with the celebrated printer Hans Lufft, in whose office he 
was employed as corrector of the press for thirty-four years. He was 
the sub-editor of the Wittenberg edition of the works of Luther, 
which edition was attacked by the divines assembled at Jena for the 
purpose of publishing another edition; they charged Walther with 
having purposely altered several passages so as to make them an 
instrument in the hands of the Calvinists for their attacks against 
Luther. The celebrated Amsdorf (the bishop) attacked Walther in a 
pamphlet entitled ‘Dass die zu Wittenberg im andern Theil der 
Biicher Lutheri im Buch, dass diese Worte, Das ist mein Leib, noch 
feste stehen, mebr denn ein Blat und 4 gantze Paragraphos vorsetzlich 
ausgelassen haben.’ He was likewise attacked by Flacius. Walther 
was not the man to pass over such an accusation in silence; he 
defended himself in a pamphlet, ‘Bericht von denen Wittenbergischen 
Tomis der Biicher des ehrwiirdigen Martin Luthers, wider Matthes 
Flacium Illyricum,’ 4to, Wittenberg, 1558. Mayerus, in his work, 
‘De Versione Bibliorum Lutheri’ (c. 4. par. 58), says that the accu- 
sations directed against Walther were unfounded, though it appeared 
that the Wittenberg edition was sometimes incorrect, a reproach 
however to which the Jena edition was likewise liable. Another 
polemical pamphlet of Walther was, 1, ‘ Antwort auf die Flacianische 
Liigen und falschen Bericht wider die Haus-Postill Dr. Luthers.’ He 
also wrote, 2, ‘Bericht vom Unterschied der Biblien und anderer 
Biicher Lutheri;’ 3, ‘Register aller Biicher und Schrifften Lutheri, 
welche in die XI, Teutsche Theil und VII. Lateinische zu Witten- 
berg getruckt sind. Item, welche in dem 12ten Theil getruckt 
werden sollen, nach diesem Register vezreichnet,’ 4to, Wittenberg, 
1558. Walther died about 1572, but Zeltner says that the precise 
date of his death has never been ascertained. 

(Zeltnerus, Theatrum Virorum Eruditorum, p. 542, &e.; Correctorwm 
in Typographis Eruditorwm Centuria, p. 542, &e.) 

WALTHER, CHRISTIAN, a German divine of considerable merit, 
was born in 1655, at Norkitten, not far from Ké6ni berg, where he 
began his academic studies, which he continued at Leipzig, and finished 
at Jena. He took his degree of M.A, at Jena, in 1677, and returned 
to his native country, where he held several ecclesiastical offices. In 
1701 he was chosen member of the Academy of Science at Berlin, and 


‘ 


in 1702 the faculty of Frankfurt-on-the-Oder conferred upon him the 
title of D.D. In 1703 he was appointed ordinary professor of divinity 
in the University of Kénigsberg, and in the following year he was 
invested with the office of inspector of the synagogue of the Jews in 
that town. During some time he was Rector Magnificus of the Uni- 
versity of Konigsberg, where he died in 1717. His principal works 
are, 1, ‘Tractatus de Cultu Divino sanctuarii Veteris Testamenti, 
quem stando fieri oportebat;’ 2, ‘De Duabus Tabulis Lapideis;’ 3, 
‘De quatuor Poenarum generibus apud Hebraeos ;’ 4, ‘ Disputationes 
VIII. de Pluralitate personarum in Divinis, ex Genesi (i. 26) ;’ 5, 
‘ Disputationes III. de ingressu Sacerdotis summi solenni Expiationis 
die in Sanctum Sanctorum ;’ 6, ‘ Programmata V. de Semine Abrahz 
in quo benedicuntur Omnes Gentes.’ Walther also published the 
beginning of the work of Moses Maimonides on Circumcision, with 
note: and a Latin translation. 

WALTHER, CHRISTOPH THEODOSIUS, was born at Schild- 
berg, in Brandenburg, in 1699, and studied divinity at Halle. Frederic 
1V., king of Denmark, having applied to the faculty of Halle for the 
purpose of obtaining some young theologians who would go as mis- 
sionaries to the Dauish possessions in East India, Walther accepted 
the invitation. He went accordingly to Copenhagen in 1705, accom- 
panied by Henry Pliitschow and the celebrated Bartholomew Zi 
balg. They arrived at Tranquebar on the 9th of July 1706, and until 
then the Danes had not succeeded in propagating Christianity beyond 
the narrow limits of that colony. Walther, after having learned 
Portuguese, with Tamul and several other Indian dialects, visited the 
whole coast of Coromandel, and bis pious zeal was rewarded with 
great success. He founded the missionary establishment of Maju- 
baram. From 1735 his health suffered much in consequence of an 
endemic fever, He returned to Europe in 1740. Before he reached 
Denmark, he died at Dresden on the 27th of April 1741. Walther 
published ‘ Nachrichten von dem Tranquebarischen Missions-Wesen,’ 
1726; ‘The Way of Salvation,’ in Tamul, Tranquebar, 1727, 12mo, 
1731: this work is sometimes cited under the title of ‘ Refutation of 
Mohammedanism ;’ ‘An Abridgment of Ecclesiastical History,’ in 
Tamul, Tranquebar, 1735; ‘ Observationes Grammatice quibus Lingue 
Tamulicze Idioma vulgare illustratur,’ Tranquebar, 8vo, 1739; ‘ Doc- 
trina Temporum Indica ex Libris Indicis et Brahmarum cum Parali- 
pomenis recentioribus,’ in Bayer’s ‘Historia Regni Bactriani;’ ‘ Ellipses 
Hebraicze, sive De Vocibus que in Codici Hebraico per ellipsin suppri- 
muntur,’ published by Schéttgen, Dresden, 8vo, 1740. Walther con- 
tributed to the Portuguese translation of the Bible, which is used on 
the coast of Coromandel and in the Portuguese colonies. (Niecam- 
pius, Historia Missionis Evangelice in India Orientali ; comp. Schétt- 


gen, Commentarit de Vita et Agone Christianit Theodosit Waltheri, 


Halle, 1743.) 
WALTHER, GEORG CHRISTOPH, a German jurisconsult, was 


born in 1601, at Rothenburg, formerly an imperial town on the Tauber — 


in Franconia. In 1620 he went to Strasburg, where he studied law, 
and in 1628 he took his degrees in law in the University of Altdorf. 
In 1631 the senate of his native town appointed him president of the 
chancery of justice, which office he held till his death, in 1656. As 
Walther was well acquainted with the public law of Germany, several 
princes and other members of the circle of Franconia employed him 
as their representative during the different diplomatical transactions 
which either preceded or followed the peace of Westphalia, in 1648. 
He wrote: 1, ‘Methodus Jura Studendi;’ 2, ‘Liber de Statu, 
Juribus et Privilegiis Doctorum ;’ 3, ‘De Metatis et Hospitationibus 
Militaribus ;’ 4, ‘De Renunciatione Successionum vel Hereditatis ;’ 
5, ‘Harmonia Theologico-Juridico-Politico-Philosophica,’ which was 
published after his death. 

WALTHER, HEINRICH A’NDREAS, born in 1696, at Koni; 
berg in Hesse, became minister at Worms in 1729, and in 1733 
was appointed minister at St. Catherine at Frankfurt-on-the-Main. In 
1741 the rank of senior of the Protestant clergy at Frankfurt was con- 
ferred upon him, and in the same year the faculty of Giessen created 
him doctor of theology. He died at Frankfurt in 1748. His princi 
works are: 1, ‘Disputatio ex Antiquitate Orientali de Zabiis;’ 2, 
‘Dissertatio de Dominio Hominis in Bruta, ex officiis ejus in hujus 
Dominii exercitio observandis;’ 3, ‘ Finsterniss bey dem vermeinten 
Lichte der Rémisch-Catholischen Lehre, gegen ein von einem Jesuiten 
heraus gegebenes Biichlein, genannt Licht in der Finsterniss;’ 4, 
‘Exegesis Epistolae Judae;’ 5, ‘Erste Griinde der Weisheit und 
Tugend.’ This book has been imitated by several later writers, and 
has given birth to an excellent work for the use of children, entitled 
‘Lehren der Weisheit und Tugend;’ 6, ‘ Erliuterter Katechismus,’ 
He edited and accompanied with a preface the ‘Frankfurter Cate- 
chismus.’ 

WALTHER, MICHAEL, born in 1593, was the son of John Walther, 
a rich merchant and patrician at Niirnberg, who intended to bring his 
son up to his business, for which purpose he sent him to a rich mer- 
chant at Thas in Bohemia. Young Walther however disliked trade, 
and his father had him educated for a scholar. 
went to the university of Wittenberg, where he first studied medi- 
cine, but he afterwards pursued theological studies at Giessen, Altdorf, 
and Jena. In 1618, Elizabeth, Duchess of Brunswick-Wolfenbiittel, 
appointed him her chaplain: and in 1622 her son, Duke Julius 
Frederic, gave him a chair of divinity in the university of Helmstidt, 


In 1610 Walther 


2 ite 
ae ee 


— 


——————e Oe 


Ce ee a 


Pie > aim 


613 WALTHER, RUDOLPH. 


‘Ato, Niirnberg, 1646, in which the author discusses one hundred 


- singularis Quaesitorum et Responsorum Theologicorum, per epistolas;’ 


WALTON, BRIAN. 514 


ad 


In 1626 Rudolph Christian, sovereign count of Ostfriesland, conferred 
upon him the dignity of general superintendent of the Lutheran church 
in his dominions. Several distinguished works on divinity which he 
published during the course of these years had made his name known 
in Germany, and the universities of Rostock and Wittenberg both 
offered him a chair of divinity, which however he declined. However 
in 1642 he accepted an invitation of Frederic, Duke of Brunswick- 
Liineberg, who appointed him general superintendent of the Lutheran 
church in his duchy. He died at Zelle, on the 9th of February 1662. His 
principal works are :—1, ‘ Hamus et Laqueus Salomonis, 4to, Emden, 
1628 ; 2, ‘Officina Biblica, 4to, Niirnberg, 1636; 4to, 1668. This 
book shows the extensive learning of the author, and is of importance 
with regard to the Apocrypha; it also gives information on several 
writings attributed to the Apostles which are not contained in the 
New Testament. 3, ‘Harmonia totius Sacrae Scripturae, sive Con- 
ciliatio Locorum Veteris et Novi Testamenti apparenter sibi contra- 
dicentium,’ 4to, Niirnberg, 1637. This book ran through seven 
editions in the space of seventeen years. 4, ‘Tractatus de Manna,’ 
12mo, Leiden, 1633; 5, ‘Exercitationes Biblicae,’ 4to, Niirnberg, 
1688; 6, ‘Quadragena Miscellanearum Theologicarum;’ this book 
was the forerunner of—7, ‘Centuria Miscellanearum Theologicarum ;’ 


difficult questions concerning divinity. Similar works are :—8, ‘ Liber 


9, ‘Spicilegium Controversiarum illustrium XXII. de Dei Nominibus;’ 
10, ‘Postilla Mosaica, oder Erklirung etlicher Historien, Fiirbilder, 
und Spriiche aus den Fiinf Biichern Mosis;’ 11, ‘ Postilla Evangelica, 
&e.; 12, ‘Der Giildene Schliissel des Alten, und der siisse Kern des 
Neuen Testaments, das ist, Griindliche Erklirung der tiefsinnigen 
Epistel 8. Pauli an die Hebraeer;’ this book was much esteemed. 
The learning of Walther was unanimously acknowledged, but the 
length of his works and his want of taste in the arrangement of his 
materials were condemned. Walther had a son, called MicnarL 
WALTHER; like his father, who was born at Aurich in 1638, and who 
became professor of mathematics, and afterwards of divinity, in the 
university of Wittenberg, where he died in 1692. He published 
several good works both on mathematics and divinity, The principal 
are :—1, ‘ Disquisitio Mathematica de mutuis Siderum Radiationibus 
quas vulgo Aspectus vocant,’ 4to, Wittenberg, 1660; 2, ‘ De Harmonia 
Musica; 3, ‘De Novo Legislatore Christo contra Socinianos et 
Arminianos;’ several dissertations on comets, the golden number, 
the torrid zone, on geographical longitude, &ec. 

WALTHER, or GUALTE’/RUS, RUDOLPH, was born at Ziirich 
in the year 1519. After having studied Protestant divinity in seve- 
ral schools in Switzerland, he went to Marburg in Hesse, and made 
himself known as a learned divine and an able negociator in those 
politico-theological transactions which, according to the circumstances, 
either troubled or quieted Germany during the 16th century. He 
accompanied the landgrave, Philip the Magnanimous, of Hesse, to 
the diet of Regensburg in 1541, and although he was rather young, 
the landgrave put him at the head of the Hessian divines who were 
present at the diet. At Regensburg, Walter made the acquaintance 
of Melanchthon, Bucer, Sturm, and other eminent theologians. He 
returned to Switzerland in the same year (1541), and was appointed 
head-master of the Schola Carolina at Ziirich; in the following year 
(1542) he was chosen minister at St. Peter in that town, where he died 
in 1586. The principal works of Walther are :—1, ‘ Apologia Zvinglii.’ 
Walther became soon an adherent of Zwingli, and more than once 
attacked Luther. 2, ‘Monomachia Davidis et Goliathi:’ this is a 
poem written in Latin verse. 3, ‘ Homiliae in totum Novum Testa- 
mentum,’ published by Josias Simler, the divine, folio, Ziirich, 1594. 
He has also written—4, ‘ Homiliae in Joannis Epistolas: in 12 Pro- 
phetas Minores ; in Matthaeum; in Marcum; in Lucam; in Acta 
Apostolorum ; in Epistolam ad Romanos; in Epistolam ad Corinthios ; 
in Epistolam ad Galatas;’ and a great number more. 5, ‘ Argumenta 
omnium tam Veteris quam Novi Testamenti Capitum;’ the author 
has made these arguments the subject of an elegiac poem, written in 
Latin verse. 6, ‘ Nabales, Comoedia Sacra ex Samuele, I. c. 25; and 
several other Latin poems, among which there is one on the learning 
of the German nobility. 7, ‘Apologia ad Catholicam Ecclesiam pro 
Ulrico Zvinglio, ejusdemque Operum Editione;’ 8, ‘Translatio Mosis 
Pentateuchi, cum Argumentis, Dispositionibus, et Explicationibus;’ 9, 
* Ulrici Zvinglii Libri XXIV. ;’ this is a Latin translation of Zwingli’s 
sermons and other writings. 10, ‘Wahrhaftig Bekenntniss des Kir- 
chendienstes zu Ziirch mit gebiihrender Antwort auf Lutheri Ver- 
dammniss und Schelten,’ in German and Latin. Walther’s name is 
mentioned among the most eminent German divines of the 16th 
century. Some say that the Latin version of the Bible by Vatablus 
(Frangois Watebled, or Gastebled, who died in Paris in 1547, and who 
translated some books of Aristotle) is made by Walther. 

WALTHER VON DER VOGELWEIDE, one of the most celebrated 
of the old German Minnesiingers, was born sometime between 1165 and 
1170. His birth-place is uncertain, but he was undoubtedly a German, 
and most probably an Austrian, as it was at Vienna, he himself tells 
us, that he acquired the art of poetry; and he there found his first 
patron in Duke Friedrich. His earliest poems were given to the 
world about 1187, and he continued to produce them until 1227. 


They are distinguished by a depth of feeling, a rich poetic colouring, a 
BIOG, DIV, VOL, VI, 


lively perception of the beauties of nature, a reverence for woman, 
devout aspirations, and a nervous masculine strength. They are by no 
means confined to minne, or love-songs. Though these preponderate in 
the early part of his career, in his riper years he took a lively interest 
in the welfare of his country, and in his songs and poems endeavoured 
to awaken the patriotic feelings of his countrymen. He exhorted them 
to support Philip of Swabia, as emperor, against Otto of Brunswick; 
he lamented over the disruption of the empire, and the decay of the 
old customs, discipline, and manhood; he complained of the endea- 
vours of the pope to take advantage of the civil contests in Germany 
to extend the clerical powers; and he called upon Philip to put an end 
to all this confusion, He was of knightly rank, and after the death of 
his first patron, Friedrich, he undertook a pilgrimage through Germany, 
at length took up his residence at the court of Hermann, landgrave of 
Thuringia, and.is said to have taken a part in the poetical contest of 
the Meistersiingers on the Wartburg. On the accession of Friedrich 
von Hohenstaufen in 1212, Walther was rewarded with a fief. In 
some of his songs he praised his patron’s princely virtues, and 
exhorted him to repress the arrogance of the clergy; but though an 
opponent to the worldly ambition of the priests, he continued a pious 
adherent of the church. In 1228-9 he took part in the crusade of 
Friedrich IT., and is supposed about the same time to have composed 
his poem of ‘ Freidank.’ His death took place at Wiirzburg soon 
after, where his monument was for a long time shown in the burial- 
ground of the cathedral, but has now disappeared. By his contem- 
poraries he was highly estimated; Gottfried of Strassburg in his 
‘Tristan’ calls him the master of song. 

His works have been often reprinted. LL. Uhland has written an in- 
teresting account of his life, and the character of his poetry, published 
in 1822, Lachmann has edited the poems exceedingly well, twice, in 
1827 and 1843; Karl Simrock has published a very successful transla- 
tion of them from the old German, with explanatory notes by himself 
and Wackernagel, in 1833; and in 1848 they were again translated 
and annotated by F, Koch, from Lachmann’s edition, wherein the 
earliest known copies of the original had been followed. 

WALTON, BRIAN, a learned prelate of the English Church, and 
editor of the Polyglott Bible known by his name, was born in 1600, at 
Cleveland, in the North Riding of Yorkshire. He entered first Mag- 
dalen College, and afterwards Peter House, at Cambridge, and in 1623 
took his degree of M.A. For a while he is said to have kept a school, 
and at the same time, or afterwards, to have served as curate in Suffolk, 
whence he removed to London, where he acted as.curate at Allhallows, 
Bread-street. He was then presented successively to the rectories of 
St. Martin’s Orgar, in Candlewick ward, London, and Sandon in Essex; 
and before 1639, at which time he. commenced D.D., he was prebendary 
of St. Paul’s and chaplain to the king. During the early years of the 
quarrel between the king and the parliament, and the church and the 
puritans, Walton made himself very conspicuous in the suits be- 
tween the clergy and the citizens respectivg tithes and other eccle- 
siastical matters, and in other ways obnoxious to the winning party. 
On the ascendancy of the puritans he was consequently treated with 
much rigour, He was summoned before the bar of the House of 
Commons as a delinquent, his livings were sequestered, and he himself 
was compelled to fly. He took refuge in Oxford, and there in 1645 he 
was incorporated D.D. At Oxford he formed the plan of his famous 
Polyglott Bible, and commenced the collection of the necessary 
materials ; but it was not completed till some years after his removal to 
London, whither he was permitted to return on the death of the king. 

Walton’s Polyglott is in 6 vols. large folio. It was published by 
subscription (being, it is believed, the first book printed in England in 
that manner), and the volumes came out in the following order :—the 
first volume in September 1654, the second in July 1655, the third in 
July 1656, and the last three in 1657. ‘‘And thus,” says Dr. Tweils 
(‘Life of Pocock’), “in about four years was finished the English 
Polyglott Bible, the glory of that age and of the English Church and 
nation, a work vastly exceeding all former attempts of that kind, and 
that came so near perfection as to discourage all future ones.” Some 
portions of this Polyglott are printed in seven languages, all open at 
one view. No one book is given in nine languages, but nine languages 
are used in the course of the work, namely, Hebrew, Chaldee, Sama- 
ritan, Syriac, Arabic, Persian, Ethiopic, Greek, and Latin. A vast 
body of introductory matter is in the first volume, and the sixth is 
made up of various readings, critical remarks, &c. Brian Walton was 
assisted by a number of men who formed a constellation of Oriental 
and general scholars, such as perhaps have appeared together at no 
other period during the whole history of our country. One of these 
men was Dr, Edmund Castell, who published his ‘ Lexicon Hepta- 
glotton’ in 1669, 2 vols. folio, This is a lexicon of the seven Oriental 
languages occurring in Walton’s Polyglott, and it has grammars of all 
these languages prefixed. It generally accompanies the Polyglott, 
which can hardly be pronounced complete without it. Walton’s work 
is by no means equal in appearance to the three preceding Polyglotts 
(the Complutensian, the Antwerp, and the Parisian), but in point of 
solid usefulness to the biblical scholar it is far beyond any one of them. 
The eight volumes form an extraordinary collection of aids for study- 
ing the original scriptures, Its history is recorded at length in Arch- 
deacon Todd’s ‘Memoirs of the Life and Writings of the Right Rey. 


Brian Walton, D.D., Lord Bishop of Chestcr,’ 2 vols. a London, 
L 


WALTON, IZAAK. 


515° 


WANLEY, HUMPHREY. E16 


1821; a work which comprises also notices of all Walton’s coadjutors, 
Dr. John Owen having, in 1659, published some ‘ Considerations’ on 
the Prolegomena and Appendix of the Polyglott, Walton published a 
reply, the ample title of which will sufficiently explain the nature of 
the controversy :—‘The Considerator Considered ; or a brief view of 
certain Considerations upon the Biblia Polyglotta, the Prolegomena, 
and Appendix. Wherein, among other things, the certainty, integrity, 
and the divine authority of the original text is defended against the 
consequences of Atheists, Papists, Anti-Scripturists, &c., inferred 
from the various readings and novelty of the Hebrew points, by the 
author of the said Considerations. The Biblia Polyglotta and trans- 
lations therein exhibited, with the various readings, Prolegomena, and 
Appendix, vindicated from his aspersions and calumnies; and the 
questions about the punctuation of the Hebrew text, the various 
readings, and the ancient Hebrew character, briefly handled,’ 8vo, 1659. 
In 1655 Dr. Walton had published an ‘ Introductio ad lectionem lingua- 
rum Orientalium.’ 

Shortly after the Restoration Walton was appointed chaplain to the 
king, and in 1661 he was created Bishoprof Chester. But his enjoy- 
ment of this honour was very brief. He was installed on the 11th of 
September, and he died soon after his return from the ceremony, at 
his house in Aldersgate-street, London, on the 29th of November 
1661. . 

WALTON, IZAAK, the ‘ Father of Angling,’ was born at Stafford, 
on the 9th of August 1593, The register of baptisms and burials 
supplies the name of his father, one Jervis Walton, who appears to 
have been of the rank of a yeoman. Nothing more is known of this 
person, except that he died in the year 1596-97, leaving his son Izaak, 
it is supposed, an orphan. 

From the time of Walton’s birth up to the age of twenty nothing is 
known of him. It is presumed that he was apprenticed to a relation 
of the same name who dwelt in Whitechapel, and is described as a 
sempster, or hosier, but the identity of trades seems to be the sole 
ground for this conjecture. He must however soon after the age of 
twenty have been engaged in business on his own account; for in 1624 
Sir John Hawkins states, on the authority of a deed in his possession, 
that “ Walton dwelt on the north side of Fleet Street, in a house two 
doors west of Chancery Lane, and abutting on a messuage known by 
the sign of the § Harrow,’” and that his house was then in the joint 
occupation of himself and a hosier called John Mason. About 1623 
(a year before the date of this deed) Walton states that he first began 
“a happy affinity” with the family of his first wife, Rachel Floud, a 
descendant of Archbishop Cranmer, He was married to this lady on 
the 27th of December 1626, 

It was doubtless owing to this marriage that Walton first became 
interested about Hooker, the author of the ‘Laws of Ecclesiastical 
Polity,’ George Cranmer, his wife’s uncle, having been Hooker’s pupil. 
Cranmer no doubt orally communicated the materials for the ad- 
mirable Life of Hooker which Walton wrote during his residence with 
Dr. Morley in 1662: it was not however published until 1665. 

We owe the Life of Dr. Donne to another local connection. Walton’s 
house was situated in the parish of St. Dunstan in the West, of which 
Donne was vicar. A close intimacy ensued between them, and we 
find Walton attending, with other friends, on Donne’s death-bed in 
1631, and also that Walton wrote an elegy on his friend, which was 
printed at the end of Donne’s poems published by his son in 1633. 
This elegy seems to be Walton’s first avowed literary effort, and in it 
he speaks of Donne’s “ powerful preaching,” and calls himself his 
** convert,” which gives a clue to the intimacy between Walton and 
Donne. Sir Henry Wotton requested Walton to collect materials for 
a life of Donne, which Sir Henry himself had thought of writing, but 
his death in 1639 put an end to the design, Walton however, hearing 
that Dr. Donne’s sermons were to be published without a prefatory 
life, determined on writing it himself, and in the introduction to the 
Life, published with the Sermons in 1640, he fully explains the reasons 
which induced him to become Donne’s biographer. 

Previous to this publication Walton had removed into Chancery- 
lane, a few doors from Fleet-street, where his wife gave birth to two 
sons, both of whom however died. In August 1640, soon after the 
birth of an infant daughter, his wife also died. These heavy afflictions 
seem to have had a great effect upon Walton, for in 1644 he left 
Chancery-lane, and up to the year 1651 his residence is wholly un- 
certain; all his publications during this period were two commen- 
datory copies of verses, and an address to Quarles’s ‘ Kclogues” About 
1647 he married Anne Ken, half-sister of the non-conformist bishop 
ofthat name. In 1648 he had a daughter born, and in 1650 a son, 
who died after a few months. Walton’s fourth and surviving son, 
Tsaac, was born in 1651. In this same year Walton published a 
collection of Sir Henry Wotton’s letters, poems, &e., under the title of 
‘Reliquize Wottoniane,’ to which he prefixed the Life of Wotton. He 
is also believed to have edited ‘The Heroe of Lorengoe,’ a translation 
from the Spanish of Gracian, by Sir John Skeffington, which appeared 
in 1652, and to which is prefixed a preface signed I. W., which bears all 
the marks of having proceeded from Walton’s pen. 

Walton had by his marriage connections identified himself with 
the Royalist party, and the strongly expressed approval of Charles I. 
of the ‘ Life of Donne,’ combined with other circumstances, rendered 
him very zealous in a difficult and dangerous service which distin- 


guished this period of his life; the ‘Lesser George’ having been con- 
fided to his care after the battle of Worcester, by Charles IL, for safe 
conveyance to London, Ashmole details this service in his ‘ History 
of the Order of the Garter, and declares that Walton was “ well 
known, and as well beloved of all good men.” 

In 1653 the work upon which his fame principally rests appeared— 
‘The Complete Angler, or Contemplative Man’s Recreation,’ a work 
which, to use the words of Sir Harris Nicolas, “ whether considered as 
a treatise on the art of angling, or as a beautiful pastoral, abounding in 
exquisite descriptions of rural scenery, in sentiments of the purest 
morality, and in an unaffected love of the Creator and his works, 
has long been ranked among the most popular compositions in our 
language.” In 1654 the second edition of the ‘ Reliquiw’ and in 1655 
the second of the ‘Angler’ appeared. Between this period and 1658 
all trace of Walton is lost. In 1658 Dr. Donne’s Life was first pub- 
lished as a separate work. At the Restoration, two years afterwards, 
Walton testified his joy by addressing an ‘Humble Eclogue’ on the 


subject to Alexander Brome, printed with that writer’s poems, and ry 


published in 1661. 

During the troubled times preceding the Restoration, Walton had 
become intimate with Drs, Morley and Sanderson, who were now 
elevated to the respective sees of Worcester and Lincoln. Another 
friend of Walton’s, Dr. King, was also reinstated in the see of Chiches- 
ter. In 1662, having again become a widower, he left his residence, 
which appears to have been in Clerkenwell, and went to reside with 
Dr. Morley, who was just then made Bishop of Winchester. At this 
time also he took the lease of a house in Paternoster-row, called the 
Cross Keys, which was burned down in the great fire. 

In 1670 the ‘Life of George Herbert’ was published, for the mate- 
rials of which he was indebted to Dr. Henchman, Bishop of London. 
A collected edition of the ‘ Lives’ also appeared at this time. 

In 1673 Walton had the happiness of seeing his daughter Aune 
married to Dr. William Hawkins, a prebendary of Winchester 
Cathedral. Walton’s son is supposed to have been educated by his 
maternal uncle, Thomas Ken, also a prebendary of the same cathedral, 
for in 1675 we find them travelling abroad together, a tour on the 
Continent forming a regular part of the education of those days. 
Young Walton was soon after admitted at Christchurch, Oxford. In 
1676 Charles Cotton, Walton’s well-known coadjutor in the later 
editions of the ‘Complete Angler’ (Cotton contributing a treatise on 
fly-fishing to that work), comes into notice, [Corron, CHarues.] He 
built the fishing-house on the banks of the Dove, near his own house, 
Beresford Hall, and there Walton’s old age found the ease and retire- 
ment which he so well deserved. In the year 1678 his last literary 
efforts appeared; the Life of his friend Bishop Sanderson, and an 
introduction to a poem by John Chalkhill, entitled ‘Thealma and 
Clearchus,’ concerning which strange mistakes have been made. Many 
persons attributed it to Walton himself, but Sir Harris Nicolas has 
proved that the family of Walton’s second wife intermarried with a 
family of this name, and through them the poem came into Walton’s 
hands. An anonymous tract, printed in 1680, entitled ‘Love and 
Truth,’ is attributed to Walton, but upon slender authority. Walton 
died at the house of his son-in-law, during a severe frost, on the 15th 
of December 1683, and lies buried in Winchester Cathedral. 

Walton’s son became a canon of Salisbury Cathedral, and is said to 
have contributed largely to Walker's ‘Sufferings of the Clergy,’ and 
to have most hospitably received Bishop Ken when deprived of his 
bishopric. He died December 29, 1719, and Anne Walton in 1715. 
There are no descendants of the name of Walton living. A goo 


portrait of Old Izaak, by Houseman, was bequeathed by a descendant 


to the National Gallery. 


There are many editions of the ‘Complete Angler, from that of — a 


1653 to the present time. “That of 1833 is a splendid work in two 
quarto volumes, edited by Sir H. Nicolas, who has written the first 
good Life of Walton. There was also an edition of all Walton’s works 
by Major, in 1823. Dr. Zouch wrote a poor Life of Walton, prefixed 
to an edition of his ‘ Lives,’ 

WALWORTH, SIR W. [Ricuarp II.] . 

WANLEY, REV. NATHANIEL, is the author or compiler of a 
work which first appeared in a folio volume in 1678, and has been 
often reprinted in various forms, entitled ‘Wonders of the Little 
World.’ The little world is the microcosm, man, and the work con- 
sists of a large collection of remarkable stories illustrative of human - 
nature, They are selected however with no judgment : incredibilities 
and exploded fictions are as welcome to the omnivorous collector as 
the best established facts; and the book in truth is of little or no 
value. Wanley was born at Leicester in 1633, studied at Trinity 
College, Oxford, took his degree of B.A. in 1653, that of M.A, in 1657; 
seems then to have been appointed minister at Beeby in Leicester- 
shire, which he was when he published at London, in 1658, a tract 
entitled ‘ Vox Dei, or the Great Duty of Self-Reflection upon a Man’s 
own Ways;’ afterwards became vicar of Trinity Church in Coventry, 
and died in 1680. 

WANLEY, HUMPHREY, was the son of the Rev. Nathaniel 
Wanley, and was born at Coventry, 21st of March 1672. He is said to 
have been first intended for a limner, and afterwards to have been put 
to some trade; but he had been early smitten with a taste for the 
study of old books and other antiquities; and besides, he had 


517 WANSLEBEN, JOHANN MICHAEL. 


WARBURTON, WILLIAM. 


618 


evidently a constitutional dislike or incapacity for any sort of regular 
- occupation. Having however acquired a great skill in old handwriting 
(in the cultivation of which he may have been assisted by what he had 
learned of the art of limning), this accomplishment recommended him 
to the notice of Dr. William Lloyd, then Bishop of Lichfield and 
Coventry (afterwards of Worcester), and that prelate sent him to 
Edmund Hall, Oxford. He proved of great service to Dr. Mill, the 
principal, by the assistance he gave him in making his collation of the 
various readings of the Greek New Testament (published in 1707). 
After this he was taken into the service of Dr. Charlett, master of 
_ University College, who kept him at his own lodgings, and seems to 
have employed him in transcribing, compiling, abridging, and other 
such work, Charlett also got him appointed one of the under-keepers 
of the Bodleian Library ; and he took a principal part in drawing up 
the Indexes to the Catalogue of Manuscripts, the Latin preface to 
which is of his composition. He then left Oxford, and removing to 
London, became secretary to the Society for Promoting Christian 
Knowledge. His next employment was as assistant to Dr. Hickes, 
the eminent Anglo-Saxon scholar, for whom he travelled over the 
kingdom in search of manuscripts in that language, and drew up in 
English the descriptive catalogue of those contained in the public and 
’ private libraries and other depositories visited by him, which, after it 
had been translated into Latin by another hand, was printed in 
- Hickes’s ‘Thesaurus Linguarum Veterum Septentrionalium,’ 3 tom., 
folio, Oxon., 1705, and forms the third volume of that great work. 
This is Wanley’s principal performance ; and it is admitted to be done, 
all circumstances considered, with diligence, care, and competent 
learning. His last employment was as librarian to Harley, earl of 
Oxford, the founder of the famous Harleian collection of printed books 
and manuscripts, and to his son, the second earl, both of whom were 
highly satisfied with his services in that capacity. He compiled the 
Catalogue of the Manuscripts, which was first printed in 1762, as far 
as to No, 2407. Among the Lansdowne manuscripts, in the British 
‘Museum, is a very curious Diary, kept by Wanley, from March 1715, 
till within a fortnight of his death, mostly of proceedings connected 
with the Harleian library. Several extracts from it are printed in 
Nichols’s ‘ Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century.’ The only 
_ separate work published by Wanley is a translation (from the French) 
of Ostervald’s ‘Grounds and Principles of the Christian Religion, 
which appeared at Londen in an 8vo volume, in 1704. 

Wanley was twice married; first to a widow with several children ; 
the second time, only a fortnight before his death, to a very young 
woman. He was carried off by dropsy, 6th July 1726, when it was 
found that he had leit all he had, which amounted to something con- 
siderable, to his widow. 

There are many letters relating to Wanley, principally from his con- 
temporary and fellow antiquarian Hearne, in the ‘ Letters of eminent 
Persons of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, from MSS. in the 
Bodleian,’ published (by Dr. Bliss) in 3 vols. 8vo, in 1813. And there 
are several of Wanley’s own letters in the volume lately printed for 
the Camden Society, entitled ‘ Original Letters of eminent Literary 
Men of the Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and Eighteenth Centuries, with 
Notes and Illustrations by Sir Henry Ellis, K.H., F.R.S.,’ &., 4to, 
1843. 

WANSLEBEN, JOHANN MICHAEL, son of a Lutheran clergy- 
man, was born at Erfurt in 1635, After studying philosophy and 
theology at Kénigsberg, he was successively private tutor, soldier, and 
vagabond; at last he attached himself, for the purpose of studying the 
Ethiopic, to Ludolf, at whose request he undertook a journey to 
London. The object of this excursion was to superintend the printing 
of Ludolf’s ‘ Lexicon Ethiopicum,’ which was published at London in 
1661. Wansleben was also employed during his residence in England 
by Edmund Castell, as an assistant in compiling his ‘ Lexicon Hepta- 

lotton.” ; 

F Wansleben, on his return to Erfurt, was sent by Duke Ernst of 
Gotha, at Ludolf’s suggestion, to examine into the condition of the 
Christians in Egypt and Abyssinia. He performed the Ngyptian part 
of the undertaking, but returned to Europe without attempting to 
penetrate into Abyssinia. He landed at Leghorn in February 1665, 
and proceeded to Rome, where he declared himself a convert tv the 
Romish Church, and soon after entered the Dominican order. In 
1670 he visited Paris, and was sent to Egypt by Colbert, for the pur- 
pose of collecting information respecting the state of the country and 
purchasing manuscripts. He landed at Damietta in March 1671, and 
. left Cairo for Constantinople in September 1673. He visited in suc- 
cession the Coptic convents of the Delta, the Faium, the deserts of 
St. Macarius.and St. Anthony, in search of manuscripts, and ascended 
the Nile as far as Esneh. He made several excursions from Constan- 
tinople into Asia Minor, and was preparing to return to Egypt when 
he was recalled to France. He reached Paris in April 1676; but 
instead of obtaining the objects of his ambition, a bishopric or pro- 
fessorship of Oriental languages, he was called to account for the 
moneys entrusted to his disposal, and disgraced for misapplying them, 
After soliciting in vain a grant of public money to enable him to print 
the Ethiopic works he had collected, his necessitiss obliged him to 
accept, in 1678, the office of vicar in a village near Fontainebleau, 

where he died, on the 12th of June 1679. 
Ludolf, in the preface to his commentary on the ‘ History of 


Ethiopia,’ speaks slightingly of Wansleben, but his opinion may have 
been biassed by the conduct of his former scholar; he must have 
entertained some respect for Wansleben’s acquirements when he sent 
him to London to carry his Ethiopic Grammar and Lexicon through 
the press, The published works of Wansleben are—1, ‘Index Latinus 
in Jobi Ludolfi Lexicon Althiopico-Latinum; Appendix AZthiopico- 
Latina, Liturgia 8. Dioscori, Patriarchae Alexandrini, Aithiop. et Lat,,’ 
4to, Londini, 1661; 2, ‘Conspectus Operum Aithiopicorum quae ad 
excudendum parata habebat Wanslebius, 4to, Paris, 1671; 3, ‘ Rela- 
zione dello stato presente dell’ Egitto, 12mo, Paris, 1671; 4, ‘Nouvelle 
Relation, en forme de Journal, d’un Voyage fait en Egypte en 1672 et 
1673, Paris, 1677. This edition enters much more into detail than 
the Italian version: an English translation from the French was pub- 
lished at London in 1678. 5, ‘Histoire de l’Eglise d’Alexandrie fondée 
par St. Mare, que nous appelons celle des Jacobites Coptes d’Egypte, 
écrite au Caire méme en 1672 et 1673,’ 12mo, Paris, 1677. This work 
professes to be a compilation from Coptic writers. Besides these, a 
manuscript account of Wansleben’s first expedition to Egypt was 
transmitted to Gotha. Possibly the pamphlet published in London in 
1679, entitled ‘A Brief Account of the Rebellions and Bloodshed 
oceasioned by the anti-Christian practices of the Jesuits and other 
Popish Emissaries in the Empire of Aithiopia: collected out of a 
manuscript history written in Latin, by J. Michael Wansleben, a 
learned Papist,’ may have been compiled from his narrative. A manu- 
script entitled ‘Diarium conscriptum & J. M. Wanslebio, Sommerdano 
Thuring, ab anno 1654,’ is said to be preserved in the Ducal Library 
at Weimar. , 

(Biographie Universelle ; Jécher, Allgemeines Gelehrten-Lexicon ; 
Prefaces to Castell’s Lexicon Heptaglotton, and Ludolf’s second edition 
of his dithiopic Grammar and Lexicon ; Nowvelle Relation d’un Voyage 
fait en Egypte, Paris, 1698.) 

WARBECK, PERKIN. [Henry VII] 

WARBURTON, ELIOT BARTHOLOMEW GEORGE, eldest son of 
the late Major G. Warburton, of Aughrim, county Galway, Inspector- 
General of Constabulary in Ireland, was born in 1810: he represented 
a branch of an old Cheshire family. He received his early education 
at home and under the care of a tutor; then entered Queen's College, 
Cambridge, but after his second term he migrated to Trinity, where 
he took his degree. He was subsequently called to the bar, but soon 
ceased to practise, and turned his attention to the care and improve- 
ment of his Irish estates. He first became known to the world as 
an author by his captivating work on the Hast and Eastern Travel, 
entitled the ‘Crescent and the Cross,’ which was first published in 
1845. This work at once acquired unusual popularity, and is now (1857) 
in the 13th edition. It was followed in 1849 by his ‘ Prince Rupert 
and the Cavaliers,’ a brilliant history and vindication of the gallant 
prince, who so chivalrously distinguished himself in the civil war 
under CharlesI. He next published ‘Reginald Hastings,’ a romance 
referring to and illustrative of thesame period. Shortly afterwards he 
edited the ‘Memoirs of Horace Walpole and his contemporaries.’ 
His last work, which was published after his death, is entitled ‘Darien, 
or the Merchant Prince;’ it is a tale founded on the colony established 
about the middle of the 17th century by a Scottish adventurer named 
Paterson, on that portion of the northern coast of South America 
which abuts on the Isthmus of Panama, and is known by the appella- 
tion of Darien. Mr. Eliot Warburton married a daughter of the late 
E. Grove, Esq., of Shenstone Park, Staffordshire, and niece of Sir 
i. Cradock Hartopp, Bart., by whom he left issue, two sons. He 
was lost in the ill-fated ship Amazon, which was burnt off the Land’s 
End, January 4, 1852. , 

WARBURTON, WILLIAM, a very distinguished English prelate, 
was born on the 24th of December 1698, at Newark, and was the 
elder of the two sons of Mr. George Warburton, an attorney of that 
place, who held the office of town-clerk, and of Elizabeth, daughter of 
Mr. William Hobman, one of the aldermen of the borough. The 
family was originally from the county of Chester. Warburton’s grand- 
father, also an attorney, who had taken the royalist side in the civil 
war, was the first of them that settled in Newark. 

Warburton lost his father when he was only eight years old; so 
that the care of his education fell upon his mother, who was left with 
the charge of three daughters besides her two sons, and who survived 
her husband many years. Being designed for the profession of his 
father and grandfather, he received the usual grammar education, first 
at the school of Okeham in Rutlandshire, under Mr. Wright, who 
afterwards became vicar of Cambden in Gloucestershire, then at that 
of his native town, which was taught by a cousin of his own of the 
same name. On leaving school, in 1715, he was placed in the office 
of Mr. Kirke, an attorney, at Hast Markham in Nottinghamshire, with 
whom he continued till April 1719, when he set up in business for 
himself at Newark. But a love of reading and study had early taken 
possession of him: his professional success, probably impeded by 
these tastes, is supposed not to have been considerable; and at length, 
having made up his mind to enter the church, he received deacon’s 
orders from Dawes, Archbishop of York, in 1723. 

He now also published his first literary performance, a 12mo volume 
of § Miscellaneous Translations, in prose and verse, from Roman Poets, 
Orators, and Historians.’ In 1726 he received priest’s orders from 
Gibson, bishop of London, and by the interest of Sir Robert Sutton, 


519 WARBURTON, WILLIAM. 


WARBURTON, WILLIAM. 520 


to whom he had dedicated his book, was. instituted to his first prefer- 
ment, the small vicarage of Gryesly in his native county. It was in 
the end of this same year also that he came to London, and formed 
what we may call his first literary connexion, which was with Theo- 
bald, Concanen, and others, then chiefly held together and banded into 
a sort of confederacy by their common hostility to Pope, under the 
scourge of whose satire they had most of them smarted. Warburton 
entered into all the animosities of his associates, and in particular was 
unfortunate enough to indite an epistle to Concanen, dated January 
2nd, 1726 (that is, 1727), in which he said that Dryden borrowed for 
want of leisure, and Pope for want of genius, and which, much to his 
annoyance, was published long afterwards, in 1766, by Akenside the 
poet, whom he had offended, from the original, discovered in 1750 by 
Dr, Gavin Knight of the British Museum, in fitting up a house in 
Crane-court, Fleet-street, where it is supposed Concanen had lodged. 
(See Akenside’s ‘Ode to Thomas Edwards, Esq.,’ and Bucke’s ‘ Life of 
Akenside, pp. 149-171.) Warburton’s connexion with Theobald at 
this time also led him to furnish some notes to that gentleman’s 
edition of Shakspere, which appeared in 1733. 

In 1727 Warburton published, in 12mo, his ‘ Critical and Philoso- 
phical Enquiry into the Causes of Prodigies and Miracles ;’ and the 
same year his only contribution to the literature of his original pro- 
fession, a treatise entitled ‘The Legal Judicature in Chancery stated.’ 
The latter work appeared anonymously, and is stated to have been under- 
taken at the particular request of Samuel Burroughs, Esq., afterwards 
a master in chancery, who put the materials into Warburton’s hands. 
In Reed's‘ Law Catalogue,’ London, 1809, it is described as “ said to be 
written by Master Spicer, but generally ascribed to Lord King.” 

In April 1728, Warburton, by the interest of Sir Robert Sutton, was 
placed in the king's list of masters of arts for creation at Cambridge, on 
his majesty’s visit to the university ; and in June the same year he was 
presented by the same friend and patron to the rectory of Burnt or 
Brant Broughton, near Newark, His next publication of any im- 
portance, and the first which made him generally known, did not 
appear till 1736—his famous treatise entitled ‘The Alliance between 
Church and State; or, the Necessity and Equity of an Ustablished 
Religion and a Test Law demonstrated from the Essence and End of 
Civil Society, upon the Fundamental Principles of the Law of Nature 
and Nations.’ This work equally startled and offended one party by 
its conclusions and their opponents by its mode of arriving at them; 
but it has come, we believe, to be very generally accepted by moderate 
churchmen as the soundest vindication of national religious establish- 
ments. It was described by Bishop Horsley, half a century after its 
appearance, as “one of the finest specimens that are to be found, 
perhaps, in any language, of scientific reasoning applied to a political 
subject.” 

“i January of the following year 1738, Warburton published the 
first volume, containing the first three books, of his great work, 
‘The Divine Legation of Moses demonstrated on the Principles of 
a Religious Deist, from the Omission of the Doctrine of a Future 
State of Rewards and Punishments in the Jewish Dispensation.’ It 
immediately, as was to be expected, raised a storm of controversy, 
which lasted for many years, and in the course of which the author 
had to defend himself against Drs. Stebbing, Sykes, Pococke, R. Grey, 
Middleton, and other assailants, in some respects agreeing as little 
among themselves as with the common object of their attacks. War- 
burton treated them all, Middleton alone excepted, much as a school- 
master might treat so many of his pupils who should have ventured 
to enter into a dispute with him or to clamour against his authority. 

. The leading idea of the ‘ Divine Legation’ is, that so important a 
doctrine as that of a future state, which must be regarded as the chief 
natural cement and bond of human society, could not possibly have 
been dispensed with in any scheme of mere human legislation, and 
that hence the Mosaic dispensation, in which according to Warburton’s 
view, it is omitted, must have come from heaven, and must also have 
been maintained in a peculiar manner by a divine or miraculous 
influence. Whatever other merit it had, or had not, this view was at 
least undeniably a new one; and it was developed by its author with 
an ingenuity, a fulness and variety of learning, and an unflagging 
animation, such as certainly never had been combined before, and 
perhaps have not been exhibited together since, in any English theo- 
logical work. But in truth mere theological discussion forms only a 
small portion of the book; the author is continually making excur- 
sions from the straight path of his argument, and in this way the 
reader is conducted, in the course of their journey together, over some 
of the most interesting fields of literature and philosophy. 

A second edition of the first volume of the ‘ Divine Legation’ was 
called for before the end of the year in which it first came out. The 
second volume, containing the fourth, fifth, and sixth books appeared 
in 1741. The first volume, enlarged and divided into two volumes, 
was published for the fourth time in 1755; and a new edition of the 
second, similarly extended, appeared in 1758, In a third edition, 
which appeared in 1765, this second part of the work was extended 
to three volumes ; so that the whole now consisted of five volumes. 

Meanwhile the author had also been engaged in a variety of other 
labours, and had moreover improved his fortunes in more ways than 
one. Shortly after the appearance of his first volume, in 1738, he was 
appointed chaplain to the Prince of Wales, The following year six 


letters which he published in ‘The Works of the Learned,’ in defence 
of the orthodoxy of Pope’s ‘Essay on Man,’ against the attacks of 
M. de Crousaz, introduced him to the acquaintance of Pope, who 
proved, for the few years that he lived after this, the steady and 
zealous friend of his voluntary champion. A seventh letter, “ by the 
author of the ‘ Divine Legation,’” completed the vindication of the 
poem, in June 1740; and when Pope died, in May 1744, it was found 
that he had left Warburton half his library, with the property of all 
such of his works already printed as he had not otherwise disposed of, 
and all the profits which should arise from any edition to be printed 
after his death. In 1749, upon Lord Bolingbroke, in the preface to 
his ‘ Idea of a Patriot King,’ having charged his late friend Pope with 
having clandestinely printed an edition of that work some years 
before without his, the author’s, leave or knowledge, Warburton is 
believed to have been the writer of ‘A Letter’ addressed to Boling- 
broke, which immediately appeared in vindication of the deceased poet, 
and which Bolingbroke soon afterwards replied to in what he called 
‘A Familiar Epistle to the most Impudent Man living.’ Warburton 
and Bolingbroke had once been introduced to each other by Pope, but 
parted with feelings of mutual disgust; and it is probable that Pope’s 
intimacy with Warburton in his last days contributed to alienate him 
from his older friend. . 

One of the most important services which Warburton owed to 
Pope, was his introduction to the house of Ralph Allen, Esq., of Prior 
Park, near Bath. This led to his marriage, in September 1745, with 
Allen's niece, Miss Gertrude Tucker, in whose right, on Allen’s death, 
in 1764, he became proprietor of Prior Park. 

Sundry single sermons which he published from time to time must 
be passed over without notice. It may be mentioned however as 
illustrating the versatility ef his powers, that one of his productions 
in 1742 was a ‘Dissertation on the Origin of Books of Chivalry,’ 
which appeared at the end of the Preface to Jarvis’s translation of 
‘Don Quixote,’ and which Pope soon after told him he had imme- 
diately recognised to be his, exclaiming, before he had got over two para- 
graphs of it, “ Aut Erasmus, aut Diabolus.” The same year he pub- 
lished ¢ A Critical and Philosophical Commentary on Mr. Pope's Essay 
on Man.’ He also persuaded Pope to substitute Colley Cibber for 
Theobald as the here of the ‘ Dunciad,’ and to complete that poem by 
the addition of a fourth book. 

In April 1746, Warburton, whose literary reputation was now very 
great, was unanimously elected preacher of Lincoln’s Inn, Besides 
many controversial tracts and other minor pieces, the following eight 
or nine years produced his edition of Shakspere, Lond., in 8 vols. 8vo, 
1747 (a performance which did him little credit); his ‘Julian, or a 
Discourse concerning the Earthquake and Fiery Eruption which 
defeated the Emperor's Attempt to rebuild the Temple at Jerusalem, 
8vo, 1750 (a treatise of remarkable ability, occasioned by Middleton's 
‘ Enquiry concerning the Miraculous Powers’); his edition of Pope's 
Works, with Notes, in 9 vols. 8vo, 1751; two volumes of Sermons 
preached at Lincoln’s Inn, under the title of ‘The Principles of 
Natural and Revealed Religion occasionally opened and explained,’ 8vo, 
1753and 1754; and‘ A View of Lord Bolingbroke’s Philosophy, in Four 
Letters to a Friend,’ published, in two parts, in 1754 and 1755. 

In September, 1754, Warburton was appointed one of his majesty’s 
chaplains in ordinary; and the next year he was presented to one of 
the rich prebends of Durham. About the same time the degree of 
D.D. was conferred upon him by Archbishop Herring. In October 
1757, he was admitted to the deanery of Bristol ; and in the end of the 
year 1759 he was made Bishop of Gloucester. 

His principal literary productions after this date were a little work 
against Methodism, in 2 vols. 12mo, entitled ‘The Doctrine of Grace, 
or the Office and Operations of the Holy Spirit vindicated from the 
Insults of Infidelity and the abuses of Fanaticism,’ 1762; several 
tracts published in the course of a controversy in which he became 
involved with Dr. Lowth in consequence of some reflections he had 
made on the character of Lowth’s father in the 1765 edition of the 
second part of his ‘ Divine Legation ;’ and a third volume of Sermons 
in 1767. His last publication was ‘A Sermon preached at St. Law- 
rence Jewry, on Thursday, April 30th 1767, before his Royal Highness 
Edward Duke of York, president, and the governors of the London 
Hospital, 4to, 1767. Not long after this his energetic and fervent 
faculties began gradually to lose their tone, till he sank at last into a 
state of intellectual slumber or torpor; not however, it is said, un- 
relieved by occasional though rare and brief returns of his former 
cheerfulness and even mental vigour. 
7th of June 1779, not long after the death of his only son, who was 
carried off by consumption in early manhood. He left no other child, 
and his widow, in 1781, married the Rev. John Stafford Smith, who 
had been her first husband’s chaplain, and who thus became owner of 
Prior Park. 

A complete edition of the works of Bishop Warburton was pub- 


lished in 1788, by his friend Bishop Hurd, in 7 vols. 4to, at the ex- - 


pense of Mrs. Smith; and in 1794 Hurd added what he called ‘A 
Discourse, by way of general Preface’ to this edition, ‘containing 
some Account of the Life, Writings, and Character of the Author.’ 
Meanwhile the late Dr. Parr, with no friendly purpose, had supplied 
the deficiencies of Hurd’s collection by the publication, in 1789, of an 
8vo volume of ‘Tracts, by Warburton, and a Warburtonian (Hurd 


et . 
eee ee 


His death took place on the - 


Our aa 


‘ 


« Cyan yl B68 


= 


521 WARD, EDWARD MATTHE W, R.A, 


WARD, JOHN, LL.D, 522 


himself), not admitted in their works.’ An 8vo volume of ‘ Letters 
from Warburton to one of his Friends’ (Hurd), appeared in 1809; and 
in 1841 another 8vo volume was published by Mr Kilvert, entitled 
‘Literary Remains of Bishop Warburton.’ But many letters of War- 
burton’s, and also anecdotes of his life, which have not been collected, 
are to be found scattered over various publications. A portion of his 
correspondence which is not much known is contained in the ‘ Account 
of the Life and Writings of John Erskine, D.D., late one of the minis- 
ters of Edinburgh,’ by Sir Henry Moncrieff Welwood, Bart., D.D., 
Edinb., 8vo, 1818, pp. 42-64 and 164-186, 

*WARD, EDWARD MATTHEW, R.A, was born in Pimlico, 
London, in 1816. His early inclination for art was carefully fostered 
_ by his parents, In 1834 he entered the Royal Academy as a student, 
under the auspices of Wilkie and Chantrey. In the same year he 
exhibited his first picture, ‘Mr. O. Smith as Don Quixote, at the 

Gallery of the Society of British Artists. In 1836 he went to Rome, 
where he remained three years, and on his way home made a brief 
stay at Munich, in order to study fresco-painting under Cornelius, At 
Rome in 1838 he gained a silver medal given by the Academy of St. 
Luke, for a picture of ‘Cimabue and Giotto,’ which was exhibited at 
the Royal Academy on his return to England in 1839, The next 
‘year he sent a ‘King Lear’ to the Academy exhibition; in 1841, 
‘Thorwaldsen in his Study at Rome, and ‘Cornet Joyce seizes the 
King at Holmby, June 3, 1647;’ and in 1842, ‘Queen Elizabeth, 
widow of Edward IV., delivering the young Duke of York into the 
hands of Bourchier, archbishop of Canterbury, and Rotheram, arch- 
bishop of York, at the Sanctuary at Westminster. But his abilities 
had as yet scarcely obtained recognition; and in 1848 he was unsuc- 
cessful in a more direct competition: ‘ Boadicea,’ a cartoon of heroic 
size, which he sent to the cartoon competition at Westminster Hall, 
gaining neither prize nor praise. He found however where his strength 
lay. A picture of ‘Dr. Johnson perusing the manuscript of the 
“ Vicar of Wakefield,’’ which appeared at the Academy in the same 
year, caught alike the eye of the critic and of the public. ‘The painter 
had told in a plain, lively way an excellent and characteristic story of 
two of our best-known literary men, and its skilful treatment secured 
the suffrage of those whom the subject had attracted. He followed it 
up the next year by a ‘Scene from the early life of Goldsmith, and 
‘La Fleur’s departure from Montreuil.’ In 1845 appeared another 
capital picture—a ‘Scene in Lord Chesterfield’s Ante-room in 1748.’ 
‘The Disgrace of Lord Clarendon,’ which was exhibited in 1846, was 
of a more elaborate character, and altogether of a higher order of 
merit. His subsequent contributions to the Exhibitions of the Royal 
Academy have been ‘The South Sea Bubble, a scene in ‘Change 
Alley’ —a picture displaying alike observation, humour, and deep 
feeling—in 1847; in 1848, ‘Highgate Fields during the great fire of 
London in 1666, and an ‘Interview between Charles II. and Nell 
Gwynne, as witnessed by Evelyn;’ ‘Benjamin West’s first effort in Art,’ 
and ‘ Daniel Defoe and the manuscript of Robinson Crusoe,’ in 1849 ; 
‘ James II. in his palace at Whitehall receiving news of the landing of 
the Prince of Orange,’ and ‘Izaak Walton angling,’ in 1850; in 1851, 
‘The Novel Reader,’ ‘John Gilpin delayed by his customers,’ and 
‘The Royal Family of France in the prison of the Temple,’—which 
exhibited, like all these French pictures, a depth of pathos hardly to be 
found in any other of his works, ‘The Last Sleep of Argyle’ excepted ;’ 
‘Charlotte Corday going to Execution, in 1852; ‘The Executioner 
tying Wishfrt’s book round the neck of Montrose,’ and ‘Josephine 
signing the act of her Divorce,’ in 1853; ‘The Last Sleep of Argyle 
before his Execution, in 1854; ‘The Last Parting between Marie 
Antoinette and her Son,’ and ‘ Byron’s early love,’ in 1856. 

Mr, Ward had competed unsuccessfully for one of the prizes 
offered by the Fine Arts Commissioners in 1843, but ten years later 
(1853) the Commissioners invited him to paint some pictures for the 
palace of Westminster, and he agreed to paint eight—of which he has 
already completed two or three—the finest being his ‘Last Sleep of 
Argyle, one of the most masterly works of its class which has been 
produced by the English school. Mr. Ward is a painter of great 
power, his pictures display originality of conception; a happy and 
natural disposition of the figures; a direct and manly way of telling 
his story; true and characteristic, yet wholly unexaggerated expres- 
sion; clear and forcible colouring; and in costume, scenery, and 
general details much and careful research, It may be that his pictures 
as a whole, are somewhat wanting in simplicity and spontaneity, but 
he is a thoroughly conscientious painter, and year by year his style 
improves. 

Mr. Ward was elected an associate of the Royal Academy in 1847, 
and R.A. in 1855... His wife, * Mrs. HenrteTra Warp, granddaughter 
of James Ward, R.A. (the subject of the following article), is also a 
painter of very considerable ability. She has exhibited at the Royal 
Academy, ‘ Result of an Antwerp Marketing,’ in 1850; ‘The Pet 
Hawk,’ and ‘Rowena, from Ivanhoe,’ in 1851; ‘Antwerp Market,’ in 
1852; ‘The young May Queen,’ in 1853; * Scene from the Camp at 
Chobham,’ in 1854; ‘ The Morning Lesson,’ in 1855; ‘ The Intruders,’ 
and the ‘May Queen,’ in 1856; and‘ God save the Queen,’ in 1857; 
several of which have deservedly attracted much attention. 

*WARD, JAMES, R.A., was born in Thames-street, London, in 
October 1770. He was apprenticed to an elder brother, a mezzotint 
engraver, and a pupil of Smith; but preferring painting, he taught 


himself to paint by a careful study and imitation of the works of 
George Morland. So closely indeed did he in his early pictures 
imitate Morland’s manner, that, according to Dayes, the picture- 
dealers used to purchase his pictures at a low price, and having 
inserted Morland’s name, sell, them at a greatly increased rate as the 
genuine works of that master. It would seem from Mr. Ward’s auto- 
biographical sketch (printed in the ‘ Art Journal’ for June 1849) that an 
active export trade in these ‘ Morlands’ was for some years carried on 
with Ireland. Competent judges have declared that these early works 
were in truth scarcely if at all inferior to Morland’s in their technical 
qualities, while they were purer and fresher in feeling, and equally 
true to nature; so that the purchasers were perhaps, after all, rather 
gainers than losers by the deception. ‘A Bull Bait,’ one of his early 
efforts, was considered a work of rare promise. But though, as a 
matter of choice, he continued to paint, for many years he found it 
necessary to engrave, and in January 1794, he was appointed “ painter 
and engraver to the Prince of Wales,” afterwards George TV. As 
soon as he could do so however, he laid aside the ‘scraper,’ and 
thenceforward wrote himself painter only. For many years he was in 
great request as a painter of portraits of favourite horses, high-bred 
bulls and cows, and the like; his spare hours being given to works of 
a more ambitious class, and of a large size, in which however animals 
were the chief actors—such as his life-size ‘Horse and Serpent ;’ his 
large landscape of ‘ Deer Stalking;’ his ‘ Bulls fighting across a tree at 
St. Donat’s,’ and the ‘ Fall of Phaeton.’ The last was but too close an 
emblem of the painter’s fate. He could handle cleverly enough his 
horses and steers on this lower world, but he was ambitious to soar 
into “the highest heaven of invention.” In an evil hour the British 
Institution offered a premium of 1000/. for a design illustrative of the 
battle of Waterloo. Ward sent in a sketch to which the premium 
was awarded, and the directors gave him a commission to expand it 
into a “national picture” for Chelsea Hospital. The result was an 
enormous ‘ Battle of Waterloo—an Allegory.’ When finished an 
exhibition was made of it at the Egyptian Hall, to which nobody 
would go; and it was then hung up at Chelsea Hospital, but after 
enduring for a season the scoffs alike of the learned and the ignorant, 
the allegory was taken down, and rolled up, and laid aside to rot. 
From historical he travelled into theological allegory, with, as might 
be expected, no more success, his education (or want of it) and his 
turn of mind entirely disqualifying him for success in the higher 
branches of art. But bappily he did not give over painting scenes of 
rustic and animal life, and though for his own pleasure, or from a 
sense of duty, he would persist in painting such subjects as the 
‘Triumph over Sin, Death and Hell;’ or such still more unpromising 
themes as ‘Ignorance, Envy, and Jealousy, filling the throat and 
widening the mouth of Calumny,’ or adventuring to represent the 
‘Star of Bethlehem;’ he yet indulged his admirers with fresh and 
vigorous representations of a ‘ Landscape with Cattle, a ‘Council of 
Horses,’ and the like. His largest and most characteristic picture of 
this class, ‘ Bull, Cow, and Calf,’ painted in avowed rivalry with Paul 
Potter in 1822, formed in the present year a noticeable feature among 
the modern pictures in the Art-Treasures Exhibition at Manchester. 
Holding on his own way, Mr. Ward continued, through evil and 
through good report, to paint without any abatement of spirit, though 
necessarily some loss of skill, long after he had passed his eightieth 
year. In fact, 1855 was the first year in which the exhibition of the 
cies Academy did not contain some new specimen of the veteran’s 
pencil. 

WARD, JOHN, LL.D., was born in London in 1679, and was one 
of the fourteen children of a dissenting minister of the same names, 
who was originally from Tysoe in Warwickshire, and died in 1717, 
leaving of this numerous family only this son and a daughter. Ward 
held the situation of clerk in the navy-office till 1710, when he opened 
a classical school in Tenter Alley, Moorfields. His first publication 
was a small octavo tract in Latin, on the elegant and graceful arrange- 
ment of words in sentences, which appeared in 1712. He appears to 
have continued to teach his school till September 1720, when he was 
elected professor of rhetoric in Gresham College. This appointment 
he held till his death October 31st, 1758. , 

‘Ward was from the beginning a leading member of a society of 
gentlemen, mostly divines and lawyers, who, with occasional interrup- 
tions, met once a week from 1712 to 1742, to discuss in written dis- 
courses questions of civil law and the law of nature and nations. In 
1723 he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society, and in 1736 a 
member of the Society of Antiquaries. In 1750 the degree of LL.D. 
was conferred upon him by the University of Edinburgh. In 1753, 
on the establishment of the British Museum, he was elected one of the 
trustees. 

His principal publications, besides the tract already mentioned, 
were—a Latin translation of Dr. Mead’s ‘Discourse of the Plague,’ 
which appeared in 1723; a treatise, in Latin, on the principles of 
Punctuation, appended to an edition of the ‘ Elementa Rhetorica’ of 
Vossius, printed at London in 1724; a new and very correct edition, 
with a learned preface, of Lily’s Latin Grammar, in 1732; an edition 
of Maximus Tyrius, published in 4to in 1740 by the Society for the 
Encouragement of Learning, of which he became a member in 1736; 
‘Lives of the Professors of Gresham College,’ folio, London, 1740; a 
new edition of Camden’s Greek Grammar, 1754; and ‘Four Essays 


523 WARD, ROBERT PLUMER. 


WARD, SETH. 


upon the English Language,’ 1758. After his death appeared his 
‘ System of Oratory, delivered in a course of Lectures publicly read at 
Gresham College,’ 2 vols. 8vo, 1758; and his ‘ Dissertations upon seve- 
ral Passages of the Sacred Scriptures,’ 8vo, vol. i. 1761, vol. ii. 1774. 
He is also the author of many papers in the ‘Philosophical Transac- 
tions,’ and of some in the ‘ Archaeologia.’ His literary assistance was 
also liberally contributed to the publications of several of his contem- 
poraries; such as to Ainsworth’s ‘Monumenta Kempiana,’ 1720, for 
which he supplied an elaborate dissertation on the Roman As and its 
parts; an essay on the vases, lamps, rings, and clasps of the ancients, 
&c.; to Horsley’s ‘Britannia Romana,’ 1732, for which he wrote an 
‘ Essay on Peutinger’s Table, so far as it relates to Britain ;’ to Buck- 
ley’s edition-of De Thou, 1733, for which he translated Buckley’s three 
epistles to Dr. Mead into Latin; to Ainsworth’s Latin Dictionary, both 
the first and subsequent editions ; to the edition of Avlian’s ‘ History 
of Animals,’ published by Abraham Gronovius, in 1744; to the edition 
of Volusenus, ‘De Animi Tranquillitate,’ published by Principal Wish- 
art of Edinburgh in 1751; to Pine’s engraved Horace, 1733-37, &c. 
There are several letters to and from Dr, Ward in the ‘ Original Letters 
of Eminent Literary Men, with Notes by Sir H. Ellis, printed by the 
Camden Society, 4to, London, 1843. 

WARD, ROBERT PLUMER, was the sixth son of Mr. John Ward, 

a Spanish merchant resident at Gibraltar, who had married a Miss 

taphael, a Spanish Jewess; and was born on the 19th of March 1765. 

He was educated at asmall school at Walthamstow, and at Christ- 
church, Oxford, under Dr, Cyril Jackson. He was called to the bar 
at the Inner Temple in 1790. Having gone the Northern Circuit 
without much success, he secured employment in cases before the 
Privy Council. In 1805 he was appointed by Mr. Pitt one of the 
Welsh judges, but soon afterwards retired from the legal profession in 
order to undertake the more congenial duties of under-secretary of 
state for Foreign Affairs. From 1807 till 1811 he was a Lord of the 
Admiralty under the late Lord Mulgrave and the Right Hon. Charles 
Yorke; he served the office of Clerk of the Ordnance from the latter 
date till 1823, when he was appointed one of the auditors of the Civil 
List—a post which has since been abolished. He served as high sheriff 
for the county of Herts in 1832, and for many years held a seat in 
parliament, which he entered in 1802 as member for Lord Lonsdale’s 
pocket borough of Cockermouth, and subsequently for the since dis- 
franchised constituency of Haslemere. Amongst all his political and 
official duties, Mr, Ward found time and leisure for the composition of 
several works of history and of fiction. Of the former, the best 
known is his ‘ History of the Law of Nations in Europe from the 
time of the Greeks and Romans to the age of Grotius, which was pub- 
lished in 1795, and was much praised for its research, its breadth of 
view, and soundness of principle. Of his novels, ‘Tremaine’ and 
‘De Vere’ are those which have attained the widest circulation. The 
former was published anonymously in 1825, and the latter in 1827. 
His other works are—‘An Inquiry into the Conduct. of European 
Wars,’ 1803, a pamphlet which first enlisted on his side the patronage 
and favour of Pitt; ‘ Illustrations of Human Life,’ 1837; ‘Pictures of 
the World, 1838; an ‘Historical Essay on the Revolution of 1688,’ 
2 vols. 8vo, 1838; and, lastly, ‘De Clifford,’ a novel, published in 
1841, 

From the middle of 1809 till late in life Mr. Ward kept a political 
diary, which has since been published down to the year 1820. It is 
valuable as an historical document, and as throwing some light on the 
state of things under the Perceval and Liverpool administrations, 
Mixing largely with the world of politicians, and being equally skilful 
in gathering and prompt in recording the gossip of the day, Mr. Ward 
was able to collect many really curious public facts relating to Canning, 
Castlereagh, the much-debated question of the Regency, and the pro- 
ceedings against Queen Caroline, which are not to be found in any 
other publication. The later portion of the ‘Diary’ is at present 
withheld from publication, owing to the warmth of its political parti- 
sanship and the severity of its comments on living statesmen. The 
‘Diary’ will be found in the ‘Memoirs of the Political and Literary 
Life of Robert Plumer Ward, Esq.,’ published in 1850 by his friend 
and relative the Hon. Edmund Phipps, 2 vols. 8vo., 

Mr. Ward was thrice married: first, in 1796, to a daughter of OC. 
J. Maling, Esq., by the Dowager Countess of Mulgrave; secondly, 
in 1828, to Jane, daughter of the Hon, and Rev. George Hamilton, 
son of the seventh Karl of Abercorn (by his countess Anne, daughter 
of Colonel John Plumer, M.P, for Herts in the 17th century), and in 
consequence assumed the additional name and arms of Plumer; his 
third wife was a Mrs. Okeover, a daughter of the late General Sir 
George Anson, G.C.B. He had the misfortune to see nearly all his 
children carried off by consumption, with the exception of his only son 
by his first wife, now Sir Henry George Ward, noticed below. He 
died at Okeover Hall, on the 13th of August 1846. 

*“WARD, SIR HENRY GEORGE, G.C.M.G., is the only sow of 
the late Robert Plumer Ward, Esq., by his first marriage. He was 
born about the year 1798. He was ajspointed attaché at Stockholm 
in 1816, and was for some time in charge of that mission; in 1818 he 
was transferred to the Hague, and in the following year to Madrid, 
In November 1823 he went to Mexico with the first commission, and 
was British minister in that country from 1825 to 1827. In 1832 he 


entered parliament in the Liberal interest, as member for the since | 


disfranchised borough of St. Albans, which he continued to represent 
till the dissolution consequent upon the death of William IV. in 1837, 
when he was elected for Sheffield. This constituency he represented 
down to the month of May 1849, when he was appointed Lord High 
Commissioner of the Ionian Islands, and received the honour of — 
knighthood. During the last three years of his parliamentary lifehe 
held the post of secretary to the Admiralty under the late Earlof 
Auckland and Sir T, F. Baring, successively first lords of that depart- __ 
ment. Soon after entering parliament, Mr. Ward had been appointed _ 
minister-plenipotentiary for acknowledging the newly-formed republic _ 
of Mexico. His long absence from England in this capacity caused him 
at first to be indefinite in the declaration of his political opinions; but —_ 
in 1834 he distinguished himself by a motion for the reform of the Irish 
Church Establishment, which was the immediate cause of the political ; 
changes which took place in that year, and of the new organisation of 
the government. In 1835 he declared himself in favour of the ballot, _ 
triennial parliaments, and household suffrage. He was appointed 
governor of the Ionian Islands in 1849; and in that posi “4 
highly distinguished himself by his firm, yet considerate and liberal M 
conduct under somewhat trying circumstances, He was promotedin 
1856 from the government of the Ionian Islands to the governorship _ 
of Ceylon, which he at present (1857) holds. He is married toa 
daughter of Sir John Edward Swinburne,,Bart., of Capheaton, county 
Northumberland. ' 
WARD, SETH, an English divine and astronomer of the 17th cen= 
tury, was born at Buntingford in Hertfordshire, in 1617, andthere 
received the rudiments of his education. He was sent from thence to 
Sydney Sussex College, Cambridge, where he applied himself par-— 
ticularly to the study of mathematics, and of that college he subse- _ 
quently became a fellow. Eight years after his admission he incurred 
the censure of the vice-chancellor for having, in his character of 
prevaricator, or public jester, exercised too much freedom in his — y. 
language : the censure was however reversed on the following day. __ 
On the breaking out of the civil war, Mr. Ward, having refused to 
subscribe-the “solemn league and covenant ” for the abolition of epis- — 
copacy, &c., and being engaged with other personsin drawingupa __ 
treatise against the covenant, was deprived of his fellowship: he _ 
continued however to reside at the college till 16438, when he removed __ 
to the neighbourhood of London. He spent some time at Aldbury 
in Surrey, in company with Mr. Oughtred, and the two mathematicians 
prosecuted together their favourite study: he afterwards accepted the 
offer of his friend Mr. Ralph Freeman to become the tutor of his sons, 
and he lived in the house of that gentleman at Aspenden in Hert- 
fortshire till the year 1649, when he became domestic chaplainto 
Thomas Lord Wenman, who resided at Thame in Oxfordshire. yu 
In the same year the parliamentary commissioners, at their visita- _ 
tion of the University of Oxford, removed from their posts the Savilian 
professors both of astronomy and geometry ; when Mr. Greaves, who __ 
had held the chair of astronomy, recommended Mr. Ward to be his 
successor: the recommendation was attended to, and at the same time ~ 
Dr. Wallis was appointed to the chair of geometry. On this occasion 
Mr. Ward took the, oath of allegiance to the commonwealth, a step 
for which, on the restoration of the monarchy, he incurred consider- 
able obloquy: he exerted himself however to revive the astronomical 
lectures, which had been for some time neglected ; and by his industry 
and talents he brought them into great repute, In 1654 he took the 
degree of doctor in divinity, and, five years afterwards, he was made 
principal of Jesus College : he was subsequently ‘chosen president of 
Trinity College, but these posts he was obliged to resign at the Resto. —_— 
ration. While Dr. Ward resided at Oxford he associated himself 2 
with the eminent men of the time, and particularly with his friend __ 
Dr. Wilkins, at the apartments of the latter in Wadham College: 
from these meetings arose the Royal Society, of which he becamea 
fellow in 1661. ; 
Though Dr. Ward had held appointments under the government o 
Cromwell, it was well known that his sentiments were always in 
favour of monarchy; and accordingly, through the interest of the 
Duke of Albemarle and the Earl of Clarendon, he was appointed, in 
1660, to the rectory of St. Lawrence, Old Jewry. In the same year 
he was made precentor of the cathedral of Exeter; in the year follow- 
ing he was appointed dean; and in 1662, bishop of the diocese. Five 
years afterwards he was translated to the see of Salisbury; and in 
1671 he was made chancellor of the Order of the Garter : through his 
representations this honour was permanently attached to the see. In 
1660 Dr. Ward had a violent fever, which, though he recovered from _ 
it, seems to have undermined his constitution : as he advanced in life” 
the weakness returned, and he gradually lost the use of his faculties, _ 
He died in January 1689, in the seventy-second year of his age. 
Bishop Ward was a man of great benevolence: in 1682 he founded 
at Salisbury a college for ten females, widows of orthodox clergymen; 
and at Buntingford, where he was born, he founded an hospital for 
the poor. He is accused of having been in some respects a time- 
serving man; and, though his disposition was humane, he lent himself 
readily to an order from court, by which he was enjoined to suppress 


¥ 
: 


the religious services of the nonconformist ministers in 

In the House of Lords he was distinguished alike for the soundness of 

his arguments and his power as an orator. . cc. 
His theological works are, ‘An Essay on the Being and Attributes - 


525 WARDLAW, RALPH, D.D. 


WARE, SIR JAMES, 526 


of God; on the Immortality of the Soul,’ &c., 8vo, Oxford, 1652; and 
a volume of Sermons, which was published in London in 1674; but 
he is chiefly distinguished by his works on astronomy. The first of 
these is entitled ‘Prelectio de Cometis; ubi de Cometarum naturd 
disseritur, nova Cometarum Theoria,’ &c., with a tract designated 
‘Inquisitio in Ismaelis Bulialdi Astronomie Philolaice fundamenta,’ 
4to, Oxonie, 1653, In this work Ward criticises the hypothesis of 
Bulialdus, that the elliptical movement of a planet results from the 
path of the latter being on an epicycle whose centre is in motion, in a 
contrary direction, on an excentric deferent. In the following year 
were published also at Oxford, ‘Idea Trigonometria Demonstrate in 
usum Juventutis;’ and a reply to John Webster, under the title 
*Vindiciee Academiarum,’ 4to. In 1656 were published his ‘ Exerci- 


tatio Epistolica in Thome Hobbesii Philosophiam ad D. J. Wilkins,’ 


and also his work entitled ‘Astronomia Geometrica, ubi Methodus 
proponitur qué Primariorum Planetarum Astronomia, sive Elliptica, 
sive circularis, possit Geometricd absolvi, 8vo, Londini. In the latter 
the author assumes the truth of an hypothesis which had also been 
proposed by Bulialdus, that each planet moves about the sun in an 
elliptical orbit, and that the revolving radii describe angles with a 
_ uniform motion, not about the focus which is occupied by the sun, 
but about that which was called the upper focus, being that through 
which was supposed to pass the axis of the cone, of which the ellipse 
“is the section ; and he founds on the hypothesis methods of calcula- 
tion which he conceives to be more precise and simple than those of 
Bulialdus. The hypothesis just mentioned was the last of those in 
which it was attempted to retain a uniform motion in some part of 
the system of a planet; and being capable of affording facilities in the 
determination of the true from the mean anomaly, it was adopted by 
other astronomers in that century; it has however no foundation in 
fact, and has been long since abandoned by astronomers. 
WARDLAW, RALPH, D.D., was born at Dalkeith, in the county 
of Mid-Lothian, Scotland, on the 22nd of December 1779. His father, 
William Wardlaw, was in business as a merchant, his mother, Anne 
Fisher, was daughter of James Fisher, and granddaughter of Ebenezer 
Erskine, two of the founders of the Scotch Secession Church. Ralph 
received his early education at the public schools of Glasgow, to 
which city his parents removed shortly after his birth. He entered 
the University of Glasgow in October 1791, and at the close of the 
first session, before he was thirteen years of age, carried off the Muir- 
head prize in the Humanity class. He was distinguished as a diligent 
and careful student, and gained several other prizes in his university 
course. He was at first inclined to adopt the medical profession, but 
finally decided in favour of the Christian ministry. With this view he 
attended from 1795 till 1800 the divinity hall of the Secession Church, 
then conducted at Selkirk by the Rev. George Lawson. Mr. Wardlaw 
decided to join the Scottish Independent denomination, which was 
then being organised by Messrs. Haldane, Aikman, and Ewing, and 
from the first he took a respectable, and very soon a leading position 
among the ministers of that body. A building having been erected 
by a number of his friends in Glasgow, with the view of obtaining 
him as their minister, a church was formed, and Mr, Wardlaw com- 
menced his services on February 16,1803. This position he maintained 
with much credit to himself and usefulness to the Independent body 
and to the dissenting community at large, till his death, a period of 
more than fifty years. On August 23rd 1803, he married his cousin, 
Miss Jane Smith, daughter of the Rev. Mr. Smith, of Dunfermline, by 
whom he had a family of eleven children. In 1811 Mr. Wardlaw was 
elected Professor of Systematic Theology in the Theological Academy 
of the Independent body, which was then established in Glasgow. In 
1818 he received the diploma of D.D. from Yale College, Connecticut, 
and in December of that year, his congregation removed to a large 
and handsome chapel in West George-street, the erection of which 
had been rendered necessary by the increasing attendance on his 
ministry. In 1848 Dr. Wardlaw’s health being somewhat impaired, 
the Rev. 8. T. Porter was chosen as co-pastor, a connection which 
existed for about two years, when differences arose in consequence of 
charges made or supported by Mr. Porter against Dr. Wardlaw, the 
result of which was, the separation of Mr. Porter and a portion of the 
members from West George-street church, and the formation of a 
new church under Mr. Porter’s pastoral charge. In this case, the 
deacons and-the great body of the congregation adhered to Dr. Ward- 
law, and a crowded meeting was held in the City Hall to express sym- 
pathy for him, and to present to him a piece of plate as a testimonial. 
In February 1855, the completion of the fiftieth year of his ministry 
was celebrated by special services and a public meeting, in connection 
with which a large sum of money was collected, and expended in 
erecting ‘The Wardlaw Jubilee School and Mission House’ at Dove- 
hill, a destitute part of the city. He died on December 17th 1853, 
within a few days of completing his seventy-fourth year. 

Dr. Wardlaw took an active part in various public questions and 
engaged in several controversies, chiefly theological, which gave rise 
to some of his most elaborate publications, He was frequently invited 
to London to preach anniversary sermons, and speak at public meet- 
ings of the great religious societies. On several occasions he declined 
invitations to accept professorships at the Independent Theological 
Academies in England. In April 1883 he delivered in London eight 
lectures in defence of congregationalism, forming the first series of 


an annual course called ‘The Congregational Lecture’ In April 
1839, at the request of the Protestant Dissenting Deputies, he 
delivered eight lectures in Freemasons’ Hall, London, in answer to 
the lectures on Church Establishments, which had been delivered in 
London the previous year by Dr. Chalmers. As a preacher Dr. Ward- 
law was much esteemed by members of all denominations. His dis- 
courses, which were very carefully prepared, were generally written out, 
and read with a clear and silvery voice, and a calm but impressive 
elocution. The following list contains the titles of his principal pro- 
ductions. Many single sermons, including several funeral discourses 
for distinguished ministers, and other friends, were likewise pub- 
lished by him. In 1803 he edited a Hymn Book for the Congrega- 
tionalists in Scotland, containing several hymns of his own composition. 
In 1807 he published ‘Three Lectures on Romans IV., 9-25,’ on the 
question of infant baptism ; in 1810, ‘Essay on Mr. Joseph Lancaster's 
Improvements in Education ;’ in 1814, in one volume 8yo, ‘Discourses 
on the Socinian Controversy,’ in answer to Mr. Yates, the Unitarian 
minister in Glasgow; in 1816, in 8vo, ‘ Unitarianism incapable of 
Vindication,’ in reply to Mr, Yates’s ‘ Vindication of Unitarianism ;’ 
in 1817, ‘Essay on Benevolent Associations for the Poor ;’ in 1821, in 
2 vols. 8vo, ‘Expository Lectures on the Book of Ecclesiastes ;’ in 
1825, ‘A Dissertation on the Scriptural Authority, Nature, and Uses 
of Christian Baptism ;’ ‘The Divine Dissuasive to the Young against 
the Enticements of Sinners;’ ‘Man Responsible for his Belief, in 
answer to Lord Brougham’s inaugural discourse ; in 1829, ‘ Introduc- 
tory Essay to Doddridge’s Practical Discourses on Regeneration ;’ a 
volume of Sermons; in 1830, ‘Two Essays: I. On the Assurance of 
Faith; Il. On the Extent of the Atonement and Universal Pardon;’ 
in 1832, ‘ Discourses on the Sabbath ;’ ‘ Civil Establishments of Chris- 
tianity tried by the Word of God;’ in 1833, ‘Christian Ethics; or 
Moral Philosophy on the Principles of Divine Revelation ;’ in 1835, 
‘Two Lectures on the Voluntary Church Question;’ in 1836, ‘Friendly 
Letters to the Society of Friends ;’ in 1839, ‘ National Church Estab- 
lishments considered,’ being the lectures delivered in London in reply 
to Dr. Chalmers; ‘Sketch of the Life and Character of the Rev. Dr, 
McAll of Manchester, prefixed to Dr, McAll’s Sermons, edited by 
Dr. Wardlaw ; in 1841, ‘ Letters to the Rev. Hugh M’Neile, M.A,, on 
some portions of his Lectures on the Church of England ;’ in 1842, 
‘Lectures on Female Prostitution;’ in 1845, ‘Memoir of the Rey. 
John Reid,’ Missionary at Bellary in the East Indies, and Dr. Ward- 
law’s son-in-law ; ‘The Life of Joseph and the Last Days of Jacob: 
a book for Youth and for Age;’ ‘Strictures on Dr. Halley’s Congre- 
gational Lecture on the Sacraments,’ in reference to Infant Baptism, 
&c.; in 1848, ‘Congregational Independency, in contradistinction to 
Episcopacy and Presbyterianism, the Church Polity of the New Testa- 
ment ;’ in 1852 (his last work), a ‘Treatise on Miracles.’ Dr. Ward- 
law was likewise a contributor to various religious periodicals, Of 
Dr. Wardlaw’s sons, one is a missionary in India, another a mer- 
chant in Glasgow. 

. (W. L, Alexander, D.D., Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Ralph 
Wardlaw, D.D.) 

WARE, SIR JAMES, an Irish antiquary. His father, Sir James 
Ware, a native of Yorkshire, went to Ireland in the time of Elizabeth 
as secretary to Sir William Fitz-William, lord deputy in 1588, Was 
subsequently appointed auditor-general for the kingdom, and purchased 
considerable property in and near Dublin. James, his eldest son, was 
born in Dublin on the 26th of November 1594, In his sixteenth year 
he was entered at Trinity College, Dublin, and prosecuted his studies 
there for six years. Immediately after leaving college he married 
Mary, daughter of John Newman, Esq., of Dublin. By the advice of 
Usher he devoted himself to the study of Irish antiquities. During a 
residence of some years in England (1626-29), he contracted an inti- 
macy with Selden and Sir Robert Cotton, by whose assistance he con- 
siderably increased his collection of manuscripts. 

On his return to Ireland in 1629, he was knighted by the lords 
justices ; and in 1632, his father dying suddenly, he succeeded both 
to his estate and the office of auditor-general. He applied himself 
assiduously to public business; obtained, in 1633, the confidence of 
Lord Wentworth (afterwards Earl of Strafford), and was by his advice 
created a member of the Irish Privy-Council. In 1639 Sir James 
Ware was elected a member of the Irish House of Commons. When 
the rebellion broke out in 1641, he assisted the government not only 
by his personal services, but also by becoming surety for sums of 
money advanced to it. His character for superiority to the partisan 
prejudices either of the Popish or Protestant party, occasioned his 
being sent, in December 1644, to inform the king, then at Oxford, of 
the real state of affairs in Ireland. He employed his leisure hours at 
Oxford in the prosecution of his antiquarian researches, and had the 
honorary degree of Doctor of Laws conferred upon him by the 
University. 

The vessel in which Sir James Ware returned to Ireland was taken 
by one of the Parliament’s ships. He underwent an imprisonment of 
ten months in the Tower of London, and was released by an exchange 
of prisoners, In 1647 he was one of the hostages for the performance 
of the treaty by which the Earl of Ormond surrendered Dublin to the 
Parliament. He was deprived of his office of auditor-general, but 
allowed to reside in Ireland, till Michael Jones, governor of Dublin, 
taking umbrage at him, ordered him to transport himself beyond seas 


527 WARGENTIN, PETER WILLIAM. 


WARING, EDWARD, 528 


into any country he pleased except England. He made choice of 
France, where he landed early in 1649, and continued to reside till 
1651, when he obtained a licence from the parliament to visit London 
on business. He resided two years in the vicinity of the metropolis. 
At the close of that period he was allowed to visit his estates in Ire- 
land. He continued to lead a strictly private life till the Restoration, 
when he was reinstated in his office of auditor-general. 

In 1661 the university of Dublin elected Sir James Ware one of its 
representatives, He was offered the title of baronet or viscount, but 
declined both. The Marquis of Ormond created him first commis- 
sioner of excise. He died in Dublin, on the 1st of December 1666, 
He left two sons and two daughters, tbe only survivors of ten 
children. 

Sir James Ware’s more important works are:—l, ‘De Praesulibus 
Hiberniae Commentarius,’ fol., Dublin, 1665. He has incorporated into 
this work two of his Latin treatises; the one containing the lives of the 
Archbishops of Cashel and Tuam, published originally in 1626; the 
other the lives of the bishops of Dublin, published in 1628. 2, ‘De 
Hibernia et Antiquitatibus ejus Disquisitiones, London, 1654-58, 
Into this work is incorporated his history of the Cistercian monas- 
teries of Ireland. 3, ‘De Scriptoribus Hiberniae Libri Duo,’ Dublin, 
1639-40. 4, ‘Rerum Hibernicarum Annales, regnantibus Henrici VII., 
Henrici VIII, Edvardo VI., et Maria,’ fol. Dublin, 1662. The annals 
of the reign of Henry VII. were first published in 1658, as an appen- 
dix to the second edition of his Antiquities of Ireland; and the annals 
of the reign of Henry VIII. as a separate work in 1664-65. In 1633 
he published, in one volume, Spenser’s ‘Dialogue on the State of 
Treland,’ Campian’s ‘ History of Ireland,’ and Meredith’s ‘ Chronicle 
of Ireland. 6 and 7, In 1656 he published, at London, ‘ Opuscula 
Sancto Patricio adscripta;’ and in 1664, at Dublin, two letters 
ascribed to the venerable Bede and the ‘ Lives of the Abbots of Wire- 
mouth and Jarrow.’ A translation of Sir James Ware’s works into 
English was published in 1705, by his second surviving son Robert; a 
more complete edition, with additions, in 1739-46, by Walter Harris, 
who married a granddaughter of Sir James. 

WARGENTIN, PETER WILLIAM, a distinguished Swedish astro- 
nomer, was born at Stockholm, September 22, 1717. When he was 
only twelve years of age there occurred a total eclipse of the moon, 
and the observance of this phenomenon is said to have inspired him 
with a taste for astronomical pursuits. He was intimately connected 
with Klingenstierna and Celsius, by whom he was recommended to 
study the motions of Jupiter’s satellites; and in 1741, on taking his 
degree of Master in Arts, he maintained a thesis on the subject of those 
motions. Wargentin spent, in fact, the greater part of his life in 
efforts to correct the theory of the satellites; and, confining himself 
almost wholly to this branch of the science, the improvements which 
he made in it obtained for him the reputation of being one of the 
first astronomers of his age. 

On the death of Celsius, in 1744, he was chosen corresponding 
member of the Academy of Paris, and five years afterwards he suc- 
ceeded Elvius as perpetual secretary of the Academy of Stockholm. 
In 1759 he was made a knight of the Polar Star, and in 1764 he was 
elected a fellow of the Royal Society of London. He was also a 
member of the academies of St. Petersburg, Gottingen, Copenhagen, 
Drontheim, &c., and his communications to these societies are very 
numerous. When he was a candidate for the professorship at Upsal, 
he delivered a discourse on the progress of astronomy since the com- 
mencement of the century ; and in the ‘Memoirs of the Academy of 
Stockholm’ there are several papers by him on the population of 
Sweden. He also wrote dissertations on the transits of Venus which 
took place in 1761 and 1769. ' 

In order to determine the parallax of the moon, Wargentin made, 
at Stockholm, observations on that luminary simultaneously with 
the corresponding observations which were made by La Caille at the 
Cape of Good Hope, conformably to an agreement made between the 
two astronomers previously to the voyage of the latter to the southern 
hemisphere; and from the observations so made the value of the 
parallax was correctly ascertained. 

Wargentin married in 1753, and became the father of six children, 
three of whom survived him. He died December 13, 1783, leaving 
the reputation of having been a man of amiable manners and disin- 
terested character. His devotion to science prevented him from 
paying due attention to his private affairs, and it is said that, near 
the close of his life, he was in part indebted to his friends for the 
means of being extricated from some embarrassments into which he 
had fallen. The Academy aided him from its funds, and struck a 
medal with an inscription denoting its sense of his merit. It also 
procured for his family a pension from the government. 

_ An interval of time, in which the inequalities of the two first satel- 
lites of Jupiter are compensated, had been noticed in 1726, by Dr. 
Bradley, who however made no practical use of the period; and War- 
gentin, apparently without any knowledge of Bradley’s discovery, 
both found the values of the inequalities and the time of the com- 
pensation, Wargentin also rectified the equation of Bradley respecting 
the aberration of light, and that which depends on the excentricity of 
Jupiter’s orbit. His first tables of the movements of the satellites 
were published in the ‘Acta Societatis Regis Upsaliensis, ad an. 
1741 ;’ and an improved edition was published by La Lande, in 1759, 


at the end of Halley’s tables for the planets and comets, Pound's 
tables of the first satellite, though they generally gave the time of an 
immersion or emersion within a minute of the truth, were sometimes 
erroneous to the amount of five or six minutes; but those of War- 
gentin always agreed with the observations within one minute, and 
thus they became of great importance by affording the means of deter- 
mining the longitudes of stations, 

It is to be remarked that these tables were formed without any aid 
from physical astronomy. Wargentin determined the motions of the 
satellites from a combination of all the observations of their eclipses 
which he could procure, and during the whole course of his life he 
laboured to correct the errors which he discovered, He sent new 
tables of the third satellite to Dr. Maskelyne, who published them in 
the ‘ Nautical Almanac’ for 1771 ; and the Almanac for 1779 contains 
an improved edition of the tables of the second satellite. 

WARHAM, WILLIAM, an eminent English prelate, was born at 
Okeley in Hampshire, in the latter part of the 15th century, and after 
receiving his school education at Winchester, was admitted a fellow of 
New College, Oxford, in 1475, Here he remained, having in due 
time taken his degree of LL.D., till 1488, when he is understood to 
have been collated to some living in the church, Soon after however 
he is found to be practising as an advocate in the Court of Arches, and 
to be holding the office of Principal or Moderator of the Civil Law 
School in the parish of St. Edward’s, Oxford. His first public 
employment, as far as is known, was the mission upon which he was 
sent, along with Sir Edward Poynings, by Henry VIL, in 1493, to 
Philip, duke of Burgundy, to persuade him to exercise his influence to 
put an end to the support and encouragement given to Perkin War- 
beck by Margaret, duchess-dowager of Burgundy. Bacon, who, in his 
‘ History of King Henry VIL.’ gives a speech addressed by him upon 
this occasion to the archduke, cails him Sir William Warham, Doctor 
of the Canon Law. Although his endeavours in this affair were 
attended with little or no success, he continued to rise in the good 
opinion of Henry, who esteemed men of ability and knew how to dis- 
tinguish them ; and he was made master of the rolls this same year, 
keeper of the great seal in 1502, and lord chancellor on the 1st of 
January 1503. In 1503 he was also made bishop of London; and in 


1504 he attained the summit of his promotion by being raised to the 


archbishopric of Canterbury. 

Warham opposed the marriage of Catherine, the widow of Prince 
Arthur, with his brother Henry, both when it was first proposed in the 
time of Henry VII., and afterwards when it was carried into effect in 
the beginning of the next reign, This brought him into collision with 
Fox, bishop of Winchester, whose rivalry and hostility were afterwards 
inherited by his protégé the famous Wolsey. The latter, now became 
the chief favourite of Henry VIII., was substituted for Warham as 


chancellor in 1516. Both before and after this, there were many con- — . 
tests as to jurisdiction between the archbishop and the cardinal; but 


Warham lived to see the fall of Wolsey, and even upon that event, in 


1529, to have the great seal again offered to him, although his advanced 


years induced him to decline it. In his latter years he drew upon 
himself some discredit by his connection with the affair of the Maid of 
Kent, to whose impostures, either from credulity or party spirit, he 
showed some inclination to listen.. He died at St. Stephen’s, near 
Canterbury, 23rd of August 1532, leaving the primacy open to the new 
faith and new politics of Cranmer. 


Warham was a great friend and patron of Erasmus, who dedicated 


to him his edition of St. Jerome, and in his letters speaks in the 
highest terms both of the learning and abilities and of the virtues of 
the archbishop. 

WARING, EDWARD, the son of a wealthy farmer who resided 
near Shrewsbury, was born in 1736. Having shown at an early age a 
decided taste for geometry and algebra, he was sent, in 1753, to Mag- 
dalen College, Cambridge, where he made great progress in mathe- 
matical analysis. He attained the rank of senior wrangler, and took 
the degree of Bachelor in Arts,in 1757. Three years afterwards the 
Lucasian professorship of mathematics being vacant by the death of 
Mr. Colson, Waring became a candidate for, and succeeded in obtain- 
ing, that honourable post: he was opposed by Mr. Maseres, afterwards 
Baron Maseres ; and having, in order that he might prove himself to 
be qualified, published a portion of a mathematical work which he had 
commenced, a war of pamphlets on the subject of the work was, 
before the election, carried on between the two rival candidates and 
their friends. Waring not having taken the degree which was 


required by the statutes, a licence from the crown was obtained for § 


the purpose of enabling him to hold the appointment. 
In 17638, being then Master in Arts, Mr. Waring was elected a 


4 


Fellow of the Royal Society; and in several of the volumes of the 


‘Philosophical Transactions’ there are papers by him on subjects con- 
nected with the theory of equations, centripetal forces, &c. In the 
volume for 1779 is one on the method which he proposed for the 
general resolution of equations. This consists in assuming for the 
root of an equation the sum of a series of radical terms, the exponent 
of each being the reciprocal of the exponent of the highest power 

the unknown quantity, and the number of terms in the series being 
less by one than that exponent; on substituting that sum in the 
equation, and eliminating the radicals, the resulting equation, being 
compared with that which is given, will afford the means of obtaming 


529 WARNEFORD, REV. SAMUEL. 


WARREN, RT. HON. SIR JOHN, 530 


in 


one of the values of the unknown quantity. It is observed however 
that the process may sometimes lead to an equation of a higher 
degree than that which it is proposed to resolve. 

He also studied medicine, and in 1767 he took the degree of M.D.; 
but he has written nothing concerning the science, and it does not 
appear that he had much practice. His life was spent chiefly at the 
university, where he constantly performed the duties of his professor- 
ship; and he died August 15, 1798. 

Dr. Waring was considered the most learned analyst of his age, and 
he is said to have been a man of simple manners, as well as of 
inflexible integrity ; but so diffident of his powers of conversation, as 

to be greatly embarrassed when in the company of strangers. His 
raathematical works are very defective in method, and abound with 
typographical errors. Independently of the papers above alluded to, 
he published at Cambridge the following treatises :—1, ‘ Miscellanea 
Analytica de Aiquationibus Algebraicis et Curvarum proprietatibus,’ 
Ato, 1762; 2, ‘Meditationes Algebraic,’ 4to, 1770; 3, Proprietates 
Algebraicarum Curvarum,’ 4to, 1772; and 4, ‘ Meditationes Analytica,’ 
4to, 1776. The third in the above enumeration is the most esteemed 
of all his works, and it contains a description of certain properties, at 
that time new, of algebraic curves, with the rectifications, radii of 
curvature, &c., of the lines: it treats also of the figures produced by 
the revolutions of the curves about given lines or axes, and contains 
‘investigations relating to the greatest and least values of lines drawn 
- within and about them. Dr. Waring also published a tract on morals 
and metaphysics; and a pamphlet on probabilities, on the values of 
lives, on survivorships, &c. , 
WARNEFORD, THE REV. SAMUEL WILSON, was the son 
of the Rev. Francis Warneford, vicar of St. Martin’s, York, of an 
old and wealthy North Wiltshire family, and he was born at Seven- 
hampton, near Highworth, in Wiltshire, in 1758. At the usual age 
he was sent to University College, Oxford; ill health prevented his 
attaining any academical honours, but he graduated MLA. 1786, and 
B.C.L. in 1790. In 1796 he married a daughter of Loveden Loveden, 
Esq., with whom he acquired a considerable fortune ; but a few years 
left him a widower without issue. In 1809 he was presented by his 
college to the rectory of Lydyard Milicent, Wilts, valued at 500. per 
annum ; in 1810 he was presented to the rectory of Bourton-on-the 
Hill, in Gloucestershire, valued at 700/. per annum; and in the same 
year took the degree of D.C.L. He lived at Bourton very plainly and 
moderately, and from an early period devoted a great part of his 
property to the promoting of large establishments beneficial to the 
public, for which purpose he carefully abstained from the common 
practice of bestowing trifling eleemosynary alms, refusing, it is said, 
assistance even to the poorer members of his own family. , But 
there was no ostentation in his princely gifts; many indeed were 
anonymous. He founded schools and almshouses in his own parish. 
He was a contributor to schools, colleges, and hospitals throughout the 
kingdom. On the Clergy Orphan School, at various times, he bestowed 
13,000/.; and he contributed large sums for church purposes, par- 
ticularly in his own county of Gloucester, and in Nova Scotia. He 
founded an hospital at Leamington which bears his name; and one 
for lunatics on Headington Hill, near Oxford. To King’s College in 
London he presented anonymously several donations of 500/. each ; 
but to Queen’s College, Birmingham, the total amount of his contri- 
butions was upwards of 25,000/. This institution was commenced by 
Mr. Sands Cox as a school of medicine, and Dr. Warneford liberally 
afforded pecuniary assistance, thereby enabling him to expand the school 
into a college, which was ultimately patronised by royalty. When it 
was found desirable to add other departments of education, Dr. 
_ Warneford was again the chief contributor; and desirous that religious 
instruction should be afforded, he founded the college chapel, and 
furnished the means for ensuring permanent religious teaching. In 
1844, in recognition of his wide-spread beneficence, the bishop of 
Gloucester conferred on him au honorary canonry in Gloucester 
Cathedral; and in 1849 a statue of him was erected in the Warneford 
Lunatic Asylum at Oxford, the expense being defrayed by public sub- 
‘seription. He died at Bourton on January 11, 1855, enjoying good 
health till within a few days of his death. He bequeathed 20004. to the 

Christian Knowledge Society, and 2000/. to the Society for the Propa- 

gation of the Gospel, in addition to previous gifts. 

WARNER, FERDINANDO, LL.D., a voluminous compiler and 
theological and miscellaneous writer of the last century, is said to 
haye been born, where is not known, in 1703, and to have studied at 
Jesus College, Cambridge, but the latter fact is doubtful. Having 
taken holy orders, he became vicar of Ronde in Wiltshire, in 1730, and 
rector of St. Michael Queenhithe, London, in 1746, to which last pre- 
ferment was added the rectory of Barnes in Surrey, in 1758. He died 
of gout in or soon after 1767. His degree of LL.D, he is supposed to 

_ have obtained from some Scotch university. 

Of Dr. Warner’s various publications the following are the most 
important :—‘A System of Divinity and Morality, compiled from the 
works of the most eminent divines of the Church of England,’ 5 vols., 
12mo, 1750, and second edition, 4 vols., 8vo, 1756; ‘ An Illustration of 
_ the Book of Common Prayer,’ &c., folio, 1754; ‘The Hcclesiastical 
History of the Eighteenth Century,’ 2 vols., folio, 1756-7; ‘ Memoirs 
of the Life of Sir Thomas More,’ 8vo, 1758 ; ‘ The History of Ireland,’ 
 yol. i, 4to, 1763; ‘The History of the Rebellion and Civil War in 
_BIOG, DIV. VOL, VI, 


Ireland,’ 4to, 1767. He was also the author of the scheme for the 
Middlesex Clerical Widows’ and Orphans’ Fund, in relation to which 
he published one pamphlet in 1753, and another in 1765. He left a 
son, the Rev. Jonn Warner, D.D., born in 1736, who was of Trinity 
College, Cambridge, and who, after having long preached at a chapel 
of his own in Long Acre, London, was presented to the united rectories 
of Hockliffe and Chalgrave in Bedfordshire, and subsequently to the 
rectory of Stourton in Wilts. He died in 1800. Dr. John Warner 
was an ardent republican, and expounded the principles of his political 
philosophy in a work which he called ‘Metronariston,’ which was his 
principal literary performance. 

WARNER, RICHARD, was born in 1711, and was educated at 
Oxford. His residence was at Woodford-row, in Essex, and he is 
remembered as the author of the ‘ Plantes Woodfordienses,’ which was 
published in 1771. From early life he was much attached to the 
study of botany, and having a fortune at his command, he bestowed 
much pains in collecting and cultivating exotic plants; but he was 
also celebrated for his critical knowledge of Shakspere, and at one time 
contemplated publishing an edition of his works, He died on the 
llth of April 1775. He possessed a valuable library, which he 
bequeathed to Wadham College, Oxford. He also left a stipend for 
the purpose of establishing a botanical lecture in the University of 
Oxford, He was a man of literary tastes and habits, and was rather a 
patron of those who cultivated botany than a great botanist himself. 


‘Additions to Warner's Plantze Woodfordienses’ were published by 


Mr. Forster in 1784. Miller dedicated a genus of plants to him under 
the name ‘Warneria. Warner also translated in conjunction with 
Colman and Thornton some of the comedies of Plautus, [THorNron, 
Bonnet. | - 

WARNER, WILLIAM, a native of Oxfordshire, is supposed to have 
been born about 1558. He was a student at Oxford, but left the 
university without a degree, and going to London, became an attorney 
in the Common Pleas. He died suddenly, March 9, 1609, and was 
buried in the parish church of Amwell. He was the author of 
‘ Albion’s England,’ an historical poem, or rather a collection of 
ballads, in thirteen books, in the Alexandrine stanza. This work, in 
his own time, was exceedingly popular, and was frequently reprinted 
in the course of the thirty years after 1586, when it was first pub- 
lished, Some of his contemporaries compared, or even preferred him, 
to Spenser. The general simplicity of the feeling and language, and 
the frequent indelicacy of the images, are alike instanced in the 
beautiful pastoral episode of ‘ Argentile and Curan,’ which is given by 
Percy and Campbell, as well as in several other collections. The 
whole poem, reprinted, is in Chalmers’ ‘ British Poets:’ a distinction 
which it well deserved, although it was far from meriting the extra- 
vagant commendations of older times. Warner was also the author of 
‘Syrinx, a Seavenfold Historie,’ a collection of prose stories, published 
in 1597; and he is supposed also by Warton and others to have been 
the writer of a translation of the ‘Menzchmi’ of Plautus, which first 
appeared in 1595, and was reprinted by Steevens in 1770, in his ‘Six 
Old Plays, on which Shakspere founded.’ 

WARREN, THE RIGHT HONOURABLE SIR JOHN BORLASE, 
BART., G.C.B., was born in 1754, at the family-seat of Stapleford, in 
Nottinghamshire. Young Warren, when at Winchester School, ran 
off and joined a king’s ship, upon which his friends procured him an 
appointment as a midshipman on board the Alderney sloop, com- 
manded by Captain O’Hara; and in this capacity he served for some 
time in the North Sea. Returning to England, he placed himself as a 
pupil with the Rev. Thomas Martyn, the well-known botanical pro- 
fessor, at Taplow near Cambridge ; and was soon after admitted as a 
gentleman commoner of Emmanuel College in that university. He 
took his degree of M.A. in 1776. Before this, in 1774, he was returned 
to parliament for the borough of Marlow, and in 1775 was created a 
baronet. Soon after he returned to sea, and serving with Lord Howe 
in America, as a lieutenant on board the Nonsuch, was, in 1779, made 
master and commander of the Helena sloop of war, and in 1781 
received his commission as post-captain. He was re-elected for Marlow 
in 1780; and after the peace of 1783 he married the youngest 
daughter of General Sir John Clavering, K.B., by Lady Diana West, 
daughter of the Earl Delawar. On the breaking out of the war of 
1793 he was appointed to the Flora frigate, and in this and other ships 
greatly distinguished himself as a vigilant and active commander. In 
1794 he received the riband of the Bath, as a testimony of his majesty’s 
high opinion of his services. In the summer of 1795 he acted as com- 
modore of the division of ships which effected the debarkation at 
Quiberon Bay, intended to assist the royalists of La Vendée; and 
although that expedition proved eventually a failure, Warren was 
admitted on all hands to have well performed his part. In 1797 he 
removed into the Canada of 74 guns; and being soon after detached to 
the coast of Ireland, he had the good fortune to fall in with the 
French naval force intended for the invasion of that country, and to 
obtain over it a signal victory, capturing the whole squadron, consist- 
ing of a ship-of-the-line and three frigates, on the 11th of October 
1798. For this important service he received a vote of thanks from 
both houses of parliament, and on the next promotion hé was made a 
rear-admiral of the blue. Meanwhile at the general election of 1793 
he had been returned to the House of Commons as one of the members 
for the town of Nottingham ; and he was re-elected for a eve place 


WARREN, JOSEPH. 


WARTON, JOSEPH, D.D. 532 


in 1802. After the peace of Amiens Sir J. B. Warren was made a privy- 
councillor, and sent out as ambassador extraordinary and minister 
plenipotentiary to St. Petersburg, where he conducted some important 
and delicate negociations with great ability. On the breaking out of the 
war with America in 1812, he commanded for a short time on that 
station; but this was his last service. He died at Greenwich, on the 
27th of February 1822. Sir John Borlase Warren is understood to 
have been the author of ‘A View of the Naval Force of Great Britain,’ 
&c., published anonymously, in 8vo, in 1791. 

WARREN, JOSEPH, was born at Roxbury, near Boston, Massa- 
chusetts, in 1740: he graduated at Harvard College in 1759; and after 
leaving college he studied medicine, and obtained, while yet young, 
an eminent position among the medical:practitioners of Boston. From 
1768 till the commencement of hostilities, he was a leading member 
of the secret committee, or caucus, which directed the movements of 
the citizens of Boston. He was engaged in the affair of Lexington ; 
and when Hancock left Boston to take part in the Congress at Phila- 
delphia, was chosen president of the provincial congress, and received 
the commission of major-general, Four days later the battle of 
Bunker's Hill was fought, and Warren, who had thrown himself into 
the lines to encourage the Provincials, was killed by a ball which 
struck his head at the moment they began to retreat. He fell in his 
thirty-fifth year. The moral and intellectual character of Warren 
stands high; he had displayed great ability as an agitator, but his 
premature death has left it uncertain whether he possessed in an 
equal degree the talents of the officer or statesman. 

WARREN, SIR PETER, K.B., was born-in Ireland in 1703, and 
was descended from a family long settled in that country. Having 
gone early to sea, he received his first command in 1727, and had 
distinguished himself in various parts of the world, both by his good 
conduct and his good fortune, when, in 1745, he was sent out with a 
small armament to surprise Louisbourg, the capital of Cape Breton. 
The town and the whole island surrendered on the 15th of June; and 
for this service Warren was immediately made a rear-admiral of the 
blue, and after his return home rear-admiral of the white. In the 
beginning of 1747 he was appointed second in command, under Anson, 
of a fleet sent out to intercept two French squadrons, the one bound 
for America, the other for the East Indies ; when the former, whose 
object was the recovery of Louisbourg, was fallen in with, and 
effectually disabled. For his share in this affair Warren was rewarded 
with the Order of the Bath, and soon after made a vice-admiral of the 
white, The next year he was made vice-admiral of the red. Mean- 
while, in the autumn of 1747, in the height of a popularity to which 
his private virtues contributed as well as his public services, he had 
been returned to Parliament for Westminster. A few years after this, 
in 1752, the general estimation in which he was held brought him a 
more singular compliment :—theinhabitants of the Ward of Billings- 
gate, in the city of London, having lost their alderman, insisted, 
despite his earnest remonstrance, and a present of 200/., upon electing 
Warren, who had récently been made free of the Goldsmiths’ Company, 
to the vacant post; and eventually he was obliged to pay the fine of 
5001. to avoid serving. Warren died, after a short illness, on the 29th 
of July 1752, while ona visit to his native country. He was buried 
in Westminster Abbey, where there is a monument to him by 
Roubiliac. ; 

*WARREN, SAMUEL, was born in Denbighshire in 1807, the son 
of a Wesleyan minister, of the same name, who had some literary 
reputation. He at first studied medicine, but changing his purpose he 
entered himself as a student of the Inner Temple, and was called to 
the bar in 1837. Between 1830 and 1838 he contributed 'a series of 
tales to Blackwood’s Magazine’ under the title of ‘ Passages from the 
Diary of a late Physician,’ which probably his early studies had given 
him some hints for. They were written with much power—occasion- 
ally with much exaggeration—and generally possessed the painful 
interest attending the developement of crime or woe. They however 
attracted attention, were reprinted in a separate form, and have been 
republished since. To this succeeded ‘Ten Thousand a Year,’ also 
first commenced in Blackwood, in 1839, and then published as a 
separate work. It was a work of more ambitious aim than his 
previous sketches, and evinces considerable talent, but is greatly dis- 
figured and the interest damaged by an obtrusive political one-sided- 
ness running through the whole. A second novel, ‘ Now and Then,’ 
has less of this fault, but is greatly inferior to its predecessor in 
general effect and power. On being called to the bar Mr. Warren soon 
distinguished himself as an able pleader, and he showed that in his 
literary labours he had not sunk those of his profession. In 1835 he 
had published a ‘ Popular and Practical Introduction to Law Studies,’ 
a work of great value, which he subsequently rewrote and enlarged 
under the title of ‘A Popular and Practical Introduction to Law 
Studies, and to every department of the Legal Profession, Civil, 
Criminal, and Ecclesiastical, with an Account of the State of the Law 
in Ireland and Scotland, and occasional Illustrations from American 
Law,’ published in 1845. In 1837 he published ‘Select Extracts 
from Blackstone's Commentaries, with a Glossary, Questions, and 
Notes,’ and he afterwards published ‘ Blackstone’s Commentaries 
abridged, with additions,’ which attained a second edition in 1856, 
In 1840 he published a pamphlet on ‘The Opium Question,’ which 
ran through four editions within the year. In 1848 he published the 


‘Moral, Social, and Professional Duties of Attorneys and Solicitors.’ 
In 1851 he was made a Queen’s Counsel, and in the same year issued 
a pamphlet ‘ The Queen or the Pope, the Question considered in its 
political, legal, and religious aspects, in a letter to 8. H. Walpole’ 
In 1852 he published ‘A Manual of the Parliamentary Election Law 
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which was 
followed in 1853 by ‘The Law and Practice of Election Committees, 
being the completion of a Manual of Parliamentary Election Law.’ 
In 1854 he was elected recorder of Hull, in which capacity he has 
made some excellent charges to the Grand Juries, some of which 
have been published. In 1856 he was elected member of parliament 
for Midhurst, for which place he was again returned to the new par- 
liament in 1857. As a member of parliament he has taken an active 
share in the proceedings of the Conservative party. In addition to 
the works above named he has written ‘ The Intellectual and Moral 
Improvement of the present Age,’ of which a third edition was pub- 
lished in 1854; ‘Labour, its Rights, Difficulties, Dignity, and Conso- 
lations,” 1856; he is also known to have been a frequent contributor — 
to Blackwood’s Magazine. In 1851, after the opening of the Great 
Industrial Exhibition, he published a work, we believe his only printed 
attempt at poetry, written in broken lines, unrhymed, called ‘The 
Lily and the Bee,’ 

WARTON, JOSEPH, D.D., was the eldest son of the Rev. Thomas 
Warton, professor of poetry in the University of Oxford, and after- 
wards vicar of Basingstoke, Hampshire, and Cobham, § 3 and of 
Elizabeth, daughter of the Rev. Joseph Richardson, rector of Duns- 
ford, Surrey. He was born at Dunsford, in the house of his maternal 
grandfather, in 1722; was educated, till he reached his fourteenth 
year, principally at home by his father; was then admitted on the 
foundation of Winchester College, whence he went to Oriel College, 
Oxford, in 1740. Having taken his degree of B.A. in 1744, he was 
ordained to the curacy of his father’s vicarage of Basingstoke; and 
here he officiated till he removed, in February 1746, on the death of 
his father, to Chelsea, where he was curate for about a year. After 
this he held for a few months the curacy of Chawton and Droxford in 
Hampshire, and then returned to Basingstoke. In 1748 he was pre- 
sented by the Duke of Bolton to the rectory of Winslade, in the 
neighbourhood of Basingstoke; upon which, although the living was. 
but a poor one, he immediately married Miss Damon, to whom he had 
been for some time attached. 

One of Warton’s schoolfellows at Winchester was Collins, afterwards 
the celebrated poet; and they two and another boy had in those early 
days been poetical contributors to the ‘Gentleman’s Magazine,’ 
Warton’s next printed composition appears to have been his ode 
entitled ‘Superstition, which he sent from Chelsea to Dodsley’s 
‘Museum,’ in April 1746. The same year he published a volume of 
Odes and other poems, in the same month, it is said, in which his 
friend Collins printed his ‘ Odes, Descriptive, and Allegorical.’ In 
this or the next year also, he joined his brother Thomas in publishing 
by subscription a volume of his father’s poems. In 1749 appeared his 
* Ode to Mr. West’ (Gilbert West, the translator of Pindar.) 

In 1751 Warton accepted the invitation of his patron the Duke of 
Bolton to accompany him on a tour to the south of France, with the 
understanding that he should be in readiness, immediately on the 
death of the duchess, then in a confirmed dropsy, to marry his grace 
to his mistress, Miss Lavinia Fenton, the actress. This engagement 
appears to have been thoughtlessly made by Warton, who, after all, 
left the duke before the duchess died, and when he, upon that event, 
solicited permission to return, learned to his mortification that the 
marriage had been performed by another clergyman. After his return 
to England, Warton published an edition of Virgil, accompanied with 
a new verse translation of the ‘ Eclogues’ and ‘ Georgics’ by himself, 
and one of the ‘Aineid’ by Christopher Pitt, and illustrated by 
numerous notes and dissertations. The translation was intended to 
be an improvement upon that of Dryden, but its greater correctness is 
obtained at a considerable sacrifice of ease and spirit. The work, 
which appeared in 1753, brought Warton great reputation at the 
time; and is stated to have been the ground upon which he was 
honoured by the University of Oxford with a diploma of M.A. in 
1759. ; 

Among the most popular of Warton’s literary performances are 
some papers on critical subjects, which he contributed to Dr. Hawkes- 
worth’s periodical publication, the ‘Adventurer,’ in 1753. In 1754 he 
sent some of his early poetical productions to Dodsley’s Collections, 
then in course of publication. That year he was instituted to the 
living of Tunworth, on the presentation of the Jervoise family ; in 
1755 he was elected second master of Winchester school; and in 
1756 his friend Sir George Lyttelton, on being made a peer, nominated 
him one of his chaplains. He now published in 1756 the first volume, 
in 8vo, of the work by which he is principally known, his ‘ Essay on 
the Writings and Genius of Pope.’ It appeared without his name, 
but his authorship of it seems to have been generally known from the 
first. This is the work in which the principles of what has been 
called the Warton school of poetical criticism will be found to be 
most systematically expounded; although the same mode of thinking 
is to be detected in all the critical writings of the two brothers. 
Although the author was far from disputing the great merit of P: 
in his own walk of poetry, and only contended that his was not 


ee nent nen enneene epee ae a eee eer eas 


533 WARTON, THOMAS, 


WARWICK, GUY, EARL OF, 


534 


highest kind of poetry, the book gave great offence to the generality 
of Pope’s admirers; and its reception on the whole does not appear 
to have been encouraging. Its conclusion, in a second volume, did 
not appear till 1782. It has however since made its way in public 
fayour, and is now admitted, even by many who do not go all the 
length of the author’s distinction between what he called the poetry 
of fancy and the poetry of reason, and of his exaltation of the former 
over the latter, to have at least called attention to some important 
views in regard to this matter which had been too much forgotten, 
and in that way to have had a decidedly favourable effect upon our 
poetical literature. 

In 1766 Warton became head master of Winchester school, upon 
which occasion he visited Oxford, and took his degrees of Bachelor 
and Doctor of Divinity. In 1772 he lost his wife; but in about a 
year married Miss Nicholas, daughter of Robert Nicholas, Esq. In 
1782 his friend Dr. Lowth, then bishop of London, gave him a prebend 
of St. Paul’s, and the living of Thorley, in Hertfordshire, which he 
afterwards exchanged for Wickham. In 1788, through Lord Shannon, 
he obtained a prebend in Winchester cathedral, and, through Lord 
Malmesbury, the rectory of Easton, which he was soon after permitted 
to exchange for Clapham. In 1793 he resigned the mastership of 
' Winchester school. After this he undertook an edition of Pope’s 
works with notes, which he completed in 9 volumes, 8vo, in 1797. It 
. was followed by the commencement of a similar edition of Dryden, of 
which he lived only to publish two volumes, He died 23rd of 
February 1800, leaving a son and three daughters, the youngest by his 
second wife, who survived till 1806. A Biographical Memoir of Dr. 
Joseph Warton, with a selection from his poetry and literary corre- 
spondence, was publishedin 1806 by the Rev. John Wooll, master of 
the school of Midhurst in Sussex. The poetry of Joseph Warton has 
little merit beyond that of an agreeable vein of common-place fancy, 
and some elegance and tunefulness of expression, 

WARTON, THOMAS, was the younger brother of Dr. Joseph 
Warton, and was born at Basingstoke, in 1728. Like his brother, he 
was. mostly educated at home by his father, till he was admitted a 
commoner of Trinity College, Oxford, in March 1743. He was soon 
after elected a scholar, took his degree of M.A. in 1750, succeeded to a 
fellowship in 1751, and spent the rest of his life in his college, employ- 
ing his time partly as a tutor, partly in literary occupations, 

The first of his compositions that were printed were a song and a 
prize essay, which he communicated in 1745 to Dodsley’s ‘ Museum.’ 
Soon after he published by itself his poem entitled ‘The Pleasures of 
Melancholy.’ The first production however that brought him into 
much notice was his ‘Triumph of Isis,’ published in 1749, in reply to 
Mason’s poem of ‘ Isis,’ which was a satire upon the loyalty of Oxford. 
In 1750 he contributed a few pieces to ‘The Student, or Oxford and 
Cambridge Miscellany,’ amongst which was his ‘ Progress of Discon- 
tent, one of the happiest of his humorous effusions. The next year 
he published his satire entitled ‘ Newmarket,’ and some other pieces 
in verse. In 1753 he edited, without putting his name to it, a small 
volume, which appeared in Edinburgh, with the title of ‘The Union, 
or select Scots and English Poems,’ among which were several of his 
own, some previously published, some new. In 1754 he published, 
in an 8vo volume, his ‘ Observations on the Faerie Queene of Spenser,’ 
a work which at once established his reputation both for true poetical 
taste and for extensive and varied learning. It was extended to two 
volumes in a second edition; which appeared in 1762. 

In 1757 Warton was elected professor of poetry ; and in the course 
of the lectures which he delivered while he held that office he intro- 
duced his translations of pieces in the Greek Anthology now printed 
among his collected poems, and also his Dissertation on the Bucolic 
Poetry of the Greeks, which he afterwards prefixed, in Latin, to his 
splendid edition of Theocritus, published, in 2 vols. 4to,in 1770. In 
1758 he published, in 4to, a tract now become rare, entitled ‘In- 
scriptionum Romanarum Metricarum Delectus,’ a selection of Roman 
epigrams or inscriptions, with the addition of some modern ones, among 
which are a few of his own. In this and the following year also he 
contributed several papers to his friend Dr. Johnson’s periodical pub- 
lication, ‘The Idler. In 1760 he published anonymously, in 12mo, 
*A Description of the City, College, and Cathedral of Winchester,’ 
This was followed the same year by a piece of drollery, entitled ‘A 
Companion to the Guide, and a Guide to the Companion, being a com- 
plete supplement to all the Accounts of Oxford hitherto published,’ 
which presently went through three editions, Soon after this he 
wrote for the ‘ Biographia Britannica’ the life of Sir Thomas Pope, 
which he republished by itself, in 8vo, in 1772, and again in 1780, 
with considerable alterations and additions. In 1761 he produced, in 
an 8vo volume, his ‘Life and Literary Remains of Dr. [Ralph] 
Bathurst’ (celebrated for his Latin poetry). His next separate pub- 
lication was the ‘jeu d'esprit ’ entitled ‘The Oxford Sausage, or Select 
Pieces written by the most celebrated Wits of the University of 
Oxford, which camie out anonymously in'1764. From this date he 
appears to have printed nothing till 1766, when he superintended an 
edition from the Clarendon press of the Greek Anthology of Constan- 
tinus Cephalas, to which he prefixed a learned preface. 

He took his degree of B.D. in 1767, and in 1771 he was instituted 
to the small living of Kiddington in Oxfordshire, on the presentation 
of the Earl of Lichfield, then chancellor of the university. This, and 


the donative of Hill Farrance in Somersetshire, to which he was pre- 
sented by his college in 1782, were Warton’s only ecclesiastical 
preferments, although, as has been remarked, the number of persons of 
rank to whom he had been tutor (among them the son of Lord North) 
might have fairly led him to expect a much larger share of patronage. 
He would no doubt have obtained something more if he had cared 
very much about it; but, besides that his modest and unambitious 
nature kept him from asking, he had no taste either for theological 
studies or professional duties, It is related that in preaching he used 
to confine himself mostly to two sermons, one of which was an old 
one of his father’s—the other a printed one, here and there curiously 
abridged with the pen. 

In 1774 he published the first volume, in 4to, of his great work, 
‘The History of English Poetry.’ A second volume appeared in 1778, 
and a third in 1781. Into this elaborate performance Warton poured 
the accumulated stores of a lifetime of reading and reflection; and 
the survey he has given us of his subject is accordingly both eminently 
comprehensive in its scope and rich and varied in its details. The 
work is indeed too discursive and too much encumbered by minute 
learning to have anything of the character of a classical composition ; 
but it is a repository of information respecting our early national 
literature unapproached in extent and abundance by any other single 
work of the same kind in the language.. Warton’s just taste and true 
poetic feeling give at the same time a sunshine to his pages which 
raises the book far above a mere compilation. It remains however 
unfinished: of the fourth volume only about ten sheets were found 
to be printed at his death, bringing down the history very little 
beyond the commencement of the reign of Elizabeth. There have 
been two recent editions of it in 8vo, with the addition of much new 
matter in the form of annotation, but without any continuation of 
the narrative: one in 4 vols., by Mr. Richard Price, London, 1824; 
the other in 3 vols. forming a reprint of Mr. Price’s edition, with 
additional notes, which was brought out under the care of Mr. Richard 
Taylor in 1840. 

Warton made a collection of those of his poems which he thought 
worthy of preservation, and published it in 1777; and other editions 
followed in 1778, 1779, and 1789. He was made poet-laureate on the 
death of William Whitehead; and the same year he was elected 
Camden Professor of History at Oxford, on the resignation of Dr. 
William Scott (the late Lord Stowell), In 1785 also he published an 
edition of Milton’s Juvenile or Minor Poems, copiously illustrated 
with learned and curious notes, of which a re-impression, prepared 
before his death, appeared in 1791. He died suddenly, on the 21st of © 
May 1790. A Life of Warton was prefixed to a new edition of his 
Poems, by Mr. Mant, in 1802. 

Thomas Warton, having produced no poetical performance of any 
considerable length, can only be reckoned as one of our minor poets; 
but among these he occupies a high place—not in the first rank, with 
Collins and Gray, but perhaps in that next to them. His poetry, 
without including his Pindarie odes (which, although they are also 
superior to many, may be dispensed with in the estimate of his claims), 
embraces three very distinct departments—the descriptive, the roman- 
tic, and the humorous; and in each of these kinds of writing he has 
shown much more than mere taste and imitative power. He had at 
least both the ear and eye, if not much of the “fine frenzy” of a 
poet, and wrote always from genuine although not perhaps the most 
passionate impulses, There are not many things of the kind in the 
language, except in Prior and Swift, better than his ‘Progress of Dis- 
content ;’ his lines ‘ To the First of April, without the same richness 
of glow, have much of the picturesqueness, as well as true national 
feeling, of Milton’s ‘L’Allegro’ and ‘Il Penseroso;’ and his tale, or 
ode, as he calls it, entitled ‘The Crusade,’ is perhaps superior to any 
preceding attempt to re-awaken the echoes of our ancient romantic 
minstrelsy. 

WARWICK, GUY, EARL OF. Several of our medieval chroni- 
clers speak of this famous personage as having without doubt actually 
existed: Henry Knighton, for instance, who wrote about the end of 
the 14th century, gives a full abstract of his story in his ‘ Chronica de 
Eventibus Angliae” (printed in Twysden’s ‘Seriptores Decem,’ 
pp. 2311-2743); and even in modern times several writers have been 
inclined to hold that his expluits had probably a basis of reality. 
Dugdale does not admit him into his Baronage; but in his ‘ Warwick- 
shire,’ although he acknowledges that the monks have sounded out 
his praises too hyperbolically, he considers his story to be not wholly 
legendary or apocryphal, and even takes pains to fix the date of one of 
his achievements—his combat with the Danish champion, “ Colbrand, 
the giant, that same mighty man,” as he is called in ‘King John, by 
Shakspere, who has also another allusion to the same matter in his 
‘Henry VIIL.’ (act. v., sc. 8), to the year 926, when Guy, as he con- 
ceives, was in the sixty-seventh year of his age. Much more recently, 
Mr. George Ellis (in his ‘Specimens of Early English Metrical 
Romances’) has suggested that possibly Egil, an Icelandic warrior, 
who contributed very materially to the important victory gained by 
the Saxon king Athelstan over the Danes and their allies at Brunan- 
burgh, “becoming the hero of one of the many odes composed on the 
oécasion of that much celebrated battle, may have been transformed 
by some Norman monk into the pious and amorous Guy of Warwick. 
“This,” observes Mr. Price, the late editor of Warton’s ‘ History of 


WARWICK, EARLS OF. 


WARWICK, EARL OF. 536 


535 
English Poetry’ (ii. 2), “at best is but conjecture, nor can it be con- 
sidered a very happy one...... . The initial letters in Guy, Guyon, 
aud Guido are the representatives of the Teutonic W, and clearly 
point to some cognomen beginning with the Saxon Wig (bellum).” 

Guy in fact must be considered as a personage belonging not to 
history, but to fable and romance. Camden was perhaps one of the 
first inquirers among us, if not the very first, who ventured to inti- 
mate so much, when in giving an account of the earls of Warwick in 
his ‘Britannia’ (Warwickshire) he wrote (as Bishop Gibson has trans- 
lated the passage), “Io pass by Guar, and Morindus, and Guy, the 
echo of England [the Latin is, Anglie tympanum, meaning rather the 
drum of England, that is, the most resounding of English names], 
with many more of that stamp, which the fruitful wits of those times 
brought forth at one birth.” Even as a hero of romance, Guy, though 
evidently referrable to an early Anglo-Norman origin, can scarcely be 
traced with certainty to a more remote date than the earlier part of 
the 14th century. ‘‘Guy of Warwick,” Ritson observes, “is men- 
tioned by no English historian before Robert of Brunne, or Peter de 
Langetoft, about 1340.” Among the “romances of price” enume- 
rated by Chaucer in his ‘Rime of Sir Thopas,’ in the ‘Canterbury 
Tales,’ are mentioned those of * Bevis and Sir Guy” (line 13,827). 
Bishop Percy, in his ‘Essay on the Ancient Metrical Romances,’ in the 
third volume of his ‘Reliques of Ancient English Poetry,’ remarks 
(p. 33) that “the Romance of Sir Guy was written before that of 
Bevis, being quoted in it.” In this place Percy gives an account of 
various manuscripts of the romance of Sir Guy, and also of some 
other old romances connected with the same story. See also the fourth 
appendix to Sir Walter Scott’s edition of ‘Sir Tristrem.’ Percy 
(vol. iii, pp. 100-117) has published two old English poems, ‘The 
Legend of Sir Guy,’ and ‘Guy and Amarant.’ Some extracts from the 
romance of Sir Guy are given by Warton, ‘ Hist. of Eng. Poet., ii. 1-7 
(edit. of 1824). See also vol.i, pp. xxxix., ccxliv., 91-93, 146, 147, 
149; ii. 44; iii, 2,425. An account of the romance of Guy of War- 
wick, with copious extracts, is given in Ellis’s ‘Metrical Romances,’ 
vol. ii, pp. 8-94 (the ed. in Bohn’s ‘ Antiquarian Library,’ pp. 188-238), 
For a compendious summary of the hero's exploits, the reader may 
turn to the ‘ Legend’ printed by Perey, or to the 12th and 13th songs 
of Drayton’s ‘Polyolbion.? The modernised prose abridgment of the 
story of Sir Guy used to be acommon stall pamphlet. The original 
metrical work, under the title of ‘The Book of the most victorious 
Prince, Guy, Earl of Warwick,’ was, according to Ritson, printed in 
4to by William Copland before 1567, and again by John Cawood 
before 1571: of the earlier impressions there is an imperfect copy in 
Garrick’s collection at the British Museum, and there was a perfect one 
in the Roxburgh Library, which was purchased by Mr. Heber for 43/., 
and at the dispersion of his library sold for 25/. There is also a 
French romance of Sir Guy, which was printed in 1525; but whether 
earlier or later than the English may perhaps be doubted, although 
Mr. Ellis has said that the work which he has abridged “ was written, 
in French at least, as early as the 13th century, and translated in the 
beginning of the 14th; so that Mr. Warton is evidently mistaken in 
supposing that it was partly copied from the ‘ Gesta Romanorum ’ 
(cap. 172), which, by his own admission, was composed at a much later 

e,”? 

WARWICK, EARLS OF, The first historical earl of Warwick was 
Henry de Newburgh, a younger son of Roger de Bellomont, Earl of 
Mellent in Normandy: he was so created by the Conqueror, and died 
in 1123. In this family the honour remained till Thomas de New- 
burgh, dying in 1242, without issue, left Margery, his half-sister, his 
heir; and she marrying first John Mareschall, of the family of the 
¥arls of Pembroke, and, after his death, John de Plessets, each of 
these her husbands took successively the title of Earl of Warwick. 
She had however no issue by either ; and her second husband having 
died in 1263, and she herself soon afterwards, the earldom was 
inherited by William Mauduit, or Malduit (in Latin, Male-doctus), 
who was her first cousin, being son of her aunt Alice (half-sister of her 
father) and of William Mauduit, baron of Hanslap. On his death, 
without issue, in 1267, he was succeeded in the earldom by William 
de Beauchamp, baron of Elmley, who was his nephew, being the son 
of his sister Isabel de Mauduit and her husband William de Beau- 
champ. The Beauchamps continued earls of Warwick till the death, 
without issue, of Anne, countess of Warwick, in 1449, upon which 
Richard Nevil, eldest son of Richard, earl of Salisbury, having married 
Anne de Beauchamp, aunt of the late countess, was created Earl of 
Warwick the same year : he succeeded to the earldom of Salisbury in 
1469, and was killed at the battle of Barnet in 1471, when, an act of 
attainder having taken place, his honours were forfeited, and George 
Plantagenet, duke of Clarence, brother,of King Edward IV., having 
married Isabel Nevil, his eldest daughter, was created Karl of Warwick 
and Salisbury in 1472. Clarence was put to death and attainted in 
1478; but his son Edward Plantagénet bore the title of Earl of War- 
wick till he also met with a similar fate in 1499. From this time 
there was no earl of Warwick till the honour was conferred by 
Edward VL, in 1547, upon John Dudley, Viscount L’Isle, who was 
maternally descended from Margaret Beauchamp, daughter of Richard 
de Beauchamp, twelfth earl, Dudley’ (afterwards created Duke of 
Northumberland) was attainted and beheaded in 1553; but his second 
son, Ambrose Dudley, after being restored in blood, was created Karl 


of Warwick by Queen Elizabeth in 1562, and retained the title till his 
death, without issue, in 1589. After this the earldom remained 
extinct till 1618, when it was revived and conferred by James I. upon 
Robert Rich, third Baron Rich of Leeze ; and it was retained (from 
1673 in conjunction with the earldom of Holland) by this family till 
the death of Edward Rich, earl of Warwick and Holland, without 
male issue, in 1759. Upon this event the earldom of Warwick waa 
conferred upon Francis Greville, first Earl Brooke, whose ancestor, 
Sir Fulke Greville, early in the 16th century, married Elizabeth Wil- 
loughby, granddaughter and heiress of Lord Willoughby de Broke an 
his wife Elizabeth Beauchamp, who was descended from Walter de 
Beauchamp, baron of Alcester and Towyck, third son of Isabel de 
Mauduit and William de Beauchamp, and brother of William de 
Beauchamp, who became Earl of Warwick in 1267. In this family 
the titles of Earl Brooke and Earl of Warwick still remain, the latter, 
contrary to what is usual, being the one commonly used, although the 
former, conferred in 1746, is by a few years of earlier date. 


WARWICK, RICHARD DE BEAUCHAMP, EARL OF, K.G., — 


was the son of Thomas, eleventh earl, and of. Margaret, daughter of 


William, Lord Ferrers of Groby, and was the first of his family who 


greatly distinguished himself in the service of the state. He suc- 
ceeded to the title upon the death of his father in 1401. In 1417 he 
was created Marl of Aumerle for life. In 1425, having been sent over 
to France with a reinforcement of 6000 men, he was left by the Duke 
of Bedford to act as regent of that kingdom during his own absence in 
England. While holding this post he carried on the war with great 
success, making himself master in the course of the next two years of 
some of the strongest places in the province of Maine. On the 
return of the Duke of Bedford to France, in February 1428, Warwick 
was called home by the English council and appointed governor to the 


king, Henry VI., now in his seventh year, and hitherto brought up 


under the care of Dame Alice Botiller. He continued to perform the 
duties of this honourable office, which seems to have been no sinecure, 
till 1437, when, on the recall of the Duke of York from the regeney 
of France, Warwick was sent over as his successor; but this his second 
administration of the affairs of that kingdom was not distinguished 
by any remarkable event, or by any at least in which he was personally 
engaged. He fell sick before he had held his appointment quite two 
years, and died at the castle of Rouen on the 30th of April 1489, In 
October following his body was brought over to England, and interred 
at Warwick. This Earl of Warwick, who was styled the Good, left 
by his second wife, Isabel, daughter of Thomas Despenser, earl of 
Gloucester, a son, Henry, anda daughter, Anne, who married Richard, 
eldest son of Richard Nevil, earl of Salisbury, created earl of Warwick 
in 1449, 

WARWICK, HENRY DE BEAUCHAMP, EARL AND DUKE 
OF, K.G., was the son of Richard, twelfth earl, whom he succeeded 
in the title in 1439. It is said that his estate was kept out of his 
possession by the king, Henry VI., for two years after his father’s 
death; but Henry afterwards, by way of making up for this injustice, 
on the 2nd of April 1444, nominated him premier earl of England, 
with the privilege of wearing a gold coronet, and on the 5th of the 
same month raised him to the dignity of Duke of Warwick. The 
next year he made him King of the islands of Wight, Jersey, and 
Guernsey, crowning him with his own hand. Beauchamp however 
did not live long to enjoy these extraordinary honours; he died on 
the 1lth of June, the same year, when his dukedom became extinct, 
and the earldom of Warwick fell to his daughter Anne de Beauchamp, 
his only child by his wife Cicely, daughter of Richard Nevil, earl of 
Salisbury, the sister of his sister’s husband. Anne, countess of War- 
wick, died at six years of age, in 1449. 

WARWICK, RICHARD NEVIL, EARL OF, K.G., was the eldest 
son of Richard Nevil, earl of Salisbury, and was probably born about 
the beginning of the reign of Henry VI, or soon after 1420. His 
mother was Alice, daughter and heiress of Thomas Montacute, earl of 
Salisbury ; and it was in consequence of his marriage with this lady 
that Richard Nevil, himself a younger son of Ralph, earl of Westmor- 
land, was created earl of Salisbury in 1422. His son, the subject of 
the present notice, in his father’s lifetime married Anne, daughter of 
Richard de Beauchamp, earl of Warwick, who, upon the death of her 
niece Anne, infant daughter of Henry, duke of Warwick, in 1449 came 
into possession of the great estates of the Warwick family. Upon this, 
the Lord Richard Nevil, as he was then styled, was created Earl of 
Warwick, the dignity to descend to the heirs of his wife, “ with all 
pre-eminences that any of their ancestors before the creation of Henry, 
duke of Warwick, used.” His two uncles William and Edward Neyil, 
younger brothers of his father, were at the same time Barons Faucon- 
berg and Abergavenny, having acquired these dignities by marriage ; 
and another of his uncles, George Nevil, was Baron Latimer, an honour 
which had also come into the family by marriage a generation or two 
before. But the highest and most important of Nevil’s alliances was 
that which connected him with Richard, duke of York, whose wife 
was Cecily, daughter of Warwick's grandfather, Ralph, earl of West- 
morland, and who, as representative of Lionel, earl of Clarence, third 
son of Edward IIL. was the undoubted lineal heir to the throne, now 
occupied by the house of Lancaster, descended from King Edward’s 
fourth son, John of Gaunt. In this way the Earl of Warwick and 
King Edward IV. (son of Richard, duke of York), were first cousins. 


~ 


537 WARWICK, EARL OF, 


WARWICK, EARL OF, 538 


lt is important to keep in view this strong natural or family position 
of the great Earl of Warwick as to a material extent accounting for 
the vast power which he came to exercise in the state. The Nevils 
were at this time perhaps the most extensively connected family that 
has ever existed among the nobility of England. Besides the Nevils 
of Raby, from whom the Earls of Westmorland were sprung, there 
were several other baronies held by other branches of the same stock, 
dating also from the first reigns after the Conquest. The Talbots, 
earls of Shrewsbury, were also descended from a Thomas Nevil, brother 
of Ralph, earl of Westmorland, and from him had inherited the barony 
of Furnival, which he had acquired by marriage, after the fashion of 
so many of his family. 

His extended connections and immense possessions were joined in 
Warwick to the most distinguished personal qualities: intrepidity, 
decision, and all the military virtues, eloquence and general talent, an 
affability and frankness of bearing that captivated equally all classes, 
a boundless hospitality and magnificence that enthroned him in the 
universal heart of the commons. Wherever he resided, we are told, 
he kept open house. It is affirmed that the number of people daily 
fed at his various mausions, when he was at the height of his  pros- 
perity, was not less than thirty thousand. “ When he came to London,” 


“says Stow, in his ‘Chronicle,’ “he held such an house that six oxen 


were eaten at a breakfast, and every tavern was full of his meat; for 


_ who that had any acquaintance in that house he should have had as 


much sodden and roast as he might carry upon a long dagger.” 

The history of this mighty peer is that of the whole of the contest 
between the two houses of York and Lancaster from the first armed 
rising against Henry VI. to the final establishment of Edward IV. on 
the throne, by the overthrow of the Lancastrian forces in the fight of 
Barnet. Here we can only briefly note the more important events 
that marked his career. . 

He is first mentioned as accompanying his father, the Earl of Salis- 
bury, upon a hostile incursion across the Scottish marches, which 
Salisbury conducted in 1448 in conjunction with the Earl of Northum- 
berland. The Lord Richard Nevil, as he was then called, greatly dis- 
tinguished himself by his bravery on this expedition. When the 
Duke of York took up arms in 1455, he was joined both by Warwick 
and Salisbury ; and the battle of St. Albans, fought on the 22nd of 
May, was mainly won. by the impetuous valour of Warwick. Imme- 
diately after this, while the office of chancellor was bestowed by the 
parliament upon Salisbury, Warwick was rewarded with the govern- 
ment of Calais, then and for a long time after the most important 
military charge in Christendom. ‘To this was added two or three 
years subsequently by Henry, who perhaps wished to attach to himself 
so able and powerful a subject, the custody of the sea, or command of 
the fleet, for five years. It was in virtue of the latter appointment 
that, on the 29th of May 1458, he set out from Calais with five large 
and seven small vessels, and attacking a fleet of twenty-eight sail 
belonging to the free town of Liibeck, captured six of them after a 
contest which lasted six hours. When the Yorkists made their next 
attempt in the summer of 1459, Warwick came over from Calais with 
a large body of veterans, with which he joined his father at Ludlow, 
a day or two after Salisbury’s victory over Lord Audley at Bloreheath 
in Staffordshire, on the 23rd of September. On the discomfiture of 
the Yorkists at Ludiford, a few weeks after, through the treachery of 
Sir Andrew Trollop, who deserted to the royal army, Warwick returned 
to Calais: he was superseded in that government by the Duke of 
Somerset, and in his command of the fleet by the Duke of Exeter ; 
but when Somerset attempted to enter the harbour of Calais, he was 
fired upon from the batteries and compelled to retire. In the begin- 
ning of June following, Warwick again landed in Kent with a force of 
fifteen hundred men; before he reached London, according to some 
accounts, nearly forty thousand of his countrymen had flocked to his 
banner; the capital, from which King Henry had fled, received him 
with all welcome; the battle of Northampton followed, on the 10th 
of July, at which Henry fell into the hands of the Yorkists. The next 
remarkable events in this fluctuating struggle were the battle of Wake- 
field, in Yorkshire, fought on the 30th of December, where the Duke 
of York was defeated by Queen Margaret, and lost his life, and where 
the Earl of Salisbury was also taken, and beheaded next day at Ponte- 
fract ; and the queen’s second victory over the Yorkists, commanded 
in this instance by Warwick, at Bernard’s Heath, near St. Alban’s, on 
the 17th of February 1461, which restored Heury to liberty. But the 
junction, immediately after this, of the forces of Warwick and the 
young Edward, earl of March, now Duke of York, compelled the royal 
army to retire to the north. Edward, accompanied by Warwick, 
entered London in triumph; on the 4th of March he was proclaimed 
king, by the title of Edward IV.; and on the 29th the defeat of the 
Lancastrian army at Towton in Yorkshire secured the throne to King 
Edward. On this occasion the main body of the Yorkist army was 
commanded by the Earl of Warwick; who also, during the next two 
or three years, while the contest still lingered, performed various 
important military services to his new prince. In the winter of 1462- 
1463 he reduced the three strong fortresses of Bamborough, Alnwick, 
and Dunstanburgh ; and it was to him also that the castle of Bambo- 
rough capitulated a second time, in May 1464, after it had been made 
over to the Lancastrians by the defection of the governor, Sir Ralph 
Grey. Finally, it was Warwick by whom the unfortunate Henry was 


conducted to the Tower, in June 1465, after his capture at Waddington 
Hall in Yorkshire, about fourteen months after the final defeat of the 
Lancastrians at Hexham by Warwick’s brother, Lord Montague. 

The Nevils were now in a manner the rulers of the king and king- 
dom. Warwick himself, besides his government of Calais, held the 
office of chamberlain and the wardenship of the West Marches; his 
next brother, Lord Montague, was warden of the East Marches, and 
had obtained the extensive estates of the Percies, with the title of Earl 
of Northumberland; his youngest brother, George, was lord high 
chancellor and Archbishop of York. But circumstances soon arose to 
alienate Edward from partisans to whom he was too deeply indebted 
for the two parties to continue friends in their relative positions. The 
king’s marriage, which took place in 1464; the jealousy of the queen’s 
relations, the Wydvilles; the marriage of the king’s sister, the 
Princess Margaret, with the Duke of Burgundy, brought about in 
1468, in opposition to the advice of Warwick; the seductions of the 
French king Louis XI.; the arts of Lancastrian emissaries; and, 
according to one account, an attempt made by Edward in the earl’s 
own house, to violate the chastity of his niece or daughter—are sup- 
posed to have been the principal causes that contributed to sever the 
king from the Nevils; but the story is too complicated, and, in many 
parts, obscure, to admit of being detailed or investigated to any pur- 
pose, in so rapid a summary as this. We may merely remark that 
Dr. Lingard appears to have shown that the common account which 
makes Warwick to have been in France negociating on the part of the 
king a marriage with Bona of Savoy, sister to the French queen, at 
the time when Edward clandestinely married Elizabeth Wydville, 
cannot be true. (See his ‘Hist. of Eng.,’ v. 190, note, edition of 
1837.) The first open intimation of the loss by the Nevils of the 
royal favour was given in June 1467, by the king commanding the 
Archbishop of York to deliver up the great seal. After this there was 
a formal reconciliation, and the next year, Warwick, who had retired, 
with a clouded countenance, to his castle of Middleham in Yorkshire, 
appeared again at court. But the hollow compact did not last long, 
In July 1468, Edward’s next brother, George, duke of Clarence, gave 
great offence to his majesty by marrying Isabella, the eldest of the two 
daughters of the Earl of Warwick. Immediately after this there 
broke out in Yorkshire an insurrection of the peasantry, which, being 
joined by two near connections of Warwick’s, the sons of the Lords 
Latimer and Fitzhugh, speedily became converted into an avowed 
attempt to drive the Wydvilles from the management of affairs. The 
royalists were routed with great slaughter at Edgecote, on the 26th of 
July ; and a few days after, Edward was taken prisoner by Warwick 
and Clarence at Olney. The king was detained in confinement at 
Middleham, under the care of the Archbishop of York, for two or 
three months, during which Warwick twice defeated bodies of 
the Lancastrians who had risen in the north, counting upon his 
support of the cause of King Henry. While Edward was in his 
hands, also, the earl obtained from him a grant of the office of 
justiciary of South Wales, and of all the other dignities held by the 
late Earl of Pembroke, who had been beheaded after the battle of 
Edgecote, Contradictory accounts are given of the manner in which 
the king recovered his liberty; but he was at large again before the 
end of the year, and apparently with the consent of Warwick, A new 
rupture, followed by another seeming reconciliation, took place in 
February, 1470, But in all these movements both parties were pro- 
bably only attempting to gain time and opportunity to destroy one 
another. In the beginning of March an insurrection broke out in 
Lincolnshire, which soon very clearly appeared to have been instigated 
by Warwick and Clarence; but before they could join the insurgents, 
who were headed by Sir Robert Wells, the son of Lord Wells, the 
latter were defeated by the king’s troops, on the 12th of March, at 
Erpingham in Rutlandshire. Upon this Warwick and Clarence fied 
first to the north; whence, pursued by the king, they returned to 
Exeter, and embarked for Calais; but here, to their astonishment, the 
guns of the batteries were turned upon them by the deputy, a Gascon 
named Vauclere, to whom Warwick had entrusted the keeping of the 
place. On this they made for Harfieur, and were there received with 
distinguished honours by the Admiral of France. Shortly after this, 
on the 15th of July, Warwick met Henry’s queen, Margaret, at 
Amboise, and there the two solemnly agreed to forget the past, and to 
unite their interests and efforts for the future, sealing their compact 
by the marriage of Margaret's son, Prince Edward, to Warwick’s 
second daughter, Anne, <A force was now raised for the invasion of 
England; Warwick landed at its head, at Plymouth, on the 13th of 
September, and immediately proclaimed Henry VI.; Edward, who 
was in Yorkshire, fled to the town of Lynn, and there taking ship, 
on the 3rd of October, made his escape to Alkmaar in Holland. 
On the 6th Warwick and Clarence entered London in triumph, and 
taking Henry from the Tower, conducted him with the crown on his 
head to the cathedral of St. Paul’s. Warwick was now formally 
restored by parliament to his offices of chamberlain of England and 
captain of Calais, with the addition of that of lord high admiral ; his 
brother, the Archbishop of York, was again made chancellor; his 
other brother, now Marquis of Montague, for which title he had a few 
months before been forced to exchange that of Earl of Northum- 
berland with the estates of the Percies, was restored to the wardenship 
of the East Marches. But all this lasted only afew months. On the 


WARWICK, EARL OF, 


539 


WASHINGTON, GEORGE, 540 


14th of March, 1471, Edward, secretly assisted by his brother-in-law 
the Duke of Burgundy, landed at Ravenspur, in Yorkshire. First 
Clarence was won over, and then the Archbishop of York. On the 14th 
of April the two armies met at Barnet; and there the Lancastrians 
were defeated: and Warwick, their commander, and his brother, 
Montague, slain. Their bodies were afterwards exposed for three 
days in St. Paul’s, and then interred in the abbey of Bisham, in 
Berkshire. 

By his wife, Anne de Beauchamp, who survived him many years, 
and was after his death reduced to great poverty, till she was restored 
to her estates by act of parliament after the accession of Henry VIL, 
the Earl of Warwick left only the two daughters already mentioned. 
The eldest, Isabella, who died in 1477, had by her husband, the Duke 
of Clarence, who was put to death in 1478, a son Edward, who was 
styled Earl of Warwick, and was beheaded on Tower Hill in 1499; and 
a daughter Margaret, who was created Countess of Salisbury in 1513, 
and was also executed on Tower Hill, at the age of seventy, in 1541. 
By her husband, Sir Reginald Pole, knight, she was the mother of the 
celebrated Cardinal Pole, and of three other sons and a daughter. 
Warwick’s second daughter, Anne, whose first husband, Edward, 
Prince of Wales, was murdered in 1471, after the battle of Tewkes- 
bury, was married the next year to the Duke of Gloucester, afterwards 
Richard ILL, and died in 1485. By Richard she had one son, Edward, 
who was born in 14738, and died in 1484, 

WARWICK, JOHN DUDLEY, EARL OF, and DUKE OF 
NORTHUMBERLAND, K.G., was the eldest son of Edmund Dudley, 
Esq., a grandson of the Lord Dudley, and infamous as the instrument, 
along with Empson, of the extortions of Henry VIL, for his share in 
which he was beheaded on Tower Hill, 18th August 1510. His 
mother was Elizabeth Grey, daughter of Edward Viscount L’Isle (his 
father’s second wife); and he was born in the year 1502. The 
attainder of Edmund Dudley was reversed the year after his execu- 
tion; and his widow having in 1523 married Arthur Plantagenet, a 
natural son of Edward IV., her son was brought to court, where he 

attached himself to the suite of the reigning favourite, Charles Brandon, 
Duke of Suffolk. This same year he received the honour of knight- 
hood for the gallantry he had shown while attending the duke on his 
expedition to France. After this he successively enjoyed the patron- 
age of Wolsey and Cromwell, the former of whom gave him, in 1535, 
the office of master of the armoury of the Tower, and by the interest 
of the latter of whom, when Anne of Cleves was brought over, he was 
appointed master of the horse to the new queen. The fall of Crom- 
well, in 1540, did not deprive Sir John Dudley of the king’s favour ; 
as may sufficiently appear by his being raised in 1542 to the peerage 
_ by the title of Viscount L’Isle (which had been enjoyed by his mother’s 
second husband, recently deceased), and by his being soon after elected 
a Knight of the Garter. In 1543 he was made lord high admiral for 
life. The same year, having being principally instrumental in the 
capture of Boulogne, he was appointed to the government of that 
place as the king’s lieutenant ; and in 1546 he received a patent con- 
stituting him commander of all the king’s forces at sea for the -war 
against France. Finally, the Viscount L’Isle was one of the sixteen 
persons nominated by Henry in his will as his executors for carrying 
on the government during the minority of his successor. 

For some time Dudley went, to all appearance cordially ehough, 
along with the majority of the council of government, or rather with 
the whole of that body after Southampton was turned out, in sup- 
porting the authority of the Earl of Hertford, now become Duke of 
Somerset and Protector of the Realm. It had been originally intended 
to make him Earl of Coventry; but on the 17th of February 1547, he 
was created Earl of Warwick, his pretension to which ancient dignity 
consisted ‘in his mother having been the daughter of John Talbot, 
the first Viscount L’Isle, whose mother was Margaret Beauchamp, a 
daughter by his first wife, of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick, 
who died in 1439. Before the end of the year also he exchanged his 
post of high admiral (which was wanted for Somerset’s brother Sir 
Thomas Seymour, made at the same time Baron Seymour of Sudley) 
for that of lord great chamberlain. 

Warwick had greatly distinguished ‘himself in the expedition to 
Scotland in the autumn of 1547, and in the battle of Pinkey, gained 
over the Scots on the 10th of September; and when it was found 
necessary to send an armed force against the Norfolk rebels in the 
summer of 1549, “that noble chieftain and valiant earl,” as Holinshed 
calls him, was thought the fittest person to be entrusted with the 
command, The rebels were attacked, and their whole force dispersed, 
by the earl at Dussingdale on the 10th of August. Soon after this 
we find Warwick openly disputing the supremacy with the Protector. 
According to Burnet, his instigator was the ex-chancellor Southampton, 
who, although no longer taking any share in the government, was at 
this time secretly exerting all his industry to make a party against 
Somerset, The course and issue of the contest between the two rivals 
are related under the head of Epwarp VI. Somerset was deposed 
from his office of Protector and sent to the Tower in October of this 
year; then there was an apparent reconcilement between the old and 
the new dictator, during which, in the beginning of June 1550, War- 
wick’s eldest son, Lord L’Isle, was martied to Sotierset’s daughter, 
the Lady Ante Seymour. Warwick was created Duke of Northum- 
berland on the 11th of October 1551; and Somerset was brought to 


the block on the 22nd of January 1552. In the beginning of Ma, 
following the Duke of Northumberland’s fourth son, the Lord Guild: 
ford Dudley, was married to the Lady Jane Grey, daughter of Frances, 
duchess of Suffolk, and great-granddaughter of Henry VII., through 
his daughter the Princess Mary, who had been married first to Louis 
XII. of France, and then to Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, Edward 
died on the 6th of July, leaving the succession by will to Lady Jane 
Grey (or Dudley). The event was kept concealed for a few days; but 
at last, on the evening of the 10th, Lady Jane was proclaimed queen. 
On the 14th, Northumberland left London at the head of a force of 
6000 foot and 2000 horse, to meet the adherents of Mary : he advanced 
as far as St, Edmund’s-bury, and then returned to Cambridge, where, 
losing all hope, he proclaimed Queen Mary on the 20th. But the 
same day he was arrested by the Earl of Arundel; on the 25th he was 
committed to the Tower; on the 18th of August he was i of 
high treason, along with his eldest son, before the lord high steward, 
in Westminster Hall: both were found guilty, but only the father — 

was executed; he suffered on’ Tower Hill on Tuesday the 22nd of 

August. To the general surprise he professed in his last moments 

that he died “in the true Catholic” (meaning the Roman Catholic) 

faith ; and that, notwithstanding his profession of Protestantism, this 

had been his real religion all his life. } 

By his wife Jane, daughter of Sir Edward Guildford, who died in 
1555, in her forty-sixth year, Northumberland had eight sons and five 
daughters, Of the sons two died before their father, the eldest, 
Henry, having been killed at the age of nineteen at the siege of 
Boulogne; the third, John, styled Earl of Warwick, who was con- 
demned along with his father, but reprieved, died in October 1554, a 
few days after being released from custody; the fourth, Guildford, was 
executed, along with his wife, the Lady Jane Grey, on the 12th of 
February 1554; the fifth, Ambrose, was restored in blood by Queen 
Elizabeth, was created Baron L’Isle, 25th December 1561, and the 
next day Earl of Warwick, and died without issue in 1589; the sixth, 
Robert, was the famous Earl of Leicester, the powerful favourite of 
the next reign; the seventh, Henry, was killed at the siege of St. 
Quintin’s in 1557 ; the eighth died young. 

WASHINGTON, GEORGE, was born at Bridges Creek, in West- 
moreland county, Virginia, on the 22nd of February 1732. The first 
of the family who settled in Virginia came from Northampton, but 
their ancestors are believed to have been from Lancashire, while the 
ancient stock of the family is traced to the De Wessyngtons of 
Durham. George Washington’s father, Augustine, who died after a 
sudden and short illness in 1743, was twice married. At his death he 
left two surviving sons by the first marriage, and by the second four . 
sons (of whom George was the eldest) and a daughter. The mother 
of George Washington survived to see her son president. Augustine 
Washington left all his children in a state of comparative indepen- 
dence: to his eldest son by the first marriage he left an estate (after- 
wards called Mount Vernon) of twenty-five hundred acres, and shares 
in iron-works situated in Virginia and Maryland; to the second, an 
estate in Westmoreland. Confiding in the prudence of his widow, he~ 
directed that the proceeds of all the property of her children should 
be at her disposal till they should respectively come of age: to George 
were left the lands and mansion occupied by his father at his decease : 
to each of the other sons an estate of six or seven hundred acres: a 
suitable provision was made for the daughter. 

George Washington was indebted for all the education he received 
to one of the common schools of the province, in which little was 
taught beyond reading, writing, and accounts. He leftitbeforehe 
had completed his sixteenth year: the last two years of his attend4nee — 


had been devoted to the study of geometry, trigonometry, and we = q 


ing. He had learned to use logarithms. It is doubtful whether h 
ever received any instruction in the grammar of his own language: he 
never even commenced the study of the classical languages; 
although, when the French officers under Rochambeau were in 
America, he attempted to acquire their language, it appears to have 
been without success, From his thirteenth year he evinced a turn for 
mastering the forms of deeds, constructing diagrams, and preparing 
tabular statements. His juvenile manuscripts have been preserved ; 
the handwriting is neat, but stiff During the last summer he was at 
school he surveyed the fields adjoining the school-house and the 
adjoining plantations, entering his measurements and calculations ina 
respectable field-book. He compiled about the same time, from 
various sources, ‘Rules.of Behaviour in Company and Conversation.’ 
Some selections in rhyme appear in his manuscripts, but the passages 
appear to have been selected for the moral or religious sentiments 
they express, not from any taste for poetry. When a boy, he was fond 
of forming his schoolmates into companies, who paraded and fought 
mimic battles, in which he always commanded one of the parties. 
He cultivated with ardour all athletic exercises. His demeanour and 
conduct at school are said to have won the deference of the other 


boys, who were accustomed to make him the arbiter of their disputes, 4 


From the time of his leaving school till the latter part of 1753, 
Washington was unconsciously preparing himself for the great duties 
he had afterwards to discharge. An attempt made to have him 
entered in the royal navy, in 1746, was frustrated by the interposition 
of his mother. The winter of 1748-49 he passed at Mount Vernon, 
then the seat of his brother Lawrence, in the study of mathematics 


‘together. 


’ months. 


Ne ee 


B41 WASHINGTON, GEORGE. 


WASHINGTON, GEORGE, 542 


and the exercise of practical surveying. George was introduced about 
this time to the family of Lord Fairfax, his brother having married 
the daughter of William Fairfax, a member of the colonial council, 
and a distant relation of that nobleman. The immense tracts of wild 
lands belonging to Lord Fairfax, in the valleys of the Alleghany 
mountains, had never. been surveyed: he had formed a favourable 
estimate of the talents of young Washington, and entrusted the task 
tohim. His first essay was on some lands situated on the south 
branch of the Potomac, seventy miles above its junction with the 
main branch. Although performed in an almost impenetrable country; 


_while winter yet lingered in the valleys, by a youth who had only a 


month before completed his sixteenth year, it gave so much satisfac- 
tion that he soon after received a commission as public surveyor, an 
appointment which gave authority to his surveys, and enabled him 
to enter them in the county offices, 

The next three years were devoted without intermission, except in 
the winter months, to his profession. There were few surveyors in 
Virginia, and the demand for their services was consequently great, 
and their remuneration ample. Washington spent a considerable 

ortion of these three years among the Alleghanies; the exposures and 

rdships of the wilderness could be endured only for a few weeks 
He recruited his strength by surveying at intervals tracts 
and farms in the settled districts, Even at that early age his regular 


-habits enabled him to acquire some property; and his probity and 


business talent obtained for him the confidence of the leading men of 
the colony. 

At the time he attained his nineteenth year the frontiers were 
threatened with Indian depredations and French encroachments. To 
meet this danger the province was divided into military districts, to 
each of which an adjutant-general with the rank of major was 
appointed. George Washington was commissioned to one of these 


_ districts, with a salary of 150. per annum. There were many pro- 


vincial officers (his brother among the number) in Virginia who had 
served in the expedition against Carthagena and in the West Indies. 
Under them he studied military exercises and tactics, entering with 
alacrity and zeal into the duties of his office. These pursuits were 
varied by a voyage to Barbadoes, and a residence of some months in 
that colony, in company with his brother Lawrence, who was sent 
there by his physicians to seek relief from a pulmonary complaint. 
Fragments of his journal kept by George Washington on this excur- 
sion have been preserved; they evince an interest in a wide range of 
subjects, and habits of minute observation. At sea the logbook was 
daily copied, and the application of his favourite mathematics to navi- 
gation studied ; in the island, the soil, agricultural products, modes of 
culture, fruits, commerce, military force, fortifications, manners of 
the inhabitants, municipal regulations and government, all were noted 
in his journal. Lawrence Washington died in July 1752, leaving a 
wife and infant daughter, and upon George, although the youngest 
executor, was devolyed the whole management of.the property in 
which he had a residuary interest. The affairs were extensive and 
complicated, and engrossed much of his time and thoughts for several 
His public duties were not however neglected. Soon after 
the arrival of Governor Dinwiddie the number of military divisions 
was reduced to four; the northern division was allotted to Washington, 
It included several counties, which he had to visit at stated intervals, 
to train and instruct the military officers, inspect the men, arms, and 
accoutrements, and establish a uniform system of mancuvres and 
discipline. 

In 1753 the French in Canada pushed troops across the lakes, and 
at the same time bodies of armed men ascended from New Orleans to 
form a junction with them, and establish themselves on the upper 
waters of the Ohio. Governor Dinwiddie resolved to send a com- 
missioner, to confer with the French officer in command, and inquire 
by what authority he occupied a territory claimed by the British. 
This charge required a man of discretion, accustomed to travel in the 
woods, and familiar with Indian manners. Washington was selected, 
notwithstanding his youth, as possessed of these requisites. He set 
out from Williamsburg on the 3lst of October 1753, and returned on 
the 16th of January 1754. He discovered that a permanent settle- 
ment was contemplated by the French within the British territory, 
and, notwithstanding the vigilance of the garrison, he contrived to 
bring back with him a plan of their fort on a branch of French Creek, 
15 miles south of Lake Erie, and an accurate description of its form, 
size, construction, cannon, and barracks. 

In March 1754, the military establishment {of the colony was in- 
ereased to six companies: Colonel Fry, an Englishman of scientific 
acquirements and gentlemanly manners, was placed at the head of 
them, aud Washington was appointed second in command. His first 
campaign was a trying but useful school for him. He was pushed 
forward with three small companies to occupy the outposts of the 
Ohio, in front of a superior French force, and unsupported by his 
commanding officer. Relying upon his own resources and the friend- 
ship of the Indians, Washington pushed boldly on. On the 27th of 
May he encountered and defeated a detachment of the French army 
under M, de Jumonville, who fell in the action. Soon after Colonel 
Fry died suddenly, and the chief command devolved upon Washington. 
Innis, the commander of the North Carolina troops, was, it is true, 
placed over his head, but the new commander never took the field. 


An ill-timed parsimony had occasioned disgust among the soldiers, 
but Washington remaiued unshaken, Anticipating that a strong 
detachment would be sent against him from Fort Duquesne as soon as 
Jumonville’s defeat was known there, he entrenched himself on the 
Great Meadows. The advance of the French in force obliged him to 
retreat, but this operation be performed in a manner that elicited a 
vote of thanks from the House of Burgesses. 

In 1755 Colonel Washington acceded to the request of General 
Braddock to take part in the campaign as one of his military family, 
retaining his former rank. When privately consulted by Braddoek, 
“T urged him,” wrote Washington, “in the warmest terms I was able, 
to push forward, if he even did it with a small but chosen band, with 
such ‘artillery and light stores as were necessary, leaving the heavy 
artillery and baggage to follow with the rear division by slow and 
easy marches.” This advice prevailed. Washington was however 
attacked by a violent fever, in consequence of which he was only able 
to rejoin the army on the evening before the battle of the Mononga- 
hela. In that fatal affair he exposed himself with the most reckless 
bravery, and when the soldiers were finally put to the rout, hastened 
to the rear division to order up horses and waggons for the wounded, 
The panic-struck army dispersed on all sides, and Washington retired | 
to Mount Vernon, which had now, by the death of his brother's 
daughter without issue, become his own property. His bravery was 
universally admitted, and it was known that latterly his prudent 
counsels had been disregarded. 

In the autumn of the same year he was appointed to re-organise the 
provincial troops. He retained the command of them till the close of 
the campaign of 1758, The tardiness and irresolution of provincial 
assemblies and governors confined him to act during much of this 
time upon the defensive; but to the necessity hence imposed upon 
him of projecting a chain of defensive forts for the Ohio frontier, he 
was indebted for the mastery in this kind of war, which afterwards 
availed him so much. Till 1758 the Virginia troops remained on the 
footing of militia, and Washington had ample opportunities to con- 
vince himself of the utter worthlessness of a militia in time of war: in 
the beginning of that year he prevailed upon government to organise 
them on the same footing as the royal forces. At the same time that 
Washington’s experience was extending, his sentiments of allegiance 
were weakened by the reluctance with which the claims of the pro- 
vincial officers were admitted, and the unreserved preference uniformly 
given to the officers of the regular army. At the close of 1758 he 
resigned his commission, and retired into private life. 

On the 6th of January 1759, he married Mrs. Martha Custis, a young 
widow, with two children. ‘“ Mr. Custis,” says Mr. Sparkes, “ had left 
large landed estates, and 45,000, sterling in money. One-third of 
this property she held in her own right; the other two-thirds being 
equally divided between her two children.” Washington had a con- 
siderable fortune of his own at the time of his marriage—the estate at 
Mount Vernon, and large tracts of excellent land, which he had 
selected during his surveying expeditions, and obtained grants of at 
different times. He now devoted himself to the management of this 
extensive property and to the guardianship of Mrs. Washington’s 
children, and till the commencement of 1763 was, in appearance at least, 
principally occupied with these private engagements. He found time 
however for public civil duties. He had been elected a member of the 
House of Burgesses before he resigned his commission ; and although 
there were commonly two and sometimes three sessions in every year, 
he was punctual in his attendance from the beginning to the end of 
each. During the periods of his attendance in the legislature, he was 
frequent in his attendance on such theatrical exhibitions as were then 
presented in America, and lived on terms of intimacy with the most 
eminent men of Virginia. At Mount Vernon he practised on a large 
scale the hospitality for which the southern planters have ever been 
distinguished. His chief diversion in the country was the chace. He 
exported the produce of his estates to London, Liverpool, and Bristol, 
and imported everything required for his property and domestic 
establishment. His industry was equal to his enterprise; his day- 
books, ledgers, and letter-books were all kept by himself; he drew up 
his own contracts and deeds, In the House of Burgesses he seldom 
spoke, but nothing escaped his notice, and his opinion was eagerly 
sought and followed. He assumed trusts at the solicitation of friends, 
and was much in request as an arbitrator. He was, probably without 
being himself aware of it, establishing a wide and strong influence, 
which no person suspected till the time arrived for exercising it. 

On the 4th of March, 1773, Lord Dunmore prorogued the intractable 
House of Burgesses. Washington had been a close observer of every 
previous movement in. his country, though it was not in his nature to 
play the agitator. He had expressed his disapprobation of the stamp- 
act in unqualified terms. The non-importation agreement, drawn up 
by George Mason, in 1769, was presented to the members of the dis- 
solved House of Burgesses by Washington. In 1773 he supported the 
resolutions instituting a committee of correspondence and recom- 
mending the legislatures of the other colonies to do the same. He 
represented Fairfax county in the Convention which met at Williams- 
burg, in August 1774, and was appointed by it one of the six Virginian 
delegates to the first general Congress. On his return from Congress 
he was virtually placed in command of the Virginian Independent 
Companies, In the spring of 1775 he devised a plan for the more 


543 WASHINGTON, GEORGE. 


WASHINGTON, GEORGE. 544 


complete military organisation of Virginia, And on the 15th of June 
of that year he was elected commander-in-chief of the Continental 
army by Congress. 

The portion of Washington’s life which we have hitherto been 
passing in review may be considered as his probationary period—the 
time during which he was training himself for the great business of J 
his life. His subsequent.career naturally subdivides itself into two 
periods—that of his military command, and that of his presidency. 
In the former we have Washington the soldier; in the latter, Washing- 
ton the statesman. His avocations from 1748 to 1775 were as good a 
school as can well be conceived for acquiring the accomplishments of 
either character. His early intimacy and connections with the Fairfax 
family had taught him to look on society with the eyes of the class 
which takes a part in government. His familiarity with applied mathe- 
matics and his experience as a surveyor on the wild frontier lands had 
made him master of that most important branch of knowledge for a 
commander—the structure of the country. His experience as a 
parade officer, as a partisan on the frontier, and as the commander of 
considerable bodies of disciplined troops, had taught him the prin- 
ciples both of the war of detail and the war of large masses. On the 
other hand, his punctual habits of business, his familiarity with the 
details both of agriculture and commerce, and the experience he had 
acquived as trustee, arbitrator, and member of the House of Burgesses, 

‘ were so many preparatory studies for the duties of the statesman. He 
commenced his great task of first liberating and then governing a 
nation, with all the advantages of this varied experience, in his forty- 
third year, an age at which the physical vigour is undiminished and 
the intellect fully ripe. He persevered in it, with a brief interval of 
repose, for upwards of twenty years, with almost uniform success, and 
with an exemption from the faults of great leaders unparalleled in 
history. 

Washington was elected commander-in-chief on the 15th of June 
1775; he resigned his commission into the hands of the president of 
Congress on the 23rd of December, 1783. 

A few days after his appointment he left Philadelphia to join the 
army at Cambridge, Massachusetts. The particulars of the battle of 
Bunker’s Hill reached him at New York, and increased his anxiety to 
hasten forward. He arrived at Cambridge on the 2nd of July, and 
assumed the command next day. The army, including sick and 
wounded, amounted to about 17,000 men, collected on the spur of the 
moment, occupying a range of posts disproportioned to their numbers, 
and almost under the guns of the enemy. There were few stores, no 
military chest, and no general organisation. And the new commander 
discovered with astonishment that there was not powder enough in 
the camp to supply nine cartridges for each man. There was much 
discontent among the general officers on account of the manner in 
which the appointments had been made by Congress, and the sub- 
ordinate officers and privates formed themselves into parties, Referring 
their complaints to Congress, Washington proceeded to mature his 
plans. The army was formed into six brigades of six regiments each; 
the troops of the same colony were, whenever it was practicable, 
brought together and placed under a commander from that colony. 
All the officers were commissioned-anew by Congress, and by degrees 
a continental army was formed. He kept up an uninterrupted cor- 
respondence with Congress, which, though tardily, adopted all his 
important suggestions. He corresponded also with the heads of the 
provincial governments, and subsequently with the) governors and 
legislatures of the several states. He thus became not only the creator 

-of the American army, but the sole channel of communication between 
it and the numerous and complicated depositories of power im the 
United States. 

The army was at first distributed into three grand divisions of two 
brigades each: the division forming the left wing was stationed at 
Winter Hill, under Major-General Lee; the centre division at Cam- 
bridge, under Major-General Putnam; the right wing at Roxburgh, 
under Major-General Ward. The head-quarters of the commander-in- 
chief were with the centre at Cambridge. These positions were 
maintained with little alteration till far in January 1776. During that 
interval the regular army, by the departure of many whose term of 
enlistment had expired, and in consequence of the slow progress of the 
recruiting, sunk to 9650 men, to whom were added 15,000 militia, who 
were to remain only till the middle of January. “Search the volumes 
of history through,” Washington wrote at this time, “and I much 
question whether a case similar to ours is to be found, namely, to 
maintain a post against the flower of the British troops for six months 
together without powder, and then to have our army disbanded and 
another to be raised within the same distance of a reinforced enemy.” 
During this time he detached 1100 men, under Arnold (14th Septem- 
ber), in the direction of Canada, and equipped and sent out armed 

, vessels from the New England ports. Occasional cannonades and 

skirmishes took place at the advanced posts. But no decisive blow 

could be hazarded ; and the patience and fortitude of the commander- 
in-chief were severely tried by the cabals of the officers, the undis- 
ciplined habits of the men, and the pragmatical conduct of the civil 
authorities. 

Towards the end of December 1775, General Howe, who had sue- 
ceeded Gage in command of the British army, was fitting out part of 
the fleet in Boston harbour for some secret enterprise, General Lee 


expedition proved to be destined against North Carolina. Washington 
became impatient to attack Boston, but was twice overruled by a 
council of war—on the 16th of January and on the 10th of February 
1776. At last, on the 4th of March, the Americans took possession of 
} Dorchester heights; and on the 17th the British evacuated Boston. 
As soon as the British fleet had put to sea, Washington set out for 
New York, apprehensive that the enemy might attempt a landing 
there. It was the 28th of June before the British forces appeared 
Sandy Hook ; but the deficient means at Washington’s command, and 
the strength of the royalist party in New York, had materially im- 
peded his preparations for defence, The incompetency of some of 
Washington’s officers enabled the enemy to gain easy possession of 
Long Island on the 27th of August; and the weakness of his army 
and fears of the soldiers obliged him in succession to evacuate New 
York, cross the Hudson, and fall back behind the Delaware. Congress 
at last saw the nécessity of raising a regular army of men enlisted for a 
longer period than a year, and of investing Washington with dicta- 
torial powers. Thus strengthened he remodelled his troops, recrossed 
the Delaware on the night of the 25th of December, and broke up and 
drove back the whole of the enemy’s line of cantonments on that 
river. Having thus relieved New Jersey, he again fell back and esta- 
blished his winter-quarters at Morristown in New Jersey. 

. The campaign of 1777 did not open till the middle of June; and 
the operations on both sides led for some time to nothing but a series 
of skirmishes. Washington had received a supply of arms from 
France, but he was still uncertain of his new levies. He was also 
kept in suspense as to the real designs of the British commander. It 


Canada, and isolate the eastern from the western states. But there 
was also danger in leaving Philadelphia exposed. At last the British 
landed at the Head of Elk. The Americans were defeated on the 
Brandywine. Congress undismayed invested Washington with fresh 
powers. The Americans were again beaten at Germantown in Penn- 
sylvania, on the 4th of October, but a marked improvement was 
visible in the fighting of part of their troops. The British took pos- 
session of Philadelphia after the battle. 
Washington began to construct a fortified encampment at Valley Forge, 
He was at this time harassed by cabals among the general officers, 
Conway, Gates, and Mifflin, aided by a small party in Congress, con- 
spired to have him removed from the command. The good sense of 
the majority in Congress frustrated the plot, and the attachment of 
the soldiers, heightened by the enthusiasm with which Lafayette and 
Von Kalb threw their weight into Washington's scale, kept the army 
in good temper. 

The winter was however a trying one for the troops. Owing to the 
derangement of the commissariat, the men were inadequately sup- 


plan an entire remodelling of the army. 
officers to state their sentiments on the subject in writing. Con 

at the same time appointed a commission to visit the camp, which 
remained there three months. With great difficulty the commander- 
in-chief wrung from Congress the promise of half-pay for seven years 
for the officers, and a gratuity of 80 dollars for each non-commissioned 
officer and soldier who should continue in the service to the end of 
the war. The ratification of the treaty with France was celebrated 
in the camp with great solemnity on the 6th of May. The British in 
Philadelphia, though only twenty miles distant from the American 
camp, allowed the winter and spring to pass without making any 
attempt to assaulf it. These concurring circumstances enabled 


spirits. A defensive campaign was however determined on by the 


and Washington crossed the Delaware with his whole army. He 


the attack, and under its cover the British continued their retreat. 
Washington advanced to the Hudson, and crossing it at King’s Ferry, 
encamped near White Plains. Count d’Estaing, with a French fleet 
of twelve ships of the line and four frigates, arrived about the same 
time off Sandy Hook. The American army was engaged for four 
months in arrangements for the defence of New England, during 
which interval the English laid New Jersey waste. Washington in 
December retired into winter-quarters—distributing his troops in a 
line of cantonments around New York extending from Long Island 
Sound to the Delaware. 

During the whole of 1779 Washington retained his position in the 
highlands of the Hudson, and remained on the defensive. An expedi- 
tion fitted out to chastise the Indians was successful. The British 
burned a number of towns on the coast, but Washington covered New 
Jersey. Baron Steuben effected an improvement in the discipline and 
evolutions of the American army. . 

Lafayette returned from a visit to France before the end of April 
1780, with the intelligence that the French government had fitted out 
an armament of land and naval forces which might soon be expected 
in the United States. Rochambeau arrived at Newport, Rhode 


was despatched to place New York in a state of defence, but the - 


was clearly an object with the English to maintain the command of — 
the Hudson, keep up the communication, between New York and 


On the 18th of December 


plied with clothes and blankets, and at times even with food. With 
the experience of three campaigns, Washington now set himselfto 
He invited the general 


Washington to bring his troops into the field in 1778 in tolerable 
council of war. Howe evacuated Philadelphia on the 18th of June, 
attacked the enemy at Monmouth on the 28th; night put an end to 


Island, on the 10th of July. A plan of combined operations against 


a 
. 
| 


\_ 


Ee 


————— ee 


ame? 


545 WASHINGTON, GEORGE. 


WASHINGTON, GEORGE. 546 


the British in New York was concerted by Washington and the 
French commanders. The naval superiority of the English however 
prevented anything being done, and the year wore away unmarked by 
any incidents, except the treason of Arnold and the execution of 
André, Congress, yielding at last to Washington’s representations, 
decreed that all troops to be raised in future should be enlisted to 
Serve during the war, and that all officers who continued in service to 
the end of the war should be entitled to half-pay for life. The army 
went into winter-quarters towards the end of November at the Penn- 
sylvanian line near Morristown, the New Jersey regiments at Pampton, 
and the eastern troops in the Highlands, while the head-quarters were 
at New Windsor, on the Hudson. 

The year 1781 opened with a mutiny in the Pennsylvania and 
Jersey troops, which was subdued by the promptitude and self-pos- 
session of Washington. He was now strengthened not only by a 
French auxiliary army, but by liberal supplies from France, The 
main source of his weakness was the utter want of a civil government 
to support him. The Congress, which made war, declared inde- 
pendence, formed treaties of alliance, sent members to foreign courts, 
emitted paper currency, and pledged the credit of all the states for 
its redemption, “ ventured,’ says Mr. Sparkes, “only to recommend 
to the states to raise troops, levy taxes, clothe and feed their naked 
and starving soldiers.” Tilly with the French fleet entered the 


Chesapeake in February, but returned without injuring Arnold's 


squadron, Lafayette, whom Washington had detached at the same 
time with 1200 men to Virginia, held Cornwallis, who had advanced 
from North Carolina, in check. Washington had repeated interviews 
with the French commanders to concert a plan of campaign. On the 
4th of July he encamped near Dobb’s Ferry, and was joined on the 
6th by the French army under Count Rochambeau. A fruitless 
attempt on NewYork, and a letter intimating that De Grasse, who 
commanded the French fleet, could not remain on the coast after 
October, decided him to relinquish the siege of New York and 
advance into Virginia with all the French troops and as many of the 
American as could be spared from the defence of the posts on the 
Hudson and in the Highlands. Washington and Rochambeau reached 
Lafayette’s head-quarters at Williamsburg in Virginia, on the 14th of 
September. De Grasse had previously entered the Chesapeake and 
landed 3000 men from the West Indies, who united with Lafayette. 
Cornwallis took possession of York Town and Gloucester on the oppo- 
site side of York River in Virginia. .The American and French 
generals advanced from Williamsburg and completely invested York 
Town on the 30th of September. Cornwallis proposed a cessation of 
hostilities on the 17th of October, and signed the articles of capitula- 
tion on the 19th. Two thousand continental troops were marched to 
reinforce General Greene in the south; the French army remained 
in Virginia, its head-quarters were at Williamsburg; the American 
forces were marched into winter cantonments in New Jersey and on 
the Hudson, 

Hitherto Washington had to struggle against the apathy engendered 
by fear; now he had to check the remissness which sprung from an 
over-estimate of success. ‘* Whatever,” he said, “may be the policy 
of European courts during this winter, their negociations will prove 
too precarious a dependence for us to trust to. Our wisdom should 
dictate a serious preparation for war, and, in that state, we shall find 
ourselves in a situation secure against every event.” Congress con- 
curred in these sentiments. The commander-in-chief addressed 
circular letters to the governors of all the states, urging them to make 
strenuous exertions for carrying on the war. In the middle of April 
he joined the army and established his head-quarters at Newburgh. 
Little progress was made by the states in filling up their quotas, and 
on the 8th of May he was obliged to remonstrate with them in 
energetic terms. Great discontent prevailed in the army, on account 
of the treatment it had experienced, and a wish spread that Washing- 
ton should establish a monarchy in the United States. In the mean- 
time negociations for peace were commenced, the French army 
withdrawn, and the American army, after an inactive summer, was 
sent back into winter-quarters. The winter passed in an angry corre- 
spondence between the officers of the army and Congress, An address 
from Washington (15th of March 1783) was required to restore the 
good temper of the officers. Having pacified them, he became their 
advocate with Congress, and obtained the concession of their demands, 
On the 8th of June he addressed his last official communication, a 
circular letter to the governors of the states, urging upon them :— 
an indissoluble union of the states; regard to. public justice; the 
adoption of a proper military peace-establishment; and mutual con- 
cessions on the part of the different states. On the 25th of November 
the British evacuated New York. On the 4th of December Washington 
took a solemn farewell of the officers of the army. And on the 23rd 
of December he resigned his commission to Congress, 

‘We must pass briefly over the interval which separates the epoch of 
Washington the soldier from that of Washington the statesman—the 
few years which elapsed between the resignation of his command in 
December 1783, and his election as first president of the United States 
in February 1789. It was for him no period of idleness. In addition 
to a liberal increase of hospitality at Mount Vernon, and indefatigable 
attention to the management of his large estates, he actively promoted 


in his own state schemes of internal navigation, acts for encouraging 


BIOG, DIY. VOL. VI. 


education, and plans for the civilisation of the Indians, He acted as 
delegate from Virginia to the Convention which framed the first con- 
stitution of the United States. We now turn to contemplate him as 
president. 

Washington left Mount Vernon for New York, which was then the 
seat of Congress, on the 16th of April 1789. His journey was a 
triumphal procession. He took the oath of office on the 30th of April, 
with religious services, processions, and other solemnuities, which the 
ultra-republican party have since done away with. 

The new president’s first step was to request elaborate reports from 
the secretary of foreign affairs, the secretary of war, and the com- 
missioners of the treasury. The reports he read, and condensed with 
his own hand, particularly those of the treasury board. The volumi- 
nous official correspondence in the public archives, from the time of 
the treaty of peace till the time he entered on the presidency, he read, 
abridged, and studied, with the view of fixing in his mind every 
important point that had been discussed, and the history of what had 
been done. 

His arrangements for the transaction of business and reception of 
visitors were characterised by the same spirit of order which had 
marked him when a boy and at the head of the army. Every Tuesday, 
between the hours of three and four, he was prepared to receive such 
persons as chose to call. Every Friday afternoon the rooms were open 
in like manner for visits to Mrs. Washington. He accepted no invita- 
tions to dinner, but invited to his own-table foreign ministers, officers 
of the government, and others in such numbers as his domestic estab- 
lishment could accommodate. The rest of the week-days were devoted 
to business appointments. No visits were received on Sunday, or 
promiscuous company admitted; he attended church regularly, and 
the rest of that day was his own. . 

The organisation of the executive departments was decreed by act 
of Congress during ‘the first session. They were the departments of 
foreign affairs (afterwards called the department of state, and including 
both foreign and domestic affairs), of the treasury, and of war. It 
devolved upon the president to select proper persons to fill the several 
offices. Jefferson was appointed secretary of state; Hamilton, secre- 
tary of the treasury; and Knox, secretary of war. Randolph had 
the post of attorney-general. The appointments to the supreme court 
cost him much anxious scrutiny. Jay was made chief-justice. After 
making these appointments he undertook a tour through the eastern 
states, and returned to be present at the opening of Congress, in 
January 1790. 

In his opening speech he recommended to the attention of the legis- 
lature--a provision for the common defence; laws for naturalising 
foreigners ; a uniform system of currency, weights, and measures; the 
encouragement of agriculture, commerce, and manufactures ; the pro- 
motion of science and literature; and an effective system for the 
support of public credit. The last topic gave rise to protracted and 
vehement debates. At last, Hamilton’s plan for funding all the 
domestic debts was carried by a small majority in both Houses of 
Congress. The president suppressed his sentiments on the subject 
while it was under debate in Congress, but he approved the act for 
funding the public debt, and was from conviction a decided friend to 
the measure. The foreign relations of the country, though not com- 
plicated, were in an unsettled condition. Washington despatched 
Gouverneur Morris as a private agent to ascertain the views and 
intentions of the British ministers. He reluctantly commenced an 
Indian war, which lasted during the greater part of his administration. 
For the first year of his presidential term however he was chiefly 
engaged in ascertaining the actual position of the United States in the 
system of nations. 

The second session of Congress was mainly occupied with debates 
on the erection of a national bank. The two great sections of public 
opinion, which have under different names divided the Union since 
the constitution of 1788, had in some measure taken up their respective 
grounds on the question of funding the debts. Their organised hos- 
tility became more apparent in the debates on the project of a national 
bank. Both parties were represented in the cabinet : Knox and 
Hamilton advocated the establishment of the bank; Jefferson and 
Randolph denounced it as unconstitutional. The contest ended in the 
establishment of a bank, with a capital of ten millions of dollars, of 
which eight millions were to be held by individuals, and the rest by 
government, Again the president avoided showing a leaning to the 
one or other party, although friendly to the creation of a bank. He 
requested from each member of the cabinet a statement of his reasons 
in writing, examined them attentively, and affixed his signature to 
the act. 

The session of 1791 produced the laws for apportioning the repre- 
sentatives, establishing a uniform militia system, and increasing the 
army. It now became apparent to the most unreflecting that two 
great parties were in the process of formation. The opponents and 
supporters of the measures enumerated were, with few exceptions, the 
opponents and supporters of the funding system and the national 
bank. The opponents were jealous of anything that might encroach 
upon democratic principles; the supporters were distrustful of the 
power of institutions so simple as those of the United States to pre- 
serve tranquillity and the cohesion of the state. Jefferson was the 


head of.the democratic, Hamilton of what was seine *e called the 
N 


547 WASHINGTON, GEORGE, 


WASHINGTON, GEORGE, 548 


Federalist party. Washington endeavoured to reconcile these ardent 
and incompatible spirits, His own views were more in accordance 
with those of Hamilton ; but he knew Jefferson’s value as a statesman, 
and he felt the importance of the president remaining independent of 
either party. The two secretaries however continued to diverge in 
their political course, and ultimately their differences settled into 
personal enmity. ; 

The president's term of office was drawing to a close, and an anxious 
wish began to prevail that he should allow himself to be elected for a 
second term, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Randolph, who did not exactly 
coincide with either, all shared in this anxiety, and each wrote a long 
letter to Washington, assigning reasons for his allowing himself to be 
re-elected, He yielded; and on the 4th of March 1793 he took the 
oath of office in the senate-chamber. 

The first question that came before the cabinet after the re-election 
rendered more decided the differences which already existed, The 
European parties, of which the court of St. James’s and the French 
republic were the representatives, were eager to draw the United 
States into the vortex of their struggle. The president and his cabinet 
were unanimous in their determination to preserve neutrality ; but 
the aristocratic and democratic sections of the cabinet could not 
refrain from displaying their respective biases and their jealousy of 
each other. It having been agreed to receive a minister from the 
French republic, Hamilton and Knox advocated a qualification in the 
terms, implying that the relations of the two countries were altered; 
Jefferson and Randolph opposed it. The proclamation of neutrality 
was published on the 22nd of April 1793. 

This wise act was bitterly assailed by the partisans of France. 
Foreign affairs were mingled with domestic polities, and the Democra- 
tic and Federalist parties became avowedly organised. Washington 
was for a time allowed to keep aloof from the contest—not for a long 
time. Genet, the French minister, gave orders to fit out privateers at 
Charleston to commit hostilities against the commerce of nations at 
peace with America. The government of the United States issued in 
August a declaration that no privateers fitted out in this manner should 
find refuge in their harbours. In June, and again ih November, the 
British cabinet issued orders to their cruisers to stop and make prize 
of all vessels laden with provisions for any parts of France or the 
French colonies.. A report was made by the secretary of state near 
the beginning of the session of 1793-4 respecting the commercial inter- 
course of the United States with other countries. Two methods 
were proposed for modifying or removing restrictions: first, by 
amicable arrangements with foreign powers; second, by countervailing 
acts of the legislature. Soon after the secretary of state resigned, 
and was succeeded by Randolph. Mr. Jefferson’s report gave rise 
to Mr. Madison’s celebrated commercial resolutions. In them the 
friends of the administration from which Jefferson had seceded 
imagined they saw hostility to England and under-favour to France. 
The opposite party deemed them no more than necessary for the pro- 
tection of the country. Mr. Madison’s plan, with some modifications, 
passed the House of Representatives, but was rejected in the Senate 
by the casting vote of the vice-president. 

A circumstance insignificant in itself increased the bitterness of the 
contest out of doors. Democratic societies had been formed on the 
model of the Jacebin clubs of France. Washington regarded them 
with alarm, and the unmeasured expression of his sentiments on this 
head subjected him to a share in the attacks made upon the party 
accused of undue fondness for England and English institutions. 

_ Advices from the American minister in London representing that 
the British cabinet was disposed to settle the-differences between the 
two countries amicably, Washington nominated Mr. Jay to the Senate 
as envoy-extraordinary to the court of Great Britain. The nomination, 
though strenuously opposed by the democratic party, was confirmed in 
the Senate by a majority of two to one. The treaty negociated by 
Jay was received at the seat of government in March, 1795, soon after 
the session of Congress closed. The president summoned the Senate 
to meet in June to ratify it. The treaty was ratified. Before the 
treaty was signed by the president it was surreptitiously published. 
It was vehemently condemned, and public meetings against it were 
held to intimidate the executive. The president nevertheless signed 
the treaty on the 18th of August. When Congress met in March, 
1796, a resolution was carried by a large majority in the House of 
Representatives, requesting the president to lay before the house the 
instructions to Mr. Jay, the correspondence, and other documents 
relating to the negociation. Washington declined to furnish the 
papers; a vehement debate ensued; but in the end the majority 
hostile to the treaty yielded to the exigency of the case, and united in 
passing laws for its fulfilment. 

The two houses of Congress met again in December. Washington 
had published on the 15th of September his farewell address to the 
United States. He now delivered his last speech to Congress; and 
took occasion to urge upon that body the gradual increase of the 
navy, @ provision for the encouragement of agriculture and manufac- 
tures, the establishment of a national university, and of a military 
academy. Little was done during the session: public attention was 
engrossed by the president’s election. Adams, the federalist candidate, 
had the highest number of voters; Jefferson, the democratic candi- 
date (who was consequently declared vice-president), the next. Wash- 


ington’s commanding character and isolation from party had preserved 
this degree of strength to the holders of his own political views; his 
successor Adams being a party man, by his injudicious identification 
of himself with the federalists turned the scale in favour of the demo- 
crats, Washington was present as a spectator at the installation of 
his successor, and immediately afterwards returned to Mount Vernon, 
He survived till the 14th of December 1799, but, except when sum- 
moned in May 1798, to take the command of the provincial army on the 
prospect of a war with France, did not again engage in public business, 
The character of Washington is one of simple and substantial great- 
ness, His passions were vehement, but concentrated, and thoroug 
under control. An irresistible strength of will was the secret of 
power. Luckily for his country this strong will was combined with a 
singularly well-balanced mind, with much sagacity, much beney 
much love of justice. Without possessing a spark of what may be 
genius, Washington was endowed with a rare quickness of pe 
and soundness of judgment, and an eager desire of knowledge. His 
extremely methodical habits, which in a person engaged in less 
important matters would have almost appeared ridiculous, enabled 
him to find time for everything, and were linked with a talent for 
organisation. During the War of Independence he was the defensive 
force of America; wanting him, it would almost appear as if the 
democratic mass must have resolved itself into its elements, To 
place Washington as a warrior on a footing with the Casars, Napo- 
leons, and Wellingtons, would be absurd. He lost more battles than — 
ever he gained, and he lost them from defective strategy. But he 
kept.an army together and kept up resistance to the enemy under 
more adverse circumstances than any other general ever did. His 
services as a statesman were pretty similar in kind. He upheld the 
organisation of the American state during the first eight years of its — 
existence, amid the storms of Jacobinical controversy, and gave it 
time to consolidate, No other American but himself could have done 
this: for of all the American leaders, he was the only one of whom 


men felt that he differed from themselves, The rest were soldiers or & ° 
civilians, federalists or democrats, but he was Washington. The awe 


and reverence felt for him was blended with affection for his kind’ 


qualities, and except for a brief period towards the close of his second ~ ; 


presidential term, there has been but one sentiment entertained 
towards him throughout the Union—that of reverential love, He is 
one of those rare natures whom greatness followed without his 
appearing to seek for it. f 
Jefferson’s sketch of Washington’s character, quoted by Tucker 
with the remark that it “‘has every appearance of candour, as i 
praises without extravagance, qualifies its commendations with caution 
and moderation, and does not blame at all,” is valuable as coming 
from one who long enjoyed opportunities of close personal observatio: 
was a shrewd judge of character, and the leader of the party pase 
to Washington’s general policy. It is as follows :— 
“ His mind was great and powerful, without being of the very first 
order; his penetration strong, though not so acute as 
Newton, Bacon, or Locke, and, as far as he saw, no judgment was ever 
sounder. It was slow in operation, being little aided by invention or 
imagination, but suire in conclusion. Hence the common remark of 
his officers, of the advantage he derived from councils of war, where 
hearing all suggestions, he selected whatever was best; and i 


no general ever planned his battles more judiciously. But if deranged — 


during the course of action, if any member of his plan was dislocated 
by sudden circumstances, he was slow in a re-adjustment. The con- 
sequence was, that he often failed in the field, and rarely against an 
enemy in station, as at Boston and York. He was incapable of fear, 


meeting personal dangers with the calmest unconcern, Perhaps the 


strongest feature in his character was prudence, never acting until - 


every circumstance, every consideration was maturely weighed; re- 
fraining, if he saw a doubt, but when once decided, going igh 
with his purpose, whatever obstacles opposed. His integrity was 

most pure, his justice the most inflexible I have ever known; no 
motives of interest or consanguinity, of friendship or hatred, 

able to bias his decision. He was indeed in every sense of the word a 
wise, a good, and a great man. His temper was naturally irritable 
and high-toned : but’reflection and resolution had obtained a firm and — 
habitual ascendancy over it. If ever however it broke its bonds, he 
was most tremendous in his wrath. In his expenses he was honour- 


able, but exact; liberal in contributions to whatever promised [ 


utility; but frowning and unyielding to all visionary projects, and all 
unworthy calls on, his charity. His heart 
affections ; but he exactly calculated every man’s value, and gave him 

a solid esteem proportioned to it, His person was fine, his stature 
exactly what one would wish; his deportment easy, erect, and noble: 
the best horseman of his age, and the most graceful figure that could 
be seen on horseback. Although in the circle of his friends, where he 
might be unreserved with safety, he took a free share in conversation, — 
his colloquial talents were not above mediocrity, possessing neither 
copiousness of ideas nor fluency of words. In public, when called on 
for a sudden opinion, he was unready, short, and em Yet 
he wrote readily, rather diffusely, in an easy and correct style, 
This he had acquired by conversation and the world, for his education 
was merely reading, writing, and common arithmetic, to which he 
added surveying. His time was employed in action chiefly, i 


i 


of a 


was not warm in its — 


ee — a | 


+ 


549 WASHINGTON, CAPT. JOHN, R.N., F.RB.S. 


WATERLAND, DANIEL, 550 


little, and that only in agriculture and English history. His corre- 
spondence became necessarily extensive, and with journalising his 
agricultural proceedings occupied most of his leisure hours within 
doors. On the whole his character was in its mass perfect, in nothing 
bad, in a few points indifferent; and it may truly be said, that never 
did nature and fortune combine more perfectly to make a man great, 
and to place him in the same constellation with whatever worthies 
have merited from man an everlasting remembrance, For his was the 
‘ingular destiny and merit of leading the armies of his country suc- 
cessfully through an arduous war for the establishment of its inde- 
pendence: of conducting its councils through the birth of a govern- 
ment new in its forms and principles, until it had settled down into a 


‘" quiet and orderly train; and of scrupulously obeying the laws through 


the whole of his career, civil and military, of which the history of the 
world furnishes no other example,” 

(Lives of Washington by Jared Sparkes, Judge Marshall, and Wash- 
ington Irving; George Tucker, Life of Thomas Jefferson ; The Writings 
of George Washington, edited by Jared Sparkes.) 

*WASHINGTON, CAPTAIN JOHN, R.N., F.R.S., Hydrographer 
to the British Admiralty, entered the navy on the 15th of May 1812, 

as a first-class volunteer on board the Junon, of 46 guns, Captain 
James Sanders, fitting for the North American station, where he took 
part in many operations in the river Chesapeake, assisted in making 
prize of several of the enemy’s vessels, and contributed (the Junon 
being accompanied by the Narcissus and Barrosa frigates) to the com- 
plete discomfiture of fifteen gun-boats that had been despatched for 
the express purpose of capturing the Junon, after an action, fought on 
the 20th of June 1813, of three hours, in which the latter had only 
two men killed and three wounded. Removing, as midshipman, in 
the following October to the Sybille, 44, he sailed in that ship in 1814, 
under Captain Thomas Forrest, with the Princess Caroline, 74, Captain 
Hugh Downman, for the latitude of Greenland, in fruitless pursuit of 
the American commodore Rogers. In November of the same year, 
having returned to England, he entered the Royal Naval College at 
Portsmouth. On leaving that institution he was received, in May 1816, 
on board the Forth, 40, Captain Sir Thomas Louis, under whom he 
was again employed for upwards of three years on the coast of North 
America. He then in succession, in July 1819 and August 1820, joined 
the Vengeur, 74, Captain Frederick Lewis Maitland, and the Superb, 
78, Captains Thomas White and Adam Mackenzie, both on the South 
American station, where he remained until some months after his 
promotion to the rank of lieutenant, which took place on the Ist of 
January 1821. His next appointments were, on the 15th of February 
1823, as first lieutenant to the Parthian, of 10 guns, Captain the Hon. 
George Barrington, employed on particular service ; on the 14th of 
May 1827, after about two years of half-pay, to the Weazle, 10, Captain 
John Burnet Dundas, whom-he accompanied to the Mediterranean ; 
on the 12th of December following, to the Dartmouth, 42, Captain 
Thomas Fellowes, on the latter station; and on the 6th of August 
1830, to the Royal George, 120, as flag-lieutenant to Sir John Poo 
Beresford, commander-in-chief at the Nore, continuing to serve under 
that officer in the Ocean, 80, until advanced to the rank of commander 
on the 14th of August 1833. 

To the active service consequent upon his various appointments, 
Commander Washington had united the practice of maritime surveying 
and the related pursuits of a scientific hydrographer and geographer. 
In 1835 he succeeded Captain Maconochie as secretary of the Royal 
Geographical Society of London, but resigned that office in 1841, on 
being appointed to continue the survey of the North Sea, which had 
for some time been in progress. In the Report of the Council of the 
Society for that year, it is recorded, that “'I'o his enlightened and 
unceasing activity must be ascribed in no ordinary degree the great 
advance which the society has made in securing the confidence and 
good opinion of the public, and the increasing interest which is now so 
extensively felt in geographical discoveries and investigations.’ For 
the purposes of the survey, he had, the command of a steam-vessel 
and of an accompanying tender, being appointed to the Shearwater 
steamer on the 16th of March 1841, and to the Blazer on the 29th of 
January 1843. In these vessels he carried on the minute examination 
of the North Sea between the latitudes of 52° 10’ and the Dutch and 
Belgian coasts, and further north towards the Baltic, in completion of 
the work of the late Captain Hewitt, R.N. During this survey, in 
which he was continually engaged until the close of 1844, he was 
occasionally occupied in correcting the existing charts, as the positions 
of the shoals and the directions of the navigable channels had in 
many cases become changed; of which singular instances occurred in 
Yarmouth Roads, through which so many thousand vessels annually 
pass. On the 16th of March 1842 he had been promoted to the naval 
rank he now holds, that of post-captain, in compliment to the King 
of Prussia. The survey was Captain Washington’s last service afloat. 
On the 25th of January 1845 he was appointed a commissioner for 
inquiring into the state of the rivers, shores, and harbours of the 
United Kingdom. He was subsequently employed in the Railway and 
Harbour department of the Admiralty; and, on the retirement of 
Rear-Admiral Sir Francis Beaufort, he was elevated to the office of 
Hydrographer to the Admiralty on the 80th of January 1855, the 
highest position to which a marine surveyor in the Royal aM | can 
aspire, and the honour of which is equalled only by its responsibility. 


When the nature of the duties of this office—involving the superin- 
tendence of the national marine surveys and of the construction and 
revision of the charts on which they are laid down, and which are the 
guides of navigators in every sea—and the union of scientific with 
professional qualifications they require, are considered, it must, as a 
position, be regarded as the high and appropriate reward for previous 
services in the department to which it belongs. 

On the 3rd of September 1833, Captain Washington married 
Eleonora, youngest daughter of the Rev. H. Askew, rector of Gray- 
stock in Cumberland, by whom he has issue. 

He was elected a fellow of the Royal Society on the 13th of 
February 1845, is also a fellow of the Geological and a member of the 
Royal Geographical societies, and an associate (or non-professional 
member) of the Institution of Civil Engineers: also a member of the 
Royal Academy of Sciences of Copenhagen, and of the Geographical 
societies of Berlin and Paris. In the ‘Journal of the Royal Geo- 
graphical Society’ will be found the following communications by 
Captain Washington :—‘ Geographical Notice of the Empire of 
Marocco,’ vol. i,; ‘Sketch of the Progress of Geography and of the 
Labours of the Society in 1837-38 ;’ ‘ Account of Mohammedu-Sisei, 
a Mandingo,’ vol. viii.; ‘Analyses of Von Hiigel’s Kaschmir and the 
Kingdom of the Sikhs,’ and of ‘ Raper’s Navigation and Nautical 
Astronomy,’ vol. x.; ‘Analysis of the Government Marine Atlas of 
Prussia,’ vol. xiv. 

WAT TYLER. [RicHarp II.] 

WATELET, CLAUDE-HENRI, receveur-général des finances, was 
born at Paris in 1718. Watelet is distinguished as one of the best 
French critical writers upon art, and he was also an excellent 
amateur painter and copper-plate etcher. He was the son of Henri 
Watelet, receveur-général des finances de l’Orléanois, and was educated 
at the college of Harcourt. He visited Germany and Italy in his 
youth, and spent some time at Rome, where he formed a friendship 
with the French painter Pierre, and became one of the pupils of the 
French school at Rome. He returned to France, and after spending a 
short time in society in Paris, he retired to the country-seat of Moulin- 
joli, belonging to Madame Le Comte. Here he wrote his didactic 
poem, ‘L’Art de Peindre, which was published in 1761. In the same 
year he was elected a member of the French Academy. He published 
also, near the same time, the first part of a work entitled ‘De l’Origine 
et de la Destination des Arts Libéraux:’ the second part was never 
published. After this time he paid a second visit to Italy, in company 
with his friend Madame Le Comte and the Abbé Copette, having pre- 
viously visited Holland and Belgium. He was everywhere well received 
on his journey, and was much noticed by the King of Sardinia and 
the pope Rezzonico, Clement XIII. He was made member of the 
academies Della Crusca and of Cortona, and of the Institute of 
Bologna, After his return to France a second time, he published, in 
1774, his ‘Essai sur les Jardins;’ and in 1784 was published a ‘Recueil 
de quelques Ouvrages de M. Watelet.’ This collection contains several 
dramas, some of which have been acted. He died in 1786, falling 
apparently into a quiet sleep. His éloge was read a few days after his 
death, at a public sitting of the Société Royale de Médecine, by 
M. Vicq-d’Azyr, the secretary of the society, of which M. Watelet was 
an associé libre. He was also an honorary member of the French 
royal academies of painting and architecture, and a member of the 
academy of Berlin. 

The chief work of Watelet’s life was his ‘ Dictionary of the Arts of 
Painting, Sculpture, and Engraving,’ which was not published until 
after his death—‘ Dictionnaire des Arts de Peinture, Sculpture, et 
Gravure,’ 5 vols. 8vo, Paris, 1792. Watelet left the work incomplete, 
and it was finished by M. Levesque, of the French Academy of Inscrip- 
tions and Belles-Lettres. Watelet etched many plates: Huber, in his 
‘ Manuel des Amateurs,’ &c., enumerates 27 portraits in 4to of himself 
and his friends, after pictures by Cochin: among them portraits of 
D’Alembert and Madame Le Comte; also 14 pieces in imitation of 
Rembrandt, and about 50 others in various styles from various masters, 
and from some of his own designs. 

WATERLAND, DANIEL, D.D., an eminent English theologian, 
was the son of the Rev. Henry Waterland, rector of Wasely or Walsely, 
in Lincolnshire, where he was born on the 14th of February 1683. 
After finishing his elementary education at the free school of Lincoln, 
he was admitted of Magdalen College, Cambridge, in March 1699, 
obtained a scholarship in December 1702, and was elected a fellow in 
February 1704. Continuing to reside at the university, and having 
taken holy orders, he acted for many years as a tutor even after he 
had been presented by the Earl of Suffolk, in February 1713, to the 
mastership of his college, and also to the rectory of Ellingham in Nor- 
folk. It was during this period of his life that he drew up and published 
his ‘ Advice to a Young Student, with a Method of Study for the first 
Four Years,’ which went through several editions, In 1714 he took 
his degree of Bachelor of Divinity, on which occasion he greatly dis- 
tinguished himself by his defence of his thesis, the illegality of Arian 
subscription, his first opponent being Thomas Sherlock, afterwards 
bishop of London. Soon after this he was appointed one of the 
chaplains in ordinary to the king (George L.), and in 1717 he received 
by command of his majesty, on his visit to the university, the unso- 
licited honour of a degree of D,D., in which he was some time after 
incorporated at Oxford, 


551 WATERLOO, ANTONI. 


WATSON, RICHARD, D.D. 552 


Dr. Waterland appears to have first come forth as a controversialist 
in 1718, in an answer to Dr. Whitby’s Latin disquisitions on Bishop 
Bull’s ‘ Defence of the Nicene Creed,’ and ‘An Answer to Dr. Whitby’s 
Reply’ to that attack, In 1719 he handled the same subject with 
more elaboration and effect in ‘A Vindication of Christ’s Divinity, 
being a Defence of the Queries, &c., in answer to a Clergyman in the 
Country.’ The ‘Queries’ had been drawn up some time before for 
the use of the Rey. John Jackson, rector of Rossington in Yorkshire, 
who wrote an answer to them, which he submitted to Waterland, and 
then sent the ‘Queries,’ his own answer, and Waterland’s reply to 
that, to the press. This publication immediately involved Waterland 
in a controvery with Dr. Clarke and the Arian party. The longest 
and most important of Waterland’s tracts in this controversy was his 
next, published in 1723, under the title of ‘A Second Vindication of 
Christ's Divinity.’ This was followed the next year by ‘A further 
Defence of Christ’s Divinity,’ in answer to Clarke’s ‘Observations’ on 
the Second Defence. 

Meanwhile, in 1720, Dr. Waterland had, on the appointment of 
Bishop Robinson, of London, preached the first course of sermons at 
the lecture founded by Lady Moyer, which he afterwards published in 
8vo, under the title of ‘ Eight Sermons, &c., in defence of the Divinity 
of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ Next year he was presented by the dean 
and chapter of St. Paul's to the rectory of St. Austin’s and St. Faith’s, 
in the city of London; and in 1723 he was promoted by Archbishop 
Dawes to the chancellorship of the churcli of York. The same year 
he published his ‘ Critical History of the Athanasian Creed.’ In 1727 
he was collated to a canonry of Windsor ; and in 1730 he was pre- 
sented by the chapter of Windsor to the vicarage of Twickenham, 
upon which he resigned his London living, but accepted the arch- 
deaconry of Middlesex from his diocesan Bishop Gibson. 

The publication, in 1730, of Dr. Clarke’s ‘ Exposition of the Church 
Catechism,’ drew Waterland into a new controversy both with Clarke 
and Dr, Sykes. This was followed by another with Tindal, whose 
‘Christianity as old as the Creation’ also appeared in 1730, and was 
replied to by Waterland, in a work entitled ‘Scripture Vindicated,’ 
&e., in 1732. Out of this grew another controversy with Middleton ; 
and that was succeeded by a fourth with the Rev. John Jackson, on 
the worth of the @ priort argument for the being of a God, which 
opposed as it was to Waterland’s natural turn of thought, which was 
critical rather than metaphysical, may be supposed not to have 
recommended itself to him the more as having been adopted by his 
great Arian adversary Clarke. In 1734 he published a tract entitled 
‘The Importance of the Holy Trinity asserted;’ and in 1737, in an 
8vo volume, ‘A Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, as laid down 
in Scripture and Antiquity,’ which was the last work he sent to the 
press. He died on the 23rd of December 1740, at London, whither 
he had come from Cambridge to consult Dr. Cheselden about his 
complaint, a nail growing into one of his great toes, which ended in a 
mortification. He left a widow, whom he had married in 1719, but 
no children. Two volumes of his Sermons, with a discourse on the 
Doctrine of Justification, and another on Infant Communion, appeared 
in 1742, under the care of Joseph Clarke, M.A.; and a complete 
edition of Archdeacon Waterland’s works, with a Life of the author, 
by the late Bishop Van Mildert, was published at Oxford, in 11 vols. 
8vo, in 1823. 

WATERLOO, ANTONI, a celebrated Dutch landscape-painter, 
etcher, and engraver, was born near Utrecht about 1618. His land- 
scapes are much prized, on account of their colouring, their skies, and 
their foliage. His etchings are also excellent: their subjects are taken 
chiefly from the vicinity of Utrecht, consisting of cottage scenes, 
crooked roads, woods, and entrances into forests, &c. He could not 
draw the figures: those in his pictures were painted by Weeninx and 
others; in his etchings he inserted them very sparingly. There are 
many bad impressions of Waterloo’s etchings, owing to his peculiar 
mode of execution. He etched the whole design of an equal strength, 
but slightly, and then finished in a bold manner with the graver those 
parts which he desired to be most effective. As the plates therefore 
were worked off, the etching grew perceptibly fainter, while that part 
which was executed with the graver suffered comparatively no dimi- 
nution of effect. Good impressions are much sought by collectors, 
Bartsch has enumerated 134 of Waterloo’s etchings, all of which he 
has named and described. 

Although Waterloo was well paid for his works, and inherited 
some property from his parents, he died in 1662, at the hospital of 
St. Job, near Utrecht, He is accounted by some the most masterly 
etcher of landscape, and his works have always been’ much studied by 
engravers. : 

WATSON, CHARLES, VICE-ADMIRAL, was born in 1714, and 
was the son of the Rev. Dr. Watson, Prebendary of Westminster. The 
loss of his father when he was but nine years of age enabled him to 
follow the inclination he had already manifested of entering the naval 
profession. His skill and bravery soon procured him promotion; in 
February 1738, he was appointed captain of the Garland frigate, and, 
in 1744, he was transferred to the Dragon of 60 guns, under Admiral 
Matthews, on the Mediterranean station. In that command his ser- 
vices were required on several important occasions, and were generally 
attended with success. He was afterwards sent by his admiral to 
Cadiz, with orders to cruize off that harbour for a certain time, after- 


wards to proceed to Lisbon, and from thence to England. Though 
these orders opened to him the prospect of making many rich prizes, 
he ventured to disobey them on receiving intelligence that the enemy’s 
fleet was preparing for sea at Toulon; and, regardless of his interests, 
he directed his course to the-Hiéres, in order to join the English 
fleet. During the course of the war, Captain Watson obtained dis- 
tinction in the several ships which he commanded; his conduct in 
the action of the 3rd of May 1747, elicited the admiration even of 
his enemies, and honourable mention was made of it by the French 
admiral. In another action, during the same year, in which Sir 
Edward Hawke commanded in chief, he displayed great intrepidity. 
On the 12th of May 1748, his services were rewarded by his promo- 
tion to the rank of rear-admiral of the blue, and in this capacity he 
received orders to sail with a small fleet to Cape Breton, 

In 1754, he was appointed to the command of the squadron destined 
to co-operate with the expedition of Colonel Clive (Crive, Ropert, 
Lorp] in the East Indies; and soon after his arrival in that country 
he received his Majesty's commission appointing him rear-admiral of 
the red. His first exploit was the reduction of Fort Geriah, February 
13, 1756, which was held by a piratical prince, who had for many 
years annoyed the English trade in the East Indies, In the attack 
made by Colonel Clive on Chandernagore, a place of great strength, 
and the chief settlement of the French in Bengal, in conjunction with 
Admiral Pocock, he commanded the small fleet of only three ships of 
the line destined to co-operate with the land-forces. The French 
had prepared to resist him by sinking several large vessels in the 
river below the fort; but the admiral having found a safe passage 
by carefully sounding as he approached, directed so severe a fire upon 
the enemy’s defences, that, seconded by Colonel Clive’s batteries on 
the shore, the place capitulated in less than three hours (24th of 
March 1757). By the capture of this fort a large number of prisoners, 
one hundred and eighty-three pieces of cannon, and a considerable 
booty, fell into the hands of the English. With this exploit may be 
said to end this admiral’s short but successful career; on the 16th 
of August 1757, he fell a victim to that unwholesome climate. His 
death was severely felt by his companions in arms, by whom he was 
admired for his skill and bravery, and beloved for his moral qualities 
and amiable disposition. On the 18th of June 1763, the memory of 


his services was consecrated by the erection of a monument in West- 


minster Abbey, at the expense of the Hast India Company. 

WATSON, RICHARD, D.D., was born in August 1737, at Hever- 
sham, near Kendal, in Westmoreland, where his father, a younger son 
of a small statesman, or land-owner, had been head master of the 
grammar-school from 1698: the family, supposed to have come 
originally from Scotland, had subsisted for at least three or four 


generations at Hardendale, near Shap. His father having resigned — 


his office in 1737, although he lived till November 1753, Watson was 
educated under his successor, who took little pains to give him an 
accurate grammatical training; and about a year after his father’s 
death he was sent, on an exhibition of 50/. belonging to the school, 
to Trinity College, Cambridge, where he was admitted a sizar, 3 

of November 1754. .All he had, besides his exhibition, to carry him 
through college, was a sum of 300/. which his father had left him; 


but he set bravely to work to make his way to independence by hard 


study and hard living. It is said that at first his dress was a coarse 
mottled Westmoreland coat and blue yarn stockings. He offered him- 
self as a candidate for a scholarship, which he obtained on the 2nd 
of May 1757. In September following, while still only a junior soph, 
he began to take pupils, and continued to be so employed, first as 
private tutor, then as assistant college tutor, till, in October 1767, he 
became one of the head tutors of Trinity College. Meanwhile he 

taken his degree of B.A. in January 1759, when he was declared second 
wrangler (he says himself, he ought to have been first); had been 
elected a fellow of his college in October 1760; had graduated M.A. 
at the commencement in 1762; and in November 1764, had been, on 
the death of Dr. Hadley, unanimously elected by the senate to the 
professorship of chemistry. This was a strange choice, for at that 
time Watson knew nothing of chemistry whatever; but he did not 
disappoint the confidence that was felt, by himself and others, in his 
ardour, application, and quickness of comprehension. With the assist- 
ance of an operator, whom he sent for immediately from Paris, and 
by immuring himself in his laboratory, he acquired such an acquaint- 
ance with his new subject as to enable him, in about fourteen months, 
to read his first course of lectures, which were honoured with a nume- 
rous attendance, and proved highly satisfactory. He afterwards 
delivered other courses, which were equally successful; in 1768 he 
printed a synopsis of the principles of the science under the title of 
‘ Institutiones Metallurgice ;’ in 1769 he was elected a Fellow of the 
Royal Society, and during some years after this he contributed many 
chemical papers to the Philosophical Transactions. In 1771 he pub- 
lished ‘An Essay on the subjects of Chemistry, and their General 
Divisions;’ in 1781 he published two vols. 12mo, of ‘Chemical 
Essays ;’ a third appeared in 1782; and a fourth in 1786 completed 
the work, which has often been reprinted, and was long very popular. 
But Watson’s first publication, properly so called, was ‘An Assize 
Sermon, preached at Cambridge,’ 4to, 1769. About two years after 
this, in October 1771, he was unanimously elected to the office of 
regius professor of divinity, although he was at the time neither D.D, 


iti 


a 


—=— = § 


= 


Ee 


constitution was, he says, ‘ill fitted for celibacy ;’ 


eS Oe eee 


— 


an estate which he sold for 20,5000. 


553 WATSON, RICHARD, D.D, 


WATT, JAMES. 554 


nor B.D., and in truth seems by his own account to have known little 
more of divinity than he did of chemistry seven years before. But 
such was his good luck, or the reputation he had established for carrying 
his object, whenever he took one in hand, that no other candidate 
appeared. ‘The professorship when he got it was worth 330/.; but he 
boasts of having raised it to more than three times that value. Not 
that he ever had any pretensions to call himself a learned theologian : 
on the contrary he was rather vain of being spoken of as the Professor 
ab’rodidaxmds, the self-taught professor, or rather the professor who 
was indebted for what he knew neither to masters nor books. His 
” so in December 
1778 he married the eldest daughter of Edward Wilson, Esq., of 


-. Dallam Tower, in Westmoreland ; and the next day he went to North 


Wales to take possession of a sinecure rectory, procured for him from 
the Bishop of St. Asaph by the Duke of Grafton, which after his return 
to Cambridge he was enabled (also through means of his grace) to 
exchange for a prebend in the church of Ely. In 1780 he succeeded 
Dr. Plumptre as archdeacon of that diocese; the same year he was pre- 
sented to the rectory of Northwold, in Norfolk; and in the beginning 
of the year following he received another much more valuable living, 
the rectory of Knaptoft, in Leicestershire, ftom the Duke of Rutland, 


‘who had been his pupil at the university. He was now therefore 


tolerably well provided for. 

Meanwhile his publications not already noticed had been, in 1772, 
two ‘ Letters to the Members of the House of Commons,’ under the 
name of ‘A Christian Whig,’ in support of the clerical petition for 
the abolition of the subscription; in 1773, also without his name, ‘A 
Brief State of the Principles of Church Authority;’ in 1776, a 
restoration sermon entitled ‘The Principles of the Revolution Vin- 
dicated,’ which made considerable noise, and, as he conceives, gave 
preat offence at court and in courtly circles, but undoubtedly did him 
good service with his own party; the same year his well-known 
‘Apology for Christianity,’ in answer to Gibbon; and two or three 
other sermons and charges. In March 1782 on the appearance of 
Soame Jenyns’s ‘ Disquisitions on Various Subjects, the toryism of 
which annoyed him, he thought it necessary to defend his whig prin- 
ciples in ‘An Answer to the Disquisition on Government’ in that 


work. 

In July 1782 he was promoted to the bishopric of Llandaff, not 
exactly, as it would appear, on the application of his friend the Duke 
of Rutland, but rather by the new prime minister, Lord Shelburne, of 
his own accord, in the expectation of thereby both gaining an active 
partisan and gratifying the duke. Watson however proved a very 
unmanageable bishop. The first thing he did after he found the 
mitre on his head was to publish, in 1783, ‘A Letter to Archbishop 
Cornwallis on the Church Revenues,’ recommending an equalisation 
of the bishoprics. This he did in spite of all that could be said to 
make him see that he was doing a thing which would embarrass the 
government, and at the same time do nothing to forward his object. 
And so he continued to take his own way, and was very soon allowed 
to do so without any party or any person seeking either to guide him 
or stop him. He made some good and effective speeches in the House 
of Lords, but never originated nor even materially assisted in carrying 
any legislative measure. For the most part, in general politics, he 
sided with what was called the whig party; but he would not come 
up to vote for Fox’s India Bill in 1783, and he had a theory of his 
own upon the subject of the treatment of the House of Commons by 
Pitt which followed. On the occasion of the king’s illness in 1788, 
again, he went with his party in maintaining the right of the Prince 
of Wales to the regency, for which it was thought at the time that he 


~ had a good chance of the bishopric of St. Asaph, then vacant; but his 


majesty’s recovery dissipated that along with many more such flatter- 
ing visions. However before this Watson had received a considerable 
accession to his fortune by the death, in 1786, of his friend and 
former pupil, Mr. Luther, of Ongar, in Essex, who left him in his will 
He grumbled on about having 
sacrificed himself to his principles, and being overlooked and left in 
poverty; but with his bishopric (the duties of which he had wholly 
neglected), and his professorship, and his archdeaconry, and his 
rectory—all, by the bye, as he managed the matter, either entire, or as 
nearly as possible, sinecures—in addition to this money and the profits 
of his various publications, his case could not well be expected to 
excite much commiseration. 

What remains of his biography is little more than the catalogue of 
his other literary performances. In 1785 he published a useful 
*Collection of Theological Tracts selected from various Authors for 
the Use of the Younger Students in the University,’ in 6 vols. 8vo, 
which went through two large editions. ‘An Address to Young 
Persons after Confirmation, which he published in 1789, was also 
extensively sold. In 1790 he published anonymously ‘Considerations 
on the Expediency of revising the Liturgy and Articles of the Church 
of England, by a consistent Protestant ;’ another of his adventurous 
proclamations of peculiar views, which brought upon him a good deal 
of outcry and obloquy. This was followed, in 1792, by ‘A Charge 
delivered to the Clergy of his Diocese in June 1791,’ full of vitupera- 
tion of the Corporation and Test Acts, and laudation of the French 
Revolution. Upon this latter subject however he soon after cooled 
considerably, as appeared by his next publication, a sermon published 


in 1793, which he entitled ‘The Wisdom and Goodness of God in 
having made both Rich and Poor,’ and which was expressly directed 
against the very democratic principles out of which the Revolution of 
France had sprung. He talks of the ‘strange’ turn which that great 
movement had by this time taken, as justifying or accounting for his 
apparent change of feeling about it; as if it was the course of events 
that had been in the wrong—not he and his anticipations. In 1796 
appeared another of his best remembered works, his ‘Apology for the 
Bible, in a Series of Letters addressed to Thomas Paine.’ This was 
followed two years after by ‘An Address to the People of Great 
Britain,’ an energetic appeal in support of the war against France, 
which, the more perhaps by reason of the quarter it came from, 
excited immense attention. Fourteen regular editions of it, he says, 
were sold, besides many pirated ones. Some years after, in 1803, he 
published another tract, entitled ‘ Thoughts on the intended Invasion,’ 
in the same spirit. Various Charges and single Sermons were also 
printed by him from time to time, which need not be noticed in detail. 
His last publication was a selection of his fugitive pieces, in two 
octavo volumes, which appeared in 1815, under the title of ‘ Miscel- 
laneous Tracts on Religious, Political, and Agricultural Subjects.’ The 
latter years of his life he spent mostly in retirement—far away from his 
diocese—on his estate of Calgarth Park, in Westmoreland, which he 
amused himself in ornamenting and improving by building and plant- 
ing. He died there on the 4th of June 1816. He left severai children. 
After his death appeared, under the superintendence of his son Richard 
Watson, LL.B., prebendary of Llandaff and Wells, the work from 
which the above particulars have been principally extracted, entitled 
‘Anecdotes of the Life of Richard Watson, Bishop of Llandaff, 
written by himself at different intervals, and revised in 1814, 

WATSON, ROBERT, a respectable Scotch author of the age of 
Hume, Robertson, and Adam Smith. Robert Watson was a native of 
St. Andrews, where his father combined the profession of brewer and 
apothecary. Robert completed the usual courses of languages and 
philosophy, and commenced the study of divinity in the University of 
St. Andrews. He attended the Divinity Hall in Glasgow for at least 
one winter, and finished his theological studies in Edinburgh. In 1751 
Adam Smith having removed to Glasgow, where he had been elected 
professor of logic, Watson was encouraged by Lord Kames to deliver 
a course of lectures on rhetoric and belles-lettres, similar to that 
which had been delivered by Smith. The reception these lectures 
met with encouraged him to repeat the course every winter during his 
continuance in Edinburgh. In1758, having become a licentiate, or, as 
it is called in Scotland, a ‘ probationer,’ Watson offered himself a can- 
didate for one of the churches of his native town, which happened to 
be vacant. ‘The application was unsuccessful, but Mr, Henry Rymer, 
professor of logic in St. Salvador’s college, entertaining thoughts of 
retiring on account of infirm health, Watson prevailed upon him, by 
the payment of a sum of money, to resign in his favour. The other 
professors sanctioned the bargain, and elected Mr. Watson professor of 
logic, and the Crown soon afterwards constituted him by patent pro- 
fessor of rhetoric and belles-lettres. Watson effected the same inno- 
vation in the University of St. Andrews that was effected about the 
same time in Glasgow by Smith and Reid, in Aberdeen by Beattie, and 
in Edinburgh by Finlayson. He substituted for a course of lectures 
on logic, properly so called, a course of lectures on the theory of the 
human mind, on the exercise of the reasoning faculty, and on literary 
criticism. 

In 1777 Dr. Watson, stimulated by the success of Robertson’s 
‘Charles V.,’ published (at London) his history of ‘ Philip II. of Spain.’ 
The work was favourably received in England, and immediately trans- 
lated into French, Dutch, and German. This success encouraged the 
author to commence the history of Philip III., four books of which 
were completed at the time of his death in 1780. These works are 
of very little value. Heavy and inelegant in style, and showing no 
evidence of a comprehensive or philosophic mind, they are worthless 
even as a collection of materials; Watson having seldom gone to the 
original sources of information. The works of Prescott and others have 
in fact entirely superseded them even for the general.reader. A few 
years before his death Dr. Watson had been promoted to be principal 
of the uvited college of St. Leonard and St. Salvador on the death of 
Principal Tullidelph. ‘Watson left. five daughters by his wife, who is 
said to have been a woman of great beauty, daughter of Dr. Shaw, pro- 
fessor of divinity in St. Mary’s college. The four complete books of 
the history of Philip III., with two additional, by Dr. William Thomp- 
oe published by that gentleman for the benefit of the author’s 

amily. | 

WATT, JAMES, “who” (to adopt the eloquent language of the 
inscription placed by Lord Brougham upon his statue in Westminster 
Abbey), “directing the force of an original genius, early exercised in 
philosophic research, to the improvement of the steam-engine, 
enlarged the resources of his country, increased the power of man, 
and rose to an eminent place among the illustrious followers of 
science and the real benefactors of the world,” was born at Greenock 
on the 19th’of January 1736. His father, also named James, was at 
once a ship-chandler, a builder, and a merchant, and was for upwards 
of twenty years town-councillor, treasurer, and bailie of Greenock, 
where he is celebrated for the zeal and intelligence with which he per- 
formed his duties, and encouraged public improvements, He married 


655 WATT, JAMES. 


WATT, JAMES. 556 


a lady named Muirheid, who was the mother of James Watt, and of a 
younger son, John. By his various occupations he obtained an honour- 
able fortune; but in his later years some unsuccessful enterprises ren- 
dered it “ nécessary that both of his sons, at as early an age as possible, 
should be trained to rely for their future comfort or distinction, and 
even for their very subsistence, on their own independent exertions,” 
His death took place in 1782, in the eighty-fourth year of his age. 

Being, even in infancy, of a very delicate constitution, the early 
education of James Watt was in a great measure of a domestic charac- 
ter, although he attended for a time the public elementary school at 
Greenock. His ill health, which often confined him to his chamber, 
appears to have led him to the cultivation, with unusual assiduity, of 
his intellectual powers. It is said that when only six years of age he 
was discovered solving a geometrical problem upon the hearth with a 
piece of chalk; and other circumstances related of him justify the 
remark which is said to have been elicited from a friend on the above 
occasion, that he was “no common child.” About 1750, or shortly 
afterwards, he amused himself by making an electrical machine; and 
from a curious anecdote related by Arago, it would appear that the 
grand subject by which he subsequently immortalised himself formed, 
thus early, matter of contemplation to the young philosopher. The 
anecdote referred to appears to have been communicated to Arago by 
a member of Watt's family. It is, in effect, that his aunt, Miss Muir- 
heid, who did not entertain the same opinion as his father of the 
powers of the boy, upbraided him one evening at the tea-table for 
what seemed to her to be listless idleness : taking off the lid of the 
kettle and putting it on again; holding sometimes a cup and some- 
times a silver spoon over the steam; watching the exit of the steam 
from the spout; and counting the drops of water into which it became 
condensed. With the increased light imparted by a knowledge of his 
subsequent career, the boy pondering before the tea-kettle will, perhaps, 
as observed by his enthusiastic French biographer, be viewed as the 
great engineer preluding to the discoveries which were to immortalise 
him; though its supposed connectior with the idea of a separate con- 
denser for the steam-engine is merely verbal. 

John, a younger brother of James Watt (who was lost at sea in one 
of his father’s vessels, in the year 1762, at the age of twenty-three), 
haying determined to adopt the business of his father, James was left 
to follow, in the choice of a profession, the bent of his own inclination; 
but the versatility of his talents rendered the choice somewhat difficult, 
During his youth his taste for the beauties of nature and love for 
botany had been developed on the banks of Loch Lomond, while his 
rambles among the mountain scenery of his native land called forth an 
attention to mineralogy and geology. Chemistry was a favourite sub- 
ject when he was confined by ill health to his father’s dwelling. The 
boundless field of natural philosophy was opened to him by the 
popular work of *SGravesande, translated from his ‘ Physices Mathe- 
matica;’ and, like many other valetudinarians, he read eagerly works 
on surgery and medicine. He was found on one occasion conveying 
into his room for dissection the head of a child who had died of some 
unknown disease, 

But among the occupations of his father was included that of sup- 
plying ships with various kinds of nautical apparatus and instruments. 
In assisting him his son appears to have acquired some useful rudi- 
ments of practical mechanics, as well as good habits of commercial 
diligence. He soon learned also to construct with his own hands 
several of the articles vended by his father, thus gaining familiarity in 
working with the different kinds of metal, wood, and other materials. 
From the aptitude which he displayed in this kind of work, and in 
accordance with his own deliberate and earnest choice, it was decided 
that he should proceed to qualify himself for following the trade of a 
mathematical-instrument maker. 

With this object in-view, Watt came to Glasgow in June 1754, 
being then eighteen years of age, and remained under the roof and care 
of his maternal relations, the Muirheids, till the month of May in the 
following year; but from the details of his early life given by Mr. 
Muirhead, his most recent and authentic biographer, it is clear that 
the statement formerly made that he passed an early apprenticeship at 
Glasgow, is in all respects erroneous, and that the alleged contempo- 
raneous incidents are at least apocryphal. During his stay, he enjoyed 
the advantage of being introduced to the notice and acquaintance of 
several of the most learned professors in the University, through the 
instrumentality of his mother's kinsman, Professor George Muirhead. 
He never attended however any course of lectures delivered within the 
_ walls, or by the teachers of the college, though he at once gained the 
favourable notice of Dr. Dick, who was joint professor of Natural 
Philosophy with his father, and who strongly recommended his pro- 
ceeding to London to acquire better instruction in the art which he 
designed to practise than could at that time be gained in Scotland, at 
the same time furnishing him with a valuable personal introduction to 
the celebrated telescope-maker, James Short. Accordingly, on the 
7th of June 1755, he set out for the great metropolis, in charge of Mr, 
Maw, the captain of an Kast Indiaman, about to join his ship, who had 
married Watt’s cousin-german. Through Mr, Maw, he was employed 
“in cutting letters and figures, &c,” in the shop of a watchmaker named 
Neale, who wished to have some of his work to show, and by the first 
week of July we find him, through the exertions of Mr. Short, at work 
on the brass part of Hadley’s quadrants, with Mr, John Morgan, a 


mathematical-instrument maker in Finch-lane, Cornhill. An bs 
ment was soon concluded, with the approbation of his father, by which 
Mr. Morgan was to give him a year’s instruction, for which he was in 
return to pay twenty guineas and also to give his labour for that 
period. His application was severe and intense, and his progress rapi 
and steady, and when June again came round, he announced to 
father, with some reasonable pride, that he could now make “a brass 
sector with a French joint, which is reckoned as nice a piece of 
framing work as is in the trade.” At the close of his engagement he 
found himself compelled by ill-health to seek his native air, and at the 
end of August 1756, he took leave of London and of Mr. Morgan ; first 
however making an investment of about twenty guineas in half a 
hundred additional tools, with “absolute necessary” materials for “a 
great many more that he knew he must make himself,’ together with 
a copy of *Bion’s Construction and Use of Mathematical Instruments,” 
as translated by Edward Stone. The following October furnished an 
opportunity for the employment of his little stock in trade, as well ° 
of his newly-acquired skill, by the arrival from Jamaica of a valuab 
collection of astronomical instruments formed by Mr, Alexander 
Macfarlane, and bequeathed by him to the University. Dr. Dick 
having requested him to help to unpack them, they were found to 
have suffered by the sea air, upon which, by a University minute, 
Watt as being “ well skilled in what relates to the cleaning and pre- 
serving of them,” was desired to put them in order, receiving in pay- 
ment five pounds, which, “in all probability,” says Mr. aithead, 
“was the first money he had earned on his own account, since the 
termination of his apprenticeship.” The “ Macfarlane Observatory” 
was afterwards erected for the reception and use of the instruments, _ 
Shortly afterwards Watt endeavoured to establish himself in business 


in Glasgow, but, owing to his not being a burgess, he met with oppo- “ss 


sition from the corporation of arts and trades, who considered him an 
intruder upon their privileges, and refused to allow him to set up 
even the humblest workshop. From this difficulty he was extricated 
by the interposition of the authorities of the university, which was not 
under city jurisdiction. The university offered him an asylum within 
their precincts, where they permitted him to establish a shop; and they 


also honoured him with the title of their mathematical-instrument 


maker. These circumstances happened in about the year 1757, when 


Watt had scarcely attained his twenty-first year; and it appearsthat 


he was especially indebted, for the friendship shown by the authorities 
of the university, to the kind offices of Adam Smith, author of the 
‘Wealth of Nations, Dr. Black, Robert Simson, the eminent mathe- 
matician, and also of Dr, Dick. The first branch of his business which 
became profitable was the manufacture and sale of Hadley’s quadrants, 
As he proceeded in other departments, Watt displayed much nga 
and manual dexterity; and his superior intelligence led those who hac 
first known him only as an expert and amiable artificer, to form habits 
of intimacy and friendship with him, so that his workshop became a 
favourite resort for the most eminent scientific men in Glasgow, Ff 
intimate friend, Professor Robison [Ropison, JoHN], then a student 
ardently pursuing his investigations in mathematical and mechani 


= 


philosophy, in a manuscript unpublished when used by Arago, but . 
printed in Mr. Muirhead’s recent collection, expresses the surprise — 


which he felt when, on being introduced to Watt, whom he expected 
to find merely an intelligent workman, he found a philosopher, as 
young as himself, yet willlng and able to instruct him, or any of the 
students who might fall into difficulties. He needed but prompti 
to take up and conquer any subject; and Robison states that he | 
the German language in order to peruse Leupold’s ‘ Theatrum 
narum,’ because the solution of a problem on which he was engagec 
seemed to require it; and that similar reasons led him subsequen 

to study Italian. Without neglecting his business in the bangles 
Watt devoted his nights to various and often profound studies; and 
the mere difficulty of a subject, provided it was worthy of pursuit, 
seems to have recommended it to his indefatigable c . 4 
illustration of this characteristic of his mind, it is related that he 
undertook and accomplished the building of an organ, although he is 
said to have been so totally insensible to the charms of music that he 
could not distinguish one note from another. His instrument was no 
less remarkable for its harmony than for several important improye- 
ments in its mechanical details; and he is stated to have conquered 
certain difficulties respecting the theory of tem ent in music, a 
matter then very little understood, and of which he could haye gained 
no knowledge except through the profound but very obscure work 


published on the subject by Dr. Robert Smith of Cambridge. Healso 


constructed other musical instruments, of several distinct kinds, 


The earliest occasion on which the attention of Watt was seriously _ 


directed to the properties of steam appears to have been about 1785, 
when his friend Robison suggested to him the possibility of propelli 
wheel-carriages by the agency of steam, and Watt commenced a model 


of a contrivance for the purpose, but various difficulties intervened, 


and both Watts and Robison having other matters which requi 
their immediate attention, the scheme was abandoned. He states 
however, that about 1761 or 1762 he tried some experiments on the 
force of steam in the apparatus known as Papin’s digester ; and con- 
structed and worked a small model, consisting of an inverted sy: 

the bottom of the rod of which was loaded with a weight; alternately 
admitting the steam below the piston and letting it off into the 


- x 


- 4 


rb7 WATT, JAMES, 


WATT, JAMES, 558 


atmosphere, Thus he practically demonstrated the power of steam 
used as in modern high-pressure engines, but he soon abandoned 
these experiments, and appears to have entertained a prejudice 
against the use of high-pressure steam throughout his subsequent 
career. He however described this engine in his specification of 1769, 
and again in that of 1784, together with a mode of applying it to the 
moving of wheel-carriages. The event to which the commencement 
of his invaluable discoveries may be most distinctly assigned, took 
place in the winter of 1763-4, when Professor John Anderson, who 
occupied the chair of natural philosophy in the University of Glasgow, 
requested him to examine and repair a small model of Newcomen’s 
steam-engine, which could never be made to work satisfactorily. His 
sagacity led him to discover and remove the defects of this model, 
nich was subsequently used in the class-room; and by this circum- 
stance he was led to detect the imperfections of the machine itself, 
and to investigate those properties of steam upon which its action 
depended. About this time he left the college and took up his abode 
in the town previons to his marriage with his cousin, Miss Miller, in 
the summer of 1764. 

The effective working of Newcomen’s machine depended upon two ap- 
parently irreconcileable conditions: first, that when the cylinder was full 


__ of steam, a degree of coldness should be produced within it that should 


occasion the sudden condensation of the steam, and thereby produce a 
partial vacuum beneath the piston, which should cause the atmospheric 

' pressure on the upper surface to force it down with sufficient rapidity 
to give motion to machinery for working a pump; and, secondly, that 
immediately after the completion of one stroke the temperature of the 
cylinder should be again raised to such a degree as to enable it to 
become refilled with steam preparatory to another stroke. A con- 
siderable quantity of steam was lost between each stroke in effecting 
the second object; and when it was accomplished, as the cylinder was 
too hot to allow the immediate condensation of the steam just admitted, 
time was lost in cooling it again. Watt calculated that the amount of 

-heat lost from this radical defect of the old, or, as it is usually called, 
the “atmospheric” steam-engine, was three times as much as was 
applied to the efficient action of the machine. 

Such was the best, perhaps it is not too much to say the only 
efficient steam-engine used before the time of Watt; and notwith- 
standing its wasteful expenditure of fuel, it was extensively used for 
the purpose of draining mines. It was thus applied in the collieries 
in the north of England, in the tin- and copper-mines of Cornwall, 
and in the lead-mines of Cumberland. Shortly after the middle of 
the 18th century it was applied to the purpose of raising water to 

turn water-wheels, and it was used also for ‘the working of blast- 
furnaces for smelting iron-ore, and in a few cases for raising water for 
the supply of towns; but its use was necessarily limited by the 
enormous cost of working, as well by its defective and clumsy con- 
struction, Watt perceived that it was desirable, in order to the 
efficient use of the steam, that the cylinder should always be kept as 
hot as the vapour which entered it, to provide for which he had 
‘recourse to the beautifully simple expedient of condensing the steam 
in a separate vessel, which might always be kept cool, and between 
which and the cylinder a communication might be opened whenever 
the piston was required to descend, This arrangement being perfected, 
he next devised means for deriving the fullest possible advantage from 
it, by maintaining a uniform and high temperature in the cylinder ; 
an object which he accomplished by enclosing its upper end with a 
cap or cover, through which the piston-rod could slide freely up and 
down by means of the air-tight aperture called a stuffing-box, and by 
employing the elastic force of steam, instead of the pressure of the 
atmosphere, to depress the piston whenever a partial vacuum was 
formed beneath it by condensation, The uniform warmth ‘of the 
‘eylinder was farther promoted by surrounding it with a ‘jacket,’ or 
outer casing, and filling the intervening space between its inner and 
outer walls with steam. The invention was in its main feature com- 
pleted as early as 1765; and in the course of his early experiments 
Watt was much struck by the great heat communicated to the injec- 
tion-water by which the condensation was effected by a very small 
quantity of steam, a circumstance which led him by further trials to 
the discovery that water converted into steam would heat about six 
times its own weight of water at 47° or 48° to 212°. Being struck 
with, and not understanding the reason of, this remarkable fact, as he 
himself states in the notes to Robison’s ‘Mechanical Philosophy, 
Watt mentioned it to his friend Dr. Black, who then explained to him 
his doctrine of latent heat, which he had taught some time previously, 
although Watt states that he had either not heard of it, or not attended 
to it when he thus, to use his own words, “ stumbled upon one of the 
material facts by which that beautiful theory is supported.” In order 
to correct an erroneous statement which may have obtained wider 
circulation than its refutation, we insert a further quotation from the 
above notes, where Watt observes—“ Dr. Robison qualifies me as the 
pupil and intimate friend of Dr. Black, and goes the length of sup- 
posing me to have professed to owe my improvements upon the steam- 
engine to the instruction and information I had received from him, 
which certainly was a misapprehension. He is also mistaken in his 
assertion that I had attended two courses of the Doctor's lectures, 
Unfortunately for me, the necessary avocations of my business pre- 
vented me from attending his or any other lectures at college.” 


The marriage of Watt released him from the difficulty which had 
compelled him to establish himself in the precincts of the college, 
his wife being the daughter of a freeman, Being thus rendered a 
freeman himself, he opened a shop in the Salt-market, when his in- 
creasing business led him to require the labours of an assistant. The 
success of the first experiments induced Watt to determine upon the 
construction of a larger model than could be conveniently and pri- 
vately constructed at his usual place of business, and therefore he set 
up this machine, with the assistance of his ingenious apprentice, John 
Gardiner, in one of the rooms of a pottery or ‘ delft-work,’ which he 
had assisted in establishing near Glasgow, and in which he held a 
share. An accident terminated his experiments with this engine, 
which had a cylinder of nine inches diameter, and which, as far as it 
was worked, proved satisfactorily the practical importance of his im- 
provements; and as neither his leisure nor his means enabled him to 
proceed, the project was for a time laid aside. 

In addition to his employment as a mathematical-instrument maker, 
Watt devoted much time to the practice of land-surveying, and this 
led to the employment of his superior talents in the more important 
departments of civil engineering. Such engagements appear to have 
occupied much of his attention between the year 1765, when the lead- 
ing features of his invention were perfected, and 1768, when he found 
in Dr. John Roebuck, to whom he had become known as a surveyor, 
an individual capable of appreciating the value of his improvements, 
and sufficiently enterprising to support him in further experiments, 
Dr, Roebuck, who is perhaps best known as the founder of the Carron 
iron-works and the vitriol-works at Prestonpans, was at this time 
engaged in an extensive colliery undertaking at Kinneil, a few miles 
from Carron; and in an outbuilding connected with his residence 
Watt commenced, in the winter of 1768, a third model, on a much 
larger scale than either of the preceding. ‘This engine had a cylinder 
of block tin, eighteen inches in diameter; and in its construction 
many difficulties had to be overcome, arising partly from inexperience 
as to the proportions of the several parts, but mainly from the im- 
perfect workmanship unavoidable during the infancy of the art of 
machine-making. One great difficulty consisted in the steam-tight 
packing of the piston, which could not be effected, as in the old 
engines, by covering it with a body of water. At length, after eight ~ 
months’ labour, Watt and Roebuck had the satisfaction of seeing the 
machine in successful operation. The saving of fuel was enormous; 
the saving effected in the supply of water for condensation was little 
less important, and the result of the experiment fully satisfied 
Roebuck, who obtained a share in the patent by which Watt secured 
his inventions. This patent had been applied for in 1768, before the 
engagement with Roebuck, and it was obtained on the 5th of January 
1769. The objects embraced in this were as follow :—Excluding 
atmosphere from cylinder—keeping cylinder as hot as the steam— 
condensation produced in separate vessels—air extracted from con- 
denser by pumps—pistons pressed by the steam—a steam-wheel (or 
rotary engine)—partial condensation of steam—using oil and wax, 
instead of water. 

In the summer of that year however the mining speculations of 
Roebuck involved him in such embarrassments that he was compelled 
to abandon the experiments with Watt’s engine, and Watt himself was 
therefore obliged to return to his former avocations as an engineer 
and surveyor (he having relinquished the business of instrument- 
making in 1768), and to such engagements he chiefly devoted himself 
until the close of the year 1773. Among the surveys and engineering 
works in which Watt was engaged before he finally devoted himself to 
the carrying out of his improvements on the steam-engine was a pro-« 
jected canal between the Forth and the Clyde, by what was called 
the Lomond passage, in which he was engaged in 1767, when Smeaton 
was engaged on similar surveys upon a rival line, He also planned 
and superintended the execution of a canal for conveying the produce 
of the Monkland collieries to Glasgow. He was engaged upon the 
Crinan canal, which was subsequently completed by Rennie; and the 
deepening of the river Clyde, improving the navigation of the Forth 
and Devon, and the Water of Leven; a canal from Machrihanish Bay 
to Campbeltown; another from the Grand Canal to the harbour of Bor- 
rowstownness ; improvements in the harbours of Ayr, Port Glasgow, 
and Greenock ; and the building of bridges at Hamilton and Ruther- 
glen, are among the engineering works and projects with which he 
was connected, Business of this description crowded upon him, and 
it is stated in the ‘Encyclopedia Britannica’ that his reports are 
remarkable for their perspicuity and accuracy. In his surveys he 
used an improved micrometer, and also a machine for drawing in per- 
spective, both of which he had himself invented. It was while en- 
gaged on the greatest engineering work undertaken by him, the survey- 
ing and estimating a line of canal between Fort William and Inverness, 
since executed by Telford on a larger scale than was then proposed, 
under the name of the Caledonian Canal, that Watt, in the latter part 
of the year 1773, received intelligence of the death of his first wife ; 
and he soon afterwards determined to follow the advice of his friend 
Dr. William Small, of Birmingham, to accept an invitation from 
Matthew Boulton, the founder of Soho, to settle in England. 

Boulton, to whom Dr. Roebuck transferred his share in the pro- 
perty of Watt's invention, was a man eminently qualified to bring it 
into profitable operation; bis energetic and business-like habits 


659 WATT, JAMES. 


WATT, JAMES. 560 


supplying what was wanting in the character of Watt to cope with 
and eventually to conquer those moral obstacles which, far more than 
any mechanical difficulties, rendered the introduction of the improved 
steam-engine an arduous undertaking. He also possessed in his works 
at Soho mechanical facilities of a superior order, as well as a large 
capital to establish the manufacture of steam-engines. Watt's con- 
nection with Boulton commenced early in 1774, and they remained in 
partnership until 1800, when Watt retired from business; but their 
friendship continued undiminished until Boulton’s death, after which 
Watt expressed, in his notes upon Robison’s account of the steam- 
engine, his high esteem for his former partner, in the passage quoted 
under Bouton, vol. i. col. 859. By the latter end of 1774, Watt com- 
pleted at Soho, with all the facilities afforded by the expert artisans 
under Boulton’s command, his fourth model engine, which was ex- 
hibited to a deputation from the Cornish miners, and to other persons 
competent to judge of its performances, which were deemed highly 
satisfactory. Perfect however as was the action of the improved 
machine, the patentees knew that much remained to be done to bring 
it into extensive operation ; that costly machinery must be constructed 
to assist in the fabrication of the new engines; and that a protracted 
struggle with ignorance and prejudice was to be anticipated before 
any remunerative return could be expected. As five years out of the 
term of fourteen years for which the patent was granted had already 
elapsed, it did not appsar probable that the remainder of the term 
would suffice for the reimbursement of past and prospective expenses ; 
while there was no doubt that the preliminary difficulties once fairly 
conquered, an active competition in the construction of the improved 
engines would immediately follow the termination of the exclusive 
privilege held by Watt and his partner. They therefore immediately 
applied to parliament for an extension of the term of their patent ; 
and, although the application was met by a violent opposition, in 
which Edmund Burke took part, “not,” as observed by Muirhead, 
**from any hostility to Mr. Watt or his patent, but simply from a 
sense of duty in defending what he conceived, or what were repre- 
sented to him to be, the claims of a constituent,’ and which occa- 
sioned great expense and anxiety to the patentees, it was ultimately 
successful, an act being passed in 1775 (15 Geo. III., c. 61), “ vesting 
in James Watt, engineer, his executors, administrators, and assigns, 
the sole use and property of certain steam-engines, commonly called 
fire-engines, of his invention, described in the said act, throughout his 
majesty’s dominions,” for a period of twenty-five years from the 
passing of theact. Being thus secured a return for their outlay, the 
patentees prepared for the manufacture of steam-engines upon the 
most extensive scale, and with a degree of accuracy never before 
applied in the production of large machinery. In order fully to com- 
prehend the difficulties conquered by Watt, it must be remembered 
that his machine required much more accurate workmanship than those 
which it was to supersede, and that, as stated by Mr. Boulton, the son 
of his partner, at the meeting held at Freemasons’ Hall in 1824, for 
erecting a monument to Watt, “at the period of the construction of 
the first steam-engine upon his principles at Soho, the intelligent and 
judicious Smeaton, who had been invited to satisfy himself of the 
superior performance of the engine by his own experiments upon it, 
and had been convinced of its great superiority over Newcomen’s, 
doubted the practicability of getting the different parts executed with 
the requisite precision; and augured, from the extreme difficulty of 
attaining this desideratum, that this powerful machine, in its improved 
form, would never be generally introduced.” Stuart states that when 
the engine tried at Kinneil was made, there were but one or two artists 
who could give the requisite truth of workmanship to, air-pump 
cylinders of two inches diameter; while Watt required similar accu- 
racy in cylinders of many thousand times their capacity, and in the 
large pistons, piston-rods, and other working parts of his machine. 
The opposition raised to an extension of the patent had the effect of 
exciting the public attention, and the commercial tact of Boulton 
greatly facilitated the introduction of the machine to general use. 
Pursuing throughout an enlightened and liberal policy, the patentees 
invited the public to an inspection of the engine, freely explained the 
principles of its action, and promoted a series of experiments under 
the inspection of practical and scientific mechanics whose professional 
character and position in society placed their testimony beyond sus- 
picion. Similar experiments were made, before the same persons, on 
an engine of Newcomen’s construction, of the best make and in perfect 
order; and the results as to quantity of coal consumed, and amount 
of work done in a given time, were contrasted. Thus the immense 
saving effected was rendered manifest to the parties to whom the use 
of the machine was recommended, and the remuneration of the 
patentees was made proportional to that saving. Without attempting 
to realise their profit as manufacturers of the engines, Messrs. Boulton 
and Watt claimed only, by way of rent, the value of one-third part of 
the coals saved by using their improved machine instead of the old 
fire-engine, After paying this very moderate claim, it cost little more 
than half the money previously paid to perform a given amount of 
work, to say nothing of the great saving of room, water, and repairs. 
Not only were the engines supplied at certain fixed prices, according 
to size, at such a rate as would have been charged by any neutral 
manufacturer, but where persons were either unable or unwilling to 
throw aside the expensive apparatus which they might haye already 


in operation, the patentees took the old engines in part payment for 
the new, often at rates far beyond their real value; while in other 
cases they erected machinery worth thousands of pounds on condition 
of being paid when they produced the estimated advantage. In some 
instances parts of the old machinery were brought into use, as, for 
instance, by placing a smaller working-cylinder within the old one, and 
using it as the outer case or jacket; when, although the new cylinder 
was seldom more than half the size of the old one, the power of the 
machine was so augmented as to present a striking illustration of the 
value of the patented improvements. Still further to facilitate the 
adoption of the new machinery by rendering the terms upon which its 
use was allowed as clear as well as liberal as possible, the patentees 
laid down a standard of horse-power by which to caleulate the power 
of their machines; and in so doing their honourable spirit was ren- 
dered strikingly manifest, since, instead of taking a low standard of 
horse-power, which would have increased the apparent value of their 
engines, they estimated the power of a horse as equal to g 
33,000 lbs. one foot high in a day ; while Smeaton had valued the force 
of a strong English horse as low as 22,000lbs.; and they moreover 
calculated their machinery so as to perform work equal to raising 
44,000 lbs, a foot high for every nominal horse-power ; so that, in fact, 
what they called a five-horse-power engine would perform as much as 
ten horses according to Smeaton’s estimate. Even these liberal terms 
and modes of computing the power of their machines might have 
proved objectionable if saddled with the necessity for frequent inspee- 
tion’on the part of the patentees or their agents; and therefore, at 
once to avoid all vexatious interference for the purpose of ascertaining 
the amount of work really done, and to afford to all parties a satisfae- 
tory check upon every species of fraud by which the engines might be 
represented as doing more or less than they really did perform, Watt 
contrived an apparatus for counting and registering the strokes of the 


great lever or beam of the engine, and thereby affording unerring and — 


indisputable data for computing the duty performed. This apparatus, 
or ‘counter,’ was locked up in a box with two keys, one of which was 
kept by the proprietor of the engine, and the other by the patentees, 
who employed a confidential agent to open and examine the apparatus, 
in the presence of the proprietors, every three months. 

Of the spirited manner in which Boulton conducted the mercantile 
department of the great adventure some idea may be formed from the 
fact, that upwards of 47,0007. was spent before the patentees began to 


receive any return; but at length their remuneration began to pour in, — 
In Cornwall and other mining districts, 


and in no scanty stream. 
especially where coal was not abundant, the new engines speedily 
replaced the old; and although in many cases the patentees agreed to 
receive a fixed sum, lower than the amount that would have been pay- 


able to them under the usual agreement, in lieu of the stipulated rent, — 


they soon realised a very large annual revenue. In one instance, at 
the Chacewater mine, in Cornwall, where three very large engines 
were employed, the proprietors agreed to pay 800/. per annum for 
— engine as a compromise for the patentee’s share of the saving 
of fuel. 

The chief application of the old atmospheric engine, and also of 
Watt's first improvement upon it, was for the purpose of pumping 
water from mines, a purpose for which the circumstance of jts power 
being applied only during the downward stroke of the piston was of 
little consequence. As however the extension of manufacturing 
operations called for the introduction of some powerful and manage- 
able prime-mover, more uniform in its action and less dependent upon 
local circumstances than either wind or water, various attempts were 


made to apply the steam-engine to this purpose, for which, in most 


cases, it was necessary to convert its alternating rectilinear motion 
into a continuous circular arc. Prior to the time of Watt, the prin- 
cipal means adopted for accomplishing this object, which however was 
very seldom attempted, was to employ the engine in pumping water 
into an elevated reservoir, in its descent from which it might turn a 
water-wheel. A large atmospheric engine was erected for this pur- 
pose, in 1752, at Champion’s copper and brass works near Bristol ; 
and such engines were subsequently introduced at several other places, 
among which was the Soho works. Watt was fully aware of the 
importance of some more convenient method of obtaining rotatory 
motion from the steam-engine: and of the numerous plans which had 
either been tried by others or were suggested by his own fertile 
imagination, he appears to have considered none equal to the common 
crank, the efficiency of which was shown by its use in the lathe, the 
knife-grinder’s wheel, and other machines in common use long before 
its application to the steam-engine was thought of. A difficulty how- 
ever presented itself in the application of the crank to the single- 


acting engine, or that which exerted power in the down-stroke only, 


because it would have been necessary to use a very heavily-loaded fly- 
wheel to keep up and equalise the motion imparted by the separate 
impulses of the piston, to avoid which Watt once proposed to employ 
two engines, working distinct cranks on the same axle. Watt however 


was not the man to publish his inventions until he had brought 


them to a considerable state of perfection; and consequently in this, 
as in some other cases, parties who were anxiously watching to obtain, 
by the most unscrupulous means, a share in the advantages of his 
ingenuity, were enabled to steal a march upon him. While his 
attention was directed to other important points, patents were ob- 


° 
4 
' 
; 
} 


ES eee le 


561 ~ WATT, JAMES. 


WATT, JAMES. £62 


tained, in or about the years 1779 and 1780, by persons named Was- 
brough and Pickard, for obtaining rotatory motion from a steam- 
engine, the plan proposed by Pickard being the simple crank and 
fly-wheel. Since it appears probable that the idea was obtained 
through a workman employed by Watt, it is likely that this patent 
might,have been overturned ; but as Watt did not think fit to contest 
it, he used, during the continuance of Pickard’s patent, his own beauti- 
ful contrivance known as the sun-and-planet wheel. It has however 
been stated, in the ‘Enclyclopedia Britannica,’ that Watt did actually 
use the crank, in defiance of Pickard’s patent, whenever it suited his 
purpose, and that he was never molested for so doing. Few points in 


the history of machinery are more curious than the rivalry which 


existed on this subject, and the complicated contrivances proposed for 
doing that which is so simply and efficiently done by the crank; and 
many well-informed persons, among whom was Smeaton, doubted the 
possibility of obaining a perfect circular motion, like that produced 
by the efflux of water in turning a water-wheel, from the reciprocating 
lever of a steam-engine. Perhaps no improvement could be named of 
equal importance in rendering the steam-engine available as a prime- 
mover of machinery, as that by which the action of the steam was 
enabled, by a new arrangement of valves, to impel the piston upwards 


‘as well as downwards, thereby doing away with the necessity for 


balance-weights or any similar contrivance; an arrangement which 


. Watt described and explained by a drawing during his application to 


parliament for an extension of his patent, although he did not actually 
patent it until 1782, prior to which time he is said to have privately 
constructed one or more engines on this, which is known as the 
double-acting principle. The adoption of this construction involved 
several other important changes in the machine, among which was the 
exquisitely beautiful arrangement called the parallel motion, from 
the working of which Watt himself stated that he derived all the 
pleasure of novelty which he could have experienced in examining the 
invention of another. Our space however will not admit of any detail 
of the improvements introduced under the sucessive patents of 1781, 
1782, 1784, and 1785, admirable as many of them are. Even at the 
present time, notwithstanding all the light thrown upon the subject 
by succeeding engineers, we are perhaps not in a position fully to 
realise the advantages of one of his beautiful inventions, that of work- 
ing steam expansively, or cutting off the access of steam when the 
piston has performed but a part of its stroke, and leaving it to be 
impelled through the remainder of its course by the expansive force 
of the steam already admitted. He is said to have tried this mode of 
working at Soho as early as 1776, although it was not made public till 
two years after that time. Suffice it to say, in concluding this brief 
sketch of the series of improvements by which Watt raised the steam- 
engine to its present state of efficiency, that, as expressed by Lord 
Jeffrey in the eulogium originally published in the ‘Scotsman’ news- 
paper a few days after his déath, as to all that is admirable in the 
structure of the machine, or vast in its utility, Watt should rather be 
described as its inventor than as its improver. “It was by his 
inventions,’ observes the writer alluded to, “that its action was so 


regulated as to make it capable of being applied to the finest and most 
delicate manufactures, and its power so increased as to set weight and | 


solidity at defiance. By his admirable contrivances it has become a 
thing stupendous alike for its force and its flexibility, for the prodigious 
power which it can exert, and the ease and precision and ductility 
with which: it can be varied, distributed, and applied. The trunk of 
an elephant that can pick up a pin or rend an oak is as nothing to it, 
It can engrave a seal, and crush masses of obdurate metal like wax 
before it,—draw out, without breaking, a thread as fine as gossamer ; 
and lift a ship of war like a bauble in the air. It can embroider 
muslin and forge anchors, cut steel into ribands, and impel loaded 
vessels against the fury of the winds and waves.” Nor, while we 
admire the ingenuity and power of the stupendous machine, should 
we forget that its contrivance involved very much beyond the range of 
a mere practical mechanic, however great. With the generosity of a 
kindred spirit, the late Sir Humphry Davy observed, at a meeting for 
erecting the Watt monument, that Watt “was equally distinguished 
as a natural philosopher and a chemist,” and that “his inventions 
demonstrate his profound knowledge of those sciences, and that pecu- 
liar characteristic of genius, the union of them for practical applica- 
tion ;” and showed that, in the prosecution of his great object, Watt 
“had to investigate the cause of the cold produced by evaporation, of 
the heat occasioned by the condensation of steam—to determine the 
source of the air appearing when water was acted upon by an exhaust- 
ing power; the ratio of the volume of steam to its generating water, 
and the law by which the elasticity of steam increased with the tem- 
perature: labour, time, numerous and difficult experiments, were 
required for the ultimate result; and when his principle was obtained, 
the application of it to produce the movement of machinery demanded 
a new species of intellectual and experimental labour. He engaged 
in this with all the ardour that success inspires, and was obliged to 
bring all the mechanical powers into play, and all the resources of his 
own fertile mind into exertion; he had to convert rectilineal into 
rotatory motion, and to invent parallel motion. After years of 
intense labour, he obtained what he wished for; and at last, by the 
regulating centrifugal force of the governor, placed the machine 
entirely under the power of the mechanic, and gaye perfection to a 
BIOG, DIV. VOL, VI, 


series of combinations unrivalled for the genius and sagacity displayed 
in their invention, and for the new power they have given to civilised 
man,” 

It is painful to turn from the record of the meeting at which Davy 
thus joined with others among the most eminent men of bis time in 
doing honour to the memory of the great engineer, to the narration 
of the disgraceful measures by which, not many years before, it was 
attempted to deprive him of his well-earned emoluments. Even among 
the Cornish miners, who were deriving the greatest advantages from his 
machinery, and would in many cases have been compelled to abandon 
their works but for its giant aid, there were men who grudged to pay 
him the stipulated third part of their savings, and who took advan- 
tage of the pretences afforded by piratical infringers of his patent, to 
declare their engagements at an end. Thus compelled to call in the 
law in defence of their rights, Messrs. Boulton and Watt became 
involved in a most tedious, annoying, and vexatious series of processes, 
during which they were generously and powerfully assisted, according 
to Arago, by Colonel (afterwards General) Roy, Mylne, the engineer of 
Blackfriars Bridge, Herschel, Deluc, Ramsden, Robison, Murdoch, 
Rennie, Cumming, the author of a celebrated treatise on watch and 
clock-work, More, secretary of the Society of Arts, and Southern, all 
of whom gave evidence in their favour. Defeated on the ground of 
want of originality, the opponents of Watt organised a fresh attack 
upon the patent, upon the pretence that the written specification 
given by Watt in 1769 was imperfect. In order to comprehend at 


‘once the injustice and the plausibility of this plea, it should be con- 


sidered that the specification was necessarily written with only the 
experience derived from the erection of the rude model at Kinneil, 
and also that Watt never pretended to be the inventor of the steam: 
engine, but simply of certain improvements upon it, which improve- 
ments were of so clear and distinct a character as to be unaffected by 
any change in the forms, proportions, or positions of the various 
members of which a complete steam-engine is composed. It was thus 
as unnecessary as it was impossible that the specification of 1769 
should contain a complete description of the machine as made by 
Boulton and Watt twenty years afterwards. The principal distin- 
guishing features of the engines of Watt were the separate condenser 
and the closed cylinder ; and these being retained,in all his machines, 
gave him a virtual monopoly in various subsequent improvements 
which were rather additions to than modifications of his original 
design, but which were too intimately connected with the essential 
features of his engines to be separated from them. Yet, as observed 
by Stuart, “After a series of experiments, in which he had been 
engaged for twenty years, to develope his ideas, the splendid result of 
his genius and perseverance—the, perfect machine—was raised up in 
judgment against him, to prove that between the years 1790 and 1800 
the engines which were sent from Soho were more perfect than could 
be fabricated from the description he gave of the one he erected in 
1769!” At length, after a series of trials extending from 1792 
to 1799, a unanimous and clear decision was given, fully vindi- 
cating and establishing the rights of the patentees. On this last 
occasion Mr. Rous, who acted as counsel for the patentees, delivered 
a speech which was afterwards published in the form of a pamphlet, 
and in which he at once keenly satirised and overthrew the argument 
insisted on by the opposite party, that Watt had invented nothing 
but ideas; asking whether it could be seriously contended that his 
invention, which during the space of nearly thirty years had been 


- admired in all Europe as the greatest practical advance ever made in 


the arts, was a mere abstract discovery in science ;-and observing that 
were those who thus pleaded to approach the untangible substance as 
they were pleased to call it, with the same ignorance of its nature as 
they thus affected, they would be crushed before it like flies, leaving 
no trace of their existence. 

In 1794 the sons of Messrs. Boulton and Watt were admitted to the 
partnership, and on the expiration of the extended term of his patent 
in 1800, Watt resigned his share of the business to his two sons, and 
retired into private life; a step to which he was probably determined 
in some degree by the harassing nature of the contests in which he 
had been so long engaged. Down to that period the introduction of 
the steam-engine into other than mining districts had been compara- 
tively slow; and it is stated that at the expiration of the patent the 
aggregate power of the engines employed in London was not more 
than 650 nominal horse-powers, in Manchester about 450 horse-powers, 
and in Leeds about 300 horse-powers. Within the next five years the 
number of engines used in the metropolis was doubled, and more 
machines were supplied from the Soho works than during any equal 
period before the expiration of the patent. 

As there were several scientific men residing about Birmingham who 
were on terms of intimacy with Watt and his partner, an association 
was formed under the title of the ‘ Lunar Society,’ the members of- 
which, including Priestley, Darwin, Edgeworth, Keir, and Galton, met 
monthly on the night of the full moon for the purpose of social con- 
verse. At one of these meetings, according to Arago, a suggestion was 
thrown out which led Watt to the invention of the useful little machine 
known as the Copying Press, for which he obtained a patent, the speci- 
fication of which was published some years afterwards in the first 
volume of the ‘Repertory of Arts.” It is however stated in the 
‘Encyclopedia Britannica’ that he was induced to ones it by the 


563 WATT, JAMES. 


WATT, JAMES. 


necessity of his preserving copies of his drawings and letters, which 
often contained important calculations, and the desire of avoiding that 
labour himself which he did not like to entrust to an amanuensis. 
Among his other useful inventions was a method of heating rooms by 
steam, which he introduced in his own house in the winter of 1784-85 ; 
and he also communicated to Brewster an account of a ‘Steam-Drying 
Machine,’ contrived by him in 1781 for Mr. Macgrigor, of which a 
description is given under the above title in the ‘ Edinburgh Encyclo- 
pedia.’ Towards the latter end of 1786, on a visit to Paris, undertaken 
at the instance of the French government for the purpose of suggesting 
improvements on the Machine de Marly, by which the town, palace, 
and waterworks of Versailles were supplied with water from the Seine, 
Watt became acquainted with Berthollet, whose method of bleaching 
with chlorine he brought to this country, and introduced, with cer- 
tain improvements of his own, in the bleach-works of his friend Mr. 
Maegrigor, near Glasgow, whose daughter he had married in 1775, not 
long after his removal to Birmingham. He offered to Berthollet a 
share in the undertaking, which, from the great superiority of the new 
over the old process, bid fair to be highly profitable, but this the 
French chemist declined. Another circumstance indicative of the 
universality of Watt's talents is his connection with the establishment 
of the Pneumatic Institution at Clifton, where the medical properties 
of the gases then recently discovered were made available on an exten- 
sive scale, mainly under the direction of Dr. Beddoes. The illness of 
Watt's daughter, and delicacy of his younger son, Gregory, led him 
particularly to devote his attention to this subject, and he designed 
and constructed the apparatus required for procuring and administer- 
ing the gases, and wrote the second part of a pamphlet, of which the 
first part was by Beddoes, entitled ‘ Considerations on the Medicinal 
Use of Factitious Airs, and on the manner of obtaining them in large 
quantities.’ This was published at Bristol in 1795; and about the 
same time appeared two or three editions of a ‘ Description of a Pneu- 
matic Apparatus, with directions for procuring the Factitious Airs,’ 
by Watt. 

Since the original publication of this article in the ‘Penny Cyclo- 
peedia,’ great prominence in scientific literature and in the history of 
chemistry has been given to the respective claims of Watt, Cavendish, 
and Lavoisier, as discoverers of the composition of water, by several 
considerable publications; one relating exclusively to that subject, 
while it forms the most important part of another, and is discussed at 
some length ina third. The first of these works is entitled ‘ Corre- 
spondence of the late James Watt on his Discovery of the Theory of 
the Composition of Water. With a Letter from his Son. Edited, 
with Introductory Remarks and an Appendix, by James Patrick 
Muirhead, Esq., F.R.S.E., Lond. and Edin., 1846. Pp. exxvii. 264. 
The editor of this work, it is remarked by the author of that we 
shall next advert to, “is the most zealous of Watt's defenders, and 
the most unhesitating of Cavendish’s assailants,” with regard to their 
relative claims as to the discovery of the composition of water. 

In the life of Cavendish by Dr. George Wilson of Edinburgh, issued 
by the Cavendish Society in 1851, and noticed in a former article. 
[CavenpisH, Henry], the third chapter, occupying 103 closely-printed 
pages, is devoted to the “Controversy between Cavendish, Watt, and 
Lavoisier, concerning the discovery ” in question; and, subsequently, 
181 pages are allotted to “‘a critical inquiry into the claims of all the 
alleged authors” of that discovery. It must here be remarked that 
everything that had already been said on the subject was before Dr. 
Wilson, and that the strenuous advocates of Watt, as well as of 
Cavendish, had placed in his hands all the materials they possessed 
in support of their claims, or communicated to him their matured 
sentiments. He states that the late Lord Jeffrey’s article in the 
‘ Edinburgh Review ’ for 1848, is by much the ablest defence of Watt 
that has appeared, while he considers the Rev. W. Vernon Harcourt 
(in his Address to the British Association at Birmingham in 1839) as 
the ablest of Cavendish’s defenders, ‘The third chapter of the work 
terminates with the following summary of the results at which he has 
himself arrived: “. . . the conclusion regarding intellectual merit to 
which I have come is, that Watt did not signify by phlogiston, hydro- 
gen, and did not assert in the equivalent terms of his own day that 
water consists of hydrogen and oxygen; and further, that the con- 
clusion to which he came, such as it was, was arrived at later in time 
than Cavendish’s just conclusion, and was drawn from a repetition of 
his experiments. For Cavendish I claim that he was the first who 
observed and inferred that water consists of hydrogen and oxygen; 
and to Lavoisier I assign the merit of having simplified and perfected 
Cavendish’s conclusion, and of having been the first to prove the 
composition of water by analysis. I acknowledge Watt to have been 
an independent and original theorist on the composition of water, and 
to have largely contributed to the dissemination of the true theory of 
its nature.” 

To this final conclusion of Dr. Wilson, Mr. Muirhead, in another 
work, the title of which is subjoined to this article, published three 
years afterwards, and in which he makes some additions to the state- 
ments of his previous separate publication, opposes only the following 
remarks: Dr. Wilson has “the fairness to admit that the date of 
Cavendish drawing his inference as to the elements of water cannot 
with certainty or precision be fixed at an earlier period than the 
summer of 1783 (Mr. Watt having, we may remind the reader, made 


his known in April of that year); that he himself believes that 
Cavendish’s views on the subject ‘altered and expanded from 1781 
onwards to 1784’ (when they were first published) ; and that, at all 
events, there can be no doubt that Mr. Watt's theory increased the 
faith of Cavendish and Lavoisier in their own views, and won the 
approval of the great majority of their scientific contemporaries,” 
&e., &c. Professor James D, Forbes, of Edinburgh, who appears to 
be the only writer that has entered upon the subject since the pub- 
lication of both Mr. Muirhead’s works and also of Dr, Wilson’s, thus 
expresses his opinion, in his Dissertation on the Pr of Mathe- _ 
matical and Physical Science: ‘‘ Watt, in after life, may be saidto 
have tacitly relinquished to Cavendish the honour which, in the first 
irritation of the conflict of their claims, he showed no disposition to 
do ; it is therefore reasonable to infer that, on reflection, he saw good 
reasons for doingso. By this I mean that he suffered judgment to be 
passed in favour of Cavendish’s claim in the writings of many of his 
eminent contemporaries, without attempting publicly to correct the 
all but universal impression which they made. In one instance he 
almost homologated this adverse judgment. In the article on Steam, 
written by Robison, and revised by Watt in his last years and after 
Cavendish’s death, this passage appears: ‘ This is fully evinced by the 
great discovery of Mr. Cavendish of the composition of water;’ from 
which it must be concluded, first, that Robison, the intimate friend 
of Watt and the almost chivalrous defender of his fame, believed 
Cavendish to be the true discoverer; secondly, that Watt, in com- 
menting on this article in 1814, permitted the fact to be thus trans- 
mitted to posterity. For, in his numerous animadversions on other 
parts of the same papers, he gives free expression to the sensitiveness — 
which he felt lest Dr. Black should derive any credit to which he was — 
not entitled in connection with the steam-engine; but he suffers the 
passage just quoted to pass without remark. Such being the case, 
and waiving all purely chemical discussion, I am of opinion that 
bihaed friends should have left the matter as he was content to 
eave it.” 5 
A new translation has appeared of Arago’s ‘ Bloge,” with notes by 
the translator, in the ‘Biographies of Distinguished Scientific Men,’ 
by him, translated by Admiral Smyth, the Rev. B. Powell, and Mr. 
R. Grant. As this, we believe, is the most recent publication relative — 
to Watt (1857), it is right to say that it adds nothing to the Water — 
question, and that the translator appears not to have been aware of 
Dr. Wilson’s labours. €% 
The reader will now be enabled either to form a provisional but not 
unsound opinion on this interesting topic, or to make himself ac- — 
quainted with its minute history, and the arguments adduced on all 
sides, by perusing the works referred to; and in this respect F 
present article may be regarded as forming a pendant to those on 
CAVENDISH and LAVOISIER, ANTOINE-LAURENT, in preceding volumes, 
After retiring from business, Watt was with difficulty drawn into — 
any undertaking, although on several occasions his advice was nt \ 
respecting engineering works. In 1809 the fertility of his inventive — 
powers was shown by a beautiful solution of a difficult problem laid — 
before him by a water-company at Glasgow, who, after establishing 
their works upon one side of the river Clyde, discovered that water of _ 
a very superior quality might be procured from a kind of natural filter 
on the other side, if they could overcome the difficulty of laying a — 
main from their pumps across the bed of the river. Watt contrived — 
for this purpose a flexible iron pipe, the pieces of which were connected 
by a kind of ball-and-socket joint, of which he took the idea from th 
tail of a lobster, The main was constructed from his designs in 
following year, with the most complete success; and it forms a 
about a thousand feet long and two feet in diameter, capable of t 
ing and applying itself to the irregular bed of the river. In ano 
case, late in life, Watt was prevailed upon, by the solicitation of the — 
Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, to attend a deputation from 
the Navy Board, and to give, with Captain Huddart and Mr. Jessop, 
an opinion upon works then being carried on in Sheerness di 
and upon other projected works designed by Messrs. Rennie and 
Whidby; and on this occasion he received the thanks of the Ad- 
miralty for his services, In 1818 or 1814 he yielded to the wishes of 
his friends, of Brewster especially, by revising the articles ‘Steam’ — 
and ‘Steam-Engine,’ contributed by Robison to the ‘Encyclopedia 
Britannica,’ and enriching them with valuable notes, which were pub- — 
lished with the collected edition of Robison’s articles, which appeared _ 
under the title of ‘A System of Mechanical Philosophy.’ The last 
project to which Watt devoted his attention, and which he appears to _ 
have very nearly pares when he died, was a machine for copying: J 
sculpture, with which he had proceeded so far as to execute several 
specimens, which he presented to his friends as the early attempts of | 
a young artist entering his eighty-third year. Having suffered so — 
much, in other cases, from communicating his ideas to others, he kept 
the construction of this machine strictly secret ; but when he had pro- 
ceeded sufficiently with his design to contemplate obtaining a patent, 
he found that another person in his neighbourhood, who appears to 
have been entirely unacquainted with Watt’s project, was en “ 
upon a similar plan. A proposal was subsequently made for ob oy 
a joint patent, but Watt was unwilling, at so advanced a period of life, 
to embark in such an undertaking. 
About the year 1790 Watt had purchased an estate called Heath- 


‘ 


I 


_ 


— 


565 WATT, JAMES, 


WATT, JAMES, 566 


field, near Soho, where he resided to the end of his life;.and he had 


also a property on the banks of the Wye, in Wales, His health 
improved in his latter years, and his intellectual faculties remained 
unimpaired to the last. It is related that, when upwards of seventy, 
he imagined them to be on the decline, and accordingly determined to 
put them to the test by undertaking some new study. Having 


. selected the Anglo-Saxon language for this experiment, he mastered it 


with a facility which proved that there was little ground for his fears. 
At length however, in the spring of 1819, alarming symptoms began to 
appear, and on the 25th of August in that year he died, in his eighty- 

ird year,—his last illness haying been one, observes his son, rather of 
debility than of pain. Respecting the members of his family, Arago 


_ states that the invariable mildness and cheerful disposition of his first 
wife rescued him from the depressing lassitude and nervousness from 


which he had suffered so severely; and that, without her cheering 
influence, he might never have published his inventions to the world. 
She died in childbed, September 24, 1773, leaving her surviving children 
James, the son frequently referred to in this article, and noticed more 
fully below, and a daughter, who married Mr. Miller of Glasgow. By 
his second wife, who died in 1832, he had two children, neither of 
whom survived him. One of these, Gregory Watt, also noticed in a 


separate article, distinguished himself by his geological investigations, but 


died in 1804, at the early age of twenty-seven. As might be expected, 
this bereavement affected Watt very keenly ; but Muirhead states that 
his remarkable activity of mind was not impaired, nor was his interest 
in the pleasures of literature and society destroyed, by this melancholy 
évent; and that neither his conversation nor his correspondence 
betrayed any approach to the remarkable silence which Arago states 
to have been observed in the latter years of Watt. 

Of the private character of the great engineer a most pleasing 
account is given by Lord Jeffrey, who, after stating that, independently 
of his great attainments in mechanics, he was an-extraordinary, and, 
in many respects, a wonderful man, observes, “Perhaps no individual 
in his age possessed so much and such varied and exact information, 
—he had read so much, or remembered what he had read so accu- 
rately and well. He had infinite quickness of apprehension, a pro- 
digious memory, and a certain rectifying and methodising power of 
understanding, which extracted something precious out of all that was 
presented to it. His stores of miscellaneous knowledge were immense, 
—and yet less astonishing than the command he had at all times over 
them. It seemed as if every subject that was casually started in con- 
versation with him, had been that which he had been last occupied in 
studying and exhausting, such was the copiousness, the precision, and 
the admirable clearness of the information which he poured oui upon 
it without effort or hesitation.” In social conversation he allowed his 
mind, like a great cyclopedia, to be opened upon whatever subject 
might best suit the taste of his associates; and he made every- 
thing so plain, clear, and intelligible, that, it is remarked, scarcely any 
one could be conscious of any deficiency in their own capacity in his 
presence. With all this flow of information, his conversation, we are 
further informed, “had no resemblance to lecturing or solemn dis- 
coursing, but, on the contrary, was full of colloquial spirit and 
pleasantry.” Of a generous and affectionate disposition, he was con- 
siderate of the feelings of all around him, and gave the most liberal 
assistance and encouragement to all young persons who showed 
indications of talent, or who applied to him for patronage or advice. 
As his death approached, he was perfectly conscious of his situation, 
and calm in the contemplation of it, expressing his thankfulness for 
the length of days with which he had been blessed, for exemption 
from most of the infirmities of age, and for the calm and cheerful 
evening of life which he had been permitted to enjoy after the 
honourable labours of the day had been concluded. 

In acknowledgment of his invaluable services to his country, it was 
intimated to Watt a few years before his death, by a friendly message 
from Sir Joseph Banks, that, to use the words of Muirhead, “the highest 
honour usually conferred in England on men of literature and science 
was open to him, if he expressed a wish to that effect;” but while he 
felt flattered by the intimation, he determined, after advising with his 
son, to decline it. He became a member of the Royal Society of 
Edinburgh in 1784, of that of London in the following year, of the 
Batavian Society in 1787, and in 1808 a correspondent of the French 
Institute; and in 1814 the ‘Académie des Sciences’ of the Institute 
conferred upon him the highest honour it can bestow, by electing him 
one of its eight foreign associates. In 1806, by a spontaneous vote, 
the University of Glasgow conferred upon him the honorary degree of 
LL.D. In 1824 a subscription was entered into for erecting a statue 
to his memory in Westminster Abbey, and a public meeting, of which 
the late Charles Hampden Turner, Esq. F.R.S., the attached and 
zealous friend of Watt and his family, was chairman, was held at the 
Freemasons’ Tavern to do honour to the man who had taught us to 
wield, as it was then observed, the mightiest instrument ever 
entrusted to the hands of man, and whose inventions were charac- 
terised by Davy as among the great means which had enabled Britain 
to display power and resources, during a long war, so infinitely above 
what might have been expected from the numerical strength of her 
population. A large sum was immediately raised, and Chantrey was 
engaged to furnish the statue, which is one of the finest of his works, 
and which calls to mind the remark of Watt's friend, Mr, Richard Sharp, 


who said that he never looked at his countenance without fancying 
that he beheld the personification of abstract thought. ‘T’o this an 
appropriate inscription by Lord Brougham was added, Another statue 
by Chantrey adorns an elegant chapel erected by his son, at the 
parish church of Handsworth, near Birmingham, in the chancel of 
which he was interred. Other statues have been erected in St. 
George’s Square, Glasgow; in the University of Glasgow, where the 
memory of Watt is also preserved by an annual prize which he 
founded for the best essay upon some subject connected with science 
or the arts; in a public library at Greenock, which is enriched with a 
collection of scientific works presented by Watt during his life, and 
to which his son contributed liberally; and in the open space in front 
of the Infirmary at Manchester a bronze copy of Chantrey’s seated 
statue of Watt has been placed on a pedestalso as to correspond with 
a similar statue of John Dalton. 

In 1834 M. Arago read to the French Académie des Sciences the 
‘Historical Hloge’ to which allusion has been repeatedly made in 
this article, and which reflects much honour on the liberal feeling of 
the author. It has been more than once translated into English; but 
the translation we have chiefly referred to is that of Watt's relative, 
James Patrick Muirhead, Esq., M.A., published in 4to, in 1839, to 
which some valuable notes are added; the new translation (1857) has 
already been mentioned. Of other authorities referred to for the 
purpose of this memoir, the notices, of Watt in the ‘ Encyclopedia 
Britannica ;’ Brewster's ‘ Edinburgh Encyclopedia ;’ and the ‘ Public 
Characters of 1802-3,’ together with the printed ‘ Proceedings’ of the 
public meeting above referred to, are among the principal. 

The following isa bibliographical notice of Mr. Muirhead’s third and 
most important work on the subject of this article, which, we believe, 
is also the most recent separate publication relating to him or his 
achievements :—‘The Origin and Progress of the Mechanical Inven- 
tions of James Watt, illustrated by his Correspondence with his 
Friends and the specifications of his patents. By James Patrick Muir- 
head, Esq., M.A. In three volumes,’ 8vo, London, 1854. Vol i. : Intro- 
ductory memoir and extracts from correspondence, pp. xviii., cclxxxiii., 
and 104; with a portrait of Watt, from Sir F. Chantrey’s bust, and 
31 woodcuts in fac-simile of Watt's drawings of his inventions in the 
construction of instruments, machinery, and apparatus. Vol. ii.: 
Extracts from correspondence, pp. xxxiv. and 374; with an engraving of 
Pidgeon’s medal of Matthew Boulton, and 27 fac-simile woodcuts. 
Vol, iii.: Letters patent, specifications of patents, and appendix of 
documents relating to Savery and Papin, and to the legal proveed- 
ings in which Boulton and Watt had to engage for the protection of 
their patents, pp. xiv. and 292; with an engraving of the reverse 
of the medal of Boulton, 34 plates of machinery, and 2 fac-simile 
woodcuts. 

Professor James D. Forbes,-in his ‘ Dissertation on the Progress of 
‘Mathematical and Physical Science,’ principally from 1775 to 1850, 
published in November 1856, in the eighth edition of the ‘ Encyclo- 
pedia Britannica,’ devotes a section of his fourth chapter to Watt, 
under the following heads : — “ Condition of practical mechanics 
previous to the time of Watt.—His genius for the application of 
science to practice.—His successive improvements on the steam-engine. 
—Steam navigation.” Mr. Forbes’s remarks on the Composition-of- 
Water question, already cited, will be found in section 2 of the sixth 
chapter. 

James Wart, the eldest son of the preceding, was born on 5th of 
February 1769, and died, unmarried, at his seat, Aston Hall in War- 
wickshire, near Birmingham, on the 2nd of June 1848. His succession . 
to the manufactory and fortune of his father has already been stated 
or indicated in the preceding article. 

Mr. Watt had early directed his son’s attention to natural philosophy 
and chemistry, and he had also applied himself to the practical study 
of mineralogy. It is scarcely known, and has not been recorded in 
any previous biographical work, that he was for a short time, when in 
his twentieth year only, one of the secretaries of the Literary and 
Philosophical Society of Manchester, then just founded, one of the 
earliest, and perhaps still the most distinguished of the provincial 
scientific associations. To the ‘Memoirs’ of this society he communi- 
cated two papers in 1789, one on the mine (at Anglezark, near Chorley, 
in Lancashire) “in which the aerated [carbonate of] barytes is found,” 
and the other “on the effects produced by different combinations of 
the Terra Ponderosa [barytes] given to animals.” Though he was not, 
as has been said, the actual discoverer of the carbonate of barytes at 
Anglezark, he was the first to describe, in the paper here alluded to, 
the circumstances under which it occurred, and to make known the 
fact that the specimens examined and the supplies of the mineral 
from which was prepared the muriate, which had been recently intro- 
duced into medical use by Dr. Adair Crawford, F.R.S., had been 
obtained from that locality. His also were some of the earliest expe- 
riments on the poisonous effects of the combinations of barytes. — 

A remarkable episode now occurred in the life of the young philoso- 
pher—for such, at this period, we may call him. Mr. Watt had 
directed his son’s attention to the study of science on the Continent; 
and—accompanied, as it would appear, by his friend Thomas Cooper, 
one of the vice-presidents of the Manchester ‘Society, and who after- 
wards’ became professor of chemistry in Columbia College, in America 
—he proceeded to Paris, But here, carried away by the enthusiasm 


567 WATT, JAMES. 


WATT, GREGORY. 668 


then prevalent in what was termed the cause of liberty, he sympa- 
thised with the Girondists and Jacobitis, and even took some open and 
avowed part in their earlier tumultuous agitations, in company with 
Cooper, and subsequently with Wordsworth the poet also. Southey 
has recorded, from the information of James Watt himself, that so 
highly was he at first regarded by the French leaders, that he was the 
means of preventing a duel between Danton and Robespierre. A 
more public exhibition of zeal in the cause he had espoused, in which 
Cooper also took part, was afterwards denounced by Burke in the 
House of Commons. The licenge and excesses of the revolutionary 
parties however opened the eyes of the young enthusiast to the real 
nature of the principles he was supporting, and he then endeavoured 
to mitigate as far as possible the violence which he foresaw he must 
in future deplore. This became eventually the cause of his quitting 
Paris and abandoning his French associates and their objects; for 
Robespierre, at the club of the Jacobins, insinuating that Cooper and 
~ his compatriot were emissaries of Pitt, the British prime minister, 
James Watt indignantly silenced his formidable antagonist from the 
tribune in a brief but impassioned harangue, delivered in excellent 
French, carrying with him the feelings of the rest of the audience. 
On returning home he learned that his life was no longer safe for a 
day, instantly left Paris, sueceeded with difficulty in making his way 
to the south, and did not rest until he arrived in Italy, 

Not long afterwards he returned to England, and in 1794, as already 
intimated, began to be actively engaged as a partner in the manage- 
ment and direction of the steam-engine manufactory at Soho, which 
necessarily withdrew him from political and also from scientific pur- 
suits, strictly so called, and what he effected in the latter has almost 
escaped notice. 

Mr. James Watt took a part in the progress of steam-navigation, 
especially as regarded the requisite adaptations in the construction of 
the engines, not unworthy of his name and of the reputation of the 
firm of which he became the leading partner. Mr. Henry Bell of 
Glasgow, who had in 1811 taken the enterprising step of himself 
trying, in Scotland, at his own risk and under his sole direction, an 
experiment similar to that which, in the hands of Fulton (whom he 
had aided), had succeeded so well in America, built several steam- 
vessels propelled by engines of his own construction. Among these 
was the Caledonia, of 102 tons and 82 horse-power, which was 
launched in 1815, but from defects in her engines had been little used. 
In April 1817 she was purchased by Mr. James Watt, who had her 
machinery taken out and replaced by two new engines of Soho manu- 
facture, of 14 horse-power each. In October he went over in her to 
Holland, and ascended the Rhine as far as Coblenz; having thus been 
the first to leave the British shores and cross the channel by so novel 
and, as it was then esteemed, so hazardous a mode of transit. On her 
homeward voyage she entered the Scheldt and visited Antwerp, and 
was then laid up for part of the winter in the harbour of Rotterdam 
for repairs and alterations, ‘After her return to the Thames in the 
spring of 1818,” it is stated by Mr. Muirhead, to whose Memoir we are 
indebted for these particulars of the history of steam-navigation in 
this country, “ Mr. James Watt made no fewer than thirty-one series 
of.experiments with her on the river (the whole number of those 
experiments amounting to 250), which resulted in the adoption of 
many most material improvements in the construction and adaptation 
of marine engines, and in an immense though gradual extension of 
that branch of the manufacture at Soho.” The marine engines manu- 
factured there down to the year 1854, “were in number 319, of 
17,438 nominal or 52,314 real horse-power.” 

Some further particulars of Mr. James Watt may be gleaned from 
the two later publications of Mr. Muirhead. He wrote, in 1823, the 
memoir of his father in Macvey Napier’s Supplement to the ‘ Ency- 
clopedia Britannica’ (subsequently transferred, in substance, to the 
seventh edition of that work); and in 1846 he addressed a letter to 
Mr. Muirhead on his father’s claims as to the composition of water, 
which is prefixed to the ‘Correspondence’ of the latter on that subject. 
The publication of his father’s specifications of patents and documents 
relating to them was originally designed and to a considerable extent 
prepared by him; but, from the infirmities of age, confided prior 
to his decease to Mr. Muirhead, by whom it has been accomplished in 
the work already cited and described. ; 

GreEGoRY Wart,.son of James Wat? by his second wife, Anne, 
daughter of Mr, Macgrigor of Glasgow, was born in 1777. The moral 
and intellectual culture which a child of singular natural powers 
would receive from such parents may readily be conceived, and an 
early, though by no means a premature development of them was the 
result ; the promise of boyhood became that of youth, to be realised 
in manhood. In 1794, when only seventeen years of age, he became a 
partner in the house of Boulton and Watt, at the same time with his 
elder brother and Mr. Robinson Boulton. But this did not interfere 
with the progress of his education, a portion of which he received at 
Glasgow, quitting that University however in the year 1797, enriched 
beyond his age with both science and literature, and still devoted to 
the acquisition of knowledge, but in a declining state of health. He 
was now recommended by his physician to reside for some time in 
the West of England, and he accordingly proceeded, in the winter of 
that year, to Penzance, where he became a lodger in the house of 
Mrs. Davy, a widow, the mother of Humphry, afterwards Sir Hum- 


phry Davy. The history of the friendship which eventually united | 


these gifted men is remarkable. Davy, according to Dr. Paris, 
sought to ingratiate himself with his mother’s lodger, by addressing 
him familiarly on subjects of metaphysics and poetry, but Watt 
coldly repelled his advances. “It was by mere accident,” says 
Dr. Paris, “ that an allusion was first made to chemistry, when pie d 
flippantly observed, that he would undertake to demolish the Frene 
theory in half an hour; he had touched the chord,—the interest of 
Mr. Watt was excited,—he conversed with Davy upon his chemical pur- 
suits, he was at once astonished and delighted at his sagacity—the 
barrier of ice was removed,” and an intimacy of the warmest and most 
disinterested nature grew up between them, which continued to the 
very moment of Mr. Watt’s premature dissolution. The initiation of 
this friendship with Gregory Watt was one of the circumstances 
which favoured the rapid advance of Davy in chemical philosophy. In 
familiar intercourse with the family of the latter, they met daily ; they 
explored the objects worthy of notice in the adjacent country, visited 
the most remarkable mines, and collected specimens of rocks and 
minerals, Mr. Watt continued to reside at Penzance through the 
spring season of 1798. It was through his new friend that Davy 
transmitted to Dr, Beddoes an account of his experimental researches 
on heat and light, the impression made by which on the mind of the 
latter was one of the train of circumstances resulting in the appoint- 
ment of Davy as chemical superintendent of the Pneumatic Institution 
at Bristol, itself an important step to his further advancement. This 
circumstance perhaps led to the error in the article, Beppors, THomas 


(vol. i, col. 610) of stating that Davy was recommended to Beddoesfor __ 


the superintendence of the Pneumatic Institution by Gregory Watt, 
whereas the recommendation was really made by Davies Gilbert. 
The early delicacy of Gregory Watt's health, and that of his sister, who 
predeceased him, and the nature of their disease, consumption, had 
led their father to devote much attention to the medical properties of — 
the gases, and induced him to assist Dr. Beddoes in the foundation of 
the Pneumatic Institution, by producing the requisite apparatus for — 
the evolution and respiration of the gases, 

In the year 1800, Mr. Watt finally retired from business, resigning 
his shares in the manufactory at Soho to his two sons, under whom 
and their young partner it continued to prosper. But as Mr. Muir- 
head has stated, Gregory, by the kindness of his elder brother James, 


was relieved from the details of business, for which he had little 
higher _ 


inclination, and ‘enabled to devote his attention to those 
pursuits of science and literature in which he found delight,” while — 
still retaining his share in the profits of the steam-engine manufactory. 
Gregory Watt, from the summer of 1801 to the autumn of the follow- 
ing year travelled or resided on the Continent, whence he returned 
much delighted with his tour, but still in bad health. 

The literary recreations however, and especially the philosophical 
researches, which he had commenced ata very early age, and which, it 
would appear, had never been altogether intermitted, were now re- 
sumed with vigour; andin April 1804, he addressed to the Right Hon. 
Charles Greville, V.P.R.S., the celebrated experimental paper,—at once 
the foundation, the establishment, and unhappily the sole record of his 
scientific greatness—entitled ‘ Observations on Basalt, and on the Tran- 
sition from the vitreous to the stony Texture, which occurs in the gradual 
Refrigeration of melted Basalt ; with some geological Remarks ;’ read 
before the Royal Society on the 10th of May, exactly a month after 
the day of its date, and published in the ‘ Philosophical Transactions’ — 
for 1804, part ii, of which it occupies twenty-six pages. The author 


James Hall, on the regulated cooling of melted Basalt, it had after 
wards occurred to him that something might be learned, by exposi 
to the action of heat, a much larger mass of basaltic matter than hac 
ever at one time been subjected to experiment. The researches and 
inductions detailed in this paper, it has been remarked, constitute the — 
foundation of nearly all that has hitherto been made known on the 
subjects to which it relates, The elucidation it affords of the geolo- 
gical history and mode of formation of the spheroidal and*columnar 
rocks has not yet been superseded, or become the common property 
of science. Of it and of its author, his early friend, Davy, in a lecture 
on the phenomena and causes of volcanos, delivered at the Royal 
Institution, in a course on Geology, in 1811, thus expresses himself: 
“Mr. Gregory Watt fused some [seven] Pepi giaks, ag of basalt; and 
suffering it to coolin a mass, examined the ts by breaking it 
into pieces. The largest crystals were found in the interior, where 
the congelation must have been comparatively slow. His paper on 
this subject. ... abounds in acute observations and sagacious in- 
ferences. It was the first and only production of a mind full of talent 
and enthusiasm for scientific pursuits—of a mind which promised 


much for the philosophy of this subject; but death cut off the bloom “4 
and promise of this hope for the scientific world, at the moment when i 


it was brightest. No person attached to truth can read this paper 


without a feeling of regret; and I hope I may be excused for the _ 


strong expression of this regret—for whilst I admired him as a philo- 
sopher, I loved him as a man. 
dearest of my scientific friends.” 
It is just to the memory of Mr. Gregory Watt, and may be important 
to future inquirers into the process of formation of the igneous rocks, to 
notice here a conclusion founded upon his results in the investigation, 


ive 


states, that having been induced to repeat the experiments of Sir — 


Aas 


+o 


‘A 


a 
J 
e 
; 


Al 


He was the earliest and one of the 


ary 


is a 3 on 


Fi 


eS es TS 
v = 1 ah 


569 WATT, JAMES HENRY. 


WATTS, ALARIC ALEXANDER, 570 


to which in fact they are opposed, but to which it must in fairness be 
admitted his own inferences have led. He did not himself recognise the 
full force of the experimental facts he had obtained, with respect to the 
reproduction of the stony texture by the gradual cooling of the melted 
basalt, and subsequent geologists in general have committed the 
cardinal error of interpreting them as proving that the stony substance 
which the fused matter thus became, was identical with the original 
rock; an error which has involved the chemico-geological history of 
the trap-rocks and the lavas in an obscurity hitherto impenetrable ; 


_ and which has also introduced an unreal difficulty in the consideration 


of Mr. Poulett Scrope’s discovery of the true nature of the fluidity of 
those lavas which are in fact aggregate rocks. Sir H. Davy, it is true, 


_ in the lecture cited above, and referring apparently to the results of 


Sir James Hall as well as those of Gregory Watt, had said, that “in the 
specimens of re-produced crystalline basait” that he had seen, “the 
crystals were only of one species; whereas, in the original, they were 
of two distinct kinds,’ which was equivalent to the assertion that the 
original rock had not been re-produced. But this valuable observation 
was confined to his audience at the time, and remained unpublished 
for thirty years. Mr. Brayley, in a discussion at a late meeting (1856) 
of the Geological Society of London, not then knowing what Davy had 


‘said, asserted the same fact from his own observation, adding the 


correlative fact, not before pointed out, that the stony substance pro- 
duced in Mr. Watt’s experiments, and in the recent manufacturing opera- 


' tions of Messrs. Chance upon the same rock (the basalt of Rowley), on 


a large scale, was in reality nothing more than the crystalline form of 
the glass that would have resulted had the same fluid mass been 
rapidly cooled, was essentially a homogeneous chemical combination 
or mineral species (analogous to the stony condition of the vitreous 
lavas), and not an aggregate rock. Mr. Scrope however had affirmed, 
in a paper read at a previous meeting of the same year, that in the 
product of Messrs. Chance’s process, the true crystalline aspect of the 
basaltic rock was not restored. It should always be remembered 
in the discussion of this subject, that while Mr. Watt regarded his 
experiments as affording a synthetical demonstration that basalt may 
be formed by fire, he expressly discriminates between the regenerated 
stone which was their ultimate result, and the original rock, stating 
that in it the arrangement of the molecules was much more perfect 
than in the latter, evidently implying, as his context shows, its more 
homogeneous crystalline character. 

Mr, Gregory Watt, after a lingering illness, died at the age of 
twenty-seven, on the 16th of October 1804, six months only after the 
production of his essay. 

* WATT, JAMES HENRY, one of the most distinguished living 
line-engrayers, was born in London about the close of the 18th century. 
He received his professional education in the workshop of Mr, Charles 
Heath, but he had from his earliest years been fond of art, and he 


- owes the better part of his skill to his own devoted study and steady 


perseverance. The first of Mr. Watt’s larger productions we believe, 
was the well-known engraving,of Stothard’s ‘ Procession of the Flitch of 
Bacon,’ a work, the firmness and facility of line, clearness, the precision 
and brilliancy of which, at once secured him a high position in his 
profession. Among his principal works of a later date, perhaps the 
best known is his admirable rendering of Landseer’s ‘ Highland 
Drover’s Departure,’ as a whole undoubtedly the finest line-engraving 
yet executed from any of Landseer’s pictures. He has besides engraved 
‘Horses at the Fountain,’ and ‘A Court-Yard,’ after Landseer; ‘ May 
Day in the reign of Elizabeth,’ after Leslie—a rich and singularly happy 
translation of that painter’s peculiar manner; ‘ Christ blessing little 
Children,’ and ‘ La Sveglarina,’ after Eastlake ; and ‘Susannah and the 
Elders,’ from Caracci’s picture in the National Gallery. He has also 
executed a few portraits and book plates. 

_ WATT, ROBERT, M.D., is the author of a well-known work, 
entitled ‘ Bibliotheca Britannica, or a General Index to British and 
Foreign Literature,’ Glasgow, 4 vols. 4to, 1819-1820; Edinburgh, 1821- 
1824. The account given of him in that work (sent to the press after 
his death) is that he was born in Ayrshire in 1774, that he died at 
Glasgow March 12th, 1819, that he was president of the Faculty 
of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow, and lecturer on the theory 
and practice of medicine, and that he had published the following 
works during his lifetime :—‘Cases of Diabetes, Consumption, &c.,’ 
Paisley, 8vo, 1808; ‘ Catalogue of Medical Books,’ Glasgow, 8vo, 1812; 
‘Treatise on the History, Nature, and Treatment of Chincough,’ 
Glasgow, 8vo, 1813; ‘ Rules of Life, with Reflections on the Manners 
and Dispositions of Mankind, Edinb., 12mo, 1813 (anonymous) ; 
besides a few papers in the ‘Transactions’ of the Medico-Chirurgical 
and one or two other societies. 

The ‘Bibliotheca Britannica’ is in two parts: the first containing 
an alphabetical arrangement of authors, with the published works of 
each in chronological order: the second, a similar arrangement of 
subjects, with an enumeration of the books treating of them, and re- 
ferences to the entry of each work under the author’s name in the first 
part. The compilation, prepared amid the calls of a professional life 
and without access to any extensive library, and carried through the 
press without having the advantage of the author's revision, is no 
doubt chargeable with many positive errors, as well as with important 
deficiencies ; but it is notwithstanding both a remarkable performance 
for an individual and an aid of very considerable utility in many 


literary investigations, It cannot be relied upon as an authority, but 
it is serviceable as a guide or indicator, 

-WATTEAU, ANTOINE, a celebrated French painter, was born at 
Valenciennes in 1684, He went to Paris in 1702, with a scene-painter, 
with whom he had placed himself, and for some time was occupied in 
that branch of painting. But after some time his master left Paris, 
and Watteau was obliged to seek another employer: he for a short 
time found occupation as a copyist, and painted pictures by the dozen. 
From this employment however he was rescued by Claude Gillot, 
a painter of some ability, who having perceived the peculiar genius of 
Watteau, took him into his house and employed him to assist him in 
his works. Gillot painted landscapes with grotesque figures, fauns, 
satyrs, &c., and confirmed Watteau in the same style; but the pupil 
soon surpassed the master in his own style, and this was so evident 
even to Gillot himself, that he forsook painting and took to engraving. 
Watteau now acquired reputation rapidly: he was appointed peintre 
de fétes galantes du Roi, and was elected a member of the French 
Academy of Painting. In 1718 he came to England, where he re- 
mained a year; but he painted only two pictures during his stay, for 
Dr. Meade, whom he came to consult, says Walpole. He returned to 
Paris in a very weak state of health, and died at Nogent, in the neigh- 
bourhood, in 1721, aged thirty-seven. 

Watteau’s colouring was rich, and his design, though peculiar, was 
correct ; Rubens was his model for colouring. His pictures are chiefly 
theatrical scenes, or fétes champétres, and were remarkably popular in 
his time: nearly all the French engravers of his period were occupied 
with the works of Watteau. The prints after his works amount to 
563, making three large folio volumes. Few painters in so short a 
life have done so much as Watteau. As regards the particular style 
of his works, Watteau is generally allowed to have had an injurious 
effect upon the taste of the French artists of his time; his pictures 
generally represent balls, masquerades, garden parties, marches, and 
encampments, and his style prevailed in France for some time after 
his death. His principal imitators were Peter and Lancret. His 
style is not ill described by Walpole, who says, “The genius of 
Watteau resembled that of his countryman D’Urfé; the one drew and 
the other wrote of imaginary nymphs and swains, and described a kind 
of impossible pastoral or rural life led by those opposites of rural 
simplicity, people of fashion and rank.: Watteau’s shepherdesses, nay, 
his very sheep are coquet; yet he avoided the glare and clinquant of 
his countrymen; and though he fell short of the dignified grace of the 
Italians, there is an easy air in his figures, and that more familiar 
species of the graceful which we call genteel. His nymphs are as 
much below the forbidden majesty of goddesses, as they are above the 
hoyden awkwardness of country girls. In his halts and marches of 
armies, the careless slouch of his soldiers still retain the air of a 
nation that aspires to be agreeable as well as victorious.” 

*WATTS, ALARIC ALEXANDER, was born in London on 
March 16, 1799, and was educated at the grammar-school called Wye 
College, in Kent, of which one of his brothers was master. He was 
subsequently removed to another school at Ashford, and then acted 
as teacher in the school of his brother at Putney. He next became 
the literary assistant of G. Crabbe, the author of the ‘ Technological 
Dictionary,’ and afterwards tutor in a private family at Manchester. In 
1822 he published a small volume of poems—containing several pieces 
of genuine poetical merit—which was favourably received by the public 
and of which five editions have been published. In this little volume 
he also displayed that taste for the fine arts which has distinguished 
many of his subsequent publications, as it was embellished with en- 
gravings by Heath after designs by Stothard. In the latter part of 
the same year he became editor of the ‘ Leeds Intelligencer’ news- 
paper, in which he strenuously advocated an amelioration of the 
factory system. His recommendations however were not popular 
among the manufacturers, and, after editing the paper for three years, 
he removed to Manchester, where he edited the ‘ Manchester Courier.’ 
While at Leeds a proposal had been made to him to take the editor- 
ship of an annual, in which literature and the fine arts were both 
to be prominent objects. He agreed, and ‘The Literary Souvenir, 
a Cabinet of Poetry and Romance, was commenced. It was con- 
tinued from 1825 to 1835, and at first was highly popular, as it 
deserved to be from the style of literature and of art he introduced 
into it, The contributors to the literature were himself, Campbell, 
Wordsworth, Southey, Coleridge, Montgomery, and others; among 
the artists who furnished the designs were Turner, Leslie, Stothard, 
Roberts, Lawrence, Collins, Danby, and Martin, and among the en- 
gravers were Heath, Finden, Goodall, Watt, and Pye. But the public 
favour declined, and after 1836 it ceased to appear. In 1825 he left the 
‘Manchester Courier,’ and in 1828 published the ‘ Poetical Album, or 
Register of Modern Fugitive Poetry.’ It was intended to be an annual, 
but only lived for two years. In 1827 he was engaged on the 
‘Standard’ London evening newspaper, and in 1833 he started the 
‘ United Service Gazette.’ In 1843 disputes with his partners led to 
a Chancery suit, and to the paper being sold: it is still continued 
asa valuable class paper. From 1841 to 1847 he was again engaged 
on the ‘Standard,’ but since then has ceased to have any connection 
with the newspaper press. In 1851 he published an edition of his 
select poetical writings under the title of ‘Lyrics of the Heart, 
with other Poems,’ some of them being by his wife, illustrated by 


Pal WATTS, ISAAC. 


= Sil 


WATTS, ISAAC, B72 


forty highly finished engravings. Except some occasional short 
poems, this is his last publication, In 1853 a pension of 100/. a year 
was conferred on him by the Queen. 

*Mrs. Ziutan Warts, the wife of the preceding, and sister of J. 
H. Wiffen, the translator of Tasso, is also distinguished for her literary 
talents. From 1829 to 1836 she edited ‘The New Year’s Gift and 
Juvenile Souvenir, which partook of the character of that edited by 
her husband. In 1839 she published ‘ The Juvenile Poetical Library,’ 
In 1845 she furnished the letter-press to Finden’s ‘Tableaux of 
National Character, Beauty, and Costume;’ in 1849, that to ‘Hogarth’s 
Tableaux, a series of original graphic Scenes, with Illustrations in 
Poetry’and Prose ;’ and in 1856, ‘The Birth-Day Council, or How to 
be Useful.’ 

WATTS, ISAAC, the eldest of nine children, was born at South- 
ampton July 17, 1674. His father, who kept a boarding-school in that 
town, was a man of strong devotional feeling and a rigid nonconformist. 
He was imprisoned on account of his religion, and during his confine- 
ment his wife sat on a stone at the prison door, with little Isaac, then 
an infant, at her breast. The child showed a taste for books at a very 
early age, and imbibed under parents whose faith had been strengthened 
by persecution that turn of mind which prompted the determination 
to become a dissenting minister. é 

Isaac Watts entered on the study of the learned languages in the 
free grammar-school of his native town in his fourth year. The little 
money he received in presents he spent upon books; his leisure hours 
he spent in reading instead of joining the other boys at play. When 
only seven or eight years old he composed some devotional pieces to 
please his mother. His gentle yet vivacious disposition obtained him 
friends, who offered to support him at one of the universities; but 
having been bred a nonconformist, he determined to remain one. He 
was therefore sent, in his sixteenth year, to an academy in London, 
kept by Mr. Thomas Rowe, at that time minister of the Independent 
meeting-house in Haberdasher’s Hall, 

During the three years that he remained with Mr. Rowe, Watts pur- 
sued his studies with intemperate ardour, allowing himself no time for 
exercise, and curtailing the period allotted to sleep, He thus irre- 
mediably injured his constitution. He used to mark all the books he 
read, to abridge some of them, and annotate others, which were inter- 
leaved for the purpose. Dr. Johnson says of his classical acquire- 
ments—“ Some Latin essays, supposed to have been written as exercises 
at his academy, show a degree of knowledge, both philosophical and 
theological, such as very few attain by a much longer course of study ;” 
and “In his youth he appears to have paid attention to Latin poetry : 
his verses to his brother, in the glyconick measure, written when he 
was seventeen, are remarkably easy and elegant.” He also made some 
proficiency in the study of Hebrew, of logic, and scholastic divinity. 
His acquirements in mathematical and physical science appear to have 
been inconsiderable. Before leaving the academy he joined in com- 
munion with the congregation of Mr. Rowe, who was accustomed to 
say that he never had occasion to reprove Watts, and who often held 
him up as a pattern to his other pupils. Watts returned to his father’s 
house in 1694, and spent the next two years of his life in private study. 
The greater part of his hymns, and probably most of his juvenile com- 
positions, were composed during this time. 

In 1696 he was invited by Sir John Hartopp to reside in his family 
at Stoke Newington as tutor to his son; he remained there till the 
beginning of 1702. Lady Hartopp was the daughter of Fleetwood by 
his first marriage. - Sir John, as might be inferred from his forming 
such a connection, was a zealous nonconformist: when fiscal persecu- 
tion was at its height, the fine upon Stoke Newington, of which he 
paid the greater part, amounted to six or seven thousand pounds. In 
this family the religious and political opinions which Watts had imbibed 
from his parents and schoolmaster were strengthened. The first out- 
line of the work afterwards published under the title of ‘Logic’ was 
prepared during this period for the use of his pupil. Isaac Watts 
preached his first sermon on the day on which he completed his 
twenty-fourth year—the 17th of July 1698. In that year he was 
chosen assistant to Dr, Chauncy, pastor of the Independent church 
then meeting-in Mark-lane, but he continued to reside and discharge 
the duties of teacher in Sir John Hartopp’s family till 1702. In that 
year he was persuaded reluctantly to succeed Dr. Chauncy in the pas- 
toral office. Soon after his entrance upon this charge he was seized 
with a dangerous illness, which, after a long confinement and a slow 
recovery, left him with a constitution so evidently impaired that the 
congregation thought an assistant necessary, and accordingly, in July 
1703, appointed Mr. Samuel Price. Watts’s health returned gradually, 
and he performed his duty till 1712, when he was seized by a fever so 
violent and of such continuance that he never perfectly recovered. 

This illness excited the lively sympathy of all his friends. The 
foremost in kind offices was Sir Thomas Abney, who invited him to 
try the effect of change of air at his house at Theobalds, Watts 
accepted his invitation, and went there intending to stay only a single 
week, but he remained six-and-thirty years—till his death. “In a few 
years,” says Dr. Gibbons, Watts’s earliest biographer, “Sir Thomas 
Abney died; but his amiable consort survives, who shows the Doctor 
the same respect and friendship as before; and most happily for him, 
and great numbers besides (for as her riches were great, her generosity 
and munificence were in full proportion), her thread of life was drawn 


out to a great age, even beyond that of the Doctor. And thus this 
excellent man, through her kindness and that of her daughter, Mrs, 
Elizabeth Abney, who in a like degree honoured and esteemed him, __ 
enjoyed all the benefits and felicities he experienced at his firstentrance 
into this family till his days were numbered and finished, and like a 
shock of corn in his season, he ascended into the regions of perfectand 
immortal life and joy.” to ae 
The tenor of the remainder of Watts’s life was uniform. SirThomas 
Abney had been bred up in dissenting principles; Kin iam 
knighted him; and he served the office of Lord Mayor of London in 
1700. His first wife was a daughter of Caryl, the first pastor of the 
Mark-lane congregation; his second, a daughter of Mr. Gunston, an 
honoured friend of Watts, The house of the Abneys at Theobalds 
adjoined the site of Burleigh’s residence. Of the splendid gardens of __ 
that palace there remained little more than a long moss-grown ie 
overshadowed by two rows of elms, and within afew yards of the 
entrance of the walk there stood, in Sir Thomas Abney’s garden, a 
summer-house, which, fifty years after Watts’s death, was shown as 
the place in which he had composed many of his works. Watts’suse- _ 
fulness among his flock was in nowise diminished by his residence ab _ 
Theobalds, There was a carriage at his command when his health _ 
permitted him to officiate in London. When he was ince een we: 
public labour, he refused to receivo his salary; and at all timesathird 
part of his income was devoted to charitable uses. The scasons when 
indisposition incapacitated him from public duty were spent in literary 
composition. ir ae 
The most important of Watts’s publications are:—1, ‘Logie; or, _ 
the Right Use of Reason in the Inquiry after Truth: with a variety 
of Rules to guard against Error in the affairs of Religion and Human 
Life, as well as in the Sciences,’ published in 1725. This treatise, 
which appears to have been used in Dr. Johnson’s time as a text-book 
at Oxford, was written originally to assist the studies of Watts’s pupil, 
Sir John Hartopp, and was revised, augmented, and published atthe 
request of Mr. Eames. Dr. Johnson remarked of this work—“If he 
owes part of it to Le Clerc, it must be considered that no man who __ 
undertakes merely to methodise or illustrate a system, pretends to be _ 
its author.” 2, ‘The Knowledge of the Heavens and Earth made 
easy ; or, the First Principles of Astronomy and Geography explained 
by the use of globes and maps, with a solution of the common 
problems by a plain scale and compasses as well as by the globe: 
written several years since, for the use of learners ;’ published in 
1726. This is the work of an intelligent amateur; it has of course 
been long superseded. 3, ‘The Improvement of the Mind,’ an ex- 
pansion of some passages in Locke's ‘Conduct of the Human Under- - 
standing. 4, A number of works for children and young persons, 
viz. :—* The Art of Reading and Writing English;’ ‘Prayers composed — j 
for the Use and Instruction of Children:’ ‘Divine Songs attempted 
in easy language for the Use of Children,’ &c. It was from motives — 
of gratitude to Sir Thomas and Lady Abney that he first engagedin 
this humbler class of compositions, No compositions of the kind 
have obtained such extensive use as his hymns and songs for children. _ 
5, ‘An Essay towards the Encouragement of Charity Schools, parti- — 
cularly those which are supported by the Protestant Dissenters for 
teaching the Children of the Poor to read and work: together with 
some Apology for those Schools which instruct them to write a plain — 
hand, and fit them for Service or for the meaner Trades and Profes- _ 
sions of Life: to which is prefixed an Address to the Supporters of — 
those Schools;’ published in 1728. The occasion of this publication - 
was a sermon which Watts had been desired to preach in the ~ 
November of the preceding year, in support of the dissenters’ sche 
It vindicates the extension of education to the poor; and ' 
establishment of dissenting schools on the ground of the proselyti 
character communicated to general schools by the High Church p 
6, ‘A Sermon preached at Berry Street, on the occasion of the D SB 
of our late gracious Sovereign George I., and the Peaceful Succession 
of his present Majesty George II.;’ published in 1727. This is — 
chiefly valuable as an exposition of the religious and political views of _ 
the dissenters at that period. The theological works of Watts are 
too numerous to admit of being recapitulated here. His ‘Three Dis- 
sertations relating to the Christian Doctrine of the Trinity,’ and ‘Nine 
Sermons preached in the years 1718-19,’ published in 1812, with a 
preface by Dr. Pye Smith, may be taken as fair specimens. The 
‘Hore Lyrice’ of Watts, from which an estimate of his poetical 
talents may be formed, was republished in 1837, with a memoir by Dr. 
Southey. A poet he can scarcely be called, yet his verse is generally 
smooth, some times nervous; and the matter is always judicious, — 
sometimes touching, sometimes approaching to eloquence. — oe 
Watts is a classic of the people. His hymns for children have 
exercised an influence on the minds of the young far beyond the limits : 
of the dissenting body. His ‘ Logic’ was once a text-book in Nai ne 
places of education. He was in his day one of the most zealous ad- 
vocates of the principles which placed the house of Hanover on the i 
throne; in his pamphlet in defence of the dissenting charity-schools — 
he was the efficient precursor of those friends of popular instruction 
who gave, at a later time, their countenance and support to J sf 
Lancaster; and his theological writings are prized by almost the 
whole religious public of Great Britain. Wherever the English lan- — 
guage is spoken Isaac Watts will be found to have exercised no lender a 


7: 


es 
a 


>, ee 


573 WEAVER, THOMAS, F-.R.S, 


WEBER, CARL-MARIA VON, 


574 


influence in the formation of public opinion. His writings have con- 
tributed much to keep alive the spirit of freedom, toleration, and 
piety. “It was therefore with great propriety,” the opinion is entitled 
to the greater weight as coming from the high-church Tory, Dr. 
Johnson, “that, in 1728, he received from Edinburgh and Aberdeen 
an unsolicited diploma, by which he became a doctor of divinity. 
Academical honours would have more value if they were always 
bestowed with equal judgment.” 

The conduct of some very near relatives embittered his latter days, 
and for a while he seemed, being at the time in a state of extreme 
weakness, stupified by it to such a degree as hardly to take notice of 

‘anything about him. The worst part of this behaviour was kept from 
him, “Lady Abney,” says a correspondent of Doddridge, “ keeps 
him in peaceful ignorance, and his enemies at a becoming distance ; 
so that in the midst of this cruel persecution he lives comfortably, and 
when a friend asks him how he does, answers, ‘ Waiting God’s leave to 
die”” In this patient and peaceful state of mind, on the 25th of 
November 1748, and in the seventy-fifth year of his age, he departed. 
He was buried in Bunhill Fields. Mr, Samuel Chandler delivered a 
funeral oration at his interment; Lady Abney and Sir John Hartopp 
erected a handsome tomb over his grave; and the number of funeral 
_ Sermons preached and. published on the occasion, bespeak the deep 
sense of his merits entertained by the dissenters. The texts of some 
are strikingly appropriate : that of the Rev. David Jennings was “ By 
‘it, being dead, he yet speaketh ;” that of the Rev. Caleb Ashworth, 
hist ye not that there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in 
srael. 

(Memoir of Isaac Watts, D.D., by Robert Southey; Life of Watts, 
by Dr. Samuel Johnson; Sermon on the Death of the late Rev. Isaac 
Watts, D.D., by David Jennings; Memoirs of the Rev. Isaac Watts, 
D.D., by Thomas Gibbons.) 

WEAVER, THOMAS, F.R.S., an eminent geologist, was one of the 
band of scientific men, who, with the late Professor Jameson, the late 
Leopold von Buch, and Alexander Humboldt, learned the rudiments 
of mineralogy and geology under the tuition of Werner at Freiberg, 
where he commenced his studies in 1790. He was long a distinguished 
and active member of the Geological Society of London, particularly 
in its earlier days; and was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society on 
the 9th of March 1826. From 1795 to 1798, and again in 1801, he 
was concerned, with the gentlemen mentioned below, in the explora- 
tion, on account of the government, of the deposits of gold which had 
been discovered at Croughan Kinshella, in the county of Wicklow, in 
Ireland. An account of the discovery was given by John Lloyd, Esq., 
F.R.S,, and a mineralogical account of the gold itself by Abraham 
Mills, Esq., both referring to Mr. Weaver, were published in the 
* Philosophical Transactions’ for 1796. A particular history of the 
proceedings of himself and his colleagues, in reference to the gold 
workings, was given by Mr. Weaver in his Memoir on the ‘ Geological 
Relation of the East of Ireland,’ inserted in the ‘Transactions of the 
Geological Society,’ first series, vol. v. He afterwards communicated 
a paper on the Gold-workings to the ‘Philosophical Magazine’ for 
July 1835 (Series 3, vol. vii, p. 1,) giving some extracts from the 
Memoir, with new matter. In the ‘Philosophical Transactions’ for 
1825, is a paper by Mr. Weaver, On the Fossil Elk of Ireland, in 
which he infers that that animal lived and flourished in the countries 
in which its remains are now found at a period of time which, in the 
history of the earth, may be considered as modern. In the Second 
Seriesof the ‘Trans, Geol. Soc.,’ vol. i., is an elaborate memoir by 
him, entitled ‘Geological Observations on Part of Gloucestershire and 
Somersetshire,’ and in vol. v., another, ‘On the Geological Relations of 
the South of Ireland.’ He communicated other papers, all on geolo- 
gical subjects, to the ‘ Annals of Philosophy,’ Old and New Series, and 
subsequently to the ‘ Philosophical Magazine,’ in which (Series 3, 
vol. ix.,) appears a paper on the ‘Carboniferous Series of the United 
States of North America,’ a portion of the results of the geological and 
mining researches in Mexico and the United States in which he was 
engaged from 1831 to 1834. He died at his residence in Stafford- 
place, Pimlico, London, on the 2nd of July 1855, having retired from 
the field of science some years before, 

WEBBE, SAMUEL, am eminent composer of that part-music which 
we may justly claim as national, was born in the year 1740. His 
father, who held an office under the British government at Minorca, 
dying suddenly, and leaving his property in such a state that his 
family never profited by it, his widow was unable to give her son a 
liberal education, and at the age of eleven he was apprenticed to a 
cabinet-maker. On the completion of his term however he abandoned 
a pursuit so little to his taste, and commenced the study of the Latin 
language. But his mother dying shortly after, he was reduced to the 
necessity of following the example of J. J. Rousseau, and copied music 
as a means of subsistence, though knowing but very little of the art. 
This led to an acquaintance with a German, named Barbandt, organist 
of the Bavarian chapel, who initiated him in the principles of music. 
His unwearied industry and patience enabled him not only to support 
himself by copying, but to acquire, in addition to the Latin, a know- 
ledge of the French and Italian languages. He now began to give 
lessons in music, and soon after to compose, and was so successful in 
the latter attempt, that, at the age of twenty-six, he gained a gold 
prize-medal from the Catch-Club for the best canon, In 1768 he was 


rewarded by the same society, by a medal for his simple but beautiful 
glee, ‘A generous friendship no cold medium knows,’ which imme- 
diately established his reputation. From the year which first witnessed 
his success as a composer, to 1792, Mr. Webbe had twenty-seven 
medals awarded him by the same club, for glees, catches, canons, and 
odes. But it is worthy of remark, that four of his finest works. 
including that matchless production, ‘When winds breathe soft,’ 
failed in obtaining the golden honours bestowed on works of far 
inferior merit. And it must be confessed that some of his medals were 
given him for compositions now forgotten; among which too many 
were the reward of useless pieces of musical mechanism, called canons, 

In 1784 Mr. Webbe was appointed to succeed Mr. Warren Horne, as 
secretary of the Catch-Club ; and in 1787, on the establishment of the 
Glee-Club, he became a professional member and the librarian. It was 
for this society he wrote both words and music of his popular glee, 
‘Glorious Apollo.’ But amidst his professional avocations he found 
time to acquire a considerable knowledge of Greek, and even of 
Hebrew, and to become conversant in many branches of polite 
literature. Mr. Webbe’s glees, &c. amount to the large number of 
one hundred and seven. Besides these, he produced masses (being a 
Roman Catholic), anthems, single songs, &c., some of which are yet 
well known, particularly ‘The Mansion of Peace,’ and ‘From glaring 
show.’ He died in 1817, leaving a son (named after his father), a 
sound musician and an accomplished man, who inherited some of his 
parent's musical talent. 

WEBER, CARL-MARIA VON, one of the most distinguished of 
the German school of music, left, among other interesting manuscripts, 
an autobiography, which has supplied us with much of the substance 
of the following memoir. 

He was born in December 1786, at Eutin in Holstein. His education 
was liberal, and conducted with the utmost care; and as his father 
was a musical man, who had acquired a considerable reputation as a 
violinist, he, almost unconsciously, led his son in pursuit of music 
particularly, while he encouraged his study of the fine arts generally. 
His mind was also rendered contemplative by the retired manner in 
which his family lived, and by the few visitors at his father’s house, 
who were chiefly middle-aged men of various professions and accom- 
plishments. Precautions were taken to keep him from associating 
with wild playmates; and thus he was early taught to find company 
in his own thoughtsto live, as he says, in the little world of his own 
imagination, and to seek therein’ his occupation and his happiness. 
His time was principally divided between painting and music. Of the 
former he successfully cultivated several branches, working alternately 
in oil, in water-colours, and in crayons, He likewise acquired some 
degree of skill in the use of the etching-needle, but he did not follow 
up these employments with ardour, and they were silently suffered to 
be discontinued. Music got full possession of his mind before he was 
conscious of its influence, and at last entirely supplanted her sister art. 
His father frequently changed his place of residence, and this led to 
as frequent a change in his son’s masters, who too often undid 
what had been done; an evil however which Weber, in after life, - 
thought more than compensated by compelling him to become his 
own instructor, and to depend on his own energies. He analysed, 
compared, and reflected, and sought to deduce well-grounded princi- 
ples, especially in music, from what he had heard, read, and thought, 
To Hauschkel, of Hildburghausen, he was indebted for his skill as a 
pianoforte player; and he mentions in warm terms of gratitude the 
ae he derived from this master during the years 1796 and 
1 9 . 

His father, now observing the great and decided development of 
his son’s musical talents, took him to Salzburg, and placed him under 
the tuition of Michael Haydn, brother of the illustrious composer, 
and himself a very learned musician ; but though the pupil laboured 
with earnestness and industry, his progress was not equal to his 
expectations. The master was then at an advanced period of life— 
was grave, not to say severe, in his manner. There was in fact too 
awful a distance between old age and childhood. At Salzburg, in 
1798, his father, as an encouragement, printed his first production, 
consisting of six fughetti, which was very favourably noticed in the 
German ‘ Musical Gazette’ of that year. Shortly aftér this he went 
to Munich, where he received lessons in singing from Valesi, and in 
composition from the organist of the chapel-royal, M. Kalcher, to 
whose kind and luminous instructions, he says, he was indebted for 
much important knowledge, particularly with respect to the treatment 
of subjects in four parts, the laws of which, he adds, should be as 
familiar to the composer as those of syntax and metre to the poet; 
for it is such knowledge alone that will enable him to present his ideas 
to his hearers with perspicuity and effect, 

He now applied to his study with unabated vigour, and found a 
preference for dramatic music growing rapidly on him. Under the 
eye of his master he composed an opera, ‘Die Macht der Liebe und 
des Weins’ (The Power of Love and Wine). He also wrote a grand 
mass, several sonatas and variations for the pianoforte, violin trios, 
songs, &c., all of which however he candidly tells us were “ wisely 
committed to the flames.” . 

About the same time the art of lithography was first discovered, 
and the restless activity of the youthful mind, which embraces with 
eagerness all that is novel, again diverted the young composer's 


B75 WEBER, CARL-MARIA VON. 


WEBSTER, DANIEL. 576 


attention from his legitimate pursuit, and excited in him a wish to 
rival the ingenious inventor of that art. He procured the necessary 
tools, and setting himself vigorously at work, at length almost fancied 
himself the original inventor: at least, he says, he felt sure that he 
had devised a more perfect system, and could construct more perfect 
machinery. Impressed with this belief, he urged his father to remove 
to Freiberg, where all the necessary materials could be more readily 
procured. The mania however quickly left him: the mechanical 
nature of his new occupation, the fatigue and annoyance attending it, 
and, above all, its tendency to cramp and deaden the more intellectual 
faculties, soon determined him to abandon it, and he returned with 
increased zest to his musical pursuits. 

Weber now set to music Steinsberg’s opera, ‘Das Waldmiidchen’ 
(The Wood-girl), whith was performed in 1800, and spread further 
than, at his maturer age, he thought desirable. It was, he says, a 
crude jejune work, though in some parts not altogether destitute of 
invention. The whole of the second act was composed in ten days, a 
youthful affectation of promptness which he honestly acknowledges, 
condemns, and deplores. Being called fo Salzburg, he there, in 1801, 
composed ‘Peter Schmoll.’ In 1802 his father proceeded with him 
on a musical tour to Leipzig, Hamburg, and Holstein, in all which 
places he diligently collected and studied the theoretical writers of 
music, He then felt himself impelled towards that great resort of 
musical talent, Vienna. There, in addition to the society of other 
eminent masters, including the immortal Haydn, he became acquainted 
with the Abbé Vogler, who generously opened to him the treasures 
of his mind, By his advice he abandoned many favourite projects, 
suggested by the fervour of youthful inexperience, and dedicated 
nearly two years to the study of the great masters, analysing their 
compositions, and thus discovering their mode of carrying out their 
ideas and of employing their means. An invitation to fill the situa- 
tion of music-director at Breslau offered him a new field for exertion 
and fresh opportunities of gaining a knowledge of effect. He there 
re-touched several of his earlier works, and composed the greater por- 
tion of the operas of ‘ Riibezahl,’ which, strange to say, afterwards 
appeared as the composition of Professor Rode. In 1806*that true 
lover of the art, Prince Eugene of Wiirtemberg, invited Weber to his 
court at Carlsruhe, where he produced two symphonies, several con- 
certos, &c.; but the evils of war obliged him to move, and proceed on 
a professional tour, under very unfavourable circumstances, though com- 
mon enough at that turbulent period.. This brought him to Stuttgardt, 
where he resided for some time in the house of Duke Louis of Wiir- 
temberg, and completed his opera of ‘Sylvana,’ or rather remodelled 
it on his former work, ‘Das Waldmiidchen,’ producing during the 
same period several other compositions. 

In 1810 Weber set out on another professional journey in Germany, 
which he traversed in various directions, At Frankfurt, Munich, 
Berlin, Vienna, and other places his operas were performed, and his 
concerts well attended, In Vienna he found his venerable friend, the 
Abbé Vogler, devoting the remnant of his life to the instruction of 
his pupils Meyerbeer and Gansbacher. At Darmstadt, in 1810, he 
composed ‘Abon Hassan.’ From 1813 to 1816 he directed the opera 
at Prague, after having completely re-organised that establishment. 
Then he lived for some time unoccupied. Subsequently he accepted 
an engagement to found a German opera at Dresden, and this appoint- 
ment, which he held till his decease, absorbed, during the first two 
years, nearly the whole of his attention. In 1822 he brought out, at 
Berlin, his greatest work, ‘Der Freischiitz,’ the text, or libretto, by 
his friend and countryman Kind, Not only the novelty and beauty 
of the music, but the deep thought it evinced, immediately excited 
an extraordinary sensation in the north of Germany ; and a copy of 
the work having been sent to London and obtained by the editor of 
‘The Harmonicon,’ an extract from it appeared, in January 1823, in 
the first number of that periodical. This gentleman lost no time in 
mentioning the opera in strong terms to the proprietor of the English 
Opera-House, who, fearing to incur the expense of getting it up, 
declined the attempt. From the same quarter it was then recom- 
mended to Drury Lane, and afterwards to Covent Garden, but with a 
similar result. However other specimens of the work, and among 
them the beautiful cavatina, appearing in the ‘Harmonicon,’ and 
public attention having thus been called to it, the opera was at length 
performed, July 23rd 1824, at the English Opera-House, and produced 
as great an effect in London as it had done in Berlin. In the following 
October it was given at Covent Garden theatre, and in November at 
Drury Lane, with the most brilliant success at both houses, On the 
8th of December ‘Der Freischiitz,’ under the title of ‘Robin des 
Bois,’ was brought out in Paris, at the Odéon,.and though it did 
not make the same’powerful impression on a French as on an English 
audience, its effect was sufficiently flattering to the composer, who 
nevertheless had great reason to complain of the surreptitious means 
by which his music had been procured, and of the imperfect manner 
in which it had been prepared. 

In November 1823, Weber produced at Vienna his ‘ Euryanthe,’ 
which was not at first received with the enthusiasm his ‘ Freischiitz’ 
had excited. It is perhaps too serious, and certainly not written in a 
popular manner; but the more it became known, the more it was 
admired, and the overture is one of the composer's happiest flights of 
genius, 


In 1825 Weber received a visit at Dresden from Mr. C. Kemble, 
the lessee of Covent Garden theatre, for the purpose of inviting him 
to compose an opera for the English stage, and to superintend its 
production in London; an engagement which he willingly undertook. 
The terms were five hundred pounds. Mr. Planché provided the 
drama, which was entitled ‘Oberon, or the Elf-King’s Oath, and 
founded on Wieland’s celebrated poem. In 1826, onthe 12th of April, 
it was brought out, and though at first some of its beauties were not 
discovered by those who were unaccustomed to music of so original 
and high an order, yet they were fully felt by competent judges. The 
author was greeted in the most cordial manner by the audience, and 
thoroughly satisfied with his public reception and the success of his 
work, which had twenty-seven representations, twenty-four of which 
were conducted by the composer. But it was now apparent that he 
was suffering under pulmonary disease. His journey to London in an 
unfavourable season, and his arrival in February, in the worst weather 
possible, aggravated his malady: nevertheless he bore up manfully 
against his sufferings, On the 26th of May he had a benefit concert 
at the Argyll Rooms, which was but badly attended. He was very ill 
at its commencement, and though he managed to conduct the concert 
to the end, at its conclusion he was so exhausted as to create con- 
siderable alarm in the by-standers, On Monday, the 5th of June, early — 
in the morning, he was found ina lifeless state in his bed. His funeral 
was delayed a considerable time by the endeavour to obtain permission 
to deposit his remains in St. Paul’s cathedral; but this could not be 
granted in a Protestant church, as his friends resolved to have a 
Requiem sung at his obsequies, he having always professed himself a 
member of the Church of Rome. At length the interment took place, 
on the 21st of June, in the Roman Catholic Chapel, Moorfields; and 
the followers, consisting chiefly of distinguished professors and ama- 
teurs, were so numerous as to fill sixteen mourning coaches, 


Weber was a man who would have stood prominent in any station —__ 


of life demanding the exertion of quick powerful intellect. His mind, 
naturally strong and active, was enlarged by education, and highly — 
cultivated by extensive reading and the society of literary and scientific 
friends. His manners were calm and polite, and his conversation 
was remarkable not only for good sense, but for a degree of pleasant 
sententiousness which closely bordered on wit. His morals were — 
irreproachable, and he well supported, on every occasion, the character 
of an honourable gentleman. He left a widow and two sons to deplore 
the untimely loss of an excellent husband and father. . 
* WEBER, WILHELM EDUARD, was the son of Michael Weber, 
a distinguished Protestant theologian, and was born at Wittenberg on 
December 24, 1804. He studied first at the Lower School at Halle, 
and then entered the university there, of which subsequently he 
became professor extraordinary of natural philosophy. In 1826, in 
conjunction with his elder brother, Ernst Heinrich, who was professor 


of anatomy and physiology in the University of Leipzig, he published __ 


‘Die Wellenlehre auf Experimente gegriindet, oder die Wellen tropf- 
barer Fliissigkeiten mit Anwendung auf die Schall- und Lichtwellen’ 
(The Wave Theory grounded on Experiments, or the liquid fluidity of 
Waves, with its application to Waves of Sound and Light), In 1827 
he published ‘Leges oscillationis oriundz, si duo corpora diversa 
celeritate oscillantia ita conjunguntur, ut oscillare non possint nisi 
simul et synchronice.’ In 1831 he was appointed professor of physics 
in the University of Gottingen, from which office he was displaced 
by Ernest, king of Hanover, on December 14, 1837, on account of 
his liberal political opinions. In 1836 he had written in conjunction. 
with his younger brother Edward, now professor of medicine at 


Leipzig, ‘Mechanik der menschlichen Sehwerkzeuge’ (Mechanism of _ 
He then travelled about Germany, and — 


the Human Optical. Organs). ] 
visited England, till 1843, when he was recalled to his post. He had 
contributed many essays on acoustics and physics to various German 
scientific journals, The most important of these was one written in 
conjunction with Gauss ‘On the Magnetism of the Earth,’ which 
opened many original views on this subject, gave a new direction 
to the investigations, and was recognised by scientific men as a work 
of great merit. This was followed, in 1840, by the ‘ Resultate aus 
den Beobachtungen des magnetischen Vereins ’ (Results from the 
Observations of the Magnetic Society), and ‘ Der Atlas des Erdmag- 
netismus’ (Atlas of the Magnetism of the Earth). One of his latest 
works is the ‘Elektrodynamischen Massbestimmungen’ (Electro- 
dynamic proportional Measures). 

WEBSTER, DANIEL, was born January 18, 1782, in the township 
of Salisbury, New Hampshire, United States of America. His father, 
Ebenezer Webster, was descended from Thomas Webster, a Scotchman, 
who settled at Hampton, on the coast of New Hampshire, in 1636. 
Ebenezer Webster served as a common soldier against the French and 
Indians, but rose to the rank of captain before the war terminated. 
He received in 1768 the grant of an allotment of land in the township © 
of Salisbury on the upper course of the river Merrimac, and there in 
1764 built his log-cabin, when there was no other white man’s habita- 
tion between it and the settlements at Montreal. Heafterwards built a 
frame-house not far from his log-cabin, on the Elms Farm, and there 
Daniel Webster was born, and spent his childhood and much of his 
boyhood. His opportunities for early education were very scanty, 
working on the farm in summer, and trudging two or t miles 


| through the snow to school in winter, In 1796 he was sent to an 


— 


577 . WEBSTER, DANIEL. 


WEBSTER, THOMAS, R.A. 578 


academy at Exeter, where he commenced his classical and literary 
studies, After remaining there a few months, which were well spent, 
he was placed by his father under the Rev. Samuel Wood, minister of 
the neighbouring town of Boscawen, with whom he remained from 
February till August 1797, when he entered Dartmouth College. He 
remained there four years, completing his college course in August 
1801. He then returned to Salisbury, and immediately commenced 
his law-studies in the office of a neighbouring attorney; but not long 
afterwards, in order to assist his elder brother, Ezekiel Webster, to 
obtain a college education, he took charge of a school at Fryeburg, in 
the State of Maine; and while this duty occupied him by day, he spent 
his evenings in copying deeds for the registrar of the county. In 
September 1802 he returned to the attorney’s office at Salisbury, and 
there remained eighteen months. 

Tn July 1804, Daniel Webster removed to Boston, and entered the 
office of Mr. Gore, an eminent lawyer, afterwards governor of Massa- 
chusetts, with whom he remained eight months, studying chiefly the 
common law, and particularly special pleading. When about to com- 
mence practice he was offered the situation, which had become vacant, 
of clerk in the Court of Common Pleas for the county of Hillsborough, 
New Hampshire, a situation to which a large salary was attached. 


_ By the advice of Mr. Gore, and in opposition to the wish of his father, 


who was a judge in the court, he rejected the offer. ‘ Once a clerk,” 


_ said Mr, Gore, “and always a clerk, with no prospect of obtaining a 


higher position.” Immediately afterwards, in the spring of 1805, he 
was admitted to the practice of the law in the Court of Common Pleas 
for Suffolk county, when, in order to be near his father, whose health 
was then infirm, he opened an office at Boscawen, not far from the 
paternal residence. His father died in 1806, In May 1807, he was 
admitted as an attorney and counsellor of the Superior Court of New 
Hampshire, and in September the same year, relinquishing his office to 
his brother Ezekiel, he removed to Portsmouth, which was the largest 
town of New Hampshire as well as the seat of foreign commerce. 
Ezekiel Webster continued in the successful practice of the law till 
1829, when, while pleading a cause in the court at Concord, he 
suddenly fell down, and expired instantaneously. 

Daniel Webster remained at Portsmouth nine years. His practice, 
mostly in the circuit courts, was very large, but by no means lucra- 
tive. In 1808 he married his first wife, by whom he had two sons and 
two daughters, of whom only one son, Fletcher Webster, survived 
him. He is a naval officer of the port of Boston. In May 1813 
Daniel Webster took his seat in congress as a representative of the 
Federal party of New Hampshire. Placed by Mr: Clay, the speaker, 
on the committee of foreign affairs, he made his first speech in the 
house of representatives, June 10, 1813, in moving a series of resolu- 
tions on the Berlin and Milan decrees. Ina great fire which occurred 
at Portsmouth in December 1813, his house, furniture, library, and 
manuscript collections, were all destroyed. In August 1814 he was 
again returned as a representative to congress. From March to 
December 1815 he was busily engaged in the practice of the law at 
Plymouth, whence, in August 1816, after the adjournment of congress, 
he removed to Boston, where the causes for trial were of higher 


importance and the practice was more lucrative. 


Mr. Webster retired from congress in 1817. He had purchased an 
estate of about 2000 acres at Marshfield, about thirty miles from 
Boston, and his time during the next six years was partly occupied 
with law-business at Boston and partly with the cultivation of his 
estate. His favourite amusements were angling in the streams and 
fishing in his yacht. At the end of 1822 he was again elected for 
Boston, as he was also in 1824 and 1826, In 1827 his first wife died. 
In January 1828 he took his seat in the senate of the United States, 
having been elected by the legislature of Massachusetts. He was a 
candidate for the dignity of President in 1836, but received only the 
twelve votes of Massachusetts. In the spring of 1839 he visited 
Europe for the first and only time in his life, and made a hasty tour 
through England, Scotland, and France. When General Harrison 
became President in 1841 Mr. Webster was appointed secretary of 
state. In 1842 he negotiated with Lord Ashburton the Oregon 
boundary, and the treaty which settled that question between Great 
Britain and the. United States was ratified August 20, 1842. In May 
1848 he resigned his situation as minister, and retired to private life, 
but was again elected senator in 1845. He opposed the war with 
Mexico in 1846, as he had previously opposed thé annexation of 
Texas. In 1848 he was again a candidate for the Presidency, but was 
unsuccessful, On the death of General Taylor in July 1850, he was 
appointed secretary of state by Mr. Fillmore, and he continued to 
perform the duties of that high office till his death, which occurred 
October 24, 1852, at his country residence, Marshfield. 

Daniel Webster, as a statesman, an orator, and a lawyer, was one of 
the greatest men that the United States of America have produced. 
As a statesman his principles were founded on comprehensive views 
and a wide range of information, legal, constitutional, and historical, 
but during his later years he was suspected of shaping his course too 
generally with a view to the presidency. He was a decided Federalist. 
He expressed his belief that if ever the union of the States should be 
dissolved, the internal peace, the vigorous growth, the prosperity of 
the States, and the welfare of their inhabitants, would be blighted for 
ever; but that while the Union endures, all else of trial and calamity 

BIOG. DIV, VOL, VI, 


which may befal the nation may be remedied or borne. He was un- 
doubtedly the greatest American orator of his day. His power of fixing 
the attention and producing an overwhelming effect on a deliberative 
assembly was unequalled. His style was generally argumentative and 
solid, never deficient of imagery where suitable, but never flowery. 
Both as a parliamentary orator and a pleader his speeches were dis- 
tinguished by extraordinary clearness, compactness, and condensation 
of statement, sound logic, and, when he was excited, by intense ear- 
nestness or vehemence. ‘The Works of Daniel Webster,’ 6 vols. 8vo, 
Boston, 1851, consist of his speeches in congress, at the bar, and at 
public meetings, his diplomatic papers, a few letters, and a Biographical 
Memoir by Edward Everett. 

WEBSTER, JOHN, like many of his great dramatic contempora- 
ries, has left few authentic records of his career, beyond his works, 
We know not where he was born nor where he was educated. The 
earliest notice we find of him is in the papers of Henslowe, where he 
is mentioned as writing plays in conjunction with Dekker, Drayton, 
Middleton, Munday, Chettle, Heywood, and Wentworth Smith. The 
first work of his own which he published was ‘The White Devil.’ 
This was printed in 1612. In 1623 was published his other great 
play ‘The Duchess of Malfi.’ ‘ Appius and Virginia’ was printed in 
1654. These are the works upon which the fame of Webster is prin- 
cipally built: and certainly they exhibit him as one of the foremost 
of that great band of writers who rose up as the later contemporaries 
and the successors of Shakspere. His pathos is occasionally too 
laboured, and his command over pity and terror is carried far beyond 
the region of pleasurable emotion. But he is essentially a great dra« 
matist, accomplishing his purpose with a terrible earnestness which 
few have equalled. He thus speaks of himself in the address to the 
reader prefixed to the ‘ White Devil:’—“To those who report I was 
a long time in finishing this tragedy, I confess I do not write with a 
goose-quill winged with two feathers; and if they will needs make it 
my fault, I must answer them with that of Euripides to Alcestides, a 
tragic writer : Alcestides objecting that Euripides had only, in three 
days, composed three verses, whereas himself had written three 
hundred; ‘Thou tellest truth (quoth he), but here’s the difference ; 
thine shall only be read for three days, whereas mine shall continue 
three ages.” The works of Webster were first collected and edited 
by Mr. Dyce, in 1830. 

WEBSTER, NOAH, LL.D., was born at West Hartford, in Connec- 
ticut, U.S., on the 16th of October 1758, and was descended from 
John Webster, who, having being one of the original emigrants from 
Massachusetts by whom the colony of Connecticut was founded, was 
afterwards governor of the state in the year 1656. Noah Webster 
entered Yale College in 1774; in 1777 he was withdrawn for a time 
from his studies by joining the military service under the command of 
his father, who was captain in the Alarm List, during Burgoyne’s ex- 
pedition from Canada; but notwithstanding this interruption he took 
his degree with great distinction the following year. He was called to 
the bar in 1781; but, instead of following the profession of the law, 
he engaged in that of a teacher of youth, opening at Goshen, New 
York, a school, which he named ‘The Farmers’ Hall Academy. His 
‘First part of a grammatical institute of the English Grammar,’ pub- 
lished at Hartford in 1783, was the first of a number of elementary 
works produced by him, all of which were well received and were 
generally admitted to be much superior to any that his native country 
had previously possessed. He also however took a leading part in the 
discussion of the political questions of the time, both by his ‘ Sketches 
of American Policy,’ published in 1784, and his other writings in sup- 
port of the principles of federalism, and by the establishment in 1793 
of a daily newspaper in New York. In 1798 he removed to New- 
haven, where he spent the remainder of his life. His great work, and 
that which has chiefly made his name known in this country, his ‘New 
and complete Dictionary of the English language,’ was begun in 1807, 
and the first edition was published in 1828. This work, which has 
been since several times reprinted, is a performance of great labour 
and care, and was perhaps more precise in its explanations than any 
previous English dictionaries. Its etymological portion however is 
more ingenious and showy than really learned or profound. Dr. 
Webster, whose degree of LL.D., was bestowed upon him by the 
Faculty of Yale College in 1824, died at Newhaven, May 28, 1843. 

* WEBSTER, THOMAS, R.A., was born in Pimlico, London, 
March 20,1800. His father, who was in the household of George III., 
took him while yet a child to Windsor, and had him educated in St. 
George’s Chapel, with a view to his becoming a chorister. This inten- 
tion was however ultimately abandoned, and the youth was permitted 
to follow his own bent. In 1820 he entered the Royal Academy as a 
student, and in 1825, he carried off the first prize for painting. His 
first picture, exhibited at the Suffolk Street Gallery in 1825, ‘Rebels 
shooting a Prisoner, was decidedly successful. In 1828 his ‘Gun- 
powder Plot’ obtained a good place on the walls of the Royal 
Academy ; and pictures in which children were the actors continued to 
appear in the exhibitions of the Academy, the British Institution, and 
the Society of British Artists. 

In 1841 Mr. Webster was elected an associate of the Royal Academy, 
and the same year appeared his ‘ Frown,’ and ‘Smile,’ which have 
been rendered so familiar by the Art Union Engravings, and his 


admirable ‘Boy and many Friends.’ His position was oy secured, 
~ P 


‘ 


WEDEL, GEORG WOLFGANG. 


579 


WEDGWOOD, JOSIAH. 


He had chosen for himself an origival and cheerful bye-path in art, 
quite distinct from that of Wilkie—at this time well worn by a crowd 
of followers—and one that led as surely and not less quickly to English 
homes. Webster’s chief object was to observe and delineate that 
most mirthful, wilful, and changeful of animals the English School- 
bey, and he has with hearty good-will and unflagging spirit pursued it 
to the present time—his other pictures being evidently only subsidiary 
to his main purpose, a mere variation of the theme, or a little tem- 
porary change of study, Since his election into the Academy (he 
became R.A. in 1846) his principal pictures have all been exhibited 
there. The following is a list of them :—‘ The Grandmother, ‘The 
Impenitent,’ and ‘Going to School,’ in 1842: ‘Sickness and Health,’ 
a work of great beauty, in 1843; ‘ Portraits of Mr, and Mrs. Webster,’ 
* The Violet Seller, and ‘The Pedlar,’ in 1844; ‘The Dame’s School,’ 
in 1845; ‘Please remember the Grotto, and ‘Goodnight,’ in 1846 ; 
‘A Village Choir,’ and ‘ Instruction,’ in 1847 ; ‘ The internal economy 
of Dotheboys’ Hall,’ and ‘A Rubber,’ one of his best works, in 1848 ; 
‘A See-saw,’ and ‘A Slide,’ his masterpiece, in 1849; ‘A study from 
Nature,’ ‘A Cherry-seller, ‘A Peasant’s Home,’ and ‘A Farm House 
Kitchen,’ in 1850; ‘A Chimney Corner,’ and ‘ Attraction,’ in 1851; 
‘A School Play-ground,’ ‘A. B. C.’ and ‘A Letter from the Colonies,’ 
in 1852; ‘A Dame’s School,’ in 1853; ‘A Villager’s Offering,’ ‘A 
Breakfast Party, and ‘Peasant Children,’ in 1854; ‘Spring,’ and ‘A 
Race,’ in 1855; * Hide and Seek,’ in 1856. 

Few English painters are so generally popular as.Webster, His 
pictures are invariably a centre of attraction in the exhibition room, 
and in the picture gallery. The subjects are always such as appeal 
to the common feelings. Every one likes to watch school-boys in real 
life, and he selects the incidents which are looked at with most 
pleasure. He is a thoroughly genial observer. Every thing he does is 
marked by good feeling, kindness, and heartiness. There is a sense 
of enjoyment about his pictures which is irresistible. His humour is 
genuine, and unstrained, dashed sometimes with a touch of pathos,— 
sensibility to which is a never-failing accompaniment of true humour 
—and heightened occasionally by a bit of broad farce. In his repre- 
sentations of adult life he is scarcely less happy than among children, 
indeed in the briefest list of his masterworks it would be necessary to 
include the § Village Choir,’ a picture that Hogarth would have 
rejoiced in, and ‘A Rubber at Whist,’ one which Wilkie might have 
envied. Still it is as a painter of riotous school-boys, that he is most 
memorable, and his famous ‘ Slide’ is not likely to be forgotten by 
any visitor to the Academy Exhibition of 1849, or to find in its way a 
vival among English pictures. Of Mr. Webster's technical merits we 
have little need to say anything. Unless they had been of a high 
order, the keenest humour and the happiest fancies, must have failed 
to raise him to his present position. He draws admirably ; tells his 
stories in the clearest manner; always disposes his figures so as to 
produce a pleasing arrangement of lines, and light and shadow; and 
colours brightly and harmoniously: but he persists in painting thinly 
and with an ill-filled pencil, and so instead of presenting a rich, 
forcible, and riant appearance, consonant with their true character, 
his pictures at the first glance often have a cold and poor appearance. 
The Vernon collection contains two pictures by Mr. Webster, ‘ The 
Truant,’ and ‘A Dame’s School;’ and in the Sheepshanks’ gallery the 
nation possesses six of his works, including the admirable ‘ Village 
Choir’ and ‘Sickness and Health.’ 

WEDEL, GEORG WOLFGANG, was born on the 12th of Novem- 
ber 1645, at Golsen in Lusatia, where his father was a Protestant 

minister, His early studies were pursued at the college of his native 
place, from whence he was sent to Jena, where, after having taken his 
degree of Master of Arts, he graduated in medicine. He was dis- 
tinguished whilst a student for his knowledge of languages and mathe- 
matics, as well as for his poetical powers. After taking his degree in 
medicine at Jena, he visited other universities for the sake of improve- 
ment, and then commenced the practice of his profession at Gotha. 
Here he remained till 1673, when he was invited to fill the chair of 
medicine at Jena. He occupied this chair for upwards of fifty years, 
and died on the 6th of September 1721. Few men have left behind 
them more works than Wedel, and among a nation of laborious 
writers he was one of the most laborious, He published several 
distinct works in various departments of medical science, and upwards 
of three hundred academical dissertations, All his works display 
great research as well as learning. He was not only a good classical 
scholar, having had it in contemplation at one time to publish an edition 
of the Greek Bible, but he was well versed in Oriental literature, 
especially the Arabic. In his medical opinions he was a disciple of 
Van Helmont and Sylvius, and he adopted without enquiry the absurd 
opinions of these writers on the action of medicines, Amid the 
immense mass of his writings there is much curious and interesting 
matter, but his mind was too much oceupied with the opinions of others 
to have any of his own, so that his influence has been much less 
than many whose writings do not amount to'a tithe of those which 
he produced. He had a large private practice, and was remarkable for 
his kindness to the poor and his punctuality in all public matters, so 
much so that all his biographers express surprise at the great amount 
of his labours. He was held in much esteem by the men of his day. 
He was a member of the Leopoldine Academy, under the name of 
‘Hercules, and also a Fellow of the Royal Society of Berlin and many 


other learned societies, He was first physician to the Duke of Saxe 
Weimar, and also to the Elector of Mayence; and in 1694 he was 
created a count-palatine, and made an imperial counsellor. He was 
married for the third time in his sixty-third year, and had several 
children by this marriage. He died suddenly from disease of the 
heart, in the seventy-seventh year of his age. Although a voluminous 
writer, he was not in advance of his age in scientific acquirements, 
It is not therefore a matter of surprise that he was a believer in 
astrology, an art which he pursued with much zeal. 

The following are some of Wedel’s numerous works:—‘ Opiologia,’ 
Jena, 4to, 1674; ‘ Exercitationes Pathologice,’ Jena, 4to, 1665; ‘De 
Medicamentorum Facultatibus cognoscendis et applicandis Libri Duo,’ 
Jena, 4to, 1678. This work has been translated into English. ‘De 
Medicamentorum Compositione extemporanea ad usum hodiernum 
accommodata,’ Jena, 4to, 1678. 

Wedel had several sons, who were distinguished men in the medical 
profession. Ernxst W2DEL was born in 1671, and died in 1709. He 
followed in the footsteps of his father, He published a work on the 


diseases of orators, ‘De Morbis Concionatorum,’ which went through — 


two editions. JoHANN ADOLFH WerprL was the successor of his 
father, and was born in 1695. He has also written a large number of 
works, the chief of them academical dissertations, Lond 

WEDGWOOD, JOSIAH, was born on the 12th of July 1730, at 
Burslem, in Staffordshire, where his father, Thomas Wedgwood, and 
some other members of his family, were engaged in the manufacture 
of pottery; a branch of industry then in so very imperfect a state 
that, independent of the supply of porcelain from China for the use of 
the higher classes, England imported large quantities of porcelain and 
various kinds of earthenware from France, Holland, and Germany, 
for domestic use. His education was very limited ; and the low social 
position of the class from which he sprung is implied, rather than 
distinctly expressed, by the local historian, Simeon Shaw, who remarks — 
that “scarcely any person in Burslem learned more than mere 


and writing until about 1750, when some individuals endowed the _ 


free-school for instructing youth to read the Bible, write a fair hand, 
and know the primary rules of arithmetic.” The little opportunity 
that Wedgwood had for self-improvement is further indicated by the 
circumstance stated by Shaw, that at the age of eleven years Josiah 
worked in his elder brother’s pottery as a thrower, his father being 
already dead. The small-pox, which left an incurable lameness in his 
right leg, so as afterwards to require amputation, compelled him to 
relinquish the potter's wheel. After a time he left Burslem, and 
entered into partnership with a person named Harrison, at Stoke; and 


during this partnership, which was soon dissolved, his talent forthe — 


production of ornamental pottery is said to have first developed itself. 
He then became connected with a person named Wheildon, with whom 


he manufactured knife-handles in imitation of agate and tortoiseshell, 


melon table-plates, green pickle leaves, and similar articles. Wheildon 
however was deriving considerable profit from other departments of 


the pottery business, and was unwilling to embark in the new branches ~ 


for which Wedgwood had so greata predilection. Wedgwood therefore 
returned to Burslem in 1759, and set up for himself, ina small thatched — 
manufactory, where he continued to make such ornamental articles as 
are mentioned above. His business being prosperous, he soon took a 
second manufactory, where he made white stone-ware, and a third, at 
which was produced the improved cream-coloured ware by which he 
gained so much celebrity. Of the new cream-coloured ware, Wedgwood 
presented some articles to Queen Charlotte, who thereupon ordered a 
complete table service, and was so pleased with its execution as toappoint © 
himher potter. Wedgwood opened a warehouse in the metropolis, at 


which the productions of his ingenuity might be freely inspected, andin — 


his partner, Mr, Bentley, who managed the London business, he found 


a valuable coadjutor, whose extensive knowledge in many departments _ 


of literature and science, and acquaintance with many eminent patrons — 
of art, greatly assisted him in the higher branches of his manufacture, — 
and especially in obtaining the loan of specimens of sculpture, vases, 
cameos, intaglios, medallions, and seals, suitable for imitation by some 


of the processes he had introduced. Some persons intrusted to him — 


valuable sets of oriental porcelain for the like purpose; and Sir William 
Hamilton lent specimens of ancient art from Hereulaneum, of which 
Wedgwood’s ingenious workmen produced the most accurate and 
beautiful copies. While Wedgwood was prosecuting these branches 
of his art, the Portland or Barberini Vase was offered for sale, and, 


considering that many persons to whom the original was unattainable 
might be willing to pay a handsome price for a good imitation of it 
he endeavoured to purchase it, and for some time continued to offer 
an advance upon each bidding of the Duchess of Portland, untilat 
length, his motive being ascertained, he was offered the loan of the — 

vase on condition of withdrawing his opposition, and consequently the 
duchess became the purchaser, at the price of eighteen hundred 
guineas, Shaw states that Wedgwood sold the fifty copies which he 
subsequently executed at fifty guineas each, but that his expenditure 
in producing them is said to have. exceeded the amount of the sum 
thus obtained. According to Allan Cunningham’s ‘ Lives of the most — 


eminent British Painters, Sculptors, aud Architects’ (vol. iii, p. 286), 


Flaxman was one of the artists employed by Wedgwood in the pre- ss 


paration of models for the beautiful works of art which he was the 
first, in modern times, to execute in pottery, By numerous experi 


tat WEENINX, JAN BAPTIST. 


WEINBRENNER, FRIEDRICH. 


652 


ments upon various kinds of clay and colouring substances, he suc- 
ceeded in producing the most delicate cameos, medallions, and minia- 
ture pieces of sculpture, in a substance so extremely hard, and so well 
adapted to resist all ordinary causes of destruction or injury, that they 
appear likely to exceed even the bronzes of antiquity in durability. 
Another important discovery made by him was that of painting on 
vases and similar articles, without the glossy appearance of ordinary 
painting on porcelain or earthenware ;-an art which was practised by 
the ancient Etruscans, but which appears to have been lost since the 
time of Pliny. The indestructibility of some of his wares rendered 
them extremely valuable for the formation of chemical vessels, par- 
ticularly those exposed to the action of acids. The fame of his opera- 
tions was such that his works at Burslem, and subsequently at Etruria, 
a village erected by him near Newcastle-under-Lyme, and to which he 
entirely removed in 1771, became a ‘point of attraction to numerous 
visitors from all parts of Europe. 

The result of Wedgwood’s talent and energy not only obtained for 
him extensive patronage and an ample fortune, but were also of the 
highest importance to the commercial interests of the country, Almon 
observes that his new wares, his improved forms and chaste style of 
decoration, and the judgment displayed in all his productions, which 
' were chiefly executed by artists of his own forming, turned the current 
in this branch of commerce, while the national taste was improved, 
- aud its reputation raised in foreign countries. In evidence before a 
committee of the House of Commons, in 1785, Wedgwood stated that 
“from 15,000 to 20,000 persons were then employed in the district 
called the Potteries, and much greater numbers in digging coals for 

them, and in various and distant parts of England, and even Ireland, 
in raising and preparing flints and clay for the earthenware manu- 
facture ; 50,000 or 60,000 tons of those materials being annually con- 
veyed to Staffordshire by coasting and inland navigation. The im- 
portance of the manufacture which he had so materially assisted in 
raising to this prosperous state is further illustrated by the statement 
that although many of the states of Europe had prohibited the admis- 
sion of British earthenware, and others had loaded it with intolerable 
duties, five-sixths of the quantity made were exported. Wedgwood’s 
success also led to the establishment of improved potteries in various 
parts of the continent of Europe, as well as in several places in Great 
Britain and Ireland. 

In addition to the attention bestowed. by Wedgwood upon the 
manufacture with which he has inseparably connected his name, he 
deserves remembrance for the public spirit displayed by him in the 
encouragement of various useful schemes. By his exertions and the 
engineering skill of Brindley a navigable communication between the 
eastern and western coast of the island was completed, by the forma- 
tion of the Trent and Mersey Canal, for which he cut the first clod on 
the 17th of July 1766, and which was completed in 1770. By means 
of this undertaking water-communication was established between the 
pottery district of Staffordshire and the shores of Devonshire, Dorset- 
shire, and Kent, whence some of the materials of the manufacture 
are derived; while the greatest facilities were afforded for the ex- 
portation of the finished articles. Wedgwood also planned and carried 
into execution a turnpike-road, ten miles in length, through the Pot- 
teries. He was the founder and one of the principal leaders of the 
association called ‘ The General Chamber ofthe Manufacturers of Great 
Britain,’ instituted in consequence of Mr. Pitt’s propositions, in the 
year 1786, for adjusting the commercial intercourse between Great 
Britain and Ireland; an association by whose prompt and energetic 
interference most serious evils were averted from the manufacturing 
interests of this country, and whose proceedings upon.the subsequent 
occasion of a commercial treaty with France, published in the Appen- 
dix to Almon’s ‘Anecdotes,’ contain some curious information respect- 
ing British commerce and manufacturing industry. : ; 

Wedgwood was a fellow of both the Royal Society and the Society 
of Antiquaries, and contributed some papers to the ‘ Philosophical 
Transactions.’ In private character he is said to have been exemplary, 
and to have made the most liberal use of the ample means which his 
successful and honourable career placed at his disposal. He died at 
Etruria, where he had erected a handsome mansion, as well as manu- 
factories and residences for his workmen, on the 3rd of January 1795, 
in his sixty-fifth year. 

WEENINX, JAN BAPTIST, called ‘the Old, a distinguished 
Dutch painter, was the son of Jan Weeninx, an architect of Amster- 
dam, where he was born in 1621, but he lost his father when very 
young. He was first apprenticed by his mother to a bookseller, but 
he so perseveringly neglected everything except drawing, that his 
mother placed him first with a painter of the name of Jan Micker, and 
then with Abraham Bloemaart at Utrecht, with whom he soon made 
great progress; he studied afterwards two years with Nicolas Mojert, 
and acquired his style of execution perfectly. At the age of eighteen 
Weeninx married the daughter of the landscape-painter Giles Hon- 
dekoeter, the grandfather of Melchior Hondekoeter. Four years after 
his marriage he went alone to Rome, intending to remain only a 
short time there; but his own inclination, and the many orders he 
received from the cardinal Pamfili and others, prolonged his stay 
there to four years, when he was compelled by the importunities of 
his wife and friends to return to Holland. He died at Utrecht in 1660, 
aged only thirty-nine. Weeninx excelled in almost every department 


of painting,—in history, portrait, animal, landseape, and marine paint- 
ing. He painted in large and in small, and was remarkably rapid in 
his execution. In a single summer’s day he painted three half-length 
portraits of the size of life, with accessories. Some of his small 
pictures are very highly finished, but his large works have more merit. 
He was one of the best painters of birds of the Dutch school. Hou- 
braken mentions as an historical piece of great merit by Weeninx, the 
Prodigal Son, commonly called "T' Pissend Jongetje: it has been 
engraved in mezzotint by N. Verkolje. There is a clever etching of 
Weeninx in Houbraken’s work, after a portrait by Bart. vander Helst. 

WEENINX, JAN, called ‘the Young,’ was the son and pupil of 
Jan Baptist Weeninx, and painted in the same style and the same 
subjects as his father, whom however he excelled in hunting and 
sporting pieces, and also surpassed in colouring. He was born at 
Amsterdam in 1644, and after spending some years in the service of 
the elector John William of the Pfalz, he returned to his native place, 
and died there in 1719. Jan Weeninx finished all his works with 
great care. There are many excellent large pictures by him of birds 
and hunting-scenes in the gallery at Schleissheim near Munich. 

WEIDLER, JOHANN FRIEDRICH, was born at Gros-Neuhausen 
in Thuringia, April 23, 1691, and died at Wittenberg, November 30, 
1755. Hesucceeded Wolff in the chair of mathematics at the latter 
place in 1721. He wrote a large number of works, of some of which 
the bare mention will be sufficient: as, ‘Institutiones Mathematics,’ 
Wittenberg, 2 vols. 8vo, 1718, reprinted five times at least; ‘De 
Characteribus Numerorum Vulgaribus,’ Wittenberg, 4to, 1727 (this is 
by J. F. and George Immanuel Weidler); ‘ Tractatus de Machinis 
Hydraulicis,’ Wittenberg, 4to, 1728 and 1733; ‘Institutiones Geo- 
metrize Subterranez, Wittenberg, 1751 (2nd ed.); ‘Institutiones 
Astronomie,’ Wittenberg, 4to, 1754. 

The memory of Weidler is now preserved by two useful works, the 
‘Historia Astronomia,’ Wittenberg, 4to, 1741, and the ‘ Bibliographia 
Astronomica,’ Wittenberg, 4to, 1755, of which the latter also contains 
supplements to the former. The history of astronomy was, at the 
time it was published, the most regular, most learned, and most accu- 
rate history of a single science which had ever been published ; it is 
to this day a very convenient book of reference, and the more so as it 
rather should be called the annals of astronomers than the history of 
astronomy. The second work was taken entire by Lalande into his 
‘Bibliographie Astronomique,’ by which work it is therefore sup- 
planted, except for the supplements. 

WEINBRENNER, FRIEDRICH, one of the most eminent German 
architects of his time, was born November 9th, 1766, at Carlsruhe, 
where his father was a carpenter and builder. Losing his father 
before his future destination was fixed, his studies were rather irregu- 
lar, he being directed only by the advice of his brother, who was some 
years older than himself. Having obtained from him sufficient insight 
into matters of practical routine, Weinbrenner commenced his artistical 
*Wanderjahre’ in the spring of 1788, and set out for Ziirich, where he 
remained a considerable time, in consequence of being engaged to 
superintend some timber constructions. He then went on, as soon as 
his engagements would permit, to Vienna, and after examining the 
architectural monuments of that capital, he proceeded to Dresden and 
Berlin, where he became acquainted with the brothers Genelli, archi- 
tects of considerable repute, who urged him to visit Italy, and he 
accordingly set out for Rome in June 1792, in company with Carstens 
[Carsruns, Asmus JAcoB], and another young artist named Cabot. 

At Rome, Weinbrenner soon became conscious that, in order to 
prove a profitable one, the study he had imposed upon himself required 
system and perseverance, and also more historical and antiquarian 
knowledge than he then possessed. The time that was not occupied 
in examining and drawing buildings was devoted to literary research 
and books; yet not entirely, for the state of his finances compelled 
him to earn something to provide for his immediate wants, which he 
did by giving instruction in architecture. Many strangers of distinc- 
tion then at Rome took lessons of him, and, among the rest, Prince 
Augustus of England (the late Duke of Sussex), Weinbrenner re- 
mained at Rome till 1797, with the exception of a considerable interval 
spent by him at Naples. On returning to Carlsruhe, he found a very 
promising opéning for his talents. Besides being almost immediately 
appointed ‘ Bau-inspector,’ he had early opportunities of displaying 
his professional ability in the erection of the new synagogue and one 
or two private mansions. Notwithstanding this favourable commence- 
ment, he gave up his appointment two years afterwards, and went to 
settle at Strasbourg, where his wife’s relations (Margaretha Arnold, 
whom he had shortly before married) resided, and were many of them 
artists. The change however proved an imprudent one; Strasbourg 
became menaced by hostilities, and he found himself without other 
occupation or resource than teaching a few pupils, At this juncture 
he was invited by the Hanoverian government, through the recom- 
mendation of Prince Augustus, to inspect and improve the prisons of 
that country, but being invited to resume his former appointment at 
Carlsruhe, though the immediate emoluments were inconsiderable— 
not above a quarter of what he would have had at Hanover—he resolved 
to accept it, as there seemed to be upon the whole a fairer prospect of 
his signalising himself in his profession. Nor had he reason afterwards 
to repent of the choice he made, for from that period he was constantly 
employed on various improvements and embellishments in the capital 


533 WEISS, CHRISTIAN SAMUEL. 


WEISSE, CHRISTIAN FELIX. 594 


of Baden and other parts of its territory. At Carlsruhe alone he 
erected many buildings, among others the Roman Catholic church, 
the Lutheran church, theatre, Ettlinger gate, Standeshaus, museum, 
mint, Hochberg palace; and at Baden the ‘ Conversations-haus’ or 
assembly-rooms, baths, and ‘ Antiquitiiten-halle,’ or museum, &c., be- 
sides the Leopold summer palace, and various private houses and 
smaller buildings. Of churches, mansions, villas, &c. erected or 
designed by him in other places within the territory of Baden, the 
number is very considerable; and there are several by him in other 
parts of Germany—Leipzig, Strasbourg, Géttingen, and Diisseldorf. 
Being so numerous, his works display various degrees of merit 
according to the respective opportunities afforded him; but taken 
collectively they manifest a great improvement in style, with individu- 
ality of character, and fresh and clever combinations, instead of the 
mere routine of design. He applied himself to his art with higher 
views of it than were then entertained among his countrymen, and 
diffused a similar feeling for it through the next generation of the 
profession, having reared up to it a great number of those who now 
rank high among the living architects of Germany. Nor was his 
instruction confined to them exclusively, for he published a variety of 
treatises on different branches of architectural study, namely, two on 
the orders of architecture, ‘ Zeichnungslehre,’ 1810; ‘ Optik,’ 1811 ; 
* Perspectivlehre,’ 1817-24; ‘ Ueber Form und Schénheit,’ 1819; 
‘Ueber Architektonische Verzierungen,’ 1820, &c., besides a work on 
theatres, and a variety of papers on architectural and artistical topics 
in the ‘Morgenblatt’ and other literary journals. Though varied, 
his application to his professional pursuits and studies continued 
uninterrupted almost to the very last; for although his health had 
begun to be impaired some time before, he was taken off somewhat 
suddenly, March Ist, 1826, after enjoying the society of some friends 
on the preceding evening. 

(Friedrich Weinbrenner, von Aloys Schreiber.) 

* WEISS, CHRISTIAN SAMUEL, was born at Leipzig, on February 
26, 1780. After receiving a careful education in the classical schools 
and the University of Leipzig, he proveeded to the School of Mines at 
Freiberg, where he became one of Werner's most distinguished scholars. 
He then travelled, visiting the voleanic districts of the south of France, 
and in Paris attended the lectures of Haiiy. On his return, he passed 
his examination, and in 1808 was made professor of physics in the 
University of Leipzig. In 1811 he removed to that of Berlin as pro- 
fessor of mineralogy, and he is also director of the mineral collec- 
tion in that city, and a member of the Academy of Sciences. In 
1813 he published an essay, ¢ Uber die natiirlichen Abtheilungen der 
Krystallisations systeme’ (on the Natural Divisions of the system of 
Crystallisation), a system which met with general approbation, and 
contributed much to the present state of the science. In this, though 
he takes the form as the basis of his classification, he by no means 
rejects the results of chemical investigation. His mineral system is 
also a natural one, attending chiefly to the determination of species. 
Besides educating a number of excellent mineralogists, he wrote several 
essays in the publication of the Natural Philosophy Society at Berlin, 
but, we believe, has written no other work than the one mentioned. 

WEISSE, CHRISTIAN FELIX, was born on the 8th of February 
(28th of January, Old Style), 1726, at Annaberg, in the present king- 
dom of Saxony. His father, Christian Heinrich Weisse, head master 
of the public grammar-school at Annaberg, and from 1727 director of 
the gymnasium at Altenburg, was a distinguished scholar, whose 
works, ‘De Stylo Romano,’ and ‘ Latium in Compendio,’ were much 
esteemed in their time. Young Weisse lost his father at an early age. 
After having finished his preparatory studies in the gymnasium at 
Altenburg, he went to the university of Leipzig in 1745, where he 
studied the classical languages and antiquities under Ernesti. At 
Leipzig he became acquainted with Lessing, who directed his attention 
to the modern languages, especially to English, and encouraged him to 
cultivate his poetical talents. Weisse however did not respond to the 
expectations of Lessing. His favourite passion was the drama, which 
in Germany at that time was little better than a stiff imitation of the 
French school, and the French taste was so prevalent that Weisse was 
unable to contend against its influence, as we see from the many 
tedious tragedies which he wrote during the period from 1751, in 
which year he published his first dramatical essay, ‘Die Matrone von 
Ephesus,’ till 1767. In this year he published ‘ Die Befreiung von 
Theben’ (The Delivery of Thebes), which was his first drama written 
in blank verse. He had previously used the Alexandrines, in which 
the German dramas were generally written, and when he abandoned 
this verse at the suggestion of Lessing, and adopted the blank verse of 
the English drama, or even prose, he fell into great extravagances, 
and showed that he was anything but a tragic writer. Of this his 
‘Romeo und Julie,’ in which he fancied he could improve on Shak- 
spere by strictly following the novel of Bandello, is a sufficient sample. 
In his‘ Richard IIL’ he showed that he was thoroughly unable to 
conceive any great passion: for every passion he had one mould, such 
as the character of Nero, of Alexander, of Medea, ‘ Richard IIL’ 
however has two great merits: it was the last tragedy in the French 
taste which appeared on the German stage, and it occasioned Lessing 
to write his excellent observations on Aristotle's theory of the drama 
and on Shakspere. 

The severe criticism of Lessing and the consciousness of his own 


weakness led Weisse to abandon tragedy, and to write comedies, 
vaudevilles, and operas, in which he had much more success. His 
best comedy, according to Lessing, is ‘Amalia,’ in five acts. His 
vaudevilles and operas were set to music by Wolff, Hiller, and other 
eminent composers, and his little arias became national songs. He 
supplied many of the theatres, and the splendour of the court of the 
kings of Poland and electors of Saxony at Dresden gave him opportu. 
nities for the exercise of his talents. The remunerations for his pro- 
ductions, and the high appointments which he received, as chief 
receiver of the taxes at Leipzig, an office which he held till his death, 
put him not only above want, but procured for him all the means of 
leading a comfortable life. In 1760 he became editor of the ‘ Bib- 
liothek der Schénen Wissenschaften und freien Kiinste,’ a periodical 
which was then much esteemed in Germany. 

The appearance of Wieland, Géthe, Schiller, and so many other 
eminent men during the latter part of the 18th century, induced 
Weisse, who was unable to become their rival, to change his subject. 
He now wrote for children. Weisse and Basedow became the founders 
of a new system of education in Germany ; and while Basedow’s views 
principally concerned the intellectual education in schools, Weisse 
directed his literary activity towards domestic education. His ‘A, B, 
C, und Lesebuch fiir kleine Kinder,’ Leipzig, 8vo, 1772, ran through 
six editions, and was the best spelling-book hitherto published in 
Germany. He also published ‘Kleine Lieder fiir Kinder,’ and trans- 
lated several little English works for children, as well as various 
articles of the ‘Spectator’ on the same subject. He also published 
‘ Wochenblatt fiir Kinder,’ which, in 1775, he changed into a quarterly 
journal called ‘Der Kinder-Freund’ (The Children’s Friend), This 
celebrated work treats on the domestic education of children in a 
history of a family, from their birth to the time when they leave the 
paternal roof, the daughters to be married and the sons to follow some 
occupation. The life of this family, the earlier amusements of the 
children, their education, the various branches of their instruction, and 
their amusements, are described: a great number of tales are intro- 
duced, which they are supposed to tell to one another; and several 
little comedies, which the members of the family perform for the 
entertainment of their friends. From 1775 to 1782 the * Kinder- 
Freund’ went through five editions, among which two dre in twenty- 
four volumes, and three in twelve. The ‘Kinder-Freund’ was con- 
tinued in the ‘ Briefwechsel der Familie des Kinderfreundes,’ Leipzig, 
12 vols. 8vo, 1783-93, which gives the history of the family during the 
first years after the children had left their home. Berquin’s cele- 
brated ‘L’Ami des Enfans’ is an imitation of the ‘ Kinder-Freund,’ 
and in many parts a translation. There is scarcely a European lan- 
guage into which some of Weisse’s works for children have not been 
translated either entirely or in extracts or abridgments. Weisse’s 
literary activity was immense, and lasted till his death, although by a 
fall from a ladder in his library, in 1792, he almost lost the use of his 
hand, and was obliged to dictate. He published many translations 


from the English, especially works for the use of children and young J ; 


persons of both sexes, such as the works or part of the works of 
Richardson, Law, Moore (the Fables), James Fordyce, Brooke, Sterne, 
Franklin, some of the poems of Ossian, several odes of Dryden, Pope, 
Congreve, and many other works. The reputation of Weisse from the 
time that he began to write for children was very great. Howeyer in 
all his works on education there are indications that the author's, 
system was rathey artificial, and more adapted to the drilling of 
children than the formation of character. Of late he has often been 
severely criticised, but his contemporaries held him in high esteem, 

Weisse died on the 16th of December 1804. His principal works are: 
—‘ Beitrage zum Deutschen Theater,’ 5 vols. 8vo; 2, ‘ Trauerspiele, 
Leipzig, 5 vols. 8vo, 1776-80. Several of his tragedies were published 
separately; 3, ‘Lustspiele, 3 vols., 2nd edit., 1783; 4, ‘ Komische 
Opern,’ 3 vols., 1777. These operettes and vaudevilles, with the music 
of Hiller, are published separately, as the ‘ Dorfbarbier,’ Leipzig, fol. 
1771; 5, ‘Kleine Lyrische Gedichte,’ Leipzig, sm. 8vo, 1772: the songs 
for children are contained in the third volume; 6, ‘ Lieder fiir Kinder, 
mit Melodien in Musik gesetzt von J. A. Hiller;’ 7, ‘Schauspiele fiir 
Kinder,’ Leipzig, 3 vols. 8vo, 1792, is a collection of the dramas for 
children contained in the ‘ Kinder-Freund;’ 8, ‘ Lieder und Fabeln 
fiir Kinder und junge Leute,’ edited by Frisch, Leipzig, 1807 ; 9, ‘ Bib- 
liothek der Schénen Wissenschaften und freien Kiinste,’ Leipzig, 12 
vols, 8vo, each containing 2 parts, 1760-65. This work is important 
for the literary history and the biography of the scholars and writers 
of Germany who lived in the 18th century. A catalogue of the bio- 
gaphies and articles contained therein was published at Leipzig in 1767. 
Weisse, as already observed, was the editor of this work from 1760: 
his editorship began with the fifth volume. The number of his own 
contributions is very great; his criticism of Wieland’s translation of 
Shakspere is remarkable. The work was continued under the title, 
‘Neue Bibliothek der Schénen Wissenschaften und freien Kiinste,’ 72 
vols., Leipzig, 1765-1806; the latter part of which was edited by 
Weisse and Dyk, who, after the death of Weisse, was the sole editor, 
The ‘ Bibliothek der redenden und bildenden Kiinste’ is a continua- 
tion of the ‘ Neue Bibliothek, &c. 

A complete catalogue of Weisse’s works and other literary produc- 
tions is given by Joérdens. In 1826 a school for poor children was 
founded by subscription at Annaberg, the birthplace of Weisse, which 


585 WELCKER, FRIEDRICH GOTTLIEB. 


WELLESLEY, MARQUIS. 586 


received the name of Weissens-Stiftung’ (Weisse’s Institute). Weisse 
was married to a sister of the celebrated philosopher Platner. 
Curistran Ernst Weissn, a son of Christian Felix, born 1766, 
became professor of feudal law, and afterwards of criminal law, at 
Leipzig. He died in 1832. He was a distinguished jurisconsult of 
the old historical school, but he was unable to keep pace with the 
ideas of the 19th century. His principal works are :—1, ‘ Geschichte 
der Kur-Siichsischen Staaten,’ 4 vols. 8vo, Leipzig, 1802-6, the conti- 
nuation of whichis, 2, ‘ Neueste Geschichte des Kénigreichs Sachsen 
seit dem Prager Frieden bis auf unsere Zeiten,’ 3 vols. 8vo, Leipzig, 
1808-12, This is a good work, but written in a very dry style, and 
often overcharged with details, which however make it very useful for 
those who are investigating some parts of the history of Saxony. 3, 
‘Museum fiir Siichsische Geschichte, Literatur, und Staats-Kunde,’ 3 
vols. 8vo, Leipzig, 1794-96: the continuation of this work is, 4, 
*Neues Museum fiir Siichsische Geschichte, &c., 4 vols. 8vo, Freiberg, 
1800-4, an excellent collection of documents and other materials for 
the history of Saxony. 5, ‘Lehrbuch des Siichsischen Staatsrechts,’ 
2 vols. 8vo, Leipzig, 1824-27: this compendium is still considered the 
best work on the constitution and the public law of Saxony, and con- 
tinues a standard work even since the constitutional changes of 1831. 
Curistian HeErMANN WeIssE, a son of Christian Ernst Weisse, 
born in 1801, and professor of philosophy at Leipzig, obtained a dis- 


. tinguished rank among German philosophers by the publication of his 


work ‘System der Aesthetik als Wissenschaft von der Idee der Schon- 
heit,’ 2 vols. 8vo, Leipzig, 1830. 

*WELCKER, FRIEDRICH GOTTLIEB, a celebrated classical 
‘archeologist, was born on November 4, 1784, at Griinberg, in the 
Grand Duchy of Hesse. After receiving an academical education at 
Giessen, he visited Rome in 1806, where a residence of two years, and 
an acquaintanceship with the archeologist Zoega, fixed his future 
pursuits. While in Rome he wrote an essay ‘Uber die Hermaphro- 
diten der alten Kunst,’ which was printed in the Heidelberg ‘ Studien.’ 
In 1809, after his return to Germany, he was created professor extra- 
oadinary of archeology and Greek literature in the University of 
Giessen, and in 1811 contributed materially to Zoega’s ‘ Basreliefen 
Roms.’ In 1816 he removed to Gottingen as professor of the univer- 
sity there, and in 1819 he was created professor of philology and 
head librarian in the newly instituted university of Bonn to the ad- 
vancement of which he has earnestly and successfully contributed. 
In 1826 however, and again in 1882 his political writings brought him 
into suspicion, and he was tried for sedition and in both cases was 
acquitted. Besides his political essays his writings have been very 
numerous, Among them we may mention ‘Zoega’s Leben, Sammlung 
seiner Briefe und Beurtheilung seiner Werke (The Life of Zoega, with 
a collection of his Letters, and a Criticism on his Works), 1810; the 
‘Komédien of Aristophanes,’ 1810-11, a translation remarkable for its 
closeness of the Frogs and the Clouds, which has unfortunately been 
carried no farther. ‘Fragmentis Alemanis lyrici,’ 1815; ‘ Hipponactis 
et Ananii iambographorum fragmentum,’ 1817; ‘ Philostratorum 
imagines et Callistrati statue,’ 1825, in conjunction with Jacobi, and 
‘ Theognidis reliquiz,’ 1826, all of which were favourably received by 
the learned world; ‘Uber eine Kretische Colonie in Theben, die 
Géttin Europa und Kadmos’ (On a Cretan colony in Thebes, the 
Goddess Europa and Cadmus), 1824; ‘Die Aeschyleische Trilogie 
Prometheus und die Kabirenweihe zu Lemnos’ (The Promethean 
Trilogy of Aischylus and the Consecration of the Cabiri at Lemnos), 
1824: An attempted contradiction to his theory by G. Hermann gave 
occasion to ‘ Nachtrag nebst einer Abhandlung iiber das Satyrspiel’ 
(A Supplement, together with a dissertation on the Satyric Drama), 
1826 ; ‘ Der epische Cyclus, oder die Homerischen Dichter ’ (The epic 
Cyclus, or the Homeric Poets), 1834; ‘Die griechischen Tragddie 
mit Riicksicht auf den epischen Cyclus’ (The Greek Tragedy in rela- 
tion to the epic Cyclus), 1839. ‘Kleine Schriften zur griechischer 
Literaturgeschichte’ (Minor Writings on Grecian Literary History), 
1844-45 ; and ‘Alte Denkmiler.” in 5 vols., 1849-51. From 1834 in 
conjunction with Nike, and since 1842 with Ritschl, he has conducted 
the ‘Rheinische Museum fiir Philologie,’ to which he has contributed 
richly, partly from the treasures of the art-museum at Bonn, which 
through his efforts has been greatly increased, and the collection therein 
made of great importance. This collection he has deseribed in the 
*Neuester Zuwachs des akademischen kunstmuseums in Bonn,’ 

* Karu THropoR WELCKER, his brother, was born at Wilden in 
Upper Hesse, on March 29, 1790, and has throughout his life led an 
active political life, His political writings have been numerous and 
effective, but having taken a liberal course he has been subjected to 
seyeral legal trials, in all of which he has been acquitted. Although suf- 
ficiently energetic he has ever kept within the bounds of the law, and 
as his integrity and patriotism have been generally acknowledged, his 
liberal opinions did not prevent him from attaining the rank of a 
counsellor of state of Baden. He took an active part in the National 
Assembly in 1848, but withdrew from it, and from political affairs 
generally, in 1849. Ia 1850, however, he was again elected a member 
of the Baden Lower Chamber. 

WELDON, JOHN, one of our most eminent composers of cathedral 
music, was born at Chichester, and studied his art under the famous 
Henry Purcell. At an early age he became organist of New College, 
Oxford ; in 1701 was appointed gentleman-extraordinary of the chapel- 


royal; in 1708 succeeded Dr. Blow as organist thereof; and seven 
years after, when a second composer was added to the court establish- 
ment, he was chosen to fill that situation which then was an active 
and responsible one. He was a remarkable pluralist, for, while holding 
all these offices, he was also organist of St. Bride’s; and George L, 
having presented the parish of St. Martin-in-the-Fields with an organ, 
Mr, Weldon, perhaps in compliment to the king, says Sir John 
Hawkins, was elected organist. “The reason that moved the king to 
this act of munificence was (the same historian conjectures) a singular 
one. The parish had chosen his majesty their churchwarden, and he 
executed the office for two months; but at the end thereof he grew 
tired of it, as well he might, and presented the parish with that noble 
instrument which is now in the church.” (‘ Hist.,’ v. 60.) 

Weldon’s compositions were chiefly for the church; but he assisted 
in setting Congreve’s masque, ‘The Judgment of Paris, to music, in 
which is the air ‘Let ambition fire thy mind,’ a lovely melody, and 
still fresh, This was introduced by Arne in ‘ Love in a Village,’ and 
is yet known to all as ‘Hope, thou nurse of young desire.’ Some of 
his songs are to be found in the ‘ Mercurius Musicus,’ and in other 
collections now become rare. Among the number is ‘From grave 
lessons and restraint,’ a very popular air, and as such remembered in 
Hawkins’s time, who has given it in his fifth volume. 

The fame of this composer is mainly built on his anthems ‘In 
Thee, O Lord,’ and ‘Hear my crying, of which Hawkins justly 
observes, “itis difficult to say whether the melody or the harmony of 
each be its greatest excellence,” Dr. Burney speaks slightingly of 
Weldon’s powers; and it is probable that on this subject he was 
either prejudiced, or imperfectly acquainted with the works he 
criticised. Weldon died in 1736, and was succeeded in the chapel- 
royal by Dr. Boyce. 

WELLESLEY, RICHARD COLLEY, MARQUIS WELLESLEY, 
was the eldest child of Garrett, first Earl of Mornington, and of Anne, 
Countess of Mornington, who was daughter of Arthur, first Viscount 
Dungannon. He was born in Grafton-street, Dublin, on the 20th of 
June 1760. The Earl of Mornington died in 1781, before his son 
came of age; the countess survived till 1831. 

The Earl of Mornington, a man of considerable general abilities, 
and who is well remembered as a musical composer, paid great atten- 
tion to the education of his family. The future Marquis Wellesley 
was sent at an early age to Eton College, whither he was in due time 
followed by his brothers—the future Lord Maryborough, Arthur 
Wellesley, afterwards Duke of Wellington, Lord Cowley, and the Rev. 
Gerard Wellesley. All the brothers occupied a respectable place 
among their schoolmates, but the eldest surpassed them, and even 
stood high for classical attainments among the great body of his con- 
temporaries, both at Eton and the university. 

The first act of the young Lord Mornington, on attaining his majo- 
rity, was to assume the numerous pecuniary obligations of his father, 
and place his estate under the management of hismother. Encouraged 
by the reputation he had acquired with his teachers and schoolfellows, 
he selected political pursuits as the means of starting him in a career 
that might re-establish the shattered fortunes of the family. With 
this view he took his seat in the Irish House of Lords as soon as he 
had come of age, and continued a member of that body till the Union. 
This proved however too narrow a theatre for his abilities or his ambi- 
tion. He kept up the English connections which he had formed 
during the time of his education, and having been returned a member 
of the British House of Commons by the borough of Beeralston, 
became a frequent visitor in London. 

The first opportunity he had of attracting substantial notice occurred 
during the regency debates of 1789. The British Houses of Parlia- 
ment, on the illness of George III., proposed that the Prince of Wales 
should assume the office of regent subject to certain conditions or 
restrictions. The Irish Legislature proposed that his powers should 
be unrestricted. .The Earl of Mornington strenuously supported 
restrictions in the Irish House of Lords, maintaining that the full 
powers of the crown should not be assumed by any one during 
what might prove but a temporary indisposition of the king. These 
views, which coincided exactly with those of George III., induced the 
king, whose attention, after his recovery, had been called to the mino- 
rities in the Irish Houses of Parliament, to take an interest in the 
young statesman who found the toils of one legislative body too little 
for his activity. At the next general election the Earl of Mornington 
was returned for the borough of Windsor, sworn in a member of the 
Irish privy council, and elected one of the knights of St. Patrick. 

He was soon after appointed one of the lords of the treasury, and 
in 1793 he was sworn in a member of the British privy council. He 
continued to make such steady progress in the favour of the king and 
the confidence of the minister, that he was nominated to succeed 
Lord Cornwallis in the government of British India. He was raised 
at this time to the British peerage by the title of Baron Mornington. 
The marquisate which he subsequently received was merely an Irish 
title. As a British peer he was never raised to a higher rank than 
that of baron. 

Lord Mornington was appointed Governor-general of India on the 
4th of October 1797; he reached the Ganges in May 1798, after touch- 
ing at the Cape of Good Hope and the Isle of France by the way, 
having some time before been preceded by his brother, Colonel Arthur 


587 WELLESLEY, MARQUIS. 


WELLESLEY, MARQUIS. 583 


Wellesley, who was to commence his brilliant career under his auspices. 
He retained the supreme command in India till August 1805, when 
he embarked to return to Europe. 

The governor-generalship of the Earl of Mornington, or, to use the 
title by which he is best known, and which was conferred upon him 
in December 1799, of the Marquis Wellesley, was an eventful one, 
The moment of his assuming the command appeared to be a critical 
time. Bonaparte had accomplished the conquest of Egypt, and was 
supposed to contemplate a blow at our Indian dominions. Tippoo 
Saib retained a resentful recollection of his losses, and was encouraged 
by French emissaries to attempt the recovery of the district of Coim- 
batore and the hill forts, which he had been obliged to surrender. 
The first step of the governor-general under these circumstances was 
to force the Nizam to disband his French troops; the next was to 
open negociations with Tippoo, in order to detach him from the 
French alliance. Failing in this, and having detected Tippoo’s nego- 
ciations with France, he prepared for war. Great exertions were made 
by the Indian government to organise the Native and improve the 
British troops. With his characteristic promptitude of decision, the 
governor-general resolved to strike home at once. Warlike operations 
commenced with the victory of Mallavelly, which displayed the high 
condition of the Anglo-Indian army. Following up this impression, 
General (afterwards Lord) Harris was ordered to invest Seringapatam, 
which, after a siege of a month, was taken by assault, and the Sultan 
slain. His territories were partitioned. The capital with the districts 
on the coast, including the fort of Mangalore, was retained for the 
East India Company; compensation was made to some native allies ; 
and the remainder of Tippoo’s territories, with the nominal sovereignty 
over the whole, was restored to the representative of the ancient 
Hindoo sovereigns, then a child five years of age. So complete was 
the effect of these victories and the subsequent arrangements in 
impressing the minds of the natives with a sense of the strength and 
resolute character of the Anglo-Indian government, that General 
Wellesley (in one of the despatches published by Colonel Gurwood) 
writes to his brother, that he “only waits to know what countries 
they are which the governor-general wishes to take possession of.” 

The next efforts of Lord Wellesley were directed to the extension 
of the commercial intercourse of India, and to the commencement of 
those important financial reforms which eventually raised the revenue 
of the Company from seven millions to upwards of fifteen millions 
annually, with advantage to commerce and without injustice to the 
inhabitants. His projected extension of the commerce of India was 
in part thwarted by the monopolist spirit which at that time prevailed 
among the directors of the East India Company. Nowise cooled in 
his zeal by this disappointment, he set himself to complete the internal 
organisation of the British empire in Asia, and to establish it on a 
broader basis. With this view he undertook a vice-regal progress 
through the northern provinces, visiting the native princes with a 
pomp equal to their own, redressing grievances, checking enemies, and 
conciliating friends. 

In 1801 he was again involved in warlike operations, He in that 
year despatched a considerable force up the Red Sea to assist in 
wresting Egypt from the power of France. He next turned the 
British arms against the Mahrattas, and, after a severe struggle, con- 
quered the whole country between the Jumna and the Ganges, and 
compelled Scindiah and the Rajah of Berar to make peace. Sir Arthur 
Wellesley’s victory of Assaye and the crowning battle of Lassawaree 
terminated a war directed with an energy and fertility of resources 
that gave good and true augury of the future career of the command- 
ing {officer on a more important and conspicuous field. » Without 
undervaluing the political wisdom of the Marquis Wellesley, it may 
safely be said that had he not possessed so able a general as his 
brother, the result of the war might have been less favourable; and 
that, had it been less favourable, his policy would have been judged of 
very differently from what it has been. 

After six or seven years of service in India, the Marquis Wellesley 
became desirous of returning to England. Such however was the 
estimation in which his services were held at home, that some years 
elapsed before he procured his recal, Even a change of ministry 
failed to obtain the release he solicited. At last he was allowed, in 
1805, to resign the government of India, and he embarked for Europe 
in the month of August. He was received with every demonstration 
of respect and approbation by the government and the East India 
Company. Complaints were indeed heard that his administration had 
been unwarrantably expensive, and that he had been guilty of oppres- 
sion towards the native powers, especially the Nabob of Oude. 
Articles of impeachment were presented against him (without effect) 
in the House of Commons by Mr. Paull. But the judgment of the 
. public then (and the time which has since elapsed, with all its gradual 

disclosures, has only confirmed that judgment) was, that without 
adopting all the exaggerated eulogies of the panegyrists of the Marquis 
Wellesley, his policy was, in the circumstances of our Eastern empire, 
the wisest and most just that could have been adopted. His govern- 
a marks the commencement of a better era of English rule in 

ndia, 

The Marquis Wellesley on his return from India again took part in 
the proceedings of parliament. He had no great sympathy with the 
opposition; that could-scarcely be expected from one who might 


almost be regarded as the personal friend of the king, Buthe was 
far from being a strenuous supporter of Mr. Perceval’s oot pares aa ' 
even, at a subsequent period, of Lord Liverpool’s. The Pitt party x, 

been disorganised by the death of Pitt at the time that Lord We Tord a 


returned from India, and it was not again consolidated until ny 
Liverpool was placed at the head of affairs. Besides, the Marquiss 
position as governor of a distinet empire, and his protracted absence 
from England, had impressed him with a feeling of personal con- 
sequence which ill qualified him to perform a subordinate part under 
any of the sectional leaders of the predominant party, and toa 
great extent emancipated his mind from the mere party conven- 
tionalities of this country. He in so far concurred with the general 
policy of administration that he was a zealous advocate of the war 
against Bonaparte, but bis mind was much too liberal to sympathise 
with narrow-minded and oppressive views in home polities; al ai 
bred under Mr. Pitt and matured in India, he cared little for the con- © 
stitutional views which were then popular. es 
In 1807 Lord Wellesley evaded the urgency of the king, who wished _ 
him to become a secretary of state in the Duke of Portland’s cabinet. 
In 1808 he rendered ministers efficient service by his vindication of 
the expedition to Copenhagen. He was soon afterwards appointed 
ambassador to Spain. A short residence in Spain convinced him that, 
if Bonaparte were to be driven out of the Peninsula, it must be by __ 
Britain ceasing to play the part of a mere auxiliary, and taking the 
lead in the war. On the death of the Duke of Portland he was 
recalled, and was with difficulty persuaded by the king to accept the ~ 
appointment of secretary of state for foreign affairs with Mr. Perceval. 
He held this office from December 1809, till January 1812, when he 
resigned on account of the difference of opinion existing between him — 
and his colleagues on different points, especially respecting the Roman  _ 
Catholic claims and the inefficient conduct of the war. ae 
After the assassination of Mr. Perceval, in May 1812, Lord Welles A 
undertook, at the request of the Prince Regent, to forma coalition —_ 
government. The distinction between the parties of that day was still —_ 
too strongly marked to admit of their being fused together, and their __ 
leaders were too wise or too honest for a coalition. In bytes 
Lord Wellesley saw that the undertaking was hopeless, and r ea 
his charge. On the 8th of June, Lord Liverpool announced in Pye — 
ment that he was at the head of the government. On the Ist of July 
Lord Wellesley brought forward a motion favourable to Roman — : 
Catholic claims in the House of Peers, similar to that which Mr. 
Canning had carried a few days earlier in the House of Commons. It 
was lost by only one vote, and that vote a proxy. He continued for - 
ten years from this time to offer a modified opposition to government. __ 
During the Peninsular war he had repeated occasions to attack 
ministers for their inadequate support of his brother. In 1815 he con- 
demned in unqualified terms the disregard to commercial interests that 
marked the treaties by which the peace of Europe was consolidated. _ 
In December 1821, he accepted the appointment of lord-lieutenant 
of Ireland, an office which he continued to hold till March 1828. The 
nomination of the Marquis Wellesley, a well-known advocate of the 
Roman Catholic claims, to this high office, raised on the one hand the 
expectations of the professors of that religion, and excited on the 
other great discontent among the Protestant ascendancy party. His 
arrival was the signal for an outburst of the fiercest party spirit. The 
Orangemen of Dublin insulted the lord-lieutenant in the theatre, and 
the southern counties became the scene of insurrectionary movements. — 
The viceroy commenced his administration with anattempttoadopth — 
a conciliatory policy, but the times did not admit of its being follo va 
up. It was deemed necessary to have recourse to an Insurrection Act 
and other coercive measures. Yet the personal character of the 
Marquis Wellesley continued to command respect; his np x 
and kindly disposition escaped imputation, The Earl of Liverpools __ 
retirement from public life had no effect upon the position of Lord 
Wellesley, for both Mr. Canning and Lord Goderich were favourable 
to the Roman Catholic claims. But when the Duke of Wellington 
came to assume the reins of government, the first declaration which 
he made upon the subject left the lord-lieutenant of Ireland no alter- 
native but to resign. 
On the formation of the Grey ministry the Marquis Wellesley 
accepted office under it. In 1831 he was appointed lord-steward. In 
September 1833 he resigned that office, and was once more appointed 
lord-lieutenant of Ireland. On Sir Robert Peel’s brief accession to 
office (1834-35), the Marquis Wellesley resigned, though urged by his 
brother to remain. He accepted the office of lord-chamberlain onthe _ 
formation of the second Melbourne ministry, in April 1835, buf 
resigned it in the course of the same year, and never afterwards filled 
any public employment, He died at his residence, Kingston-house, 
Brompton, on the morning of Monday, the 26th of September 1842, 
in the 83rd year of his 7 ; Pt 
The Marquis Wellesley was twice married. His first wife, Hyacinthe 
Gabrielle Roland, he married on the Ist of November 1794. They 
had had several children who died young, but none after marriage. 
They separated soon, and were not again reconciled. The first Lad 
Wellesley died in 1816. On the 29th of October 1825, at the advanced 
age of 65, the Marquis Wellesley again married. His second wife was 
an American lady, daughter of Mr. Richard Caton (granddaughter of 
the eminent revolutionary patriot Carroll of Carrollston), and widow 


x 
yore 
we 


* 


—— 


589 WELLINGTON, DUKE OF, 


WELLINGTON, DUKE OF, 590 


of Mr. Robert Patterson, By this lady, who survived him, he had no 


children. 

Lord Wellesley was a man of superior powers and of enlarged 
views. His administration in India was brilliant and productive of 
lasting good; though part of the credit must be attributed to the 
high cast of official talent developed in the East India Company’s 
service under the judicious arrangements of that body, and part to the 
efficient assistance he derived from his brother and the other generals 
in the field. The marquis was an elegant scholar, of a disposition too 
delicate to stand the ruder shocks of party warfare, His prosperous 
career of civil service was more flattering to his ambition than pro- 
ductive of emolument. His father’s debts were paid by him volun- 
tarily, but he was unable to preserve the family estates. In 1837 the 
directors of the East India Company passed a resolution to the effect 
that they had reason to believe the Marquis Wellesley was involved in 
pecuniary difficulties, and that therefore they deemed it their duty to 
offer him some further acknowledgment of his distinguished services. 
The resolution proceeded to state that, on the fall of Seringapatam, 
the sum of 100,000/, was set apart for the Marquis Wellesley—a grant 
which on his suggestion was abandoned to the army. It was after- 
wards determined to vote him an annuity of 50001, which had 


- ever since been paid; but the Court of Proprietors believed that the 


Marquis derived very little advantage from the grant, and under these 
circumstances it was resolved that the sum of 20,000/. be placed in 
the hands of trustees for his use and benefit. This grant his lordship 
accepted. ne 

Some Latin poems by the marquis were published early in life. In 
1805 a thin quarto was published in London, purporting to be a 
history, by the marquis, “of all the events and transactions which 
have taken place in India during his administration.” It is a mere 


‘translation from a French version of some of his intercepted des- 


patches, published at Paris. In 1836 Mr. Montgomery Martin pub- 
lished, in five volumes, 8vo, at the expense of the East India Company, 
‘ Despatches, Minutes, and Correspondence of the Marquis Wellesley, 
during his administration in India ;’ and in 1838, the same gentleman 
republished, in a thin 8vo volume, from Parliamentary papers, 
‘Despatches and Correspondence of the Marquis Wellesley, during 
his Mission to Spain.’ His lordship also published a number of occa- 
sional pamphlets :—‘ Substance of a Speech in the House of Commons 
on the Address in 1794;’ ‘ Notes relative to the Peace concluded with 
the Mahrattas ;’ ‘Letters to the Government of Fort George, relative 
to the new form of government established there;’ ‘ Letters to the 
Directors of the East India Company on the India Trade;’ &e. 

WELLINGTON, DUKE OF. Arthur Wellesley was born, as com- 
monly stated, on the 1st of May 1769, at Dangan Castle, in the county 
of Meath, Ireland ; but in the registry of St. Peter's Church, Dublin, 
it is recorded that “ Arthur, son of the Right Honourable Earl and 
Countess of Mornington,” was there christened by “ Isaac Maun, arch- 
deacon, on the 30th of April 1769.” It is probable therefore that he 
was born in March, at Mornington House, Dublin, the town residence 
of his parents. After the battle of Waterloo he kept his birthday on 
the 18th of June, the anniversary of that important victory. He was 
the third son of the first Earl of Mornington. [Mornineron, Ear or.] 
The family name was originally Wesley, derived from Garret Wesley, 
of Dangan Castle, and so continued till 1797, when the name was 
altered to Wellesley by the first Marquis Wellesley. Arthur Wellesley 
was educated at Eton College, whence he was transferred to private 
tuition at Brighton, and afterwards to the military academy at Angers 
in France. f 

On the 7th of March 1787, the Hon. Arthur Wellesley received his 
first commission as an ensign in the 73rd regiment of foot. He was 
gazetted under the name of Wesley, and the young officer is so desig- 
nated in contemporary descriptions of his early services. In December 
1787 he was promoted to the rank of lieutenant in the 76th foot, from 
which, in the following month, he exchanged into the 41st, and on the 
25th of June 1788 was appointed to the 12th Light Dragoons. On 
the 30th of June 1791 he became captain in the 58th Foot, and on the 
81st of October 1792, obtained in exchange a troop in the 18th Light 
Dragoons. Captain Wellesley was gazetted as major in the 33rd 
Foot, April 30, 1793, and in the following September obtained by 
purchase the rank of lieutenant-colonel of that regiment. Before he 
commenced his career of active service he was attached as aide-de- 
camp to the staff of the Earl of Westmoreland, then lord-lieutenant 


. of Ireland, and in 1790, having just come of age, he was returned as 


a member to the Irish parliament for the family borough of Trim, in 
the county of Meath. 

Lieutenant-Colonel Wellesley, in command of the 33rd regiment, 
sailed from Cork for Flanders, on his first active service, in May 1794, 
and landed at Ostend to join the British army under the Duke of 
York, then in the Netherlands. The advance of the French army 
under Pichegru obliged the British, after several engagements, to 
retire into. Holland, and take up a position on the right bank of the 
Waal. In January 1795 the retreat was continued by the town of 
Deventer, through Guelderland and Overyssel, to the river Ems, and 
thence to Bremen, where the army was re-embarked for England in 
the spring. During this arduous retreat through a frozen and cheer- 
less country, in the middle of a winter remarkably severe; Lieutenant- 
Colonel Wellesley commanded a brigade in the rear-guard, and his 


able dispositions in checking or assaulting the enemy are specially 
noticed in contemporary accounts of the events. 

In the autumn of 1795 the 33rd regiment embarked for the West 
Indies; but the ships, after being tossed at sea for six weeks, were 
obliged to put back into Portsmouth, and the 33rd regiment was 
landed again, and in April 1796 was embarked for India. Colonel 
Wellesley (for he had been promoted to the rank of Colonel in May 
of that year) was detained at home through illness, but he joined his 
regiment at the Cape of Good Hope, and proceeded with it to Cal- 
cutta, where he arrived in February 1797, and was placed on the 
Bengal establishment. 

In May 1798, the Earl of Mornington, Colonel Wellesley’s elder 
brother, arrived at Calcutta, having been appointed governor-general 
of India on the 4th of October 1797. One of the first objects that 
required his attention was the equivocal attitude of Tippoo Saib, 
sultan of Mysore, towards the English. In the month of June a 
proclamation of the French governor of the Isle of France announced 
the arrival of two ambassadors from Tippoo, to propose an alliance 
offensive and defensive for the purpose of expelling the English from 
India, in consequence of which a number of Frenchmen volunteered 
to join the sultan, and were taken to Mangalore in a French ship of 
war. These movements of Tippoo were connected with the French 
expedition to Egypt. The Earl of Mornington wrote several concilia- 
tory letters to Tippoo, to induce him to settle any pending con- 


‘troversy between him and the East India Company by means of 


negociation, but at the same time he did not neglect to prepare for 
offensive operations, and in November an army was assembled at 
Vellore, under the command of General Harris, ready to enter the 
territory of Mysore at the first notice. Colonel Wellesley, with his 
regiment, formed part of this force. The army was joined by a large 
contingent from the Nizam of the Deccan, an ally of the English; and 
as the court of Hyderabad expressed a wish that the brother of the 
governor-general should be appointed to the command of the contin- 
gent, General Harris ordered the 33rd regiment to be attached to the 
Nizam’s force, the general command of which was given to Colonel 
Wellesley. As Tippoo declined to enter into negociations, and was 
evidently trying to gain time, the allied British and native army was 
ordered to advance into Mysore, which they entered early in March 
1799. On the 27th an engagement took place, in which the left wing 
of the allies, under Colonel Wellesley, routed a body of Tippoo’s 
choice infantry. The army then advanced to Seringapatam, Tippoo’s 
capital, and Colonel Wellesley was employed to dislodge the enemy from 
some strong posts in front of the town, which he executed in gallant 
style, and without loss. The siege of Seringapatam followed, and on 
the 4th of May the place was stormed by a party under General Baird. 
After the storming was over, and the confusion began to subside, 
General Baird desired to -be relieved, and Colonel Wellesley was 
ordered to take the command of the place. By his exertions and 
firmness he succeeded in stopping the plunder within the town. 
Tippoo Saib was slain. 

In July 1799 Colonel Wellesley was appointed governor of Seringa- 
patam, then the capital of Mysore. During several years that he held 
almost vice-regal command in Mysore he was fully occupied in 
organising the civil and military administration of the country, and in 
the execution of this task he improved his natural talents for business, 
military and civil, and displayed that quickness of perception and 
decision of character which have characterised him throughout the 
whole course of his military career. From the beginning also he paid 
particular attention to the wants of his soldiers, to the regularity of 
the supply of provisions, to the management of the hospitals, and to 
all the particulars of the Commissariat and Quartermaster-General’s 
departments, which constitute half the business of an army, and, to 
use his own words, if neglected, “ misfortune and disgrace will be the 
result.” - In the mean time also, by his justice and humanity, and the 
strict discipline that he maintained among the troops, he acquired the 
confidence and respect of the native population of Seringapatam. 

Whilst thus employed in Mysore he was obliged to take the field 
against one of those bold adventurers, once common in India, named 
Dhoondia Waugh, who had got together 5000 horsemen, partly from 
Tippoo’s disbanded cavalry, and partly from other predatory bands, 
and who styled himself ‘King of the Two Worlds.’ Colonel Wellesley, 
after a harassing chase of two months, came up with him on the 10th 
of September 1800, immediately attacked him, and put his army to 
the rout by a single charge, in resisting which Dhoondia himself was 
slain. In December of the same year Colonel Wellesley was appointed 
by the governor-general in council to command a body of about 5000 
troops assembled at Trincomalee, in the island of Ceylon, for foreign 
service, and he accordingly proceeded from Mysore to Trincomalee. 
The expedition was said to be intended either for Batavia or the Isle 
of France. Meantime dispatches from England arrived, directing 
3000 men to be sent to the Red Sea to act against the French in 
Upper Egypt, whilst an expedition from Europe, under Sir Ralph 
Abercrombie, was attacking Lower Egypt. The governor of Madras 
sent Colonel Wellesley a copy of the despatehes from home, and as 
he knew that his brother, the governor-general, when he ordered the 
assembling of the force at Trincomalee, had some expectation of its 
being required for Egypt, Colonel Wellesley, upon his own responsi- 
bility, moved at once the whole force to Bombay, where it could be 


7 


WELLINGTON, DUKE OF. 


591 


WELLINGTON, DUKE OF, 


supplied with provisions and other necessaries previous to sailing to 
the Red Sea, and where he would .be ready to receive final orders 
from the governor-general. He sailed from Trincomalee about the 
middle of February 1801, and arrived at Bombay about the middle of 
March. The governor-general had appointed General Baird to com- 
mand the Egyptian expedition, leaving to his brother the choice of 
going under him as second in command, or retaining his own command 
in Mysore. When Lord Mornington learnt that Colonel Wellesley 
was at Bombay with the whole Trincomalee force, he could not dis- 
approve of this movement, as he had himself intended to send to the 
Red Sea a larger body of men than that mentioned in the home 
despatches, but still he thought it ought not to be set up as a prece- 
dent, and he required an official explanation of the grounds and 
motives which had induced his brother thus to act upon his own 
judgment, without waiting for orders. Colonel Wellesley stated his 
motives at full length, in a letter, dated Bombay, March 23, 1801. 
(‘ Dispatches,’ vol. i.) He intended to have proceeded to the Red Sea, 
and to have served under General Baird; but on the 25th of March 
he was seized with fever, and soon afterwards returned to his govern- 
ment in Mysore. Before leaving Bombay he transmitted to General 
Baird a memorandum which he had written concerning the operations 
in the Red Sea, evincing the research and reflection which he had 
bestowed on his anticipated command. 

Colonel Wellesley made a second stay in Mysore of nearly two years. 
He was raised to the rank of Major-General in April 1802, and in 
February 1803 he was appointed to command a force intended to 
march into the Mahratta territory. 

Civil war raged between the Mahratta chiefs Holkar and Scindia. 
The Peishwa, the nominal head of the Mahratta confederation, was 
looked upon as an instrument in the hands of the strongest. Dowlut 
Rao Scindia, who ruled over Malwa and Candeish, had an army of 
regular infantry and artillery, which had been formed by his father, 
with the assistance of M. de Boigne, a native of Savoy, and was now 
under the direction of a French officer of the name of Perron. Scindia 
exercised paramount influence over the Peishwa at Poonah. Holkar, 
another ambitious chieftain, who had long been at variance with 
Scindia, suddenly crossed the Nerbudda and marched with a large 
cavalry force on Poonah, which he entered after defeating the com- 
bined army of Scindia and the Peishwa. The Peishwa escaped to the 
coast, and put himself under British protection, whilst Holkar placed 
one of his relations on the seat of power at Poonah. 

The Madras army, under Lieutenant-General Stuart, was ordered to 
advance into the Mahratta territory for the purpose of reinstating 
the Peishwa, and Major-General Wellesley was appointed to command 
a select corps in advance, with which he marched rapidly upon 
Poonah. Having received information on the road that Holkar’s 
people intended to burn the town on his approach, he moved on with 

. the cavalry, and, performing a march of 60 miles in 30 hours, reached 
Poonah on the 20th of April, and thus saved the town. Holkar’s 
people retired without fighting, and in the following month the 
Peishwa re-entered his capital. Scindia however and the Raja of 
Berar, another powerful Mahratta chief, were together in the field 
making hostile demonstrations against the English and their ally the 
Nizam, and they were understood to be in correspondence with Hol- 
kar, who was to join the league. Seeing this state of affairs, which 
was yet more dangerous at a moment when by the peace of Amiens 
the French had just recovered their Indian possessions, the governor- 
general appointed General Wellesley to the chief command of all the 
British and allied troops serving in the territories of the Peishwa and 
the Nizam, with full power to direct all the political affairs of the 
British government in the same district. (‘Dispatches,’ Fort William, 
26th and 27th of June, vol. ii.) The force at his command conaisted 
of about 10,000 troops of all arms, Europeans and natives, including 
the 19th Dragoons and the 74th Foot. After some fruitless nego- 
ciations with Scindia, General Wellesley marched from Poonah to the 
north, and took by escalade the town of Ahmednuggur, which was 
garrisoned by Scindia’s troops. On the 24th of August he crossed the 
river Godavery, and entered Aurungabad on the 29th. The enemy 
manifested an intention to cross the river to the eastward and steal a 
march upon Hyderabad, but were prevented by General Wellesley 
marching along the left bank of the river, and placing himself between 
them and that city. On the 12th of September the British general 
was encamped 20 miles north of the Godavery. Colonel Stevenson, 
with the Nizam’s auxiliary force, was at some distance from him. 
Scindia, who had a large mass of irregular cavalry, avoided a general 
engagement, being afraid of British discipline, and only thought of 
carrying on a predatory warfare. 

About the middle of September, General Wellesley learnt that 
Scindia had been reinforced by 16 battalions of infantry commanded 
by French officers, and a large train of artillery, and that the whole 
of his force was assembled near the banks of the small river Kaitna. 
On the 21st of September General Wellesley had a conference with 
Colonel Stevenson, in which a general plan of attack on the enemy 
was concerted. ‘The General and the Colonel advanced by two parallel 
routes round. the hiils, so as to fall at the same time upon the enemy. 
General Wellesley on the 23rd received a report that Scindia and the 
Rajah of Berar had moved off in the morning with their cavalry, and 
that the infantry were about to follow, but were still in camp at the 


distance of about six miles, General Wellesley determined to march 
upon the infantry, and engage it at once, He sent a messenger to 
Colonel Stevenson, then about eight miles on his left, to inform him 
of his intention, and directing his advance. He moved forward with 
the 19th Light Dragoons and three regiments of native cavalry to 
reconnoitre. The infantry, consisting of two British and five native 
battalions, followed. After a march of about four miles he saw from 
an elevated plain not only the infantry, but the whole Mahratta force, 
consisting of nearly 50,000 men, encamped on the north side of the 
river Kaitna; the right, consisting of cavalry, was about Bokerdou, 
and extended to their corps of infantry, which was encamped near the 
village of Assaye, with 90 pieces of artillery. General Wellesley 
determined on attacking the infantry on its left and rear. He moved 
his little army toa ford beyond the enemy’s left, and, leaving the 
Mysore and other irregular cavalry to watch that of the enemy, he 
crossed the river with his regular horse and infantry, and having 
ascended the bank, which was steep, formed his men in three 

two of infantry and the third of cavalry. This was effected under a 
brisk cannonade from the enemy’s guns. Scindia at the same time 
made a corresponding movement in his line, by giving a new front to 
his infantry, which was made to rest its right upon the river Kaitna, 
and its left upon the village of Assaye and the Juah stream. His 
numerous and well-served cannon did fearful execution among the 
British advancing lines. General Wellesley, seeing this, gave orders 
to abandon the artillery, and for the infantry to charge with the 
bayonet. The charge proved irresistible on the right and centre of the 
enemy ; the British took possession of the guns, and the enemy’s. 
infantry gave way. But the British right suffered a very severe loss 
from the guns at the village of Assaye, and the enemy’s cavalry, seeing 
the gaps thus made in the ranks, charged the 74th regiment, when 
Colonel Maxwell, with the 19th Dragoons, rode to its rescue, and 
drove back the assailants with great loss.’ The native infantry in the 
British service proceeding too far in the pursuit, many of the enemy’s 
artillerymen, who had thrown themselves down among the carriages 
of their guns, as if they were dead, turned their pieces against the 
advancing infantry, and at the same time several of Scindia’s batta- 
lions formed themselves again, thus placing the sepoys between two 
fires. Colonel Maxwell charged and dispersed those battalions, but he 
lost his life. The 78th British regiment, which was on the left of the 
line, remained firm wilh unbroken ranks in the midst of the confusion, 
and contributed greatly to check the enemy. General Wellesley led — 
the regiment in person against the village of Assaye, where the bare 
made the stoutest resistance, but at last gave way. It was near 
when the firing ceased. The enemy retired in great disorder, leaving 
behind the whole of his artillery, ammunition, and stores. Colonel 
Stevenson arrived on the field after the battle, and undertook the pur- 
suit, The loss of the united army, British and native, in this splendid 
victory consisted of 22 officers and 386 men killed, and 57 officers and 
1526 men wounded, in all nearly one-third of the force engaged, exclu- 
sive of the irregular cavalry. The enemy left more than 1200 dead 
and a great number of wounded on the field of battle. General 
Wellesley had two horses killed under him, and his orderly’s head 
was torn away by a cannon-ball as he rode beside him. 

While General Wellesley was defeating the Mahrattas in the south, 
General Lake gained a complete victory at Allyghur, in the plains of 
Hindustan, over another part.of their force under M. Perron, which 
had occupied Delhi. The Mahratta power was now broken, and after 
several marches and countermarches, and desultory negociations, 
Scindia asked and obtained a truce at the beginning of November; 
but the Raja of Berar still kept the field, and General Wellesley, 


coming up with him in the plains of Argaum, found Scindia’s cavalry,  — 


together with the Raja’s forces, drawn up in battle array. The battle — 
of Argaum was fought November 29, 1803. The British line advanced 
in the best order. The 74th and 78th regiments were attacked by a 

large body of Persian mercenaries in the service of the Raja of Berar, 

which was entirely destroyed. Scindia’s cavalry charged one of the 

Company’s regiments, and was repulsed, when the whole Mahratta 

line retired in disorder, leaving 38 pieces of cannon and all their 

ammunition in the hands of the British. The British cavalry pursued 

the enemy for several miles, taking many elephants, camels, and much 

baggage. Colonel Stevenson soon after took by storm the strong fort 

of Gawilghur, and this exploit concluded the campaign. The Raja of 
Berar now sued for peace, and General Wellesley drew up the con- 

ditions of the treaty, by which the Raja ceded to the Company the 

province of Cuttack with the district of Balasore, and dismissed his 

European officers. Scindia was glad to follow the example, and on 

the 30th of December he signed a treaty of peace, by which he ceded 

to the Company all the one between the Jumna and the Ganges, 

besides numerous forts. In February 1804, General Wellesley crossed 

the Godavery to put down the independent freebooting parties which 

were carrying devastation through the West Deccan. Following them 

rapidly from hill to hill, he gradually dispersed them, and took their 

guns, ammunition, and baggage. Peace was thus restored to the — 
peninsula of India. 

In March 1804, General Wellesley paid a visit to Bombay, where he 
was received with marked honour and loud acclamations, and an 
address of the British inhabitants of Bombay was presented to him, as 
a commander “equally great in the cabinet as in the field.” The 


=e 


598 WELLINGTON, DUKE OF, 


WELLINGTON, DUKE OF. 594 


British inhabitants of Calcutta voted him a sword of the value of 
1000/., and the officers of the army of the Deccan presented him with 
a service of plate of the value of 2000 guineas, with the inscription, 
“ Battle of Assaye, September 23, 1803.” 

On the 24th of June 1804, General Wellesley broke up the army in 
the Deccan, in pursuance of orders from the governor-general, and the 
following month he returned to Seringapatam, where he received from 
the native inhabitants an affecting address, in which they “implored 
the God of all castes and all nations to hear their constant prayer, 
whenever greater affairs might call him away from them, to bestow on 
him health, glory, and happiness.” (‘ Dispatches,’ vol. iii., p. 420.) 
Tt may be here observed that during the whole of his career in India, 
as afterwards in the Spanish peninsula, General Wellesley, ever firm 
and just, showed himself always inclined to humanity and mercy 
whenever they could be exercised without detriment to justice or to 
the safety of others; and of this humane disposition his ‘ Dispatches’ 
contain numerous instances. 

In July 1804, General Wellesley was called to Calcutta to assist in 
military deliberations. Several important memoranda on the political 
and military affairs of India, which are given in the third volume of 
the ‘Dispatches,’ were written by him about this period. In November 
of the same year he left Calcutta for Madras, whence he returned to 
Seringapatam. In February 1805 he again repaired to Madras, and 
obtained leave to return to England. About the same time his 
appointment by the king to be a Knight Companion of the Order of 
the Bath was known in India, and published in the general orders; 
and in the following March the thanks of both Houses of Parliament 
to Major-General Wellesley, for his services, were likewise published 
in the general orders in India. On the 10th of March 1805 Sir Arthur 
Wellesley sailed from Madras for England. 

General Sir Arthur Wellesley landed in England in September 
1805. In November of the same year he was sent to Hanover in com- 
mand of a brigade in the expedition under Lord Cathcart, which was 
intended to make a diversion whilst the French army was engaged on 
the banks of the Danube against Austria and Russia. The tergiversa- 
tion of the Prussian cabinet, and the disastrous battle of Austerlitz 
(December 1805), disconcerted the plans of the allies, and the English 
returned from Hanover to England in February 1806, without having 
seen any active service. Sir Arthur Wellesley was now appointed to 
the command of a brigade of infantry stationed at Hastings. In 
January 1806, when the news was received of the death of the 
Marquis of Cornwallis he was appointed Colonel of the 33rd regiment. 


- On the 10th of April 1806, he married Lady Catherine Pakenham, 


third daughter of the Earl of Longford. In that year he was elected 
member for the borough of Rye, and from his seat in the House of 
Commons he defended the administration of his brother the Marquis 
of Wellesley in India. In April 1807 Sir Arthur Wellesley was 
appointed secretary for Ireland, the Duke of Richmond being lord- 
lieutenant of Ireland, and in that capacity was sworn a member of 
his Majesty’s Privy Council. In August of the same year he was 
appointed to a command in the expedition sent to Copenhagen, under 
Lord Catheart and Admiral Gambier. On the 29th of August General 
Wellesley’s division attacked the Danish troops at Kioge, carried their 
entrenchments, and entered the town of Kioge, where they took a 
large military store and nearly 1200 prisoners. This was the only 


- action of any importance which took place by land. The bombard- 


ment of Copenhagen having induced the Crown Prince of Denmark to 
listen to terms, General Wellesley was appointed by Lord Cathcart, 
together with Lieutenant-Colonel Murray and Sir Home Popham, 
captain of the fleet, to draw up the articles of the capitulation, which 
were agreed to by the Danish government on the 7th of September, 
and by which the Danish fleet and naval stores were delivered to the 
British government till the general peace. General Wellesley returned 
to England with the expedition, and resumed his duties as secretary 
for Ireland. In the following February (1808) he received in his 
place in the House of Commons, the thanks of that House for his 
important share in the success of the Copenhagen expedition, by 
which Napoleon was deprived of the assistance of the Danish fleet, 
upon which he had reckoned in his plans against England. 

In the spring of 1808 a military force was assembled at Cork, 
intended, it was believed, to act against the Spanish colonies of South 
America, Spain being, through French influence, at war with England. 
But the invasion of Portugal and Spain by Napoleon, occurring about 
the same time, gave a new destination to the English expedition. The 
people of Spain declared against the invaders, and sent to England to 
ask for assistance, Juntas, or local governments, were formed, and 
peace was proclaimed between Spain and England. The main strength 
of the Spanish patriots appeared to be in the north, in the mountainous 
provinces of Asturias and Galicia, which were as yet untouched by 
the French, and the deputies who came to England from those pro- 
vinces requested the employment of an English auxiliary force to 
effect a diversion by landing on some point of the coast of Portugal. 
Sir Arthur Wellesley, who had been promoted to the rank of Lieu- 
tenant-General, April 25, 1808, was appointed in the following June 
to the command of the force intended for the Peninsula, consisting of 
about 9000 infantry and a regiment of light dragoons, with the 
promise of an additicnal force of 10,000 men to follow in a short time. 
These formed altogethe ra respectable military force, but the importance 

BIOG, DIV, VOL. VI, 


of the occasion warranted exertions even greater than these, for the 
Spanish peninsula had now become the field on which the great 
question was to be decided whether France was to govern Europe, and 
dictate to all other states, Great Britain included. 

Sir Arthur Wellesley landed at Coruiia July 20, 1808. The junta 
of Galicia asked for nothing but arms and money. They declined the 
assistance of a British auxiliary force, but they advised General Wel- 
lesley to land in Portugal, to rescue that kingdom from the French 
grasp, and thus to open a ready communication between the north and 
south of Spain. This was in accordance with Sir Arthur Wellesley’s 
own views, and the general instructions that he had from home. He 
accordingly sailed on to Oporto, which town had already risen against 
the French; and there he found the warlike bishop, who was at the 
head of the insurrection, and had gathered together about 3000 men 
indifferently armed and equipped. He also learned that 5000 Portu- 
guese regular troops were stationed at Coimbra, on the Mondego. 
Having made arrangements with the bishop for the supply of mules 
and horses, General Wellesley sailed to the south as far as the Tagus 
to get fresh information as to the strength and position of the French 
troops near Lisbon. On the 30th of July, he anchored in Mondego 
Bay, which he fixed upon for the landing of the expedition. The 
landing took place on the Ist of August, near the small town of 
Figueira, on the south bank of the Mondego. The number of troops 
landed was about 9000. On the 5th Major-General Spencer joined 
him from Cadiz with about 4000 more, 

The French force in Portugal at the time, under Junot, consisted of 
16,000 or 18,000 men, from which deducting the garrisons of Almeida, 
Elvas, Peniche, Setubal, and other places, there remained about 14,000 
men for the defence of Lisbon. Their communications were cut off 
from their countrymen in Spain, for, since the surrender of General 
Dupont, the Spanish patriots were masters of Andalucia and Estrema- 
dura, and in Old Castile the French troops under Bessiéres had not 
advanced westward further than Benavente, being observed by the 
Spanish army of Galicia. About the same time the French abandoned 
Madrid and retired to the Ebro. A clear stage therefore was left for 
the contest in Portugal between Wellesley and Junot, whose respective 
disposable forces were nearly equal, the French however having the 
advantage of a considerable body of cavalry. 

On the 9th of August the English began their march southward. 
The advanced guard entered the town of Leiria on the 10th, where it 
found the Portuguese force of 5000 men under General Freire, who, 
having appropriated to the wants of his men the stores which, by an 
agreement between the junta of Oporto and Sir Arthur Wellesley, 
were intended for the English, further demanded that his corps 
should henceforth be furnished with provisions by the English com- 
missariat, a preposterous request, with which General Wellesley 
declined to comply. Freire then refused to advance with the English, 
but remained behind at Leiria, and was with difficulty prevailed upon 
to allow about 1600 of his men to join Sir Arthur. On the 14th the 
English entered Alcobaga, and on the 15th Caldas, following the road 
to Torres Vedras, which runs parallel to the sea-coast. It was near 
Roliga, about ten miles beyond Caldas, that the first engagement took 
place. But before relating the operations of the campaign, it will be 
convenient to describe the position of the French in Portugal. 

When the Spaniards had risen against the invaders, the spirit of 
resistance spread to Portugal, the natives of which country had equal 
motives for being dissatisfied with the French rule. The French had 
with their army several Spanish regiments, which were scattered about 
the country in the several garisons, The Spanish troops which were 
at Oporto, forming the principal part of that garrison, hearing of the 
news from Spain, revolted against the French commander, seized him, 
together with the few French soldiers that he had with him, and set 
off with their prisoners for Spain, leaving the Portuguese at liberty to 
act as they pleased. A junta was then formed, with the bishop at their 
head, in the name of the Prince Regent of Portugal, and the whole of 
the provinces north of the Douro rose against the French. The 
insurrection spread southward into Beira. In the south the people of 
Algarve rose, and those of Alemtejo followed their example, being 
supported by a body of Spanish troops. The town of Evora became 
the centre of the insurrection in that quarter. The French General 
Loison, who had been sent to repress the insurgents in the north, 
was quickly recalled by Junot, and sent into Alemtejo. He entered 
Evora after a desperate resistance on the part of the inhabitants, and 
the town was given up to indiscriminate massacre. General Margaron 
executed like vengeance at Leiria, sparing neither age nor sex. Similar 
scenes took place at Guarda in the north, and at Beja and Villavicosa 
in the south. In these butcheries however the French were also losing 
their own men daily, for the peasantry were always hovering about 
their line of march, ready to cut off stragglers and intercept the com- 
munications. “The whole kingdom,” observed Sir Arthur Wellesley 
in one of his first dispatches after landing in Mondego Bay, “ with the 
exception of the neighbourhood of Lisbon, is in a state of insurrection 
against the French, Their means of resistance are however less 
powerful than those of the Spaniards. The Portuguese troops have 
been completely dispersed, their officers have gone off to Brazil, and 
their arsenals are pillaged or in the power of theenemy. Their revolt, 
under the circumstances in which it has taken place, is still more 


extraordinary than that of the Spanish nation. They on) in the 


695 WELLINGTON, DUKE OF. 


WELLINGTON, DUKE OF, 698 


northern part of the kingdom about 10,000 men in arms, of which 
number 5000 are to march with me towards Lisbon, the remainder 
are employed in a distant blockade of Almeida, and in the protection 
of Oporto, which is now the seat of the government. The insurrection 
is general throughout Alemtejo and Algarve to the southward, and in 
Entre Douro e Minho, Tras-os-Montes, and Beira, to the northward; 
but for want of arms the people can do nothing against the enemy.” 

The French commander-in-chief, Junot, on the news of the landing 
of the English, determined to abandon the provinces, except the 
fortresses of Elvas and Almeida, and to collect his force in the neigh- 
bourhood of Lisbon. He sent a division of about 5000 men, under 
De Laborde, towards Leiria, to keep the English in check; and he 
ordered Loison, who had returned from his expedition into Alemtejo, 
and had crossed the Tagus at Abrantes, to join De Laborde at Leiria. 
But the rapid advance of the English obliged De Laborde to fall back 
before he could be joined by Loison, and now De Laborde determined 
to make a stand alone in the favourable position of Roliga, hoping 
every moment to see Loison appear on his right. 

General Wellesley, having driven the enemy’s pickets from Obidas, 
marched on the 17th of August to attack De Laborde. He formed 
his army into three columns: the right, consisting of Portuguese, was 
ordered to make a demonstration on the enemy's left; the left to 
ascend the hills on the enemy’s right, and thus watch the approach of 
Loison ; and the centre, which was the column of attack, to march 
along the valley to the front of De Laborde’s position. The French, 
after a gallant defence, were obliged to retire, which they did in good 
order, being protected by their cavalry. They withdrew to Torres 
Vedras, where they were joined by Loison’s corps. The loss of the 
French in the engagement at Rolica was supposed to be above 600 
killed and wounded, besides three pieces of cannon; that of the 
British was 480. It must be observed here, once for all, that the 
losses of the French throughout the war were never accurately known, 
as they published no returns, whilst the British official returns of 
killed, wounded, and prisoners, made by the respective officers in 
command of regiments after a battle, were always published in the 
* Gazette.’ 

On the 18th of August General Wellesley advanced to Lourinha, 
keeping along the coast-road leading to Mafra. On the 19th he moved 
to Vimiero, where he was joined the next day by Generals Anstruther 
and Ackland, with two brigades just arrived off the coast from England, 
and which raised his force to about 17,000 British, besides 1600 
Portuguese, At the same time however General Wellesley was super- 
seded in the chief command by Lieutenant-General Sir Harry Burrard, 
who arrived from England. The government at home had determined, 
in consequence of the propitious appearance of affairs in the Peninsula, 
to have there an army of 30,000 British troops, and with that view 
they ordered the corps of Lieutenant-General Sir John Moore, which 
had just returned from a fruitless expedition to the Baltic, to proceed 
to Portugal; and they gave the chief command of the army to Lieu- 
tenant-General Sir Hew Dalrymple, governor of Gibraltar, with Sir 
Harry Burrard under him as second in command; and Lieutenant- 
Generals Sir John Moore, Sir Arthur Wellesley, the Hon. John Hope, 
Lord Paget, and Mackenzie Fraser, to command respectively divisions 
of the army. 

Sir Harry Burrard arrived in a frigate in Maceira Bay, near Vimiero, 
on the evening of the 20th, and General Wellesley immediately went 
on board, and reported to him the situation of the army, and his own 
intended plan of operations, which was to march along the coast-road 
to Mafra, and thus turn the strong position which De Laborde and 
Loison had taken at Torres Vedras. By this means he would oblige 
the French either to give battle or retreat to Lisbon under great dis- 
advantages, Sir Harry Burrard however decided not to advance any 
farther till the arrival of the reinforcements under Sir John Moore. 
But the enemy in the meantime was bringing the question to a speedy 
issue. ¥ 
Junot, having joined De Laborde and Loison at Torres Vedras with 
all his force, estimated at about 14,000 men, of whom 1600 were 
cavalry, attacked the English in the position of Vimiero early in the 
morning of the 21st of August. The principal attack was made upon 
the British centre and left, with a view, according to a favourite 
French expression in those times, of driving the English into the sea, 
which was close in their rear. The attack was made with great 
bravery and steadiness, but was as gallantly repulsed by the British; 
it was repeated by General Kellerman at the head of the French 
reserve, which was also repulsed; and the French, being charged with 
the bayonet, withdrew on all points in confusion, leaving many pri- 
sSoners, among them a general officer, and 14 cannon, with ammunition, 
&c., in the hands of the British. The loss of the French in killed and 
wounded was estimated at about 1800, and that of the British was 
720, Sir Harry Burrard landed, and was present on the field during 
part of the engagement, but he declined assuming the command, or 
in any way interfering with General Wellesley’s dispositions, till the 
enemy was repulsed. Towards the close of the action, when the 
French were seen retiring in confusion, General Wellesley wished to 
follow up his victory ; General Ferguson on the left was actually close 
upon the retreating enemy, and if General Hill and the advanced 
guard had marched straight upon Torres Vedras they would have 
reached it before the French, who would thus have. been cut off from 


Lisbon, and perhaps obliged to lay down their arms, Such was Sir 
Arthur’s view; but Sir Harry Burrard thought it advisable not to 
move any farther, especially on account of the superiority of the 
enemy’s cavalry. General Ferguson was ordered to desist from pur- 
suit, and the French officers were thus enabled to rally their men, and 
make good their retreat to Torres Vedras. f 

On the 22nd of August Sir Hew Dalrymple, the commander-in; 
chief, landed in Maceira Bay, and assumed the command. In the 
course of the day General Kellerman appeared with a flag of truce on 
the part of Junot to propose an armistice, preparatory to entering 
upon a convention for the evacuation of Portugal by the French. The 
terms were discussed between General Kellerman and Sir Hew Dal- 
rymple, who in the end directed General Wellesley to sign the 
armistice. Among the articles there was one which prejudged the 
terms of the final convention by stipulating that the French army 
should not “in any case” be considered as prisoners of war, and that 
all the individuals composing it should be carried to France with 
arms and baggage, and “ their private property of every description, 
from which nothing should be detained !” This, of course, would 
include the church plate and other public and private property which 
the French had taken either at Lisbon or in the various towns which 
they had sacked in consequence of the insurrection, and which they 
had divided among themselves. General Wellesley did not “entirely 
approve of the manner in which the instrument was worded;” but 
the articles, being laid before the commander-in-chief, were signed by 
him that same evening. The armistice however was made subject to 
the approbation of the Admiral, Sir Charles Cotton; and as one article 
of it stipulated that the Russian fleet in the Tagus, under Admiral 
Siniavin, should enjoy all the advantages of a neutral port, Sir Charles 
objected to this, but offered to enter into a separate arrangement with 
the Russian admiral. On the 25th Sir Hew Dalrymple signified to Junot 
that the armistice would be at an end on the 28th, at noon, unless a 
convention for the evacuation of Portugal by the French should be 
agreed upon before that day. In the meantime the army had made 
a forward movement from Vimiero to Ramalha], near Torres Vedras, 


within the boundaries stipulated by the armistice. Sir John Moore 


had also arrived in Maceira Bay, and his troops were about being 
landed. Junot, now perceiving the necessity of coming to terms, 
commissioned General Kellerman to confer with Colonel Murray, 


’* 


quartermaster-general to the British army, about the final convention. — a 


The favourable moment for pushing upon the French was now past; 
and if they could not be brought to evacuate the country by sea, they 
might either defend themselves within Lisbon, or cross the Tagus to 
Elvas, which, being a place regularly fortified, would have required a 
long siege, during which the British army could not have been made 
available in Spain. (‘ Dispatches,’ iv., p. 120.) General Wellesley 
handed to Sir Hew Dalrymple a memorandum for Colonel Murray, 
suggesting, among other things, a separate agreement with the Russian 
admiral, and the propriety of devising some mode to make the French 
give up the church plate which they had seized. On the 29th the 
draft of the proposed convention was brought to the British head- 
quarters at Torres Vedras, and, being laid before a meeting of general 
officers, several alterations were made, and the form so altered was 
returned to Junot, and was at last signed by him on the 30th, with 
the omission of several of the alterations, and was ratified by Sir Hew 
Dalrymple on the 31st.. Sir Arthur Wellesley was not present at the 


final ratification, being then at Sobral with his division. Thisdocu- = 


ment has become known by the name of the Convention of Cintra, 


though it was arranged at Lisbon and finally ratifiedat Torres Vedras, = 
The article which gave most offence was that by which the French, __ 
under the name of baggage, were allowed to carry off muchofthe 
plunder of Portugal. Some limits however were put to thisabuse by __ 
a commission being appointed, with General Beresford at the head, to 
superintend the strict execution of the terms of the convention. 


Through the exertions of the commissioners the spoils of the Museum 
and the Royal Library were restored, together with the money taken 
from the public treasury. With regard to the Russian fleet, it was 
agreed that the ships should be held as a pledge by Great Britain 
during the war, and that the crews should be conveyed home in British 
ships. 

The French embarked in the month of September, and the British 
troops took possession of the forts of Lisbon in the name of the Prince 
Regent of Portugal. The whole country being now free from the 
enemy, @ council of regency was appointed, of which the active Bishop 
of Oporto wasa member, The joy of the Portuguese in general was 
manifested in the most unequivocal manner. But in England the 
terms of the convention were the subject of severe and loud censure, - 
and the government appointed a board of inquiry to examine into the 
matter. Sir Hew Dalrymple and Sir Harry Burrard were recalled in 
order to be examined by the board, as well as Sir Arthur Wellesley, 
who had already asked and obtained leave to return to England. The 


court sat in the month of November, and, after a long examination, — 


reported that, the Convention of Cintra having been productive of 
great advantages to Portugal, to the army and navy, and to the 
general service, the court was of opinion that no further military pro- 
ceeding was necessary on the subject, “ because, however some of us 
may differ in our sentiments respecting the fitness of the pear oy 
in the relative situation of the two armies, it is our unanimous decla- 


— 


Ee 


op cians 


597 WELLINGTON, DUKE OF. 


WELLINGTON, DUKE OF, 598 


ration that. unquestionable zeal and firmness appear throughout to 

have been exhibited by Lieutenant-Generals Sir Hew Dalrymple, Sir 

Harry Burrard, and Sir Arthur Wellesley, as well as that the ardour 

and gallantry of the rest of the officers and soldiers on every occasion 

during this expedition have done honour to the troops and reflected 

a on your Majesty’s arms.” The king adopted the opinion of the 
oard. 

Sir Arthur Wellesley’s employment in the Peninsula being now ter- 
minated,. he resumed the duties of his office as Chief Secretary for 
Ireland, whither he proceeded in the month of December. Parlia- 
ment having re-assembled in January 1809, he returned to London to 
resume his seat in the House of Commons, On the 27th of January 
he received, through the Speaker, the thanks of the House for his 
distinguished services in Portugal; and, a few days afterwards, the 
House of Lords passed resolutions to the same effect, which were com- 
municated to Sir Arthur by the Lord Chancellor. 

Campaign of 1809.—Napoleon, with an army of more than 200,000 
men, having burst through the Spanish lines, and routed the troops, 
forced in person the strong pass of the Somosierra on the 30th of 
November 1808, and four days afterwards was in possession of Madrid. 
Meantime, Soult, with an overwhelming force, had been sent against 
Sir John Moore, who had advanced into Spain as far as Salamanca. 
This movement was followed by the disastrous retreat of the small 
army under Sir John Moore, the battle of Corutfia, January 16, 1809, 
in which the heroic commander was slain, and the embarkation of the 
British forces for England. The French, following up their success, 
spread over Leon and Estremadura to the borders of Portugal, and 
Soult, having overrun Galicia, marched into the northern Portuguese 
provinces, and carried Oporto by storm against the native troops. 
The small British foree which had been left in Portugal when Sir 
John Moore advanced into Spain was concentrated by General Sir 
John Cradock for the defence of Lisbon. The unfavourable turn of 
affairs in Spain induced the British government to make another effort 
to save Portugal from invasion, and at the same time to assist the 
Spaniards in their momentous struggle. Sir Arthur Wellesley, having 
previously resigned his office of Secretary for Ireland as well as his 
seat in parliament, was sent to Portugal to assume the chief command 
of the British forces in the Peninsula. He arrived at Lisbon April 22, 
1809, with his staff. He was followed by reinforcements of infantry 
and several regiments of cavalry. These, together with the Portu- 
guese regulars under General Beresford, whom the Prince Regent had 
appointed to the chief command of his army, enabled him to bring into 
the field a force of about 25,000 men, with which he marched at the 
end of April to dislodge Soult from Oporto, leaving a division under 
General Mackenzie on the Tagus to guard the eastern frontiers of 
Portugal against the French General Victor, who was stationed near 
Merida, in Spanish Estremadura. The army under General Wellesley, 
having assembled at Coimbra, moved on the 9th of May in the direc- 
tion of Oporto, and drove back the French troops, which had advanced 
south of the Douro. On the 11th of May the English occupied the 
southern bank of that river opposite the city of Oporto, The French 
had destroyed the bridges and removed the boats to their own side, 
and Soult was preparing to retire leisurely by the road to Galicia. 

General Wellesley sent a brigade under General Murray to pass the 
river about four miles above Oporto, whilst the brigade of Guards 
was directed to cross the river at the suburb of Villanova, and the 
main body under the commander-in-chief was to attempt a passage in 
the centre by means of any boats that they could find. The Douro 
at that spot is very rapid, and nearly three hundred yards wide. 
About ten o'clock in the morning of the 12th of May, two boats 
having been discovered, General Paget with three companies of the 
Buffs crossed the river, and got possession of an unfinished building 
on the Oporto side, called the Seminario. The French in Oporto 
were taken by surprise. They sounded the alarm, and marched out 
to attack the Seminario, but, before they could dislodge the first party 
that had landed, General Hill crossed with fresh troops, and, pro- 
tected by the British artillery from the southern bank, maintained the 
contest with great gallantry, until General Sherbrooke with the 
Guards crossed lower down into the very town of Oporto, amidst the 
acclamatious of the inhabitants, and charged the French through the 
streets. Meantime the head of Murray’s column, which had crossed 
at Avintas, making its appearance, Soult ordered an immediate retreat, 
which was effected in the greatest confusion. He left behind his sick 
and wounded and many prisoners, besides artillery and ammunition, 
and retired by Amarante with the view of passing into Spain through 
Tras-os-Montes ; but finding that Loison had abandoned the bridge of 
Amarante, which was taken possession of by the Portuguese, he marched 
by Guimaraens, Salamonde, and Montealegre, into Galicia. In 
this disastrous retreat the French were obliged to destroy the re- 
mainder of their artillery and part of their baggage, and the road was 
strewed with dead horses and mules, and French soldiers, many of 
whom were put to death by the peasantry before the advanced guard 
of the British could save them. 

Soult lost about one-fourth of his army, but the retreat was effected 
with great ability under the most unfavourable circumstances. 
General Wellesley pursued the French as far as Montealegre, and, 
having driven them out of Portugal, retraced his steps to the south, 
The passage of the broad and rapid Douro, effected in broad day, in 


presence of a French marshal at the head of 10,000 veterans, was one 
of Wellington’s finest achievements. The English lost in the attack 
of Oporto only 23 killed and 98 wounded, 

On taking possession of Oporto, General Wellesley issued a procla- 
mation, strictly enjoining the inhabitants to respect the French 
wounded and prisoners, and he wrote to Marshal Soult to request him 
to send some French medical officers to take care of their sick and 
wounded, as he did not wish to trust them to the Portuguese. 

The attention of Sir Arthur Wellesley was now turned towards 
Spain. It was necessary to strike a blow in that country, and the pre- 
sent occasion appeared favourable. The condition of the national cause 
of Spain had improved since Napoleon had left that country in January. 
None of his generals had individually the same means that he had at 
his disposal, and there was not a sufficient bond of union among them 
all to make them act in concert. Each had a separate command over 
a large division of the country, and was in a great measnre independent 
of the others, and Joseph Bonaparte, who had been established in 
Madrid as king of Spain, had little or no control over them, and had 
not himself sufficient military skill to direct their movements. Each 
marshal therefore, and there were five or six in the Peninsula, acted 
by himself, and the warfare became complicated and irregular, Mar- 
shal Victor, Duke of Belluno, commanded the first corps in Estrema- 
dura, near the borders of Portugal, having about 35,000 men, of whom 
however only 25,000 were under arms. General Sebastiani commanded 
the fourth corps in La Mancha, which mustered about 20,000 men 
under arms. A division of reserve under Dessolles stationed at 
Madrid, together with King Joseph’s guards, amounted to about 
15,000 men. Kellerman’s and Bonnet’s divisions, stationed in Old 
Castile and on the borders of Leon and Asturias, comprised about 
10,000 more. All the above troops, amounting to about 60,000 dis- 
posable men, were considered to be immediately under King Joseph 
for the protection of Madrid and of Central Spain, and also to act 
offensively in Andalucia and against Portugal by the Tagus and the 
Guadiana, Soult had a distinct command. He had mainly to occupy 
the northern provinces of Spain, and to act through them against 
Portugal. He had under his immediate orders the second corps, 
mustering about 20,000 men under arms; the fifth, or Mortier’s 
corps, amounting to 16,000; and Ney, with the sixth corps, also about 
16,000. Soult’s force in all was about 52,000 men in the field. These 
were the two French armies with which the English advancing from 
Portugal were likely to be brought into collision. Besides these there 
were in eastern Spain the third and seventh corps, making together 
about 50,000 men, under Suchetand Augereau, who were pretty fully 
employed in Aragon and Cataluiia; and 35,000 more were scattered in 
the various garrisons and lines of communication. 

The fortresses and fortified towns in the hands of the French were 
—Ist, on the northern line, San Sebastian, Pamplona, Bilbao, Santona, 
Santander, Burgos, Leon, and Astorga; 2nd, on the central line, Jaca, 
Zaragoza, Guadalajara, Toledo, Segovia, and Zamora; 3rd, Figueras, 
Rosas, and Barcelona, on the eastern coast. But Soult, after being 
driven out of northern Portugal, had withdrawn from Galicia; and 
Ney, following the same movement, completely evacuated that exten- 
sive province, including the forts of Coruiia and Ferro]. A misunder- 
standing or disagreement between those two commanders led to the 
deliverance of Galicia, which was an important event in the war, for 
the French never regained that part of Spain. 

Marshal Soult reached Zamora in the beginning of July, and hovered 
about the eastern frontiers of Portugal. Ney arrived at Astorga. 
Victor was posted between the Tagus and the Quadiana, his troops 
suffering much from malaria. Mortier, with the fifth corps, on the 
road from Zaragoza to Valladolid, received orders from France to 
halt; and the Imperial Guards, which Napoleon had ordered into 
Spain, and which had arrived at Vitoria, were hurriedly ordered to 
march to the banks of the Danube. This was in consequence of the 
Austrian war, which had just broken out. The French in Spain were 
now reduced to a state of inactivity, and Andalucia and Valencia were 
still untouched by them. 

The Spanish armies, though always beaten in the open field, had 
been reorganised. General Cuesta, commanding the army of Estre- 
madura, reckoned at 38,000 men, was.posted on the Quadiana. This 
was the force with which General Wellesley had to co-operate in an 
advance from Portugal into Spain for the purpose of attacking Victor 
and attempting to reach Madrid. The British commander had not as 
yet seen a Spanish army in the field, and he could have no precise 
notion of its defective organisation and discipline. He however soon 
obtained that knowledge when he came in contact with Cuesta. But 
there was another obstacle which made him hesitate, and that was 
the difficulty of obtaining provisions and means of transport for his 
army in Spain. His letters during the whole of this campaign teem 
with painful details on this subject. The people, the local authorities, 
the generals, and the Junta, all seemed unanimous in their unwilling- 
ness to provide for the English, although sure to be amply repaid for 
their supplies. While Cuesta’s army abounded with provisions an 
forage, Sir Arthur could not get enough to supply his men with half- 
rations. “The French,” he observes, “can take what they like, and 
will take it, but we cannot even buy common necessaries.” 

The British army entered Spain in the beginning of July by the road 
of Zarza la Mayor and Coria, and the head-quarters were at Plasencia 


599 WELLINGTON, DUKE OF. 


—— 


WELLINGTON, DUKE OF. 600 


on the 8th. Cuesta crossed the Tagus by the bridge of Almaraz, and 
the two armies made their junction at Oropesa on the 20th. Sir 
Robert Wilson, with the Lusitanian Legion, one Portuguese and two 
Spanish battalions, moved on to Escalona, about eight leagues from 
Madrid, threating the rear of Victor's army, which was posted at 
Talavera de la Reyna. On the 22nd the combined Spanish and 
British armies attacked Victor's outposts at Talavera, and drove them 
in. The enemy would have suffered more if General Cuesta had not 
been absent from the field, The British columns were formed for the 
attack of the French position on the 23rd, as General Wellesley 
wished to attack Victor before he was joined by Sebastiani, but 
General Cuesta ‘ contrived to lose the whole of the day, owing to the 
whimsical perverseness of his disposition.”—(Dispatch to J. H. Frere, 
24th of July, vol. iv., p. 526.) On the morning of the 24th Victor 
retired across the Alberche to St. Olalla on the Madrid road, and 
thence to Torrijos, where he was joined by Sebastiani’s corps, and 
soon after by King Joseph in person, attended by Marshal Jourdan 
with the Guards and the garrison of Madrid. General Cuesta, who 
now seemed eager for battle, although General Wellesley recommended 
him to be very cautious in his movements, followed Victor to St. 
Olalla, and pushed his advanced guard to Torrijos, when the French 
attacked him briskly on the 26th, and obliged him to fall back 
upon the British, on the Alberche. On the 27th General Wellesley, 
expecting to be attacked, took up his ground in the position of 
Talavera. 

The position of the English army was daily becoming more critical, 
for Soult was rapidly advancing from Salamanca, by the Puerto de 
Baiios, upon Plasencia, in the rear of the British. General Wellesley 
had charged Cuesta to guard the mountain-pass of Puerto de Bajfios, 
but the Spanish general sent only 600 men thither, a force which of 
course proved insuflicient to arrest Soult’s march. General Wellesley 
did not know that Ney had unexpectedly evacuated Galicia, and was 
also advancing from Astorga upon the British left. Mortier also, 
with the 5th corps, was at Valladolid, ready to move forward ; so 
that there were more than 50,000 fighting men of the enemy behind 
the mountains of Plasencia, ready to act on the left flank and rear 
of the British, who had besides 50,000 more in front of them. The 
British force in the field did not exceed 20,000. ‘There were a few 
more battalions on their march from Lisbon to join the army, but 
they did not arrive till after the battle. The Spanish army of Cuesta 
mustered about 34,000 men, such as they were. The Portuguese 
regular troops, under Beresford, had remained to guard the north-east 
frontier of Portugal, towards Almeida, It had been previously agreed 
between General Wellesley, Cuesta, and the Spanish Supreme Junta, 
or Central Government, that General Venegas, who was at the head 
of the Spanish army of Andalucia, consisting of about 25,000 men, 
should march through La Mancha upon Madrid, whilst Wellesley and 
Cuesta were advancing by the valley of the Tagus. Venegas did 
advance through La Mancha, but it seems that he received counter- 
orders from the Supreme Junta which had the effect of slackening his 
march; he however made his appearance at last towards Aranjuez and 
Taledo, and it was his approach on that side which induced King 
Joseph to engage Wellesley and Cuesta, in order to save his capital. 
If he had kept the Allies in check for a few days longer, Soult’s arrival 
at Plasencia would have obliged the English to retire precipitately. 
But King Joseph fearing that Venegas from the south, and Sir Robert 
Wilson, who, with the Lusitanian Legion, was hovering in the neigh- 
bourhood on the north, would enter Madrid and seize the stores, 
reserves, &c,, he and Marshal Victor determined to give battle to the 
Allies in front: for if they were defeated, Madrid could be easily pro- 
tected. General Wellesley, perceiving, from the movements of the 
enemy, that a battle was at hand, with much difficulty prevailed upon 
Cuesta to fall back with him upon the position of Talavera, where 
there was good ground for defence. He placed the Spanish army on 
the right near the Tagus, before the town of Talavera, its front pro- 
tected by redoubts, ditches, mud walls, and felled trees. In this 
position they could hardly be seriously attacked. The British infantry 
on whom the general could depend, occupied the left of the line, 
which was open in front, but its extreme left rested upon a steep hill, 
which was the key of the whole position. The whole line extended 
in length about two miles. 

On the 27th of July the French moved from St. Olalla, crossed the 
river Alberche, drove in the British outposts, and attacked two 
advanced brigades of the English, which fell back steadily across the 
plain into their assigned position in the line. Victor now attacked 
the British left, whilst the 4th corps made a demonstration against 
the Spaniards on the right, several thousands of whom, after dis- 
charging their pieces, fled panic-struck to the rear, followed by their 
artillery, and creating the greatest confusion among the baggage 
retainers and mules, &c.; and it was with difficulty that Generals 
Wellesley and Cuesta prevented the rest of the Spanish troops from 
following the example, Luckily the position of the Spanish army was 
strong in front, and the French, not knowing exactly what was going 
on, made no further attack on that side; their efforts were directed 
against the British left, which they succeeded for a moment in turning, 
and they gained the summit of the hill; but General Hill, being 
ordered to that point with more troops, drove the French down after 
an obstinate struggle which lasted till after dark, and in which the 


French lost about 1000 men and the British 800. Next morning, the 
28th, the French renewed the attack on the hill on the British left, 
and were again repulsed after losing about 1500 men. After a pause 
of some hours the attack was renewed upon the whole British front. 
Heavy columns of French infantry of Sebastiani’s corps twice attacked 
the British right under General Campbell, which joined the Spanish. 
army, but were each time repulsed by the steady fire of the English; 
a Spanish cavalry regiment charging on their flank at the same time, 
they retired in disorder, after losing a number of men and 10 guns. 
In the mean time a French division, supported by two regiments of 
cavalry, again advanced to turn the British left, and here a cavalry 
fight occurred in which the 23rd Light Dragoons lost one-half of their 
number, General Wellesley had taken the precaution of posting the 
Spanish division of Bassecour in the rear, together with the cavalry of 
both armies, and the sight of these effectually precluded any further 
advance of the French on that side. The principal attack of the 
French was against the British centre, which consisted of the Guards 
and the German Legion. The French columns came resolutely close 
up to the British line, but they were reczived with a discharge of 
musketry which made them reel back in disorder. The Guards then 
charged them, and in the ardour of the moment were carried too far, 
upon which the enemy’s supporting columns and dragoons advanced, 
and those who had been repulsed rallied and faced again, while the 
French batteries poured their shot upon the flank of the Guards, who 
in their turn drew back in some disorder; at the same time the 
German Legion, which was on the left of the Guards, being hard 
pressed by the French, got into confusion, and the British centre was 
thus broken. This was the critical moment of the battle. General 
Wellesley, who, from the hill on the left of the position, had a clear 
view of the whole field, seeing the charge of the Guards, and expecting 
the issue of it, immediately ordered the 48th regiment, under Colonel 
Donellan, which was posted on the hill on ‘the left, to advance in sup- 
port of the centre, and at the same time directed General Cotton’s 
light cavalry to advance. The 48th moved on in perfect order amidst 
the retiring crowds, and wheeling back by companies let them 
through the intervals; then, resuming its line, the 48th marched 
against the right of the pursuing columns, plied them with destructive 
discharges of musketry, and closing upon them with a firm and 
regular pace, checked their forward movement. The Guards and 
Germans quickly rallied, and the brigade of light cavalry coming up 
from the rear at a trot, the French began to waver, and at last gave 
way and retired to their original position, their retreat being protected 
by their light troops and artillery. The British, reduced to less than 
14,000 men, and exhausted by fatigue,-were unable to pursue them ; 
and the Spanish army, which had been scarcely engaged, was incapable 
of making any evolutions; and thus about six in the evening all fight- 
ing and firing ceased, each army retaining the position that it had 
occupied in the morning. The French were repulsed at all points, 
and lost two generals and nearly 1000 men, and about 6000 wounded, 
besides the loss of 17 guns. On the side of the British, two generals 
and 800 men were killed, and three generals and about 4000 men 
wounded. : 

The next morning, July 29, at daybreak, the French army made a 
retrograde movement, recrossed the Alberche, and took a position on 
the heights of Salinas. On that day General Robert Crauford reached 
the English camp from Lisbon with the 48rd, 52nd, and 95th. This 
was the light brigade, which afterwards acquired a military celebrity 
for its gallantry and the quickness of its movements. 

Sir Arthur Wellesley passed the 29th and 30th in establishing his 
hospitals in the town of Talavera, and endeavouring to get provisions, 
as his men were nearly starving. In this he was not at all assisted by 
the Spanish authorities or the Spanish inhabitants. ‘ We are miserably 
supplied with provisions’”—thus he wrote to Lord Castlereagh on the 
Ist of August from Talavera : “the Spanish armies are now so nume- 
rous that they eat up the whole country. They have no magazines, 
nor have we, nor can we collect any, and there is a scramble for 
everything. I think the battle of the 28th is likely to be of great use 
to the Spaniards; but I do not think them in a state of discipline to 
contend with the French.” ‘(‘ Dispatches,’ iv., p. 554.) 

King Joseph, with the 4th corps and the reserve, moved on the Ist 
of August farther back to Ilescas, on the road between Madrid and 
Toledo, in order to oppose the army of Andalucia under Venegas; and 
Victor, who had remained on the Alberche with the 1st corps, retreated 
likewise on the road to Madrid, from alarm at the movements of Sir 
Robert Wilson on his flank. Soult was now advancing from the north 
with no less than three corps, one of which, commanded by Mortier, 
entered Plasencia on the 31st, having passed, without encountering any 
resistance, the defile of Bafios, which Cuesta had promised to guard, 
Soult himself, with the 2nd corps, entered Pasencia on the Ist of 
August, whilst Ney was moving on from Salamanca in the same 
direction, The French found Plasencia deserted by most of the 
inhabitants, and they could learn no intelligence of the position of the 
British and Spanish armies, except vague rumours of a battle having 
been fought a few days before. On the 2nd of August Sir Arthur 
Wellesley learnt that the enemy had entered Plasencia. Supposing 
that Soult was alone with his corps, which he estimated at only 15,000 
men, and that his intention was to join Victor, he determined to 
encounter him before he could effect the junction: he therefore 


eT. 


4 


=  , i pres ¢ 
ey eee le 


I 


——————————— 


601 WELLINGTON, DUKE OF. 


WELLINGTON, DUKE OF. 602 


marched on the 8rd of August to Oropesa with the British army, 
leaving Cuesta at Talavera, particularly recommending him to protect 
the hospitals; and, in case he should be obliged by any advance of 
Victor to leave Talavera, to collect carts to move away the wounded, 
The position of the hostile armies was now very singular: they were 
all crowded along the narrow valley of the Tagus, from the neighbour- 
hood of Madrid to the frontiers of Portugal. King Joseph and Sebas- 
tiani were at Illescas and Valdemoro, between Madrid and the Tagus, 
while the advanced posts of Venegas were on the left or opposite side 
of the river, opposite Toledo, Victor was lower down on the right 
bank, at Maqueda, near the Alberche, watching Cuesta, who was at 


Talavera. General Wellesley was farther down, at Oropesa, Soult 


was on the Tietar, on the road from Plasencia to Almaraz. Beresford, 
with the Portuguese, was said to be moving farther west along the 
frontiers of Portugal. ‘The allies under Wellesley and Cuesta held 
the centre, being only one day’s march asunder; but their force, when 
concentrated, was not more than 47,000 men. The French could not 
unite under three days, but their combined forces exceeded 90,000 
men, of whom 53,000 were under Soult; and this singular situation 
was rendered more remarkable by the ignorance in which all parties 
were as to the strength and movements of their adversaries. Victor 
and the King, frightened by Wilson’s partisan corps‘of 4000 men, were 
preparing to unite at Mostoles, near Madrid; while Cuesta, equally 
alarmed at Victor, was retiring from Talavera. Sir Arthur Wellesley 


was supposed by King Joseph to be at the head of 25,000 British; and 


Sir Arthur, calculating on Soult’s weakness, was marching with 23,000 
English and Spanish to engage 53,000 French; while Soult, unable to 
ascertain the exact situation of either friends or enemies, little sus- 
pected that the prey was rushing into his jaws. At this moment the 
fate of the Peninsula hung by a thread, which could not bear the 
weight for twenty-four hours; yet fortune so ordained that no 
irreparable disaster ensued.” (Napier’s ‘History of the Peninsular 
War,’ b, ix.) 

In the evening of the 3rd of August, Sir Arthur Wellesley learned 
that Soult’s advanced posts were at Naval Moral, and consequently 
between him and the bridge of Almaraz, on the Tagus, thus cutting 
his line of communication with Portugal. At the same time letters 
from Cuesta informed him that King Joseph was again advancing to 
join Victor, and that Soult must be stronger than was supposed ; and 
that therefore he, Cuesta, would quit Talavera that evening, and join 
the British at Oropesa. Sir Arthur immediately replied, requesting 
Cuesta to wait at least till next morning, in order to cover the evacua- 
tion of the British hospitals from Talavera. But Cuesta was already 
on his march, and early on the morning of the 4th appeared near 
Oropesa. Sir Arthur by this time had learned from intercepted letters 
that Soult’s force was much stronger than he had supposed, though 
he could not guess its full strength. Cuesta’s retreat would imme- 
diately bring the King and ‘Victor upon him. He was placed between 
the mountains and the Tagus, with a French army advancing upon 
him on each flank; the retreat by Almaraz was cut off; he had seen 
enough of Cuesta and the Spanish army not to rely upon them ona 
field of battle; and he could not, with 17,000 British, fatigued and 
in want of provisions, fight successively two French armies, each 
much stronger than his own. His only remaining line of retreat was 
across the Tagus, by the bridge of Arzobispo, below Talavera. By 
taking up a line of defence beyond that river he might keep open the 
road by Trujillo to Badajoz. This however must be done immediately, 
before the enemy intercepted the road to Arzobispo. Sir Arthur com- 
municated his determination to Cuesta, who, according to his custom, 
opposed it: he wanted now to fight the French at Oropesa; but the 
English general told him sternly that he might do as he liked—that 
he, Sir Arthur, was responsible for his own army, and should move 
forthwith. Accordingly, on that morning, the 4th of August, the 
British army filed off towards Arzobispo, where it crossed the river 
with its artillery, stores, and 2000 wounded from Talavera, and took a 
position on the other side. Thus the British army was saved from 
impending ruin. Here ended the fighting campaign of the British for 
1809. 

Sir Arthur Wellesley now moved his head-quarters to Deleytosa, and 
afterwards to Jaraicejo, on the high road to Badajoz, leaving a strong 
rear-guard to protect the south bank of the Tagus, and prevent the 
enemy from passing the river. The bridge of Almaraz had already 
been broken by the Spaniards. Cuesta, following the British move- 
ment, passed to the south of the Tagus by the bridge of Arzobispo, 
followed close by the French, who, discovering a ford, crossed the 
river on the 8th with a numerous cavalry, overpowered the Spanish 
rear-guard, and seized the guns, General Wellesley however caused 
the remainder of the Spanish artillery to be dragged up the mountain 
of Meza d'Ibor, a strong position, while the British guarded the 
equally strong pass of Mirabete, facing the bridge of Almaraz. The 
line of defence of the Allies was thus re-established. Meantime King 
Joseph recalled Mortier’s corps, which had crossed the. Tagus at Tala- 
vera, and ordered it to join Sebastiani against Venegas, who had again 
advanced to Almonacid, near Toledo. Marshal Ney, on the other side, 
whom Soult had directed to ford the Tagus below Almaraz, could not 
discover the ford. Soult now proposed to march with his three corps 
by Coria and Abrantes, and reach Lisbon, by the right bank of the 


_ ‘Tagus, before the English; but Ney, Jourdan, and King Joseph 


opposed the plan, and soon afterwards a dispatch eame from Napoleon, 
dated after the battle of Wagram, from the Austrian emperor's palace 
at Schénbrunn, forbidding further offensive operations till the rein- 
forcements which the termination of the Austrian war placed at his 
disposal should reach Spain. 

The Emperor Napoleon now, to crush his enemies, trusted chiefly 
to his overwhelming masses, which he recruited so cheaply by means 
of the conscription. The proportion of cavalry in his armies in Spain 
was beyond all precedent. Napoleon was resolved to play a sure 
game. He had already 200,000 men in Spain, and yet he did not 
think them enough. His generals had adopted the same views. “It 
is large masses only, the strongest that you can form, that will suc- 
ceed:” thus wrote Soult to King Joseph before the battle of Talavera. 
It is worthy of remark that Sir Arthur Wellesley, writing about the 
same time, said—I conceive that the French are dangerous only when 
in large masses,” 

Soult’s army now went into cantonments in Estremadura and Leon, 
near the borders of Portugal. Sebastiani, having defeated Venegas at 
Almonacid, drove him back upon the Sierra Morena, King Joseph was 
again residing quietly at Madrid. 

In England, on the receipt of the news of the battle of Talavera, Sir 
Arthur Wellesley was raised to the peerage by the titles of Baron 
Douro and Viscount Wellington. 

On the 20th of August Lord Wellington removed his head-quarters 
to Badajoz, and placed his army in cantonments on the line of the 
Guadiana. His chief motive was the neglect of the Spanish authorities 
in supplying his army with provisions; which obliged him to draw 
near his magazines in Portugal; and another reason was, the impossi- 
bility of co-operating with the undisciplined Spanish armies. Lord 
Wellington had contrived, notwithstanding Cuesta’s neglect, to carry 
away 2000 sick and wounded from Talavera; the remaining 1500, 
whom he was obliged to leave there, he recommended earnestly to the 
French generals, Mortier and Kellerman, and his expectations were 
not deceived. Marshal Mortier in particular showed the utmost kind- 
ness to the British wounded, and would have them attended to before 
his own men. 

In October Lord Wellington repaired to Lisbon, and proceeded to 
reconnoitre the whole country in front of that capital, for it was then 
that he resolved upon the construction of the celebrated lines of 
Torres Vedras, which enabled him to baffle all the efforts of the 
French in the following year. We can only refer the reader to the 
‘Memorandum’ which he wrote at Lisbon on the 20th of October for 
Lieutenant-Colonel Fletcher, of the Engineers, in which he clearly 
points out the double line of position, the entrenchments and redoubts, 
the number of men required at each post, &c., as if the whole were 
already in existence before his eyes. This paper, so remarkable con- 
sidering the epoch and circumstances in which it was written, is a 
most striking evidence of Wellington’s comprehensive mind, his pene- 
tration, and foresight. (See ‘ Dispatches,’ vol. v., pp. 234-39.) Of his 
plan however nothing was said or even whispered at the time. He 
returned to his head-quarters at Badajoz, whencehe made an excursion 
to Seville, where he conferred with his brother the Marquis Wellesley, 
who was then the British ambassador in Spain, and whom he accom- 
panied to Cadiz. On the 11th of November he returned to his head- 
quarters at Badajoz. At the same time another fatal blunder was 
committed by the Spaniards. About the middle of November the 
Supreme Junta ordered the army of Andalucia, joined by the greater 
part of the army of Estremadura, to advance suddenly upon Madrid, 
and this without any previous communication with Lord Wellington, 
who was at Badajoz, or with the Duke del Parque and other Spanish 
commanders in the north of Spain. Venegas, the general of the army 
of Andalucia, had been superseded by Areizaga, an inexperienced 
young officer, who was in favour with the Junta. Old Cuesta had 
also retired, and made room for Eguia in the command of the army 
of Estremadura. These two armies, which constituted the principal 
regular force of the Spaniards, and which, posted within the line of 
the Tagus and along the range of the Sierra Morena, protected, and 
might long have protected, the south of Spain, were thrown away 
upon a foolish attempt. Areizaga, with nearly 50,000 men and 60 
pieces of artillery, advanced into the plains of La Mancha, and was 
attacked on the 16th of November, in the open fields of Ocafia, by 
the two French corps of Mortier and Sebastiani; and, although 
his men fought with sufficient courage, yet he was completely routed, 
with the loss of more than one-half of his army, and all his baggage 
and artillery, with the exception of 15 guns. About the same time 
the Duke del Parque, with 20,000 Spaniards in the north, advanced 
from Salamanca against Kellerman, but he was beaten, and driven to 
the mountains of Pefia de Francia. The French, north of the Tagus, 
were thus left at liberty to attack Ciudad Rodrigo and the frontiers of 
Portugal. “I lament,” thus Lord Wellington writes from Badajoz on 
the news of these mishaps, “I lament that a cause which promised so 
well a few weeks ago should have been so completely lost by the igno- 
rance, presumption, and mismanagement of those to whose direction it 
was intrusted. I declare that, if they had preserved their two armies, 
or even one of them, the cause was safe. The French could have sent 
no reinforcements which could haye been of any use; time would 
have been gained; the state of affairs would have improved daily ; all 
the chances were in our fayour; and in the first moment of weakness 


6038 WELLINGTON, DUKE OF. 


WELLINGTON, DUKE OF. 


occasioned by any diversion on the continent, or by the growing dis- 
content of the French themselves with the war, the French armies 
must have been driven out of Spain. But no! nothing will answer 
except to fight great battles in plains, in which the defeat of the 
Spanish armies is as certain as the commencement of the battle. They 
will not credit the accounts I have repeatedly given them of the supe- 
rior number even of the French: they will seek them out, and they 
find them invariably in all parts in numbers superior to themselves. 
I am only afraid now that I shall be too late to save Ciudad Rodrigo, 
the loss of which will secure for the French Old Castile, and will cut 
off all communication with the northern provinces, and leave them to 
their fate.” 

Lord Wellington’s anxious looks were now directed towards the 
north-east, for he foresaw that the storm would burst upon Portugal 
from that quarter. He accordingly retired from Spanish ground 
altogether into Portugal, and moving through Alemtejo with the mass 
of his army in December, crossed the Tagus at Abrantes ; and thence 
marching to the Mondego, fixed his head-quarters at Viseu in January 
1810, having his outposts along the frontiers of Spain towards Ciudad 
Rodrigo. He left General Hill’s division south of the Tagus to pro- 
tect Alemtejo. In the mean time both he and Beresford were indefa- 
tigable in their endeavours to raise the Portuguese regular army to a 
state of efficiency in numbers, armament, and discipline. 

Campaign of 1810.—By his campaign of 1808 General Wellesley had 
delivered Portugal from the French. By the campaign of the early 
part of 1809 he had again repelled a fresh invasion of the northern 
part of that kingdom. The subsequent Spanish campaign of the same 
year, which was undertaken with a view to assist the Spaniards in 
driving the French away from Castile and recovering Madrid, failed 
through want of good management on the part of the Spanish generals, 
and of discipline in the Spanish armies. The battle of Talavera, the 
first fought by Wellington on Spanish ground, though glorious to the 
British arms, led to no useful result, and the British general was 
obliged to evacuate Spain. Fresh blunders on the part of the 
Spaniards led to the conquest of Andalucia by the French, The war 
in Spain then assumed the character of a partisan warfare, and 
Wellington saw that it would be in vain for the present to expect 
that Spain could make any adequate effort to shake of the French 
yoke. Portugal however was free, and Wellington thought that she 
might be preserved by means of a British force of 30,000 men, assisted 
by an effective Portuguese army, in addition to the militia, even sup- 
posing the French should obtain possession of the remainder of the 
Peninsula. This he stated in a letter to Lord Castlereagh, written 
from Merida, 25th of August 1809, soon after his retreat from Tala- 
vera. In that remarkable letter he gives his opinion, founded upon 
facts, of the utter inability of the Spanish armies, as they were then 
constituted, to keep the field against the French. The following 
passage, which coneludes his exposé of Spanish military affairs, deserves 
notice: —‘I really believe that much of this deficiency of numbers, com- 
position, and discipline, is to be attributed to the existing government 
of Spain. They have attempted to govern the kingdom, in a state of 
revolution, by an adherence to old rules and systems, and with the 
aid of what is called enthusiasm; and this last is, in fact, no aid to 
accomplish anything, and is only an excuse for the irregularity with 
which everything is done, and for the want of discipline and subordi- 
nation of the armies. People are very apt to believe that enthusiasm 
carried the French through their revolution, and was the parent of 
those exertions which have nearly conquered the world; but if the 
subject is nicely examined, it will be found that enthusiasm was the 
name only, but that force was the instrument which brought forth 
those great resources under the system of terror, which first stopped 
the Allies; and that a perseverance in the same system of applying 
every individual and every description of property to the service of 
the army, by force, has since conquered Hurope.” The system by 
which the French supported their large armies in Spain, as they did 
everywhere else, was that of taking possession by force of everything 
they wanted. ‘They ordered rations at every town, and they arrested, 
shot, or hanged all who put any obstacle in their way. The English 
generals, the allies of Spain, could not do this. 

Wellington’s thoughts were now directed to the defence of Portugal, 
of the practicability of which he entertained little or no doubt. He 
did not mean that he should be able to defend the whole frontier 
of Portugal, for that is too extensive, and is open on too many points, 
but that he could secure the capital and other strongholds, and the 
mountains and fastnesses, so as to maintain his hold and tire out the 
invaders. The question whether Portugal was worth defending at the 
enormous cost which it would entail upon England, he left for 
ministers at home to decide. As long as the British kept possession 
of Portugal the French tenure of Spain was insecure; and circum- 
stances might, and indeed must, arise when the British and allied 
forces could issue out of Portugal to renew a regular war in Spain for 
the final expulsion of the French. Napoleon was well aware of this, 
and was anxious to expel the English from Portugal, for that country 
formed the position of support for all military operations against the 
French in the Peninsula. (‘ Dispatches,’ vol. vi, p. 368.) The Portu- 
guese in a body had confidence in the British nation and army, they 
were loyal to their prince, detested the French, and their troops had 
submitted to British discipline, Portugal was a sincere and tolerably 


& 


docile ally of England, which Spain was not and could not be. In an 
official letter to Lord Liverpool, dated Badajoz, 14th of November 
1809, after he had given directions for fortifying the lines near Lisbon, 
Wellington stated that Portugal might be defended by a British 
effective force of 80,000 men, in aid of the whole military establish- 
ment of Portugal, consisting of about 45,000 regulars, which however 
were as yet far from effective. And in a confidential letter also to 
Lord Liverpool, of the same date, he says—‘I do not think the — 
French will succeed in getting possession of Portugal with an army of 
70,000 or even of 80,000 men, if they do not make the attack for two 
or three months, which I believe now to be impossible. I conceive not 
only that they may, but will, make the attack before they will subdue 
the north of Spain. The centre of Spain, or Old Castile, is a 
subdued. My opinion is that the enemy have neither the 
means nor the intention of attacking Portugal at present, and that 
they would be successfully resisted. I am likewise of opinion that 
when they shall receive their reinforcements they can be successfully 
resisted.” And as he had foreseen, so it happened. 
Wellington continued in his head-quarters at Viseu till the end of 
April 1810, watching the movements of the French in old Castile, amd 
preparing against their attack upon Portugal, which he expected 
would be made in earnest that year. The French armies in Spain had 
received large reinforcements during the winter from Gern , in 
consequence of the peace between France and Austria. Junot and — 
Drouet, with two fresh corps, had entered Spain, followed by a part of 
Napoleon’s imperial guards. Ney, Kellerman, and Loison, with about 
60,000 men, were, in the month of April, in Old Castile and Leon, ay 
evidently preparing for.an attack upon Portugal. As a prelude they 
had besieged and taken Astorga from the Spaniards, and were 7 an | 
preparations for the siege of Ciudad Rodrigo, which was defended by __ 
a Spanish garrison. d a 
Soult was now in the south of Spain, with Victor and Mortier under 
his orders, and was busy in organising his military resources and 
establishing his military command in Andalucia. There is a very 
interesting report by Soult to the Prince of Wagram, dated Se ae 
4th of August 1810, which is given in the Appendix to Napier’s third __ 
volume, and which shows the activity and administrative abilities of 
that commander, and, at the same time, the misunderstandings be- — 
tween him and the nominal King of Spain, Joseph Bonaparte, and his __ 
Spanish ministers. General Regnier was in Extremadura, ready to 
co-operate with his countrymen in the north in the invasion of Portugal = 
by either bank of the Tagus. His movements were anxiously watched = 
by General Hill, with about 12,000 British aid Portuguese, stationed —_ 
on the frontiers of Alemtejo. At the south-western extremity of 
Spain, Cadiz, strong by its situation, was garrisoned by a Britishforee, _ 
of about 7000 men, under General Graham, in addition to the . . 
Spanish troops, and the French, under Victor, were blockading the 
place. In the north the Spanish patriots remained im possession of 
Galicia and Asturias, but not in sufficient foree to effect any powerfal 
diversion. In the east of Spain, Valencia and Murcia still held out, 
but Cataluiia was the only province in which the Spaniards, under — 
O'Donnell, the best of the Spanish generals, kept up a regular system 
of warfare against the French. O'Donnell wasassisted bythe natureof 
the ground, which was interspefsed with numerous fortresses, and also 
by the English squadron along the coast, and by the organisation and 
daring spirit of the Catalonian militia. But the struggle in that pro- — 
vince was too remote to have any influence on the operations in 
Portugal and Andalucia. The conquest of Portugal was the great 
object of the French campaign of 1810. . : ee 
About the middle of May Marshal Massena, Prince of Essling, 
arrived at Valladolid, having been sent by Napoleon to take thé com- _ 
mand of the army assembled in Old Castile and Leon, which assumed 
the name of the ‘Army of Portugal.’ He had also military command _ 
over the provinces of northern Spain. His force consisted of the 2nd 
corps under Regnier, 6th corps under Ney, and 8th under Junot,and 
the reserve cavalry under Montbrun—in all 72,000 men under arms 
for the field, besides garrisons, detachments, &c., in the provinces of —__ 
Valladolid, Santander, and Leon. To the above number was after- 
wards added, in the course of the campaign, the 9th corps, under 
Drouet, consisting of about 18,000 men. Lord Wellington had to 
oppose the whole of this force with about 54,000 British and Portu- __ 
guese regular troops. There was moreover a considerable Portuguese = 
militia, employed mostly in the garrisons and in the provinces beyond 
the Douro, in Alemtejo and Algarve—in short, on the wings of the 
regular force. It must be observed also that Massena could concen- 
trate his whole force for his attack on Portugal north of the Tagus, 
whilst Lord Wellington was obliged to leave part of his force south of 
that river, to guard against any sudden movement from the French — 
army of Andalucia, which was more than 60,000 strong, of whicha 
part might attempt to advance into Alemitejo. Again, Massena’s troops 
were mostly old soldiers, flushed with success and in a high state of 
discipline, whilst Lord Wellington could only confidently rely upon 
the British part of his force, about 25,000 men, as the Portuguese 
regular army was yet untried, and the militia were so defective in 
organisation as not to be trusted in the open field. Marshal Beres- 
ford however had taken great pains with the Portuguese regulars, 
many of the officers were English, and Lord Wellington had brigaded 
several of their regiments with the British. 


243 
if 
a 


ioe = 
. 


“ 
a! 
a 


— 


- >» 
¥ ae 
a> - 
rae 
a 
a 


i 


< 
» 


oe 
= 


603 WELLINGTON, DUKE OF. | 


WELLINGTON, DUKE OF 606 


Early in June the French invested Ciudad Rodrigo almost in sight 
of the British advanced division, which was posted on the Azava. On 
the 25th they opened their batteries, and the Spanish governor, a 
brave old officer, defended himself till the 10th of July, when, a prac- 
ticable breach being made, the French entered the place by capitula- 
tion. Wellington could not risk his army for the relief of Ciudad 
Rodrigo; his object was to defend Portugal, and, above all, Lisbon. 
He states in the clearest manner his reasons for not attempting to 
relieve Ciudad Rodrigo in his dispatch to Lord Liverpool from Pero 
Negro, 27th of October 1810, in answer to the charges in the French 
*Moniteur.’ He retained his position on the left bank of the Coa, and 
the French advanced to that river, and in so doing the corps of Ney 
encountered the British light division under General Craufurd, who 
disputed the ground against a much superior force, and lastly effected 
his retreat by a bridge across the Coa, which the French unsuccess- 
fully attempted to pass. The fire of the British killed and wounded 
about 1000 of them. This fight was against Lord Wellington’s inten- 
tions, for it was useless, but it gave Massena a specimen of the resist- 
ance that he had to encounter in his march to Lisbon, which was the 
declared object of his expedition. On entering the frontiers of Portu- 
gal, after taking Ciudad Rodrigo, Massena issued a proclamation to 
the Portuguese in the usual style of French proclamations. of those 
times, abusing the English as the cause of all mischief, and attributing 


the presence of an English army in Portugal to the “ insatiable ambi- | 


tion” of England. He sneered at the English for not having attempted 
to relieve Ciudad Rodrigo, which he knew they could not have done 
in the face of an enemy three times as strong. Massena ended by 
recommending to the Portuguese population to remain quiet, and receive 
the French soldiers as friends, assuring them of protection for their 
persons and property. How this last promise was kept from the 
beginning is stated by Lord Wellington in a counter-proclamation 
which he issued a few weeks afterwards, dated. Celorico, August 4 :— 
* The time which has elapsed during which the enemy have remained 
upon the frontiers of Portugal has fortunately afforded the Portuguese 
nation experience of what they are to expect from the French. The 
people had remained in some villages trusting to the enemy’s promises, 
and vainly believing that, by treating the enemies of their country in 
a friendly manner, they should conciliate their forbearance, and that 
their properties would be respected, their women would be saved from 
violation, and that their lives would be spared.—Vain hopes! The 
people of these devoted villages have suffered every evil which a cruel 
enemy could inflict. Their property has been plundered, their houses 
and furniture burnt, their women have been ravished, and the unfor- 


_tunate inhabitants whose age or sex did not tempt the brutal violence 
_ of the soldiers, have fallen the victims of the imprudent confidence 


they reposed in promises which were only made to be violated. The 
Portuguese now see that they have no remedy for the evil with which 
they are threatened but determined resistance, Resistance, and the 
determination to render the enemy’s advance into their country as 
difficult as possible, by removing out of his way everything that is 
valuable, or that can contribute to his existence or facilitate his pro- 
gress, are the only and certain remedies for the evils with which they 
are threatened. The army under my command will protect as large a 
proportion of the country as will be in their power; but it is obvious 
that the people can save themselves only by resistance to the enemy, 
and their properties only by removingthem. The daty however which 
I owe to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, and to the Portuguese 
nation, will oblige me to use the power and authority in my hands to 
force the weak and the indolent to make an exertion to save them- 
selves from the danger which awaits them, and to save their country ; 
and I hereby declare that all the magistrates or persons in authority 
who remain in the towns or villages after receiving orders from any of 
the military officers to retire from them, and all persons of whatever 
description who hold any communication with the enemy, and aid and 
assist them in any manner, will be considered traitors to the state, 
and shall be tried and punished accordingly.” (‘ Dispatches,’ vi, pp. 
229, 230.) 

Massena remained nearly a month inactive on the line of the Coa 
before he began the siege of Almeida, the frontier fortress of Portugal 
on that side. The French broke ground before it on the 15th of 
August, and Lord Wellington moved his army to the front to take 
advantage of any opportunity which might be afforded of relieving the 
place, which was defended by a Portuguese garrison commanded by 
an English officer. The French opened their fire on the 26th of 
August, and on the night of the 27th, in consequence of the explosion 
of a magazine containing nedrly all the ammunition in the place, and 
by which a large part of the town and defences were destroyed, the 
governor was obliged to capitulate. Wellington was greatly disap- 
pointed, for he reckoned on the place detaining the French till the 
rainy season set in. He then fell back with the main body of his 
army to the valley of the Mondego. Another considerable pause 
occurred in Massena’s movements, but on the 15th of September the 
French army began their march down the valley of the Mondego by 
the right bank of the river, in the direction of Coimbra, through 
Viseu. “There are certainly,” Lord Wellington observed, “ many bad 
roads in Portugal, but the enemy has taken decidedly the worst in the 
whole kingdom.” 

Wellington, who had retired by the left bank, then crossed the 


river, and took up a strong position in front of Coimbra, along a high 
ridge called the Serra de Busaco, which extends from the Mondego 


‘northwards. General Hill joined Wellington with his division from the 


south, leaving some troops on the left bank of the Mondego to secure 
the high road to Lisbon on that side. With this exception Lord 
Wellington's whole army was collected upon the Serra de Busaco, On 
the 26th of September the French army, consisting of the 2nd, 6th, 
and 8th corps, assembled before it, and some skirmishing took place, 
In the morning of the 27th the French attacked in great force both 
the right and the left of the English position; one French column 
reached the top of the ridge, and was in the act of deploying when it 


was repulsed by General Picton’s division, as well as another which 


could not even reach the summit; and on the left the French were 
likewise repulsed and thrown down the hill by a charge with the 
bayonet from Craufurd’s division and a Portuguese brigade. The 
French lost one general and about 1000 killed, two generals and about 
8000 wounded, and one general and several hundred men prisoners. 
The loss of the Allies did not exceed 1300. “This movement,” says 
Wellington, “has brought the Portuguese levies into action with 
the enemy for the first time in an advantageous situation, and they 
have proved that the trouble which has been taken with them has not 
been thrown away, and that they are worthy of contending in the same 
ranks with British troops in this interesting cause, which they afford 
the best hopes of saving.” (‘ Dispatches,’ vi., p. 475.) 

One of the motives of Lord Wellington in fighting the battle of 
Busaco was to give time to the population of the country in his rear to 
remove out of the way of the enemy with their goods and provisions, 
especially from Coimbra, a populous and wealthy town, but the orders 
given to that effect were ill obeyed, Massena did not attempt again 
to force the position of Busaco, but moved off his army by the pass 
of Boyalva, in the mountains north of Busaco. Lord Wellington 
had directed Colonel Trant to occupy this pass with a Portuguese 
division; but Trant missed the direct road, and arrived too late and 
with too small a force to arrest the march of the French, who descended 
into the maritime plains, and seized on the road leading from Oporto 
to Coimbra in the rear of the British. 

On the 29th of September the Allies quitted the position of Busaco, 
and, crossing the Mondego, began their retreat towards Lisbon. On 
the 1st of October the British rear-guard, after some skirmishing with 
the French, evacuated Coimbra, accompanied by all the remaining 
inhabitants, who ran away with whatever moveables they could carry, 
and the sick, the aged, and the children, on carts, mules, and donkeys, 
not knowing whither they were going, and encumbering the road, 
whilst the French cavalry was hovering on the flank and rear. It 
was a piteous sight, and one which those who saw it can never forget. 
The French entered the forsaken city, where they found ample stores 
of provisions. On the 2nd of October Lord Wellington’s head-quarters 
were moved to Leiria, where he stayed two days, the French following 
slowly, and the British and Portuguese effecting their retreat with 
great ease and regularity. General Hill with his division moved by 
Thomar and Santarem, the centre of the army by Leiria and Rio 
Mayor, and the left by Alcobacga and Obidos. Massena followed in 
one column by the centre or Rio Mayor road. Some skirmishing only — 
took place between his advanced guard and the light division which 
formed the British rear. On the 8th the allied army entered the lines 
which had been prepared for them, just as the autumnal rains, which 
fall very heavily in Portugal, were beginning to set in. Never wasa 
retreat, before a formidable enemy, effected with more ease or so 
little loss. On the 10th of October the whole army was within the 
lines. 

The line of defence was double. The first, which was 29 miles 
long, began at Alhandra on the Tagus, crossed the valley of Aruda, 
which was rather a weak point, and passed along the skirts of Mount 
Agraga, where there was a large and strong redoubt: it then passed 
across the valley of Zibreira and skirted the ravine of Runa to the 
heights of Torres Vedras, which were well fortified ; thence the line 
followed the course of the little river Zizandre to its mouth on the 
sea-coast. This firgt line of defence followed the sinuosities of the 
mountain tract which extends from the Tagus to the sea about 30 
miles north of Lisbon. Lord Wellington’s head-quarters were fixed 
at Pero Negro, a little in the rear of the centre of the line, where a 
telegraph was fixed corresponding with every part of the position. 
The second line, at a distance varying from six to ten miles in the 
rear of the first, extended from Quintella on the Tagus, by Bucellas, 
Monte Chique, and Mafra, to the mouth of the little river S. Lourencgo 
on the sea-coast, and was 24 miles long. This was the stronger line 
of the two both by nature and art, and, if the first line were forced 
by the enemy, the retreat of the army upon the second was secure at 
all times. Both lines were secured by breastworks, abattis, stone 
walls with banquettes, and scarps. In the rear of the second line 
there was a line to secure the embarkation of the troops, should that 
measure become necessary, enclosing on entrenched camp and the 
Fort of St. Julian. More than 100 redoubts or forts and 600 pieces 
of artillery were scattered along these lines. Lord Wellington had 
received reinforcements from England and Cadiz; the Portuguese 
army had also been strengthened, and the Spanish division of La 
Romana, 5000 strong, came from Estremadura to join the allies, so 
that the British commander had about 60,000 regular troops posted 


607 WELLINGTON, DUKE OF. 


WELLINGTON, DUKE OF. 608 


along the first and second lines (Dispatch to Lord Liverpool, vol. vi. 
p. 582), besides the Portuguese militia and artillery which manned 
the forts and redoubts and garrisoned Lisbon, a fine body of English 
marines which occupied the line of embarkation, a powerful fleet 
in the Tagus, and a flotilla of gun-boats flanking the right of the 
British line. Altogether these lines of defence were of stupendous 
strength, conceived by the military genius of Lord Wellington, and 
executed by the military skill of the British engineer officers, 

Massena seems to have been taken by surprise at the sight of the 
lines, and he employed soveral days in reconnoitering them. He 
made some demonstrations in order to make the British divisions 
show out their force; but after one or two slight attacks, which were 
repulsed, he made no further attempt. He put the second and eighth 
corps partly in the villages and partly in bivouacs in front of the 
right and centre of the British position, leaving the sixth corps at 
Otta in his rear. He established his depdt and hospitals, and com- 
menced forming magazines at Santarem, and for this purpose sent 
moveable columns to scour the country for provisions, for he had 
entered Portugal without magazines, every soldier carrying fifteen 
days’ bread, which many however threw away or wasted on the road. 
The country had been partly stripped by the inhabitants, who had 
retired to the mountains or within the lines, and the French foraging 
parties destroyed what was left, so that for many leagues in rear of 
the French the country became a scene of devastation and almost a 
desert, In addition to this, the Portuguese militia under Trant, 
Millar, and Wilson, came down from the north and cut off all commu- 
nication between Massena’s army and the Spanish frontier, Whilst 
the French were in march for Lisbon, as they thought, Colonel Trant 
surprised Coimbra, seized many prisoners, and all the sick and wounded, 
between four and five thousand in number, whom he removed to 
Oporto. Trant and Wilson came down towards Ourem, Thomar, and 
the banks of the Zezere, hovering in the rear of Massena, who was 
obliged to move back a whole division to hold them in check. Towards 
the end of October, Massena sent 2000 men across the Zezere in order 
to re-open a communication with Spain by way of Castello Branco; 
and General Foy proceeded with a strong escort by way of Penomacor 
to Ciudad Rodrigo, whence he hastened to Paris to inform Napoleon 
of the real state of affairs in Portugal. 

Massena had now given up all idea of attempting to force the British 
lines unless he received large reinforcements. He had entered Por- 
tugal with about 70,000 men, of whom 15,000 had been either killed 
or taken prisoners or were in the hospitals; his army had become 
very sickly in consequence of privations and of being exposed to 
inclement weather mostly without shelter, and bivouacking in low 
grounds. On the 15th of November he began a retrograde movement, 


with great order and caution, for the purpose of placing his army in 


cantonments for the winter. On the 17th the French second corps 
was established at and near Santarem, in a very strong position; the 
eighth corps at Pernes; and the sixth corps at Thomar, farther in the 
rear. Massena’s head-quarters were fixed at Torres Novas. The 
British light divisions and cavalry followed the French movements 
and took some prisoners, but nothing of importance occurred. Lord 
Wellington, leaving part of his troops in the lines, moved forward the 
remainder towards the Rio Mayor, which separated him from the 
French position at Santarem. Hills division was placed on the left 
bank of the Tagus opposite Santarem. Wellington’s head-quarters 
were fixed at Cartaxo. Both armies were now in cantonments for the 
winter. Thus ended the campaign of 1810. As a defensive campaign 
on the part of Lord Wellington it was successful, for the French 
army at the end of that year held no other ground in Portugal than 
that on which its divisions stood, being hemmed in between the 
northern bank of the Tagus, the Rio Mayor, and the ridge of the 
Serra de Estrella, having the allied regular force on its front and 
flanks, and the Portuguese militia on its rear, and its communications 
with Spain intercepted. 

All the north of Portugal was free from the French, and also the 
whole of the kingdom south of the Tagus, and the fine country near 
Lisbon. All the large towns, Lisbon, Oporto, Coimbra, Abrantes, were 
in possession of the Allies, as well as all the fortresses, with the ex- 
ception of Almeida. As the French had advanced by the valley of the 
Mondego and the country west of the Serra de Estrella, the people of 
that tract of country had in great measure deserted it and carried off 
the provisions ; but the population east of the mountains, and between 
them, the Tagus, and the Zezere, had remained in fancied security, so 
that, when Massena withdrew his army to that quarter, ie found the 
towns of Thomar, Pernes, Torres Novas, and Golegio inhabited and 
untouched. The corn-mills, little injured, were quickly repaired; 
cattle and corn were procured in abundance, especially from the fine 
plains of Golegio, which supplied them with Indian corn; and the 
French thus obtained provisions at least for part of the winter. And, 
what was worse for the Allies, a number of boats were left behind at 
Santarem on the right bank of the Tagus, by means of which the 
French had the power of crossing the river whenever they liked. This 
annoyed Lord Wellington more than anything else, and he expressed 
himself strongly concerning the remissness of the Portuguese Regency 
in neglecting to give or not enforcing the necessary orders for removing 
everything out of the reach of the enemy, as he had urged them to do 
months before, “The French could not have stayed if the provisions 


had been removed. . . . All our military arrangements are useless if 
they can find subsistence on the ground which they occupy. . .. Then 
the boats are left at Santarem in order to give the enemy an opportu- 
nity of acting upon our flanks... . It is heart-breaking to contemplate 
the chance of failure from such obstinacy and folly.” 
Charles Stuart, the English Ambassador to the Portuguese Regeney, 
October 16 and 18, and November 1.) 

The perverse spirit of the Portuguese Regency had manifested itself 
ever since the fall of Almeida. There was a faction in the “ 
at the head of which was the Patriarch (former Bishop of Oporto), 
who wanted to control and direct the operations of the British com- 
mander, and, as he would not allow himself to be directed by them, 
they thwarted him in every way. In a remarkable letter addressed to 
Mr, Stuart from Gouvea, September 7, Lord Wellington had de- — 


nounced their practices :—“In order to put an end at once to these 


miserable intrigues, I beg that you will inform the Portuguese Govern- 
ment that I will not stay in the country, and that I shall advise the 
King’s Government to withdraw the assistance which his Majesty 
affords them, if they interfere in any manner with the appointments — 
of Marshal Beresford’s staff, for which he is responsible; or with the 
operations of the army; or with any of the points which, under the 
original arrangement with Marshal Beresford, were referred exclusively 
to his management. I propose also to report to his Majesty’s Govern- 
ment, and refer to their consideration, what steps ought to be taken if 
the Portuguese Government refuse or delay to adopt the civil and 
political arrangements recommended by me, and corresponding with 
the military operations which I am carrying on. But it appears that 
the Portuguese Government have lately discovered that we are all 
wrong ; they have become impatient for the defeat of the enemy, pes 
in imitation of the Central Junta of Spain, call out for a battle and 
early success.” . =e 
In another letter, dated Rio Mayor, October 6, addressed likewise to 
Mr, Stuart, Lord Wellington says—“ You will do me the favour to 
inform the Regency, and above all the Principal Souza, that, his — 


Majesty and the Prince Regent having intrusted me with the com- 


mand of their armies, and likewise with the conduct of the military — 


operations, I will not suffer them, or anybody else, to interfere with 


them; that I know best where to station my troops and when to 
make a stand against the enemy ; and I shall not alter a system formed 
upon mature consideration upon any suggestion of theirs. I am 
responsible for what I do, and they are not; and I recommend them > 
to look to the measures for which they are responsible, and which I 
long ago recommended to. them, viz. to provide for the tranquillity 
of Lisbon, and for the food of their own army and of the people, 
while the troops will be engaged with the enemy. As for Principal 


Souza, I beg you to tell him from me that I have had no satisfaction — 


in transacting the business of his country since he has been a member 
of the government; that, being embarked in a course of military 


(Dispatches to ~ 


* 


f 
“ 


“| 


, 


é 


ed 
- 
at 


3 


a | 


operations, of which I hope to see the successful termination, [shall  _ 


continue to carry them on to the end, but that no power on earth 
shall induce me to remain in the Peninsula for one moment after I — 
shall have obtained his Majesty’s leave to resign my charge, if Principal 
Souza is to remain either a member of the government orto continue 
at Lisbon. Either he must quit the country or I will; and if I should 
be obliged to go, I will take care that the world, or Portugal at least 
and the Prince Regent, shall be made acquainted with my reasons. 
.... TD have but little doubt of success; but, as I have fought a 
sufficient number of battles to know that the result of any one is not 
certain, even with the best arrangements, I am anxious that the 
Government should adopt preparatory arrangements, and take out of — 
the enemy’s way those persons and their families who would suffer if 


they were to fall into their hands.” A perusal of this correspondence _ 


is absolutely necessary to enable a person to form a just idea of the 
difficulties which Lord Wellington had to contend with, and of the 
strength of mind which enabled him to rise superior to’them. 

Campaign of 1811.—During the months of January and February 
the armies in Portugal remained in the same respective positions. The 
low lands being flooded rendered field operations impossible. Mean- 
while the 9th corps under Drouet had entered Portugal by the valley 
of the Mondego, with a large convoy of provisions from Spain, and had 
reinforced Massena’s army, by being posted on its right about Leiria. 
At the same time Soult, who commanded the army of Andalucia, 
received orders from Napoleon to act in concert with Massena, by 
attacking Portugal south of the Tagus; and a new French army was 
formed in the north of Spain, consisting of about 70,000 men, and 
placed under Marshal Bessiéres, duke of Istria, who was ordered to — 
support and furnish all necessary assistance to the army of Portugal, 
(Letter from Berthier, Prince of Wagram, to the Prince of Essling 
(Massena), Paris, January 16, 1811; another from the same to the Duke 
of Dalmatia (Soult), January 24, 1811; and another from the same to 
the Prince of Essling, February 7, 1811; in Appendix to Napier, 
vol. iii.] “ Make a bridge across the Tagus,” said Napoleon, “and let — 
Massena and Soult form a junction. Meantime keep the English in 
check, and make them lose men every day by engagements of the 
advanced guards. Their army is small, and they cannoé afford to 
lose many men. Besides, people in London are much alarmed about 
their army in Portugal; and when the season becomes favourable let 
the main operations be carried on on the south bank of the Tagus.” 


; 
; 
; 
at 


oat 
+a 


§ 


eee nn, ee 


609 WELLINGTON, DUKE OF. 


* 


WELLINGTON, DUKE OF. 610 


Such were the gigantic efforts made by the master of half of Europe 
to crush an English army of 30,000 men, whilst Lord Wellington, after 
urgent applications to ministers at home, received reinforcements to 
the amount of from 6000 to 7000 men only in the beginning of March. 
But all Napoleon’s efforts did not prevail. Massena was waiting for 
Soult to appear on the left bank of the Tagus opposite to his position, 
but Soult was obliged to maintain the blockade of Cadiz, in which 
there was a British garrison of 6000 men; he was obliged to leave 
Sebastiani on the side of Granada and Murcia to keep in check the 
Spanish armed parties; and he could not therefore dispose of more 
than 20,000 men, with whom he durst not enter Alemtejo, leaving the 
Spanish fortress of Badajos in his rear. He therefore began by attack- 
ing the fortress of Olivenga, which he took January 22, and then 
marched to Badajos. On the 19th of February he defeated a Spanish 
force of nearly 12,000 men under General Mendizabal, which was 
posted on the river Gebora, an affluent of the Guadiana, and then 
commenced the siege of Badajos. 

In the mean time Massena remained in his position at Santarem, 
waiting for Soult’s appearance on the Tagus, till he became so dis- 
tressed for provisions that he could wait no longer. All the means of 
collecting provisions by violence were exhausted, large moveable 
columns had been sent at different times both on the side of Castello 
Branco and on that of the Mondego, which scoured the country and 
carried away cattle and provisions, committing horrible excesses, 
which were retaliated by the infuriated peasantry upon the French 
stragglers and wounded. ‘The discipline of the army was broken by 
this barbarous system of warfare. They had no less than 10,000 
sick; they could obtain no news from Spain, and had no more pro- 
visions left than would serve the troops duriag their retreat to the 
frontiers, 

In the beginning of March Massena moved his sick and baggage by 
degrees to the rear, and after demonstrations in various directions the 
divisions of his army filed off in the direction of Pombal. Santarem 
was evacuated in the night of the 5th of March, and next morning it 
was entered by the English. Massena however had gained two days’ 
march, and his army was not overtaken by the English till the 10th, 
when it was concentrated on a table-land before Pombal, presenting a 
front of resistance, ‘There was some skirmishing with the light 
division, whilst Wellington brought up his other divisions, but the 
French having gained time for their baggage to file off, retreated on 
the 11th through the town. A detachment which Ney had left in the 
castle of Pombal was driven away with some loss by the English, 
and in the night Massena continued his retreat. On the 12th the 
English advance found Ney with the French rear-guard posted on 
a high table-land in front of the village of Redinha, when another 
skirmishing took place. As the French seemed disposed to stand 
their ground, and made a show of considerable force, Lord Wellington 
formed his army in line and moved on to the attack, when, after a 
general discharge from the French battalions, which hid them in 
smoke, the French were again in full retreat through the village, and 
joined that evening the main body at Condeixa, where one road leads 
to Coimbra and another ascends the valley of the Mondego. Massena’s 
intention was to seize Coimbra and, if possible, Oporto, and there 
to wait for reinforcements from Spain, and he had sent a division 
under Montbrun to secure the bridge of Coimbra. Wellington had 
foreseen his intention, and had ordered Wilson and Trant with the 
Portuguése militia to look to the security of the important town of 
Oporto, and to abandon the line of the Mondego, which was fordable 
in many places, and retire across the Douro, removing all the boats. 
Coimbra was thus necessarily left to a surprise by the French retreat- 
ing army. But it luckily happened that Trant lingered behind at 
Coimbra with a small force, and, having destroyed one arch of the 
bridge, and placed guards at the fords, he determined to defend the 
town, thinking that, if he could parry a sudden assault, Massena could 
not stay long on the left bank of the Mondego with the allied army at 
his heels. On the 11th of March Montbrun appeared at the suburb of 
Santa Clara, and on the 12th made an attempt to force the bridge, but 
his men were repulsed by grape-shot. Montbrun fancied that Trant 
had been reinforced with some English regiments by sea, and having 
made his report, Massena relinquished the idea of crossing the Mon- 
dego, and determined to retreat by Ponte de Murcella and the left 
bank of the Mondego. Thus Coimbra was saved from the impending 
visitation. 

Massena resumed his retreat on the 13th of March in rather a hurried 
manner, being on the point of having his left turned by Picton’s 
division, which had marched by a path over the mountains of Anciiio, 
Ney, in command of the rear-guard, set fire to the town of Condeixa, 
in order to stop the British artillery, but the light division pursued 
the retreating enemy, and penetrated between their columns, until 
night stopped any further pursuit. By the aid of darkness the French 
got together again, and on the morning of the 14th, when the fog 
which enveloped the mountains began to clear off, Ney was seen posted 
on a hill near Casal Nova. The light division attacked him; and 
Picton’s and Cole’s divisions appearing on his left, he renewed his 
retreat with admirable precision from ridge to ridge, covering his rear 
with guns and light troops, until he gained the strong defile of Miranda 
de Corvo, where the main body of the French was already posted. 
Massena, fearing that Cole's and Nightingale’s divisions, which were 

BIOG, Div. VOL. VI, 


advancing by the road of Espinhal, might gain his rear, set fire to the 
town of Miranda in the night, and passed the river Ceira, an affluent 
of the Mondego, destroying a great quantity of his baggage and ammu- 
nition, and leaving Ney to cover the passage of the river, without 
however risking an action. Ney remained on the left bank, and took 
up a position near the village of Fons de Arronce. The Allies coming 
up about four o’clock in the afternoon of the 15th, Wellington com- 
menced an attack on Ney’s troops, in which the French lost 500 men, 
one-half of whom were drowned in endeavouring to pass the swollen 
river in their rear. Night put an end to the fight, but not to the con- 
fusion; for as the French baggage and other incumbrances were 
pressing along the bridge, panic spread among their troops, who, in 
the midst of the disorder, darkness, and rain, fired upon one another. 
In the night Ney blew up part of the bridge, and moved on his corps, 
keeping a rear-guard on the right bank the whole of the 16th. The 
Allies halted on the left bank that day, partly because the river was not 
fordable, and partly because they were in want of provisions, especially 
the Portuguese troops, for the Portuguese Regency, in spite of the 
urgent representations of Wellington and Beresford, had neglected to 
collect the means of carrying provisions along withthe army. Nothing 
could be got from the country, which had been twice ravaged. Some 
of the Portuguese brigades were actually starving; many men fell off 
and died, and to save the rest the British supplies were shared with 
them. The British commissary-general’s means were thus overlaid, 
and the whole army suffered in consequence. (Dispatches to Charles 
Stuart, dated Louzio, March 16, and Pombeiro, March 18, and 
another to the Earl of Liverpool of March 16.) On the 17th the British 
army crossed the Ceira over a trestle bridge, the French having 
withdrawn in the night. 

Massena had taken up a strong position on the river Alva, another 
affluent of the Mondego, which was swollen by the rains, and had 
destroyed the bridge of Murcella, apparently intending to remain there 
some days. He had also sent out detachments to scour the neigh- 
bouring country for provisions. But Wellington marched three divi- 
sions by the mountains of Quiteria to Arganil, on the Upper Alva, 
which movement obliged the French marshal to abandon the Lower 
Alva, and continue his retreat by Moita, towards Celorico. The 
English army crossed the Alva near Pombeira, and collected at Moita 
on the 19th. Here again Massena destroyed much of his baggage and 
ammunition, for want of cattle to drag it, and also forsook the 
foraging parties that he had sent out, which were intercepted and 
taken by the English, to the number of about 800 men. The main 
body of the allied army halted at Moita for several days, in order to 
give time for the provisions to come up which had been sent round by 
sea from Lisbon to the Mondego. The light division and cavalry 
however continued to follow the French, who reached Celorico and 
Guarda on the 21st, and remained there for several days, and re-opened 
his communications with Almeida and the Spanish frontier. The 
retreat of the French, properly speaking, may be considered as having 
terminated here—a fortnight’s retreat “in which the French com- 
mander displayed infinite ability, but withal a harsh and ruthless 
spirit. I pass over the destruction of Redinha, Condeixa, Miranda 
de Corvo, and many villages on the route ; the burning of those towns 
covered the retrograde movements of the army, and something must 
be attributed to the disorder which usually attends a forced retreat ; 
but the town of Leiria and the convent of Aleobaga were given to the 
flames by express orders from the French head-quarters; and although 
the laws of war, rigorously interpreted, authorise such examples when 
the inhabitants take arms, it can only be justly done for the purpose 
of overawing the people, and not from a spirit of vengeance when 
abandoning the country. But every horror that could make war 
hideous attended this dreadful march. Distress, conflagration, death 
in all modes! from wounds, from fatigue, from water, from the flames, 
from starvation! On every side unlimited violence, unlimited ven- 
geance! I myself saw a peasant hounding on his dog to devour the 
dead and dying ; and the spirit of cruelty, once unchained, smote even 
the brute creation. On the 15th the French general, to diminish the 
encumbrances of his march, ordered a number of beasts of burden to 
be destroyed. The inhuman fellow charged with the execution ham- 
stringed 500 asses, and left them to starve, and thus they were found 
by the British army on that day. The mute but deep expression of 
pain and grief visible in these poor creatures’ looks wonderfully roused 
the fury of our soldiers, and so little weight has reason with the mul- 
titude when opposed by.a momentary sensation, that no quarter would 
have been given to any prisoner at that moment. Excess of feeling 
would have led to direct cruelty. This shows how dangerous it is in 
war to listen to the passions at all, since the most praiseworthy could 
be thus perverted by an accidental combination of circumstances.” 
(Napier, ‘Peninsular War,’ vol. iii, pp. 471, 472.) Lord Wellington, 
habitually sober in the expression of his sentiments, assumes even a 
more decided and indignant tone on the same occasion. In his official 
dispatch to Lord Liverpool, dated March 14, after detailing the move- 
ments of the French to that day, he thus continues :—“I am sorry to 
be obliged to add to this account that their conduct throughout this 
retreat has been marked by a barbarity seldom equalled, and never 
surpassed. Even in the towns of Torres Novas, Thomar, and Pernes, 
in which the head-quarters of some of the corps had been for four 
months, and in which the inhabitants had been invited, hg promises 

R 


611 WELLINGTON, DUKE OF, 


WELLINGTON, DUKE OF. 612 


of good treatment, to remain, they were plundered, and many of their 
houses destroyed, on the night the enemy withdrew from their position, 
and they have since burnt every town and village through which they 
have passed. The convent of Alcobaga (a splendid structure) was 
burnt by orders from the French head-quarters. Tlie bishop’s palace 
and the whole town of Leiria, in which General Drouet had had his 
head-quarters, shared the same fate; and there is not an inhabitant of 
the country, of any class or description, who has had any dealing or 
communication with the French army, who has not had reason to 
repent of it, and to complain of them. This is the mode in which 
the promises have been performed and the assurances have been ful- 
filled which were held out in the proclamation of the French com- 
mander-in-chief, in which he told the inhabitants of Portugal that he 
was not come to make war upon them, but, with a powerful army of 
110,000 men, to drive the English into the sea.” (‘Dispatches,’ vol. vii. 

. 058. 

On oe 25th of March the French abandoned Celorico, but retained 
the position of Guarda. On the 29th however Lord Wellington moved 
his columns up the steep hill of Guarda, when the French retreated to 
the Coa, without firing a shot—the rear-guard in excellent order. On 
the 2nd of April the British army came up with them, and found 
them posted on the right bank of the Coa, On the 3rd the light 
division passed the Coa on the left of the French, and drove in their 
light infantry; but the main body of the French advanced, anda 
rain-storm coming on at the moment, the men of the light division 
could not see that they were pushing too far. When the weather 
cleared up, the French, seeing that only a small force had crossed the 
river, attacked it in columns with cayalry. Three times the 43rd and 
52nd regiments were driven back towards the river, and three times 
they rallied and beat back the enemy. At last, Picton’s division 
having crossed the Coa, and the 5th division also making its appear- 
ance by the bridge of Sabugal, the whole French army retired upon 
Alfayates, having sustained considerable loss in men and also in 
baggage. This was called the combat of Sabugal, in which the light 
division lost about 200 men. On the 4th the French were about 
Aldea da Ponte and Aldea Velha, on the extreme frontier of Portugal, 
and on the 6th they crossed the Agueda into Spain. Thus terminated 
the third and last French invasion of Portugal. They left a garrison 
in Almeida, which was blockaded by the English. ‘The enemy’s 
loss in this expedition to Portugal is immense—I should think no less 
than 45,000 men, including the sick and wounded ; and I think that, 
including the 9th corps, they may have now 40,000 men on this 
frontier.’ (Dispatches to Lord Liverpool, April 9, 1811.) A great 
part of the loss of the French, in killed, was from the hands of the 
Portuguese peasantry, who revenged themselves for the injuries which 
had been inflicted on their countrymen during the six or seven months 
that the French had remained in Portugal, by killing every straggler 
whom they could lay their hands upon before the British columns 
came up. Dismal scenes of suffering and death presented themselves 
along the whole line of that disastrous retreat—bodies of dead 
soldiers, generally naked, carts broken down -on the road, carcasses 
of horses and mules, Some of the poor creatures seemed to have 
crawled or been dragged out of the road to die behind the loose stone 
walls with which the fields are enclosed; and, on looking over the 
stone walls into the fields, they were seen lying in clusters of three or 
four or more, in all sorts of positions. Portuguese villagers, men and 
women, were occasionally seen insulting and kicking the bodies of 
dead Frenchmen on the road, when they were properly reproved and 
driven away by a British non-commissioned officer. It was chiefly in 
the mountain-valleys of the Serra de Estrella that the work of 
destruction had been carried on by the French during the winter of 
1810-11. The marauding parties went searching for provisions in 
those sequestered valleys, and when they fell upon a hamlet or farm- 
house they showed no mercy to the inmates. Sometimes in the moun- 
tains they pounced upon several families huddled together in a cave, 
with a provision of Indian corn or pulse to last them for the winter. 
The males were soon despatched—the females spared for a time, but 
not in merey. It happened however at times that these marauding 
parties were small, and they were overpowered by the peasantry, who 
gave no quarter. 

The orders given by the Regency of Portugal, at Lord Wellington's 
request, for the people of Beira and Estremadura to withdraw from 
the open country upon the advance of the enemy, had caused a vast 
influx of population within the lines during the winter. These people 
were assisted partly by their own countrymen, and partly by a gift of 
100,0002. voted by the British Parliament, and by subscriptions raised 
in England. After the retreat of Massena they returned to their 
homes, when the poorer class received further assistance during the 
remainder of that year and the following winter. 

Lord Wellington having placed his army in cantonments between 
the Coa and the Agueda, and made arrangements for the blockade of 
Almeida, set out for the south to see the state of affairs on the 
Guadiana. Marshal Beresford commanded the allied troops in Alem- 
tejo, in the absence of General Hill, who had gone home on leave. 
The Spanish General Mendizabal, having been utterly defeated by the 
French in the preceding February, Soult had invested the fortress of 
Badajoz, the governor of which, General Menacho, was unfortunately 
killed by a cannon shot. The command of the garrison devolved 


upon General Imar, who, on the 10th of March, only one day after the 
breaching battery had opened, and the breach was far from practi- 
cable, surrendered the place, although he knew by a telegraphic dis- 
patch that a large British and Portuguese force was advancing to his 
relief, as Massena, being then in full retreat, Lord Wellington had sent 
troops to reinforce Beresford and to save Badajoz. In the mean time 
General Graham, with the British garrison of Cadiz, defeated the 
French under Victor in the battle of Barrosa, but not being supported 
by the Spanish troops, ke was obliged to return to Cadiz, * 
Marshal Soult having obtained Badajoz, repaired to Seville; and 


Mortier, who succeeded him in command in Estremadura, laid siege ~ 


to Campo Mayor, a weak place within the frontiers of Portugal, with 
a garrison of only a few hundred men; but the commander, a Portu- 
guese officer of engineers, defended himself bravely until a la 
breach was made, when, being summoned, he asked of Mortier four- 
and-twenty hours more to wait for succour. Mortier granted the 
honourable demand of the brave veteran, and at the expiration of the 
time agreed upon the place was surrendered. 

Marshal Beresford, having been reinforced from the north by Lord 
Wellington, was advancing at the head of 22,000 men; and at his 
appearance, on the 25th of March, the French, hastily evacuating 
Campo Mayor, withdrew to Badajoz after a sharp skirmish with the 
British cavalry. Beresford had orders from Wellington to invest 
Badajoz before the enemy could provision and repair their conquest. 
Crossing the Guadiana, he advanced into Spanish Estremadura, Mortier 
having retired. before him, and Beresford placed his army in canton- 
ments about Zafra and Merida to cover the siege of Badajoz. He 
began by besieging and taking Olivenga; and. shortly afterwards, 
April 20, Lord Wellington arrived from the north, reconnoitred — 
Badajoz, and ordered immediate operations against the place, The 
unexpected surrender of Badajoz had been a severe blow, and he con- 
sidered its recapture essential to his future operations, for he had 
formed the plan of advancing into the heart of Spain, and obliging the 
French to evacuate Andalucia. (Dispatch to Lord Liverpool, vi 
p. 523.) But the possession of Badajoz not only protected the Fren 


positions in Andalucia and Estremadura, but gave them the key of — 


the southern provinces of Portugal. While making the pre ry 
arrangements for the siege, Lord Wellington was recalled to the north 
by Massena’s movements. On the 28th of April the British com- 
ender was back again, with his head-quarters at Villa Fermosa, near 
the Coa. 

Massena, having recruited his army at Salamanca to a certain extent, 
was anxious to throw provisions into Almeida, He had repeatedly 
applied for reinforcements, and, above all, provisions, in the most 
urgent manner to his brother marshal, Bessiéres, duke of Istria, who 
held, by Napoleon’s orders, a separate command in the north. 
siéres however seems to have paid no great attention to these applica- 
tions, for we find Massena writing to him from Ciudad Rodrigo on 
the 29th of April, when he was actually on his march to relieve 
Almeida, in the following terms :—‘ My dear Marshal, your letters are 
to me inconceivable. In that of the 20th you tell me that you can 
give me no assistance. In that of the 22nd you tell me that, on the 
25th or 26th, you will join me wherever I may be, and that the head 
of your column will be at Salamanca on the 26th. By your letter 
which I receive now, you tell me that your cavalry and your artillery 
were, on the 27th, still one day’s march from Salamanca; and you 
conclude that my movement must be by this time at an end, and you 
say that you regret not having been able to co-operate in it.....I1_ 
beg of you again to send without delay biscuit, flour, and corn, to 
Ciudad Rodrigo, for the place has not fifteen days’ provisions.” 
(Napier, ‘ Peninsular War,’ vol. iii. App. pp. 620-22.) ; 

On the 2nd of May, Massena, having been joined at last by some — 
cavalry, moved from Ciudad Rodrigo, and crossed the Agueda, w 
40,000 infantry, 5000 horse, and about thirty pieces of artillery, for 
the purpose of relieving Almeida. He expected every day to be super- 
seded in his command, and he wished to make a last effort for the 
sake of his own military character. Lord Wellington could muster 
no more than 32,000 men, of which force only 1200 were cavalry. He 
however determined to fight rather than give up the hceate et 
Almeida, He drew back his army half way between the Agueda and 
the Coa, and placed it in an extended line on a table-land between the 
two parallel rivers Turones and Das Casas, which are afiluents of the 
Agueda ; his left on Fort Conception, covering the blockade of Almeida ; 
the centre opposite the village of Almeida; and the right at Fuentes 
de Onfioro, extending towards Naya d’Aver, on the road to Sabugal: the 
whole distance being nearly seven miles, He had the Coa in his 
with the bridge of Castello Bom in case of a retreat. The front o 
British position was protected by the river Das Casas, flowing through 
a deep ravine, in which lay the village of Fuentes de Oftoro; but to the 
right of this village the table-land turned back towards the e Frnt 


fthe 


leaving a plain between it and the hill of Nava d’Aver. The 
advanced in three columns, one of which took post on a ridge which 
overhangs the village of Fuentes de Ofioro, and nearly parallel to that 
occupied by the Allies. They then attacked the village, which was 
stoutly defended by the British, The French at one time took pos- 
session of part of it, but were charged and driven away by a fresh 
brigade of British infantry. Night put an end to the fi Th 
Allies lost about 250 men, and the French somewhat more, The n 


\ 


618 WELLINGTON, DUKE OF. 


WELLINGTON, DUKE OF. ; 614 — 


day, Massena, who had been joined by Bessiéres with a body of the 
Imperial Guards, reconnoitered the position of the Allies; and on the 
5th of May he made a grand attack with the greater part of his force 
on the British right, which he expected to turn by the plain which 
extends between the hill of Fuentes de Ofioro and that of Nava d’Aver, 
and between Pogo Velho on the river Das Casas to the T'urones, which 
last stream flowed in the rear of the British position. Had they 
passed the Turones, the French would have spread into the open 
country about Frenada, and cut off the English from the Coa, The 
French, crossing the Das Casas at Poco Velho, attacked the Spanish 
party of Julian Sanchez, and drove him from Nava d’Aver; they then 
charged the 7th light division, which formed the British right. The 
light division immediately formed into squares; but the numerous 
French cavalry fell upon the 7th division before it could effect a like 
formation, The troops however stood firm; and although some were 
cut down, the enemy was checked by the steady fire of the Chasseurs 
Britanniques, a foreign regiment in the British service, and of the 
other regiments of the 7th division. Lord Wellington however, con- 
sidering his position too far extended to the right, gave up Nava d’Aver 
and his communication with Sabugal, and ordered the 7th and light 
divisions to retire across the plain, and the lst and 3rd divisions to 
wheel back and take up a new alignement on a steep ridge which runs 
from the Das Casas and Turones, nearly at right angles with the 


original position. The village of Fuentes de Ofioro thus became the 


left of the new position, and the right was at Frenada, beyond the 
Turones, and between that and the Coa. This movement was well 
executed, though under very critical circumstances, for the British 
squares had to cross a vast plain, exposed to the charge of a numerous 
French cavalry supported by artillery, the British cavalry being too 
weak to give much protection. The non-combatants, who had gathered 
behind the British line, were hurrying away, driven by the French 
horsemen across the plain. Colonel Napier says that “in all this war 
there was not a more dangerous hour for England. The whole of the 
vast plain, as far as the Turones, was covered with a confused multi- 
tude, amidst which the squares appeared but as specks; for there 
was a great concourse, composed of commissariat followers of the 
camp, servants, baggage, led horses, and peasants attracted by curio- 
sity, and finally the broken piquets and parties coming out of the 
woods. The 7th division was separated from the army by the Turones ; 
5000 French cavalry, with fifteen pieces of artillery, were close at hand 
impatient to charge; the infantry of the 8th corps was in order of 
battle behind the horsemen; the wood was filled with the skirmishers 
of the 6th corps; and if the latter body, pivoting upon Fuentes, had 
issued forth, while Drouet’s divisions fell on that village, while the 
8th corps attacked the light division, and while the whole of the 
cavalry made a general charge, the loose multitude encumbering the 
plain would have been driven violently in upon the 1st division, in 
such a manner as to have intercepted the latter’s fire, and broken 
their ranks. No such effort however was made; Montbrun’s cavalry 
merely hovered about Craufurd’s squares, the plain was soon cleared, 
the cavalry took post behind the centre, and the light division formed 
a reserve to the right of the 1st division, sending the riflemen among 
the rocks to connect it with the 7th division, which had arrived at 
Frenada, and was there joined by Julian Sanchez. Atthe sight of this 
new front, so deeply lined with troops, the French stopped short and 
commenced a heavy cannonade, which did great execution, from the 
closeness of the allied masses; but twelve British guns replied with 
vigour, and the violence of the enemy’s fire abated: their cavalry 
then drew out of range, and a body of French infantry attempting to 
glide down the ravine of the Turones, was repulsed by the riflemen 
and light companies of the Guards. But all-this time a fierce battle 
was going on at Fuentes de Ofioro, Massena had directed Drouet to 
carry this village at the very moment when Montbrun’s cavalry should 
turn the right wing. It was, however, two hours later ere the 
attack commenced. The three British regiments (24th, 71st, and 
79th) made a desperate resistance ; but, overmatched in number, and 
little accustomed to the desultory fighting of light troops, they 
were pierced and divided: two companies of the 79th were taken, 
Colonel Cameron was mortally wounded, and the lower part of the 
town was carried: the upper part however was stiffly held, and the 
rolling of the musketry was incessant. Had the attack been made 
earlier, and the whole of Drouet’s division thrown boldly into the 
fight, while the 6th corps, moving through the wood, closely turned 
the village, the passage must have been forced, and the left of the new 
position outflanked; but now Lord Wellington having all his reserves 
in hand, detached considerable masses to the support of the regiments 
in Fuentes. The French coutinued also to reinforce their troops, 
until the whole of the 6th corps and a part of Drouet’s division 
were engaged, when several turns of fortune occurred. At one time 
the fighting was on the banks of the stream, and amongst the lower 
houses; at another upon the lower heights and round the chapel, and 
some of the enemy’s skirmishers even penetrated completely through 
towards the main position: but the village was never entirely aban- 
doned by its defenders; and in a charge of the 71st, 79th, and 88th 
regiments, led by Colonel M‘Kinnon, against a heavy mass which had 
gained the chapel eminence, a great number of French fell. In this 
manner the fight lasted until evening, when the lower part of the town 
was abandoned by both parties—the British maintaining the chapel 


and crags, and the French retiring a cannon-shot from the stream. 
(‘ History of the Peninsular War.’ iii. 514-16.) 

The total loss of the British was 235 killed, 1234 wounded, and 317 
missing or taken prisoners. The loss of the French was certainly 
greater, judging from the number of dead bodies found in the village. 
No fighting of any consequeuce occurred on the left of the British 
position, where the fifth and sixth divisions were posted to protect the 
blockade of Almeida, the second corps of the French merely waiting 
the issue of the battle at Fuentes de Ofioro, and watching for an 
opportunity of throwing provisions into Almeida, which however did 
not occur. ~The battle of Fuentes de Ofioro was of importance, being 
a regular pitched battle fought by the British in a position of no par- 
ticular strength, and indeed very weak in one point, under great dis- 
advantage of numbers, and especially of cavalry. The great majority 
of the troops engaged were British, for the Portuguese were mostly 
with Marshal Beresford in the south, There were only four British 
divisions and one Portuguese brigade and about 1000 cavalry engaged 
against three French corps of infantry and 5000 cavalry. Massena 
fought the battle for the purpose of relieving Almeida, but he failed, 
and Almeida a few days afterwards was evacuated by the French 
garrison in the night. With this battle Massena closed his long and 
active career. He withdrew his army beyond the Agueda, and soon 
afterwards Marshal Marmont, duke of Ragusa, arrived at Salamanca 
to supersede him. The order of Napoleon by which Massena was 
directed to give up the command to Marmont was not conceived in 
very gracious terms. He was allowed to take with him to France bis 
son and one of his aides-de-camp only. Marmont was told to take 
the reins of command with a firm hand. (Napier, ‘ Peninsular War,’ 
vol. iii, Appendix vii., p. 622.) 

Whilst these things were happening in the north, Marshal Beres- 
ford had invested Badajoz, when Soult marched from Seville to relieve 
that place. On the 13th of May, Beresford raised the siege, removed 
his artillery, platforms, and stores, and prepared to meet Soult in 
position on the ridge of Albuera with above 7000 British infantry, 
several Portuguese brigades, and Biake’s Spanish corps, in all about 
30,000 infantry and about 2000 cavalry, but hardly one-half of this 
force could be depended upon in the field. He had with him thirty - 
eight pieces of artillery. On the evening of the 15th Soult came up 
with about 19,000 chosen infantry, about 4000 cavalry, and fifty guns. 
He immediately reconnoitred Beresford’s position, and determined 
upon an attack onthe right flank of the Allies, which was their weak 
point, though Beresford had directed his chief attention to the centre, 
where he had placed his British troops. It was on the French part 
the same game as at the battles of Talavera and Fuentes; but Wel- 
lington was not there, nor were British troops at hand all along the 
line ; and when Beresford, perceiving his mistake, ordered Blake to 
change his front so as to face the French marching upon his right, 
Blake refused, saying that the real attack was against the centre by the 
bridge of Albuera. There was indeed an attack by the French in that 
quarter, but it was only intended to mask and support the grand attack 
on the right of the Allies. It was only when the French actually ap- 
peared on the table-land on the right, commanding and enfilading the 
whole position of the Allies, that Blake consented, with much slowness, 
to change his front. In the mean time the French columns were already 
in possession of the table-land; their guns opened, and their cavalry 
outflanking the front, put the Spaniards in disorder, and they gave way. 
The brigades of the second division, British, were ordered to advance 
to the right; the first, or Colborne’s brigade, while in the act of 
deploying, was attacked in flank and rear, and nearly destroyed by 
the French and Polish cavalry : the next, Houghton’s brigade, reached 
the summit, and maintained a desperate struggle. But the men fell 
fast, ammunition failed, and Beresford began to think of a retreat, 
which would have been ruinous, when, at the suggestion of Colonel 
Hardinge, General Cole, with the 4th division, was ordered to 
march up the hill. It consisted of only two brigades, one Portuguese 
and the English Fusileer brigade (7th and 23rd regiments), commanded 
by Sir William Myers. ‘This last brigade restored the fight and saved 
the army. General Cole directed the Portuguese brigade under 
General Harvey to move round the hill on the right, whilst Aber- 
crombie’s brigade, the last remaining one of the second division, 
moved up the hill on the left; Cole himself led the brave fusileers up 
the fatal hill, which was crowned by the French masses and artillery. 
Six British guns were already in the enemy’s possession, the whole 
French reserve was coming forward to reinforce their front column, 
and what remained of Houghton’s brigade could no longer maintain 
its position. The ground was heaped with dead bodies, and the Polish 
lancers were riding furiously about the captured artillery on the upper 
part of the hill. General Cole at the head of the fusileers, flanked by 
a battalion of the Lusitanian Legion under Colonel Hawkshawe, dis- 
persed the lancers, recovered the captured guns, and appeared on the 
right of Houghton’s brigade exactly as Abercrombie’s issued out on the 
left. We must now once more borrow Sir William Napier’s eloquent 
pen :—“Such a gallant line, issuing from the midst of the smoke, and 
rapidly separating itself from the confused and broken multitude, 
startled the enemy’s heavy masses, which were increasing and pressing 
onwards as to an assured victory: they wavered, hesitated, and then, 
vomiting forth a storm of fire, hastily endeavoured to enlarge their 
front, while a fearful discharge of grape from all their artillery 


WELLINGTON, DUKE OF. 


615 


WELLINGTON, DUKE OF, 


616 


whistled through the British ranks. Sir William Myers was killed, 
Cole, and the three colonels, Ellis, Blakeney, and Hawkshawe, fell 
wounded, and the fusileer battalions, struck by the iron tempest, 
reeled and staggered like sinking ships. Suddenly and sternly re- 
covering, they closed on their terrible enemies, and then was seen 
with what a strength and majesty the British soldier fights. In vain 
did Soult, by voice and gesture, animate his Frenchmen; in vain did the 
hardiest veterans, extricating themselves from the crowded columns, 
sacrifice their lives to gain time for the mass to open out on sucha 
fair field ; in vain did the mass itself bear up, and, fiercely arising, fire 
indiscriminately upon friends and foes, while the horsemen, hovering 
on the flank, threatened to charge the advancing line. Nothing could 
stop that astonishing infantry. No sudden burst of undisciplined 
valour, no nervous enthusiasm, weakened the stability of their order ; 
their flashing eyes were bent on the dark columns in their front ; 
their measured tread shook the ground; their dreadful volleys swept 
away the head of every formation; their deafening shouts overpowered 
the dissonant cries that broke from all parts of the tumultuous crowd, 
as foot by foot, and with a horrid carnage, it was driven by the inces- 
sant vigour of the attack to the farthest edge of the hill. In vain did 
the French reserves, joining with the struggling multitudes, endeavour 
to sustain the fight; their efforts only increased the irremediable con- 
fusion, and the mighty mass, giving way like a loosened cliff, went 
headlong down the ascent. The rain flowed after in streams dis- 
coloured with blood, and 1500 unwounuded men, the remnant of 6000 
unconquerable British soldiers, stood triumphant on the fatal bill.” 
(Napier, ‘ Peninsular War,’ iii., 540-1.) 

The day was now won, and Beresford ordering the Portuguese and 
Spaniards to advance, the French retreated in confusion across the 
small river on which stands the village of Albuera. About three 
o'clock the fire had ceased. The allied army had lost in killed and 
wounded about 7000 men, of whom two-thirds were British. The 
French lost about 8000 men, including two generals killed and three 
wounded. On the 16th of May the two armies remained in their 
respective positions, and Beresford waited in anxiety for another 
attack, when he had hardly British soldiers enough for his picquets 
and to take care of the crowd of wounded. On the 17th however he 
was reinforced by an English brigade, and the following day Soult 
retired towards Seville, leaving 800 soldiers severely wounded to the 
generosity of the English. On the 19th Lord Wellington arrived 
from the north, followed by two fresh divisions, and gave directions 
to resume the seige of Badajoz. The trenches were opened, and on 
the 5th of June, a breach being made in Fort St. Christoval, the 
assault was given, but failed. On the 9th another attempt at storming 
was made, which proved equally fruitless. On the 10th Lord Wel- 
lington received intelligence that Marmont was marching to the south 
to join Soult. He then took up a position near Campo Mayor, along 
the frontiers of Portugal. The enemy did not choose to attack him, 
and about the middle of July, Marmont, again separating himself 
from Soult, recrossed the Tagus by Almaraz, and marched on Sala- 
manca. Lord Wellington likewise, leaving General Hill with one 
British division and the Portuguese in Alemtejo, and giving up the 
siege of Badajoz for the present, crossed the Tagus with the remainder 
of his army, and fixed his head-quarters at Fuente Guinaldo, on the 
line of the Agueda. He was looking towards recovering possession of 
the important fortress of Ciudad Rodrigo, which his advanced parties 
surrounded and kept in a state of blockade. Towards the end of Sep- 
tember, Marmont, having received large reinforcements from France, 
moved upon the Agueda, and by his superiority of numbers and 
especially of cavalry, obliged Lord Wellington, after a partial engage- 
ment at El Bodon, to withdraw his army, which he did in excellent 
order to his old position on the Coa, where Marmont did not choose 
to follow him. Nothing more happened after this on that side for 
the remainder of the year 1811. 

In the south, General Hill effected a gallant achievement by sur- 
prising the French General Girard, with 4000 foot and 1000 horse, at 
Arroyos de Molinos, in the neigbourhood of Caceres, in Spanish Estre- 
madura, on the 28th of October. Hill completely routed Girard, took 
1500 prisoners, with several officers of rank, and the whole of the 
enemy’s artillery, ammunition, stores, and baggage, with only a trifling 
loss on the part of the Allies. Hill then advanced to Merida, where 
he placed his troops in cantonments, that part of Estremadura being 
thus delivered from the enemy. 

Lord Wellington, in the second part of 1811, besides having firmly 
established his complete possession of Portugal, had by his operations 
within the Spanish frontiers, both north and south of the Tagus, given 
full employment to two French armies, each commanded by a French 
marshal of high reputation, and prevented them from acting with 
vigour either against Galicia in the north or against Cadiz in the 
south. He had thus fulfilled the promise which he had made the year 
before of being able to retain possession of Portugal, and to make it a 
position of support for future operations against the French in Spain, 
and he continued to hold the same language to ministers at home. 
(‘ Dispatches,’ March 23, 1811, vii, p. 392.) 

In eastern Spain unfortunately the French had obtained in 1811 
great successes against the unassisted Spaniards. They took Tarra- 
gona by storm in June, when a horrid butchery of the unarmed popu- 
lation took place, without regard to age or sex, to the number, it was 


stated, of 6000. Still the brave Catalonians, undismayed, continued 
to carry on the war with unabated zeal. The Spanish General Blake, 
after being defeated by Suchet near Valencia, shut himself up in that 
city with his whole army, the last Spanish army which had remained 
in the field; and in the beginning of January 1812, he capitulated 
with 18,000 soldiers, 23 general officers, and between 300 and 400 
guus. “I believe,” observed Lord Wellington, at the time, “there is 
no man who knows the state of affairs in that province, and has read 
Suchet’s account of his action with Blake on the 25th of October, who 
does not believe that, if Blake had not fought that action, Valencia 
would have been safe. Are the English ministers and generals respon- 
sible for the blunders of Blake?” — (‘ Dispatches,’ viii., p, 520.) 

Campaign of 1812,—Lord Wellington from his head-quarters at 
Frenada, near the Coa, where he had been apparently quiet during the 
latter months of 1811, had been preparing in secrecy the means of 
recapturing the important fortress of Ciudad Rodrigo, Under the 
appearance of repairing and fortifying Almeida he had collected there 
a battering train and abundant stores. A portable bridge on trestles 
was also constructed in the same place. He also effected the forma- 
tion of a commissariat waggon-train, with several hundred waggons 
constructed for that purpose, in order to supersede the rude carts of 
Portuguese construction which had been hitherto used as a means of 
transport for the army, but which would have often proved quite 
ineffectual without the assistance of a large body of Spanish mules and 
muleteers, which followed all the movements of the divisions of the 
British army. By the exertions of the engineer officers the river 
Douro had been rendered navigable as far as the confluence of the 
Agueda, that is to say, forty miles higher than boats had ever before 
ascended it, All this was done with so little outward bustle and show 
that Marmont does not seem to have anticipated any attack upon 
Ciudad Rodrigo, at least for the remainder of the winter. The French 
marshal had placed his army, the ‘Army of Portugal,’ in extensive 
cantonments about Plasencia and Talavera, towards the Tagus, and 
had detached part of it to the eastward towards La Mancha, and two 
divisions to the north, to occupy Asturias. Suddenly, Lord Welling- 
ton, on the 6th of January 1812, moved his head-quarters forward to 
Gallegos, and on the 8th part of the army crossed the Agueda, and 
immediately invested Ciudad Rodrigo, An external redoubt, on a hill 
called the Great Teson, was stormed by a party of the light division 
that very evening, and the first parallel was soon afterwards established. 
On the night of the 13th the fortified convent of Santa Cruz, situated 
outside of the walls, was surprised and carried; and on the 14th the 
convent of San Francisco, likewise situated outside the walls, was 
carried by assault. The second parallel was then completed, and fresh 
batteries being established, two practicable breaches were made on the 
19th, and that very evening orders were given to storm the place. No 
time was to be lost, as Marmont was known to be advancing to relieve 
the garrison. A part of the light division under General Craufurd, 
on one side, and General Mackinnon’s brigade, supported by the 94th 
and 5th regiments, on the other, advanced to the breaches, whilst 
Colonel Pack’s brigade attacked the gate of St. Jago, and in less than 
half an hour from the time the attack commenced the Allies were 
in possession of the ramparts, and the garrison then surrendered. 
(Dispatches to Lord Liverpool, vol. viii., p. 549, &c.) The loss of the 
British was severe. General Mackinnon and many of his men were 
blown up by the explosion of a magazine on the rampart, which took 
fire accidentally. General Craufurd, the gallant commander of the 
light division, was mortally wounded, and died shortly afterwards. 
General Vandeleur and Colonel Colborne were also wounded, as well 
as Major George Napier, who led the storming party on the left, 
The total loss of the British and Portuguese amounted to about 1000 
killed and wounded. The loss of the garrison was estimated at about 
the same, besides 1700 prisoners. A large battering-train and a vast 
quantity of ammunition and stores were found in the place. . 

Marshal Marmont heard at Valladolid, on the 15th of January, of 
Lord Wellington's operations against Ciudad Rodrigo. He quickl 
recalled Bonet’s division from Asturias, collected his other divisions, 
and marched, as he thought, to relieve the place; but on arriving at 
Salamanca he heard of its fall, His astonishment was thus expressed 
in a letter to Berthier :—‘ On the 16th the English batteries opened 
their fire at a great distance: on the 19th the place was stormed, and 
fell into the power of the enemy. There is something so incompre- 
hensible in this that I allow myself no remarks, as I am not yet- 
furnished with the necessary information.” ; 

The Spanish Cortes assembled at Cadiz passed unanimously a vote 
of thanks to Lord Wellington, and conferred on him the title of 
Duke of Ciudad Rodrigo. In England he was raised to the dignity of 
Earl of Wellington of the United Kingdom, and parliament, besides a 
vote of thanks to him and his brave army, annexed to the title an 
annuity of 20002. : 

Having repaired in some degree the works of Ciudad Rodrigo, Lord 
Wellington placed it under the command of a Spanish governor, and 
prepared to move to the south, for he had made up his mind to take 
Badajoz, if possible, before Marmont and Soult could unite for its 
defence. The artillery for the siege was embarked at Lisbon for a 
fictitious destination, then transhipped at sea into small craft, in 
which it was conveyed up the Setubal river to Aleacer do Sul, and 
thence by land across Alemtejo to the banks of the Guadiana. On 


WELLINGTON, DUKE OF. 


617 


WELLINGTON, DUKE OF. 618 


the 6th of March, leaving one division on the Agueda, Lord Wellington 
marched the remainder of his army to the south. Onthe 16th the army 
crossed the Guadiana, and Badajoz was immediately invested, while 
several divisions advanced to Llerena and Merida to cover the siege. 
On the 25th, the Picurina, an advanced post, separated from the body 
of the place by the small river Rivillas, was taken by storm, and on 
the 26th two breaching batteries opened their fire on the town. In 
the meantime Soult was collecting his disposable force at Seville for 
the relief of the place, and Marmont, in order to effect a diversion, 
entered Portugal by Sabugal and Penamacor, and ravaged the country 
east of the Serra de Estrella. Lord Wellington accelerated the opera- 
tions of the siege. On the 6th of April, three breaches having become 
practicable, orders were given for the assault in the evening. The 
various divisions passed the glacis under a tremendous fire from the 
garrison, which greatly thinned their ranks; and they descended into 
the ditch, and ascended the breaches, but here they found obstacles 
which appeared insuperable. Planks studded with iron spikes, like 
-harrows, and chevaux-de-frise formed of sword-blades, effectually 
stopped the way, and the ramparts and neigbouring buildings were 
occupied by light infantry, which showered their volleys upon the 
assailants. Shells, hand-grenades, every kind of burning composition, 
‘and missiles of every sort, were hurled at them. At last Lord Wel- 
lington ordered them to withdraw just as a report came that General 
Picton’s division had taken the castle by escalade, and soon aftewards 


General Walker’s brigade also entered the town by escalade on the’ 


side of the Olivenca Gate. The other divisions then formed again for 
the attack of the breaches, when all resistance ceased. The J*rench 
governor, General Philippon, with a few hundred men, escaped across 
the Guadiana to Fort St. Christoval, where he surrendered the follow- 
ing morning. Great excesses and outrages were committed by the 
soldiers during the remainder of the night, until severe measures on 
the part of Lord Wellington restored order. The loss of the Allies 
‘was much more severe than at Ciudad Rodrigo, amounting to 72 officers 
and 963 men killed; and 306 officers and 8480 men wounded. “ When 
the extent of the night’s havoc,” says Napier, ‘‘was nade known to 
Lord Wellington, the firmness of his nature gave way for a moment, 
and the pride of conquest yielded to a passionate burst of grief for the 
loss of his gallant soldiers.” 

Soult collected his army at Villafranca, between Llerena and Merida, 
on the 8th, when, hearing of the fall of Badajoz, he retired before day- 
light next day towards Seville, pursued by the British cavalry, which 
made a successful attack on his rear-guard at Villa Garcia. 

On the 13th of April Lord Wellington moved the main body of his 
army back to the north, leaving General Hill south of the Tagus. 
Marmont, on hearing of this, gave up the blockade of Almeida and 
Ciudad Rodrigo, and withdrew to Salamanca. Lord Wellington’s 
head-quarters were again at Guinaldo, between the Coa and the 
Agueda, where they remained till the middle of June, nothing of 
importance occurring in that quarter during the interval. Inthe south 
however General Hill took and destroyed, in the month of May, the 
forts which the French had constructed at Almaraz on the Tagus, 
where they had a bridge of boats to secure the communication between 
the Armies of the North and South. 

On the 13th of June Lord Wellington, having completed his pre- 
parations for an advance into Spain, broke up from his cantonments 
with about’ 40,000 men, leaving General Hill on the Tagus, near 
Almaraz, with about 12,000 more. On the 17th he appeared before 
Salamanca. Marmont retired on his approach, and left about 800 
men in some forts constructed on the ruins of convents, which com- 
. manded the bridge across the river Tormes. The allied army forded 
the river and entered the town, to the great joy of the inhabitants. 
“They have now been suffering for more than three years, during 
which time the French, among other acts of violence and oppression, 
have destroyed 13 out of 25 convents, and 22 of 25 colleges, which 
existed in this celebrated seat of learning.” (‘ Dispatches,’ ix. p. 239.) 
The forts were immediately invested, while Marmont’s army retired 
to Toro on the Douro, and the British advance took up a position at 
St. Cristoval, a few miles in front of Salamanca. An attempt was 
made to carry the forts by escalade, which failed, and Major-General 
Bowes and 120 men fell in the attack. On the 20th Marmont moved 
forward again, and, arriving in front of the position of St. Cristoval, 
made a demonstration with his cavalry in the plain, but it ended 
merely in a skirmish. He made other demonstrations and movements 
in the following days for the purpose of relieving the forts, but was 
baffled by the watchfulness of the British general, until on the 27th 
the forts within Salamanca were taken or surrendered. 

Marmont again retired to the Douro in the beginning of July, and 
took up a strong position on high ground along the northern bank of 
the Douro, his centre being at Tordesillas. The British and Portu- 
guese allied army took up a line on the left or southern bank of the 
river, facing the enemy, A great deal of manceuvring, marching, and 
counter-marching, and changing of front, followed on the part of 
Marmont, during which the French marshal was reinforced by Bonet’s 
division from Asturias, which had effected a difficult march over the 
mountains, having been harassed and pressed by the Spaniards from 
Galicia under Mahy and Porlier. On the 16th of July Marmont threw 
two of his divisions across the Douro at Toro, when Lord Wellington 
moved his army to the left, to concentrate it on the Quarefia, an 


affluent of the Douro from the south, On the night of the 16th the 
French, recrossing the Douro at Toro, ascended the northern bank of 
the river with their whole army to Tordesillas, when they again 
crossed over to the southern bank, and by a forced march assembled 
at Nava del Rey on the 17th. On the 18th they attempted to cut off 
the right of the British army, consisting of the 4th and light divisions, 
but were repulsed by several charges of the British and Hanoverian 
cavalry, as well as of the British and Portuguese infantry. By his 
manceuvres however Marmont succeeded in establishing his communi- 
cation with King Joseph and the army of the centre, which was 
advancing from Madrid to join him. In the mean time the two armies 
of Marmont and Wellington were in line on the opposite banks of the 
Guarefia. More manceuvring took place on the part of Marmont, who, 
on the 20th, crossed the Guarefia on the right of the Allies, and 
advanced towards the Tormes by Babilafuente and Villamusa. Lord 
Wellington followed closely the enemy’s movements during part of 
that day’s march, and the two hostile armies moved in parallel lines 
within half cannon-shot of each other in the finest order; and as the 
nature of the ground gave either party a temporary advantage the 
artillery opened fire, but no actual collision took place, though both 
armies were ready to form in line of battle. Lord Wellington, in his 
dispatch to Earl Bathurst dated the following day, July 21, observes 
as follows :—* The enemy’s object hitherto has been to cut off my 
communication with Salamanca and Ciudad Rodrigo, the want of 
which he knows would distress us very materially. The wheat-hamyest 
has not yet been reaped in Castile, and even if we had money we 
could not now procure anything from the country, unless we should 
follow the example of the French, and lay waste whole districts in 
order to procure a scanty subsistence of unripe wheat for the troops. 
It would answer no purpose to attempt to retaliate upon the enemy, 
even if if were practicable. The French armies in Spain have never 
had any secure communication beyond the ground which they occupy; 
and, provided the enemy opposed to them is not too strong for them, 
they are indifferent in respect to the quarter from which their ope- 
rations are directed, or on which side they carry them on. The army 
of Portugal has been surrounded for the last six weeks, and scarcely 
even a letter reaches its commander; but the system of organised 
rapine and plunder, and the extraordinary discipline so long estab- 
lished in the French armies, enable it to subsist at the expense of the 
total ruin of the country in which it has been placed, and I am not 
certain that Marshal Marmont has not now at his command a greater 
quantity of provisions and supplies of every description than we have, 
.+..... [have invariably been of opinion that, unless forced to 
fight a battle, it is better that one should not be fought by the allied 
army unless under such favourable circumstances as that there would 
be reason to hope that the allied army would be able to maintain the 
field, while that of the enemy should not. Your lordship will have 
seen by the returns of the two armies that we have no superiority of 
numbers even over that single army immediately opposed to us; 
indeed I believe that the French army is of the two the strongest, and 
it is certainly equipped with a profusion of artillery double ours in 
number, and of larger calibres. It cannot therefore be attacked in a 
chosen position without considerable loss on our side. To this cir- 
cumstance add, that Iam quite certain that Marmont’s army is to be 
joined by the King’s, which will be 10,000 or 12,000 men, with a large 
proportion of cavalry, and that troops are still expected from the 
army of the north, and some are ordered from that of the south; and 
it will be seen that I ought to consider it almost impossible to remain 
in Castile after an action, the circumstances of which should not have 
been so advantageous as to have left the allied army in a situation of 
comparative strength while that of the enemy should have been much 
weakened. I have therefore determined to cross the Tormes if the 
enemy should ; to cover Salamanca as long as I can, and above all not 
to give up our communication with Ciudad Rodrigo; and not to fight 
an action unless under very advantageous circumstances, or it should 
become absolutely necessary.” (‘ Dispatches,’ ix. pp. 296-98.) 

On the 21st both hostile armies crossed the Tormes—the Allies by 
the bridge of Salamanca, and Marmont’s higher up the river by the 
fords between Huerta and Alba de Tormes. Lord Wellington placed 
his troops in a position, the left of which rested on the left or southern 
bank of the river, and the right on one of two steep hills which from 
their similarity and contiguity are called the Dos Arapiles. On the 
morning of the 22nd some sharp skirmishing took place, and the 
French succeeded in gaining possession of the more distant Arapiles, 
by which they had it in their power to annoy and perhaps turn the 
right of the British, Marmont’s plan being evidently to cut them off 
from Ciudad Rodrigo. This obliged Lord Wellington to extend his 
right to a height behind the village of Arapiles, occupying the village 
itself with the light infantry. After a variety of evolutions and move- 
ments on the part of Marmont, which lasted till two o’clock in the 
afternoon, the French commander, under cover of a very heavy can- 
nonade, ‘“‘ extended his left, and moved forward his troops apparently 
with an intention to embrace, by the position of his troops and by his 
fire, our post on that of the Two Arapiles which we possessed, and 
from thence to attack and break our line, or at all events to render 
difficult any movement of ours to our right. The extension of his line 
to his left however, and its advance upon our right, notwithstanding 
that his troops still occupied very strong ground, and his position was 


619 WELLINGTON, DUKE OF. 


WELLINGTON, DUKE OF, 620 


well defended by cannon, gave me an opportunity of attacking him, 
for which I had long been anxious.” (Dispatch to Earl Bathurst, 
July 24.) Lord Wellington’s anxiety is explained by the intelligence 
which he had received that GeneraljClausel had arrived at Pollos, on 
the Douro, on the 20th, with the cavalry and horse-artillery of the 
army of the north, to join Marmont, which he was expected to do on 
the 22nd or 28rd at the latest. This junction would give Marmont 
such a superiority in cavalry as greatly to embarrass and endanger the 
movements of the British. 

Lord Wellington, suddenly seizing the opportunity for which he 
had been waiting, disposed his divisions so as to turn the enemy’s left 
and at the same time attack him in front. General Pakenham, at the 
head of the third division, steadily ascended the ridge occupied by 
the extreme left of the French, formed line across their flank, and, 
being supported by some cavalry, he moved on towards the centre of 
the enemy, driving everything before him. Wherever the French 
attempted to make a stand they were charged with the bayonet; the 
cavalry at the same time charged the enemy in front, and the whole 
left wing of the French made a disorderly retreat towards their right, 
leaving many killed and wounded behind, and about 3000 prisoners. 
Meantime the 4th and 5th divisions, after a very severe struggle, 
succeeded in driving in the centre of the enemy, whose right how- 
ever remained unbroken, when General Clausel, who having joined the 
Fregch army that day, succeeded to the command in consequence of 
Marshal Marmont being wounded, withdrew his troops with great 
skill, and formed them in a new position nearly at right angles with 
the original one, His cavalry was numerous, aid his artillery formid- 
able. Lord Wellington directed a fresh attack, and the 6th division, 
ascending to the enemy’s position under a sweeping fire of artillery 
and musketry, gained the level ground, when they charged with the 
bayonet, and the 4th division coming up at the same time the French 
abandoned the ground in great confusion, retreating towards Alba de 
Tormes, followed closely by the British till night stopped the pursuit, 
which was renewed by the cavalry on the morning of the 23rd. 
The cavalry came up with the French rear near La Serna, when three 
French battalions surrendered, being forsaken by their own cavalry. 
Clausel retired by Pefiaranda to Arevalo, whence he took the direction 
of Valladolid. The loss of the French was very severe; three generals 
killed, four wounded; one general, six field-officers, 130 officers of 
inferior rank, and between 6000 and 7000 men taken prisoners, besides 
two eagles. Their total loss in killed and wounded could not be 
ascertained. The Allies had 694 killed and 4270 wounded, but the 
proportion of officers was very great. General Le Marchant was killed 
and Generals Beresford, Leith, Cole, Cotton, and Spry were wounded. 

The ultimate though not immediate results of the victory of Sala- 
manca were great, and a French historian, generally very warm in the 
cause of Napoleon, does not hesitate to attribute to the military and 
political consequences of that battle the ultimate loss of Spain by the 
French. (Thibaudeau, ‘Histoire de l’Empire,’ ch. 83.) Among the 
political consequences must be reckoned the obliteration of any ten- 
dency that there might have been in the minds of some of the influ- 
ential men in Spain, and even in the Cortes, to give up the English 
alliance, and make their peace with King Joseph, on condition of his 
acknowledging the constitution proclaimed by the Cortes assembled at 
Cadiz in March of that year. ‘I'he author just quoted says, “ We are 
assured that a negociation to that effect had been entered into, which 
the battle of Salamanca broke off for ever.” 

Lord Wellington, having crossed the Douro, reached Valladolid on 
the 30th of July, Clausel continuing his retreat towards Burgos. King 
Joseph, with all the troops he could muster at Madrid, about 20,000, 
had marched by the Escurial on the 21st of July to join Marmont. 
On arriving at Arevalo he heard of Marmont’s defeat, upon which he 
marched by his right to Segovia to effect a diversion in favour of 
Clausel’s retreating army. Lord Wellington, recrossing the Douro, 
marched against him on the 7th of August, leaving a force on the 
Douro to watch Clausel. King Joseph retreated to Madrid, and the 
Allies having passed the Guadarama, he abandoned the capital and 
withdrew to the left bank of the Tagus, between Aranjuez and Toledo. 
Lord Wellington entered Madrid on the 12th, and was received with 
great acclamations. In consequence of this movement Soult raised 
the blockade of Cadiz, destroying the works which the French had con- 
structed with so much labour and expense, and, abandoning western 
Andalucia, concentrated his forces in Granada. His rear-guard was 
attacked by an allied Spanish and English force from Cadiz, which 
drove it from San Lucar, and took Seville by assault. General Hill at 
the same time advanced from the banks of the Guadiana to the Tagus, 
connecting his operations with those of the main body of Lord Wel- 
lington’s army. On his approach King Joseph abandoned Toledo and 
fell back to Almanza, in Murcia, to keep himself in communication 
with Soult and Suchet. A great part of southern and central Spain 
was thus freed from the French, who never retook Seville; and this 
was another result of the battle of Salamanca. 

The situation of Lord Wellington at Madrid was however critical. 
Clausel’s army in the north had been largely reinforced, and Soult, 
and Suchet, and King Joseph, by forming a junction, might advance 
from the south, and thus the Allies would be attacked by a combined 
force nearly treble in number to their own, The Anglo-Nicilian expe- 
dition of merely 6000 men, part of whom were foreign auxiliaries, 


was cooped up in Alicante, and could not effect any powerful diversion. 
There was no Spanish force of any magnitude upon which Lord 
Wellington could depend for field operations. The Galician army 
under Santocildes, which was the most effective Spanish corps, after 
taking Astorga, had advanced towards Zamora, but was driven back 
by Clause]. Ballasteros, who commanded a Spanish force in Anda- 
lucia, refused to. be directed by Lord Wellington, and O’Donnell had 
been defeated in Valencia by Suchet, and driven into Murcia. At 


Madrid Lord Wellington was treated with enthusiastic admiration, but — 


no active exertions were made in the common cause. The countr 
was exhausted, the people appeared disheartened, and the British 
commander-in-chief could not realise at Madrid, upon drafts on the 
British treasury, a sum of money adequate to his most pressing wants. 
To remain at Madrid was therefore impracticable; he must either 
advance to the north against Clausel, or to the south against Soult, 
and he determined on the first of these movements, for the purpose 
of striking a blow at Clausel before the French in the south and east 
could advance to his support. Leaving two divisions at Madrid, he 
marched with the remainder on the 1st of September for Valladolid, 


which he entered on the 7th, and, continuing his march towards ~ 


Burgos, was joined at Palencia by the Spanish army of Galicia, which 
scarcely mustered 10,000 men, undisciplined and deficient in equi 
ment. On the 19th the allied army entered Burgos, and the trea 
under General Souham, who had assumed the command in the north, 
fell back to Briviesca, leaving 2000 men, under General Dubreton, in 
the Castle of Burgos, strong by its position, which had been fortified 
with care. The possession of that fort was necessary for the securi 
of the allied army in its present advanced and insecure position, 
Lord Wellington directed it to be invested forthwith, though he 
was ill furnished with siege-artillery. A horn-work on a hill, which 
commanded several of the works of the castle, was carried by assault. 
The fort itself was battered, but with little effect, and sapping was 
then resorted to, On the 29th, a breach being effected in the outer 
wall by the explosion of a mine, an attempt was made to storm it, but 
failed. Another breach was effected in like manner on the eyening of 
the 4th of October, and, being stormed with success, the besiegers 
were established within the exterior line of the works of the castle. 
The garrison made two sorties, by which they materially injured the 
works of the Allies, and occasioned them great loss. Want of ammu- 
nition greatly retarded the operations of the siege. A breach at last 
being effected, by mining, in the second line on the 18th, orders were 
given to storm it. A detachment of the King’s German Legion carried 
the breach, and a detachment of the Guards succeeded in es i 
the line; but the enemy brought such a fire upon them from the 
third line and from the body of the castle, and attacked them with 
numbers so superior before they could be supported, that they were 
obliged to retire with considerable loss. But now the French army 
of the north advanced with evident iatention to raise the siege; and 
at the same time Lord Wellington learnt from General Hill that the 
armies of the south and centre, which, being united, mustered 
70,000 strong, were advancing from Valencia towards the Tagus, and 
that the Spanish General. Ballasteros had not assumed a position in 
La Mancha, which the Spanish Government, at Lord Wellington's 
suggestion, had directed him to take in order to intercept the enemy’s 
movements. The British commander was therefore under the neces- 
sity of abandoning the siege of Burgos, and of effecting a retrograde 
movement in order to draw near to General Hill, who at the approach 
of Soult abandoned Madrid and retired slowly towards Salamanca, 

On the 21st of October the siege of Burgos was raised, and Lord 
Wellington retired in good order to Palencia, and was joined by a 
brigade from England under Lord Dalhousie, which had landed at 
Corufia. The French, under Souham, repeatedly attacked the rear- 
guard of the Allies until they reached the Douro at Tudela, when 
Souham halted, waiting to be joined by Soult from the south. Lord 
Wellington continued his retreat to the Tormes, being joined on the 
8rd of November by General Hill. On the 8th of November the 
Allies took up their old position on the heights of San Cristoval, in 
front of Salamanca. On the 10th, Souham and Soult joined their 
forces, which amounted to 75,000 infantry and 12,000 cavalry, while 
Lord Wellington’s army did not exceed 48,000 infantry and 5000 
cavalry. On the 14th the French crossed the Tormes in force near 
Lucinas. Lord Wellington took position at the Arapiles, being the 
ground of his former victory; but as the enemy, through his supe- 
riority of numbers, and especially of cavalry, was in motion to inter- 
cept his communications with Ciudad Rodrigo, he withdrew to the 
Agueda, and on the 18th his head-quarters were at Ciudad Rodrigo. 
Soult did not follow him close: in fact, the French made no serious 
movement beyond the Tormes, and soon afterwards they even with- 
drew a great part of their army from the banks of that river, to place 
them in better cantonments in Castile, The main army of the British 
and Portuguese were distributed in their old quarters within the fron- 


tiers of Portugal, their left resting at Lamego on the Douro, whilst — 


General Hill’s corps moved into Spanish Estremadura, into canton- 
ments, near Coria, and towards the ‘l'agus, placing strong posts at the 
passes of Bafios and Bejar. The campaign of 1812 was now terminated. 
During the retreat from Burges the allied troops suffered much 
fatigue and privation ; the weather was very inclement, the roads were 
deep and miry, and the rivers were greatly swelled, and some of them 


Sa 


——— Se Oe Ss 


~™ 


_ & ¥ n 
Se ee 


621 WELLINGTON, DUKE OF. 


WELLINGTON, DUKE OF, 622 


were breast-high at the fords. Owing to the irremediable difficulty of 
obtaining provisions in Spain, a great part of the army had neither 
bread nor biscuit, and the men had only a ration of lean tough beef, 
which they could not cook, but heated upon such smoky fires as they 
could make, and so ate it half raw. Many irregularities were com- 
mitted by the soldiers, which Lord Wellington severely reprobated in 
a circular letter which he addressed to all commanding officers of 
divisions and brigades, dated Frenada, 28th of November 1812. 
(‘ Dispatches,’ ix., p. 582.) 

When the news reached England of the victory of Salamanca, Lord 
Wellington was advanced in the peerage by the title of Marquis of 
Wellington, Aug. 18, 1812. On the 3rd of December he received the 
thanks of parliament, and on the 7th of the same month the sum of 
100,000/. was voted to him as a reward for his services, and to enable 
him to support with dignity the rank to which he had been elevated. 

Campaign of 1813.—Napoleon, having lost. the best part of his army 
in his Russian expedition of 1812, not only could not reinforce his 
marshals in Spain, but thought it advisable to recall Marshal Soult, 
at the beginning of 1813, in order to intrust him with a command in 
the approaching campaign against the Russians and Prussians in 
Germany. Soult however only took about 20,000 men with him from 
the Peninsula. The French had still about 70,000 to oppose to Lord 
Wellington, independent of the force under Suchet in eastern Spain. 
The army still called ‘the Army of Portugal,’ under General Reille, 


had its head-quarters at Valladolid ; that of the centre, under Drouet, » 


was distributed round Madrid; and the head-quarters of the army of 
the south, formerly Soult’s, were at Toledo. ‘All these forces were 
under King Joseph, who was assisted by Marshal Jourdan. Clausel 
and Foy commanded separate divisions in Aragon and Biscay. Anda- 
lucia and Estremadura were free from the French, as well as Galicia 
and Asturias in the north. 

Lord Wellington had been at last appointed by the regency of Spain, 
with the approbation of the Cortes, to the rank of commander-in- 
chief of the Spanish armies, and measures were taken to render the 
Spanish troops more effective than they had hitherto been. But the 
army upon which he could immediately rely for field operations con- 
sisted of about 65,00() infantry, British and Portuguese, and about 
6000 cavalry. With this force he opened the campaign of 1813. 

About the middle of May Lord Wellington broke up from his Portu- 
guese cantonments, and put his army in motion for Spain in three 
bodies, the left under Sir Thomas Graham, the right under General 
Hill, and the centre under his own immediate command. He directed 
General Graham to pass by Lamego to the north of the Douro, and 
march through Tras-os-Montes to Braganca and Zamora, and thence to 
Valladolid, thus securing the position which the French had taken 
and had been at great pains to strengthen, along the northern bank of 
the Douro. The French were taken by surprise, not expecting this 
movement through Tras-os-Montes. Graham reached the Esla, an 
affluent of the Douro from the north, without meeting an enemy. On 
the 1st of June, having crossed the Esla, he encamped near Zamora, 
the French retreating before him, and, being joined by Lord Welling- 
ton from Salamanca, they moved on towards Valladolid. General 
Hill having crossed the Douro at Toro on the 3rd of June, joined the 
rest of the allied army, which was likewise joined by the Spanish 
army of Galicia, and afterwards by another Spanish corps from the 
south under O'Donnell. The French at Madrid and Toledo, dis- 
concerted by this rapid march of the Allies, and fearing to be cut off 
from their countrymen in the north, hastily quitted the capital with 
King Joseph, his court, and retainers, and crossed the Douro at 
Puente, when the united French army retired to Burgos. On the 12th 
of June, the Allies continuing their advance, the French abandoned 
Burgos, destroying the defences of the castle, and retreated by Bri- 
viesca to the Ebro, which was the line they intended to defend. They 
threw a garrison into the fortress of Pancorvo in advance of the river. 
Lord Wellington, to avoid a useless sacrifice of men in forcing the 
passage of the Ebro in front of the enemy, moved his left by the road 
to Santander, through a rugged country, and directed it to pass the 
Ebro near its source by Rocamunde and San Martino, and then to 
follow the left or northern bank of the river towards Osma. The 
French position on the Ebro was thus turned, and the French fell 
back upon Vitoria, after an engagement at Osma, in which they were 
defeated. The whole allied army, having passed the Ebro on the 
15th of June, followed the enemy, and on the 20th was concentrated 
near Vitoria, where the French had taken a strong position in front of 
the town, covering the three roads from Madrid, Bilbao, and Logroiio, 
which united at Vitoria, 

The two hostile armies were nearly equal in number, amounting 
to from 70,000 to 75,000 men each. On the morning of the 2lst 
Lord Wellington moved his army for the attack in three great 
divisions. The left, under General Graham, was directed by a circuit- 
ous movement to turn the enemy’s right across the Bilbao road, and. 
cut off his retreat to France by the Bayonne road; the right, under 
General Hill, was to commence the action by crossing the river 
Zadorra where the road from Madrid to Vitoria intersects the river, 
and to attack the enemy’s left on the high ridge bebind the village of 
Subijana de Alava; and the centre, consisting of the 3rd, 4th, 7th, and 
light divisions, in two columns, was to attack the French centre. 
General Hill succeeded, after a severe contest, in carring the heights of 


Subijana de Alava, when King Joseph ordered his left to fall back for 
the defence of Vitoria, In the mean time General Cole, with the 4th 
and light divisions, crossed the Ebro by the bridges of Nanclaras and 
Tras Puentes, and soon afterwards the 3rd and 7th divisions crossed 
the river higher up, and marched against the centre of the French, 
who received the advancing columns with a destructive fire. General 
Picton’s division, the 3rd, coming in contact with a strong body of the 
enemy, drove it back, and took its guns. The other divisions coming 
up, the French abandoned their position, and began their retreat in 
good order towards Vitoria. But while this was passing in front, 
General Graham, moving along the road from Bilbao, had attacked the 
French right, which was posted on the heights beyond the Zadorra, 
above the village of Abechuco, and had dislodged it from thence, and 
then, ascending the right bank of the Zadorra towards the road to 
Bayonne, he carried the village of Gamarra Mayor: at the same time 
the Spanish division of Longa carried the village of Gamarra Menor, 
which is on the right bank of the river opposite the road to Bayonne, 
which runs along the left bank, the heights of which were occupied by 
two divisions of French infantry in reserve. Towards the evening 
however the main body of the French army having been driven 
through the town of Vitoria, the divisions on their right withdrew 
hastily from their position; and then General Graham, crossing the 
Zadorra, took possession of the Bayonne road, by which the French 
were retreating, and this movement threw their army into irretrievable 
confusion. Their columns were obliged to alter their line of retreat, 
and take the road to Pamplona, abandoning all their baggage, artillery, 
ammunition, military chests, and the court equipage of King Joseph, 
and were followed after dark by the Allies. It was the most complete 
defeat that the French ever experienced in Spain. On this occasion 
the Spanish divisions under Generals Morillo and Longa, who were in 
the field with the British and Portuguese army, behaved remarkably 
well, and were honourably mentioned in Lord Wellington’s dispatch 
after the battle. The total loss of the Allies was 740 killed and 4174 
wounded. The loss of the French was stated by themselves at 6000. 
About 1000 prisoners fell into the hands of the Allies. But the 
French lost also 151 guns, 415 caissons, more than 100 waggons, an 
immense quantity of ammunition, and all the baggage of the army, 
and the baton of Marshal Jourdan. They carried away only one gun 
to Pamplona. King Joseph’s carriage was seized, and he had hardly 
time to escape on horseback. Many carriages belonging to his court, 
with ladies, were also taken. 

The French, leaving a strong garrison at Pamplona, continued 
their retreat to France. General Foy, who was not present at the 
battle, being near Bilbao, likewise fell back upon Bayonne, and was 
pursued by General Graham. A French garrison remained at San 
Sebastian. General Clausel, who was coming up from Logrofio with 
about 15,000 men, hearing of the result of the battle, turned hastily 
back to Zaragoza, and thence, by Jaca and the central Pyrenees, into 
France, having lost his artillery. Suchet alone remained with his 
army in Cataluiia and Valencia, having his hands fully employed in 
that quarter. 

Lord Wellington, having established the blockade of Pamplona, and 
directed General Graham to invest San Sebastian, advanced with the 
main body of his army to the Pyrenees, to occupy the passes from 
Roncesvalles to Irun, at the mouth of the Bidasoa. 

When the news of the battle of Vitoria reached England, there were 
great public rejoicings; and Lord Wellington was appointed a Field 
Marshal of England. ‘ You have sent me,” thus wrote to him the 
Prince Regent of England, “among the trophies of your unrivalled 
fame, the staff of a French Marshal, and I send you in return that of 
England.” The Spanish Cortes, by a decree, created him Duke of 
Vitoria, and granted him in perpetuity the estate of Soto de Roma, in 
the kingdom of Granada. 

When Napoleon, in his camp in Saxony, heard of the disaster of 
Vitoria, he was sorely vexed, and he immediately sent Marshal Soult 
to the Army of Spain, with the rank of ‘ Lieutenant of the Emperor.’ 
Soult arrived on the Spanish frontier on the 13th of July, and set 
about resteving order and confidence in his army, which consisted of 
nine divisions of infantry (nearly 80,000 men), and three divisions of 
cavalry. He told them, in a proclamation dated July, that the disas- 
ters of the preceding campaign were owing to pusillanimous councils 
and unskilful dispositions of their late commanders. “ Let us not, 
however,” added he, ‘‘ defraud the enemy of the praise which is due to 
him, The dispositions and arrangements of their general have been 
prompt, skilful, and consecutive, and the valour and steadiness of his 
troops have been praiseworthy.” He concluded by saying that his 
instructions from the emperor were “to drive the enemy from those 
lofty heights which enable him proudly to survey our fertile valleys, 
and drive them across the Ebro. It is on the Spanish soil that your 
tents must next be pitched, and your resources drawn. ... . Let the 
account of our success be dated from Vitoria, and the birth of his 
Imperial Majesty be celebrated in that city.” 

Marshal Soult’s first object was to relieve Pamplona. With this 
view he collected the main body of his army at St. Jean Pied de Port, 
and on the 25th of July attacked, with between 30,000 and 40,000 
men, the British right at Roncesvalles. General Cole moved to the 
support of that post, but’the French having turned the British position, 
General Cole considered it necessary to withdraw in the night, and 


623 WELLINGTON, DUKE OF. 


WELLINGTON, DUKE OF. 624 


march to Zubiri. In the meantime two French divisions attacked 
General Hill’s position in the Puerto de Maya, at the head of the valley 
of Baztan. At first they gained ground, but were again driven back, 
when the retrograde movement of General Cole, on his right, induced 
General Hill to withdraw likewise to Irurita. Lord Wellington, who 
had his head-querters at Lesaca, on the left of the army, beard of these 
movements late in the night, and concentrated his army to the right. 
On the 27th the French made a partial attack on the 4th division, 
near Sorauren, but were repulsed. On the 28th Soult directed a grand 
attack, first on the left, by the valley of the Lanz, and then on the 
centre of the British position. The 4th division (General Cole’s) sus- 
tained nearly the whole brunt of the attack, and repulsed the enemy 
with the bayonet. In one instance the French succeeded in over- 
powering a Portuguese battalion on the right of General Ross’s 
brigade, at the chapel of Sorauren, which obliged General Ross to 
withdraw, and the enemy established himself for a moment on the 
line of the Allies; but Lord Wellington directed the 27th and 48th 
regiments to charge, and the French were driven down the hill with 
great loss. On the 29th both armies remained inactive. Soult changed 
his plan, and on the 30th endeavoured to turn the British left by an 
attack on General Hill. He collected a large body on his right for 
this purpose, and by mancuvring on the left flank of Hill’s corps, 
obliged him to withdraw from the height which he occupied behind 
Lizasso to another range about a mile in the rear, where, however, 
General Hill maintained himself against évery effort that was made to 
dislodge him. At the same time Lord Wellington attacked the French 
corps in his front, in a strong position, between the valley of the Lanz 
and that of Arga, and obliged them to retire. On the morning of the 
3lst the French were in full retreat into France, by the various passes 
of the Pyrenees, followed by the Allies, who took many prisoners and 
much baggage. These various combats are designated by the name of 
the ‘ Battles of the Pyrenees.’ On the Ist of August Lord Wellington 
took possession of the passes in the mountains. 

During the month of August General Graham was pressing the siege 
of San Sebastian. On the 31st of August the assault was made, and 
the town was carried, but with great loss, and after a most determined 
resistance. The French garrison retired to the castle. Many excesses 
were committed by the British and Portuguese soldiers after they had 
entered the town. Most of the houses were plundered, and it was not 
till the 2nd of September that order was restored by severe measures. 
The castle of San Sebastian capitulated after a few days. The siege 
and capture of the place cost the Allies nearly 4000 men, killed and 
wounded. ‘Three British general officers were wounded, and Sir 
Richard Fletcher, the commanding officer of engineers, was killed. 

In the month of October Lord Wellington moved his left across the 
Bidasoa upon French ground, and took possession of the hills called 
La Rhune. The French made only a slight resistance, as Marshal 
Soult had already fixed upon the line of the river Nivelle in his rear 
for a position, On the 31st of October the French garrison of Pam- 
plona, 4000 strong ,having lost all hopes of relief, surrendered themselves 
prisoners of war. Early in November Lord Wellington made his pre- 
parations for marching his whole army into France, where they would 
find good cantonments for the winter. Before however taking tbis 
serious step he issued an order of the day to all his troops of the 
various nations that-composed his army, in which he told “the officers 
and soldiers to remember that their nations were at war with France 
solely because the ruler of the French nation would not allow them to 
be at peace, and wanted to force them to submit to his yoke; and not 
to forget at the same time that the worst of the evils suffered by the 
enemy in his profligate invasion of Spain and Portugal ‘had been 
occasioned by the irregularities of his soldiers and their cruelties 
towards the unfortunate and peaceful inhabitants of the country. To 
avenge this conduct on the peaceful inhabitants of France would be 
unmanly and unworthy of the allied nations.” But Lord Wellington 
was not satisfied with mere proclamations and general orders; he 
enforced them strictly ; and whenever he found any part of his troops 
attempting to plunder, he not only punished by military law those 
who were cavght in the fact, but he placed the whole regiment or 
brigade under arms to prevent further offence. His greatest trouble 
was with the Spanish troops, whe being badly supplied with provisions 
by their own government, and having the fresh recollection of the 
treatment which their countrymen in Spain had met with at the hands 
of the French, could only be restrained by the strongest measures 
from retaliating upon the French peasants. He was at last obliged to 
diminish his army by moying back most of the Spanish troops within 
the Spanish frontiers, 

On the 10th of November the allied army left their cold and cheer- 
less position in the high valleys of the Pyrenees, and descended into 
the plains on the French side. Soult had a strong position on the 
Nivelle from St. Jean de Luz to Ainhoe, ‘about 12 miles in length. 
General Hill, with the British right, advanced from the valley of 
Baztan, and, attacking the French on the heights of Ainhoe, drove 
them towards Cambo on the Nive, while the centre of the Allies, con- 
sisting of English and Spanish troops under Marshal Beresford and 
General Alten, carried the works behind Sarre, and drove the French 
beyond the Nivelle, which the Allies crossed at St. Pé, in the rear of 
the enemy. Upon this the French hastily abandoned their ground 
and works on the left of the Nivelle, and in the night withdrew to 


their entrenched camp in front of Bayonne. Lord Wellington’s head- 
quarters were established at St. Jean de Luz on the right bank of the 
Nivelle. The Allies went into cantonments between the sea and the 
river Nive, where their extreme right rested on Cambo. The enemy 
guaved the right bank of the Nive from Bayonne to St. Jean Pied 
de Port. 

Lord Wellington, being straitenéd for room and supplies for his 
large army, determined to cross the Nive and occupy the country 
between that and the Adour. On the 9th of December General Hill 
forded the Nive above Cambo, while the 6th division crossed at 
Ustaritz, and the French were dislodged from their position at Ville 
Franque. In the night all their posts were withdrawn to Bayonne, 
and on the 10th the british right rested on the Adour. On that day 
Soult, resuming the offensive, issued out of Bayonne, and attacked the 
British left under Sir John Hope, which covered St. Jean de Luz, 
where the Allies had considerable depéts of stores. The French came 
on with great spirit and twice succeeded in driving in the fifth division 
of the Allies, and twice were repulsed again, the first time by the 9th 
British and a Portuguese battalion, and the second time by the brigade 
of Guards. At last night put an end to the fight. Next morning, 
December 11, Soult, having withdrawn in the night most of his force 
from the position in front of the British left, prepared to attack the — 
light division with overwhelming numbers. General Hope, suspecting 
this, had moved part of his troops to their right to support the light 
division. This occasioned another change in Soult’s movements, who 
again directed several columns against the left at Barouilles. The 
troops were occupied in receiving their rations, and had barely time 
to run to their arms; but they withstood the attack, and at the close 
of the day both armies remained in their respective positions. Marshal 
Soult now giving up any further attempt on the left of the Allies, and 
imagining that his repeated attacks on that side must have induced 
Lord Wellington to weaken his right, changed his plan, and during 
the night of the 12th moved with his main force to his left to attack 
the British right. Lord Wellington however had foreseen this, and 
had given orders to the 4th and 6th divisions to support the 
right, and the 8rd division was held in readiness for the same 
object. General Hill had under his immediate command above 
13,000 men, and his position extended across from the Adour beyond 
Vieux Monguerre to Ville Franque and the Nive. Soult directed 
from Bayonne on the 13th a force of 30,000 men against his position. 
His columns of the centre gained some ground, but were fiercely 
repulsed, An attack on Hill's right was likewise successful at first, 
but was ultimately defeated. Soult at last drew back his troops 
towards his entrenched camp near Bayonne. General Hill had with- 
stood all the efforts of the enemy without having any occasion for the 
assistance of the divisions which Lord Wellington had moved towards 
him. Lord Wellington was well pleased, and said, “ Hill, the day 
is all your own.” 

Nothing of importance occurred during the few remaining days of 
the year 1813. Both armies remained in winter-quarters. On the Ist 
cf January in this year (1813) Lord Wellington had been gazetted as 
Colonel of the Royal Regiment of Horse Guards, in place of the Duke 
of Northumberland, who had resigned; and on the 4th of March he 
had been elected a Knight of the Garter. : 

Campaign of 1814.—The mighty contest which had been carried on 
for ten years between France and the rest of Europe was drawing fast 
toaclose. The battle of Leipzig (October 1813) had given the death- 
blow to the ambition of Napoleon. He had lost another fine army 
which he had got together with great pains after the disasters of the 
Russian campaign of the previous year, The scanty remains of his 
host were driven out of Germany across the Rhine; that river which, 
according to his early declarations, constituted the natural frontier of 
France, but which he had not had self-command enough to respect. 
He was now reduced to the necessity of depending upon the resources 
of France alone. Lord Wellington kad long foretold that, when that 
should come to be the case, the feelings of the French population 
would turn against him. Napoleon had hitherto supported his enor- 
mous armies chiefly at the expense of foreign states. 

On his return to Paris, in November 1813, Napoleon decreed by 
a senatus consultum a new levy of 300,000 conscripts. In December 
he ordered the assembling of 180,000 national guards to garrison the 
towns and fortresses. He talked however of peace, but he hesitated, 
and lost time in agreeing to the preliminary basis of a treaty such as 
was offered to him by the Allied Powers at Chatillon. He left his own 
envoy there without instructions or powers. He wished in short to 
try once more the chances of war. On the 25th of January 1814 he 
left Paris for Chalons to attack the Prussians and Russians, 

Lord Wellington now made his preparations to drive the army of 
Soult from the country on the left of the Adour. About the middle 
of February, by a succession of movements and partial engagements, 
he drove the French first across the Bidasoa, and afterwards across 
the Gave d’Oléron, an affluent of the Adour. On the 27th of February 
he met Soult’s army concentrated at Orthez on the Gave de Pau, 
attacked and beat it, and pursued it to the Adour, the French retiring 
eastward towards Auch. On the Ist of March Lord Wellington’s 
head-quarters were at St. Sever, north of the Adour. The loss of the 
Allies at the battle of Orthez was 277 killed, and about 2000 wounded 
or missing. The loss of the French army was considerable during 


ee 


625 WELLINGTON, DUKE OF. 


WELLINGTON, DUKE OF. 626 


the battle, and still more during the retreat, owing to desertion having 
spread to a great extent, especially among the conscripts, who threw 
away their arms in vast numbers. 

The battle of Orthez had important results. The garrison of 
Bayonne was now left to its fate, and the road to Bordeaux lay open 
to the allies. Lord Wellington gave orders to General Hope for the 
siege of Bayonne, and detached Marshal Beresford with two divisions 
to occupy Bordeaux. On the arrival of the allies at the latter city, 
the mayor and most of the inhabitants, of their own accord, proclaimed 
Louis XVIII. ’ 

Lord Wellington’s business was purely military. In the Spanish 
peninsula it was to drive the invader out of the country, and leave 
the people to settle their own affairs. In France, from a similar prin- 
ciple, he was extremely anxious not to countenance a civil war. The 
Duke of Angouléme having landed in the south of France to excite a 
movement in favour of the Bourbons, Lord Wellington advised him 
politely to keep incognito, and to wait for some more important 
demonstration in his favour. When Beresford marched upon Bor- 
deaux he directed him most particularly not to originate or encourage 
any rising of the Bourbon party. “If they should ask you for your 
consent to proclaim Louis XVIII., to hoist the white standard, &c., 
you will state that the British nation and their allies wish well to 
Louis XVIII; and as long as the public peace is preserved where our 
troops are stationed, we shall not interfere to prevent that party from 
doing what may be deemed most for its interest: nay, further, that I 
am prepared to assist any party that may show itself inclined to aid 
us in getting the better of Bonaparte. That the object of the Allies 
however in the war, and above all in entering France, is, as is stated 
in my proclamation, Peace; and that it is well known that the Allies 
are now engaged in vegociating a treaty of peace with Bonaparte. 
That however I might be inclined to aid and support any set of people 
against Bonaparte while at war, I could give them no further aid when 
peace should be concluded; and I beg the inhabitants will weigh this 
matter well before they raise a standard against the government of 
Bonaparte and involve themselves in hostilities. If however, notwith- 
standing this warning, the town should think proper to hoist the 
white standard, and should proclaim Louis XVIIL, or adopt any 
other measure of that description, you will not oppose them; and 
you will arrange with the authorities the means of drawing, without 
loss of time, for all the arms, ammunition, &c., which are at Dax, 
which you will deliver to them. If the municipality should state 
that they will not proclaim Louis XVIII. without your orders, you 
will decline to give such orders, for the reasons above stated.” (‘ Dis- 
patches,’ xi, p. 558 and 594.) 

On the 18th of March Lord Wellington moved his army to Vic 
Bigorre, and Soult retired to Tarbes, which he abandoned on the 20th, 
and continued his retreat to Toulouse, where he arrived on the 24th. 
On the 27th the Allies arrived on the left of the Garonne, in front of 
Toulouse. The object of Soult was to facilitate a junction with 
Suchet, who was withdrawing his troops from Catalufia, in conse- 
quence of Ferdinand having been sent back to Spain, and acknow- 
ledged as King of Spain by Napoleon, who had resorted to this new 
political stratagem in order to create discord among the allies. 
Knowing the character of Ferdinand, he had written to him on the 
12th of November 1813, saying, “That the circumstances of the 
times made him wish to conclude at once the affairs of Spain, where 
England was fomenting anarchy and Jacobinism, and was depressing 
the nobility, in order to establish a republic. He (Napoleon) was 
much grieved to see the destruction of a nation bordering upon his 
empire, and whose maritime interests were closely connected with his 
own. He wished therefore to remove all pretence for the influence of 
England to interfere in the affairs of Spain, and to re-establish the 
relations of friendship and good neighbourhood between the two 
nations.” (Thibaudeau, ‘ Histoire de !/Empire, ch. 94.) A treaty was 
concluded at Valencay, where Ferdinand had been detained a prisoner 
for five years, in which Napoleon acknowledged him as King of Spain 
and of the Indies, and promised to withdraw the French troops from 
Spain, whilst Ferdinand engaged to cause the English to evacuate the 
Peninsula. 

At last, in the month of March, Napoleon, being hard pressed for 
troops for the defence of France, and wishing to avail himself of the 
army of Suchet, which was uselessly cooped up in Catalufia, allowed 
Ferdinand to return to Spain. Meantime Suchet, who had already 
detached early in March 10,000 men to join Soult, made an offer to 
the Spanish Regency to withdraw all his garrisons from Cataluiia, 
which were blockaded by Spanish troops, on condition of their being 
allowed to return to France with their arms. The Regency referred 
the proposal to Lord Wellington for his opinion, and he recommended 

«them not to allow any capitulation with any French troops, except 
on the condition of their being prisoners of war. Suchet’s garrisons 
amounted to about 18,000 men, mostly veteran soldiers, who, if they 
had been able to join Soult on the Garonne, would have made him too 
strong for Wellington, part of whose army was stationed before 
Bayonne and at Bordeaux. Suchet, with his disposable force of about 
14,000 men, evacuated Catalufia and re-entered France. In the begin- 
ning of April he placed his head-quarters at Narbonne, but did not 
join Soult. : 

On the 10th of April, Lord Wellington, having crossed the Garonne 
Bi0G. DIV. VOL VI. 


the day before, attacked Marshal Soult in his entrenched camp ona 
range of heights between. the river Ers and the canal of Languedoc, 
on the eastern side of the city of Toulouse. Marshal Beresford, with 
the 4th and 6th divisions, attacked and carried the heights on the 
French right, and the redoubt which covered and protected that flank ; 
the French however were still in possession of four redoubts and of 
the entrenchments and fortified houses, from which they could not be 
dislodged without artillery. At the same time the Spanish division of 
General Freyre had attacked the French left with great spirit, but 
were at first repulsed ; one regiment however, the Tiradores de Can- 
tabria, maintained its position under the enemy’s entrenchments. 
The British light division moving up, the whole rallied, and again 
advanced to the attack. Marshal Beresford, having brought up his 
artillery, which had been detained by the badness of the roads, con- 
tinued his movement along the ridge on the right of the French, and 
General Pack’s brigade of the 6th division carried the two principal 
redoubts and fortified houses in the centre of the French position. 
Soult made a powerful attack on the 6th division, which received it 
with the bayonet, when the French general Taupin was killed. At 
last the French were driven entirely from the heights, and withdrew 
across the canal of Languedoc into the town of Toulouse, which Soult 
prepared to defend. The loss of the allies at the battle of Toulouse 
was about 600 killed and 4000 wounded, The French acknowledged 
the loss of 3200 men. 

On the night of the 11th Marshal Soult evacuated Toulouse by the 
only road which was still open to him, and retired by Castelnaudary 
to Carcassonne. On the 12th Lord Wellington entered Toulouse, to 
the great joy of the inhabitants, who were relieved froni the fearful 
apprehensions of a siege. The white flag was flying, everybody had 
put on white cockades, and the people had pulled down Napoleon’s 
statue and the eagles and other emblems of the imperial government. 
The municipality of Toulouse presented an address to Lord Welling- 
ton, requesting him to receive the keys of their city, in the name of 
Louis XVIII. Lord Wellington told them what he had told the people 
of Bordeaux, that he believed that negociations for a peace were still 
being carried on with the existing government of France, and that they 
must judge for themselves whether they meant to declare in favour of 
the Bourbons, in which case it would be his duty to treat them as allies 
as long as the war lasted; but if peace should be made with Napo- 
leon, he could not give them any assistance or protection afterwards. 
(‘ Dispatches,’ xi., p. 630). In the afternoon however of the same day 
the English Colonel Cooke and the French Colonel St. Simon arrived 
from Paris, with news of Napoleon’s first abdication, and of the estab- 
lishment of a provisional government in the name of Louis XVIII. 
From Lord Wellington’s head-quarters the two officers proceeded to 
those of Marshal Soult, who did not think himself justified in sub- 
mitting to the provisional government, having received no information 
from Napoleon concerning what had happened, but he proposed an 
armistice to Lord Wellington. The British commander wrote to him 
avery polite letter, excusing himself from accepting the armistice, 
unless the marshal acknowledged the Provisional Government of 
France. The object of Lord Wellington was to prevent Marshals 
Soult and Suchet’s armies becoming the nucleus of a civil war in 
France in favour of Napoleon's pretensions for his son. At the same 
time he made preparations to pursue Soult, if required. At last on 
the 18th of April, Soult, having received from Berthier an order to 
stop all hostilities, concluded a convention with Lord Wellington for 
the purpose. <A line of demarcation was drawn between the two 
armies, The head-quarters of Lord Wellington remained at Toulouse. 
Marshal Suchet concluded a like convention with Lord Wellington on 
the 19th, by which the final evacuation of Cataluiia by the French 
garrisons was provided for. t 

Before the news of the events of Paris reached Bayonne, the French 
made a sortie out of the entrenched camp in front of it, on the 14th 
of April, and attacked the lines of the Allies, who lost about 800 men 
in this affair, including General Hay, who was killed, and the general 
in command, Sir John Hope, who was wounded and taken prisoner. 
General Stopford, of the Guards, was also wounded. 

On the 30th of April Lord Wellington set off for Paris, whither he 
was sent for by Lord Castlereagh. He left General Hill in charge of 
the army. On the 13th of May he returned to Toulouse, and soon after- 
wards set off'for Madrid, where the army had already taken different 
sides; O’Donnell and Elio for the king, and Freyre and the Prince of 
Anglona for the constitution. Having in some degree quieted the 
contending parties, and got the affairs of the kingdom into a condition 
for being amicably settled, Lord Wellington returned to France, and 
on the llth of June was again with his army at Bordeaux, giving 
orders for the evacuation of France by the allied troops. On the 14th 
of June he issued his farewell general orders to the army. (‘Dis- 
patches,’ xii., p. 62.) 2 : 

In May 1814 he had been created Marquis of Douro and Duke of 
Wellington, and the Prince Regent had sent to the House of Commons 
&@ message recommending them to grant the Duke such an annuity as 
would support the high dignity of the title which had been conferred 
upon him. On the 12th of May an annuity of,10,000/. was granted 
to him, to be at any time commuted for the sum of 300,000/., which 
was ultimately increased to 400,0002. On the 23rd of June the Duke 


of Wellington arrived in London, and on the 28th ee in his 
8 


627 WELLINGTON, DOKE OF, 


WELLINGTON, DUKE OF. 628 


place in the House of Peers the thanks of that House, and on the 1st 
of July he received likewisé the thanks of the House of Commons, 
through the Speaker. 

Peace of 1814.—After the establishment of peace by the treaty of 
Paris, May 30, 1814, the Duke of Wellington was sent in July as 
ambassador to the court of France. The Congress of Vienna assem- 
bled Nov. 1, 1814, and Lord Castlereagh having returned to England 
at the beginning of 1815, in order to resume his place in parliament, 
the Duke of Wellington was appointed to succeed him as the repre- 
sentative of Great Britain. In the month of January 1815 the Duke 
of Wellington repaired to Vienna to attend the general Congress of 
the European Powers. In the beginning of March, Napoleon, having 
escaped from Elba, landed at Cannes, on the French coast, and thence 
marched to Paris, without meeting any obstacle, Louis X VIII. having 
withdrawn to Ghent. On the 13th of March the ministers of the 
eight Powers assembled at Vienna, including the ministers of the 
King of France, signed a paper, by which they declared Bonaparte 
an outlaw, a violator of treaties, and a disturber of the peace of the 
world, and delivering him over to public justice. (‘ Dispatches,’ xii., 
269, 352.) At the same time they declared that they would maintain 
inviolate the treaty of Paris. On the 11th of April the Duke of Wel- 
lington was appointed to the command of the army to be assembled 
in the Netherlands. 

Campaign of Waterloo, 1815.—In the middle of April the Duke of 
Wellington repaired to Brussels to prepare for the impending military 
contest. An English army was assembled in Flanders,-including the 
Hanoverian Legion, and was joined by the troops of the King of the 
Netherlands, of the Duke of Brunswick, and of the Prince of Nassau. 
In all he had about 76,000 men under him, of whom 43,000 were 
British, or Hanoverians in British pay. Of these, deducting sick, 
detached, &c., there remained present in the field about 37,000 British 
and Hanoverians. The head-quarters were fixed at Brussels. Marshal 
Bliicher, with the Prussian army, estimated at about 80,000 men, was 
on the left of the British ; his head-quarters were at Namur. 

During the month of May, Napoleon by great exertions collected 
an army of about 120,000 men, chiefly composed of veterans, on the 
frontiers of Flanders; and on the 11th of June he left Paris to take 
the command. On the 15th the French crossed the Sambre, and 
marched to Charleroi, the Prussian corps of General Ziethen retiring 
to Fleurus. Marshal Bliicher concentrated his army upon Sombref, 
holding the villages of St. Amand and Ligny in front of his position. 
The Duke of Wellington marched his army upon Quatre Bras, on the 
road from Charleroi to Brussels. Napoleon attacked Bliicher on the 
16th, with superior numbers, carried the village of Ligny, and penetrated 
to the centre of the Prussian position ; but the Prussians fought with 
great gallantry until night, when Bliicher withdrew his army in good 
order to Wavre, In the mean time the Duke of Wellington, with part 
of his army, was attacked at Quatre Bras by the Ist and 2nd corps of 
the French army, commanded by Ney, and a corps of cavalry under 
Kellermann, which however made no impression upon the British 
position. : 

On the 17th the Duke of Wellington made a retrograde movement 
upon Waterloo, corresponding to that of Marshal Bliicher. He took 
up a position in front of the village of Waterloo, across the high roads 
from Charleroi and Nivelles—his right thrown back to a ravine near 
Merke Braine, and his left extended to a height above the hamlet of 
Ter la Haye; and he occupied the house and gardens of Hougoumont, 
near the Nivelles road, in front of his right centre, and the farm 
of La Haye Sainte in front of his left centre. The French collected 
their army, with the exception of the 3rd corps, which had been sent 
to observe the Prussians, on a range of heights in front of the British 
position. 

About ten o'clock on the morning on the 18th of June the French 
began a furious attack on the post of Hougoumont, which was 
occupied by a detachment of the Guards, who maintained their ground 
against all the efforts of the enemy throughout the day. There was 
no manceuvring on the part of Napoleon on that day. He made 
repeated attacks on the British position with heavy columns of infantry, 
supported by a numerous cavalry, and by a deadly fire from his 
numerous artillery. His attacks were repulsed with great loss on both 
sides. In one of these attacks the French carried the post of La 
Haye Sainte, which was occupied by a detachment of Hanoverians, 
who, having expended all their ammunition, were cut to pieces. 
Napoleon then ordered his cavalry to attack the British infantry, 
which formed in squares to receive them, but all the efforts of the 
French cavalry could make no impression on the British infantry, by 
whose steady fire they were brought down in great numbers. ‘The 
French cavalry was nearly destroyed in these attacks, as well as by a 
charge from Lord E. Somerset’s brigade of heavy cavalry, consisting 
of the Life Guards, the Royal Horse Guards, and the 1st Dragoon 
Guards, in which the French cuirassiers were completely cut up. At 
last, about 7 o’clock in the evening, when General Bulow’s Prussian 
corps began to be engaged upon the French right, Napoleon moved 
forwards his guard, which he had kept in reserve, to make a last 
desperate effort on the British left centre near La Haye Sainte, of 
which the French had already possession. The French guard marched 
resolutely on in eolumn, with supported arms, under a destructive 
fire from the British position. They halted at the distance of about 


fifty yards from the British line, and attempted to deploy, but they 
became mixed together, whilst uninterrupted discharges of musketry 
from the British infantry made fearful bavoc in their dense mass. 
They were broken, and gave way down the slope of the hill in irre- 
trievable confusion. On this the Duke of Wellington moved forward 
his whole line, which he led in person, sweeping away all before him. 
The French were forced from their position on the heights, and fled 
in confused masses, leaving all their artillery and baggage on the field 
of battle. Marshal Bliicher now came up with two Prussian corps, 
and took charge of the pursuit, whilst the British troops rested on 
the field which they had won at such a fearful cost. The British and 
German Legion had on that day 2432 killed, 9528 wounded, and 
1875 missing; many of the last however joined afterwards. In the 
preceding battle of Quatre Bras, on the 16th, they had 350 killed, and 
2380 wounded, making altogether nearly 15,000 killed and wounded, 
in an army of about 37,000 British and Hanoverians, of whom how- 
ever about 5000 were not present on the field of Waterloo, being 
posted near Braine le Comte, or stationed at Brussels, Antwerp, 
Ostend, and other places, (Official Returns, ‘ Dispatches,’ xii. 485-87.) 
More than 600 officers were either killed or wounded at the battle of 
Waterloo. The gallant General Picton was killed while leading his 
division to a charge with bayonets. General Sir William Ponsonby, 
who commanded a brigade of heavy cavalry, was killed by a party of 
Polish lancers. Colonel De Lancey, quartermaster-general, was also 
killed. The Earl of Uxbridge, General Cooke, General Halkett, 
General Barnes, General Baron Alten, the Prince of Orange, and 
Lieutenant-Colonel Lord Fitzroy Somerset, were among the wounded. 
Lieutenant-Colonel the Hon. Sir Alexander Gordon died of his wounds 
soon after the battle. In the battle of Quatre Bras the Duke of 
Brunswick Oels was killed, fighting at the head of his corps. Such 
was the termination of the great continental war, which had lasted for 
twelve years from the rupture of the peace of Amiens in 1803. 

After the last charge by his guard Napoleon rode off, in the dusk of 
the evening, from the field of Waterloo, and returned to Paris, which 
he was soon afterwards obliged to leave for Rochefort, being deserted 
by the nation at large. A provisional government was formed by the 
legislative chambers. The British and Prussian armies marched upon 
Paris, meeting with little or no resistance; and on the 3rd of July a 
convention was agreed upon between Marshal Davout, who com- 
manded the French army at Paris, on one side, and the Duke of Wel- 
lington and Marshal Bliicher on the other, by which the French army — 
withdrew from the capital, and retired beyond the Loire, and the allied 
armies occupied Paris. Soon afterwards Louis XVIII. was again 
restored to the throne of France, and peace was concluded between 
France and the Allied Powers. 

After the return of the Duke of Wellington to England, the House 
of Commons voted a sum of 200,000/., in addition to the sums pre- 
viously granted to him; and with this sum the estate and mansion of 
Strathfieldsaye in Hampshire were purchased, to be held by the Duke of 
Wellington and his heirs on the condition of presenting a tri-coloured 
flag to the sovereign at Windsor Castle on the 18th of June every year. 
The King of the Netherlands conferred on him the title of Prince of 
Waterloo, and the King of France created him a Marshal of France and 
Duke of Brunoy. 

Peace of 1815.—The battle of Waterloo was succeeded by a peace in 
Europe which has not since been materially interrupted, except by 
the short but terrible contest with Russia in 1854-5. To prevent any 
recurrence of those desolating wars which had just terminated, it was 
resolved by the Allied Powers that Napoleon should be detained in 
custody in the island of St. Helena, and that France should be con- 
trolled by an armed occupation. The Duke of Wellington was b 
unanimous choice appointed to the command in chief of the alli 
forces retained in France for this latter purpose; and it was chiefly 
owing to his mediation and influence with the allied sovereigns that no 
penalty of confiscation was enforced upon France, and that the armed 
occupation of the country was so soon terminated. In September 
1818, the King of Prussia and the Emperors of Austria and Russia 
met at Aix-la-Chapelle, in order to hold a political conference, which 
was attended by the Duke of Wellington and Lord Castlereagh on the 
part of the British Crown: At this conference an agreement was con- 
cluded for the evacuation of France by the allied armies, and for the 
restoration of that kingdom to its independent dignity among the 
European governments. The allied armies began to evacuate France 
on the Ist of November 1818. A week previously the Emperors of 
Austria and Russia and the King of Prussia created the Duke of 
Wellington a Field-Marshal of their respective armies. He returned 
to England early in November. 

When the allied armies were withdrawn from France the military 
life of the Duke of Wellington may be said to have terminated. He 
shortly afterwards commenced that life of political and administrative 
activity in which he attained an influence at home and a reputation 
abroad greater perhaps than that of any other public character of 
modern times. On the 1st of January, 1819, he was appointed to the 
office of Master-General of the Ordnance, and took his seat in the 
Cabinet as a member of the administration of Lord Liverpool. Though 
he did not at first take a prominent part in political affairs, he had 
to bear his share of the unpopularity which was the necessary result of 
the attempt of Lord Liverpool’s government to put down disaffection. 


629 WELLINGTON, DUKE OF, 


WELLINGTON, DUKE OF. 630 


When Mr. Canning, on the death of Lord Londonderry in August 1822, 
succeeded to the office of Foreign Minister, he selected the Duke of 
Wellington to proceed to the Congress at Verona as the representative 
of Great Britain. On the 10th of March 1826, the Duke was appointed 
High Constable of the Tower of London, and in the same year was 
sent ona special mission to St. Petersburg, the object of which was to 
induce the Emperor Nicolas to join Great Britain and the other 
European Powers as mediators in the quarrel between Turkey and 
Greece. The mission was successful. On the death of the Duke of 
York, January 22, 1827, the Duke of Wellington succeeded to the 
office of Commander-in-Chief of the Forces. On the 17th of February 
following a stroke of apoplexy terminated the political life of the Earl 
of Liverpool, and early in April Mr. Canning succeeded him as First 
Lord of the Treasury. The Earl of Liverpool died.on the 4th of 
December 1828. : 

On the accession of Mr. Canning to office as premier, April 10, 1827, 


‘the Duke of Wellington, who had no friendly feeling to him as a man, 


nor any liking for the popular principles of policy which he professed, 
sent in his resignation not only of his seat in the Cabinet, which was 
attached to his office of Master-General of the Ordnance, but also of his 
office of Commander-in-Chief of the Forces. The majority of the other 
members of the cabinet likewise resigned their offices. Mr. Canning 
died August 8, 1827, and was succeeded by Lord Goderich as premier, 
The Duke of Wellington then resumed his office of Commander-in- 
Chief of the Forces, but did not join the new ministry, which was of 
very short duration. Lord Goderich resigned, after holding the 
premiership till the end of the year. 

On the 8th of January 1828, the king sent for the Duke of Wel- 
lington and offered him the premiership, which he accepted, though, 
only eight months previously, he had said in the House of Lords that 
he was ‘‘sensible of being unqualified for such a situation,” and that 
he “should have been mad to think of it,” words of which he was 
reminded at the time, as well as occasionally afterwards. He recalled 
Mr. Peel and Mr. Goulburn to the Cabinet, and retained five of those 
who had been favourable to the policy of Mr. Canning, namely Mr. 
Huskisson, Lord Dudley, Mr. Grant, Mr. Lamb, and Lord Palmerston. 
The Duke of Wellington now resigned the office of Commander-in- 
Chief of the Forces, and appointed Lord Hill as his successor. The 
parliamentary session of 1828 commenced January 29. On the 26th 
of February Lord John Russell brought forward in the Commons a 
motion for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. The govern- 
ment opposed the measure, but the motion was carried in a full House 
of Commons by a majority of 44. Though the duke did not approve 
of the policy of this measure, some of his colleagues did; and there- 
fore, to avoid a division in the cabinet and opposition to a declared 
resolution of the Commons, he yielded, took up the bill, and passed 
it through the House of Lords, in spite of the desperate resistance of 
Lord Eldon and the other Tories of his school. The Duke also gave 
his sanction to a corn-bill introduced by Mr. Huskisson. Later in the 
session however, when a motion was made to disfranchise the corrupt 
borough of East Retford, and invest Birmingham with the electoral 
rights which might thus be vacated, the government opposed the 
motion, but Mr. Huskisson voted for it. Mr. Huskisson was then 
Colonial Secretary, and feeling that he had placed himself in an 
awkward position, he wrote to the Duke to explain, and made some 
allusion as to his willingness to resign. The Duke, who had no liking 
for Mr.’ Huskisson’s free-trade principles, immediately wrote to say 
that he had considered it his duty to lay the letter before the 
king, that is, to advise the king to accept the resignation. Mr. 
Huskisson, who had not intended to resign, wrote in explanation, 
but after several letters had passed between them the Duke con- 
tinued inflexible. It was related at the time, that when Lord 
Palmerston and Lord Dudley, as friends of Mr. Huskisson, waited on 
the Duke, and one of them observed that it was quite a mistake, the 
Duke replied emphatically, “It was no mistake, could be no mistake, 
and shall be no mistake.” Mr. Huskisson therefore retired, and at 
the same time Lord Dudley, Lord Palmerston, and Mr. Grant, sent in 
their resignations, which were accepted. The Duke then called into 
office the Earl of Aberdeen, Sir Henry Hardinge, Sir George Murray, 
and Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald. Within a fortnight after the reconstruction 
of the cabinet, the question of Roman Catholic Emancipation was 
brought before both Houses. The motion for a committee to inquire 
into the claims of the Roman Catholics, which had been carried in the 
Commons, was lost in the Lords, but the Duke's speech on the 
question was decidedly conciliatory, though he opposed the motion. 
On the 20th of January 1829, the king conferred on the Duke of Wel: 
lington the offices of Governor of Dover Castle and Lord Warden of 
the Cinque Ports, after which the Duke occasionally resided at Walmer 
Castle, the official residence of the Lord Warden, which is situated on 
the coast of Kent, near Dover. 

Mr. O’Connell aided by the Catholic Association had produced, by 
the process of agitation, a degree of discontent in Ireland which 
threatened an insurrection of the most dangerous character. Under 
these circumstances, though the Duke of Wellington and Mr. Peel 
were both opposed to the granting of the claims of the Roman 
Catholics, they decided at once that it was better to renounce the 
principle of political and civil disabilities founded on differences of 
religious belief than to expose the country to the risk of a civil war 


in Ireland. There was a difficulty however with GeorgeIV. After 
repeated interviews and arguments he refused his sanction to the 
proposed measure, till the Duke and Mr, Peel tendered their resigna- 
tions. He then yielded; and on the 5th of February 1829, when 
parliament assembled, the king's speech contained a recommendation 
to review the laws which impose civil disabilities on Roman Catholics, 
and to consider whether their removal could be effected without 
danger to the establishment in church and state. In the debates on 
the speech the Duke in the House of Lords and Mr. Peel in the 
House of Commons announced the forthcoming measure. On the 
10th of March the Roman Catholic Relief Bill was read a first time 
in the House of Commons, and'the division on the third reading, 
March 30, was, 320 for it, and 142 against it ; in the House of Lords, 
the division on the third reading, April 10, was, 213 for it, and 104 
against it. The Bill was then passed, and soon afterwards received 
the royal assent. The opposition of Lord Eldon, Lord Winchelsea, 
and other Tories, was violent; but the Duke had brought the whole 
power of government into action, and triumphantly carried the mea- 
sure, Lord Winchelsea, writing to a gentleman connected with the 
new institution of King’s College, among other observations on the 
Duke’s motives, imputed to him an intention “to introduce Popery into 
every department of the state.” The Duke demanded an apology for 
the expressions used, which not being given, a duel ensued between 
them on the 21st of March. Lord Winchelsea, after the Duke had 
fired and missed, discharged his pistol into the air, and then tendered 
the required apology, which settled the dispute. 

The parliamentary session of 1830 commenced on the 4th of 
February. Onthe 23rd of February Lord John Russell moved for 
leave to bring in a bill to enable Manchester, Leeds, and Birmingham, 
to return members to parliament, which was negatived by 148 to 140. 
On the 28th of May a motion made by Mr. O’Connell for leave to 
bring in a bill for the radical reform of abuses in the state of the 
representation of the people in the House of Commons was negatived by 
319 to 18; and a motion by Lord John Russell, “that it is expedient 
to extend the basis of the representation of the people,” was also 
negatived by 213 to 117. There was much distress throughout the 
country among the agricultural and manufacturing classes, and there- 
fore much discontent ; but the great body of the people, at that time, 
appeared to care little about the question of a reform of the House of 
Commons. A change, however, and that sudden and violent, was 
about to take place. 

George LY. died on the 26th of June 1830, and was succeeded by 
William IV., whose political opinions were believed to be more liberal 
than those of the deceased king, and whose disposition was known to 
be more affable and conciliatory. The British parliament was dissolved 
by proclamation, July 24, and a new one summoned. Almost imme- 
diately afterwards a French revolution took place at Paris. Charles X, 
was driven from his throne, and abdicated it. Louis-Philippe was 
chosen as his successor, with the title of King of the French. The 
excitement of that revolution extended over the British islands as 
well as over the continent of Europe. In Great Britain and Ireland 
the people, preparing for the election of new members of parliament, 
were everywhere seized with an ardent desire for more liberal institu~ 
tions, and, as a preliminary step, for changes and reforms of the 
constituencies which elected the members of the House of Commons. 

The new parliament assembled on the 26th of October 1830, and the 
king’s speech was delivered by William IV. on the 2nd of November. 
During the debate which followed, Earl Grey, in the House of Lords, 
urged the necessity of an immediate reform of the House of Commons; 
and the Duke of Wellington, in reply, affirmed that “the country 
already possessed a legislature which answered all the good purposes 
of legislation, and that the system of representation possessed the full 
and entire confidence of the country,” and declared that he was “not 
only not prepared to bring forward any measure of reform,” but 
would “resist any such measure as long as he held any station in the 
government of the country.” Public meetings were immediately 
called throughout the country, which were attended by vast numbers, 
The Duke had already given offence by his measures against the press, 
and his declaration against reform now roused the people to a state of 
excitement little short of fury. On the 15th of November the 
government were in a minority in the House of Commons, and on the 
16th the Wellington ministry ceased to exist, and was succeeded by 
that of Earl Grey. On the 22nd of April 1831 the king dissolved the 
parliament, in order to ascertain the sense of the people respecting 
the proposed alteration in the representation of the House of Com- 
mons. The new parliament met on the 14th of June, and the Reform 
Acts for England, Scotland, and Ireland were passed June 7, July 17, 
and August 7, 1832. The Duke of Wellington opposed the Reform 
Bills steadily, and spoke frequently in opposition. Hence he became 
excessively unpopular, and the bitterness of the feeling—at least of 
the lower orders—may be inferred from the fact, that when he 
returned from a visit to the Tower, June 18, 1832, he was hooted and 
roughly treated by the mob, and would scarcely have reached his 
residence (Apsley House) in safety, if some gentlemen and soldiers 
had not placed themselves around his horse, and escorted him. The 
windows of Apsley House were also broken, and he afterwards pro- 
tected them by iron casings. 

The office of Chancellor of the University of Oxford became vacant 


- 


631 WELLS, CHARLES WILLIAM. 


WENCESLAUS. 632 


by the death of Lord Grenville, January 12, 1834, and on the 29th of 
the same month the Duke of Wellington was unanimously elected to 
succeed him. The ceremony of installation took place on the 9th of 
June following, and was attended by a vast concourse of persons. 

On the 8th of December 1834 Sir Robert Peel was gazetted as First 
Lord of the Treasury, and the Duke of Wellington as Secretary of 
State for Foreign Affairs. This first Peel ministry terminated on the 
8th of April 1835. Lord Melbourne, who had succeeded Earl Grey as 
premier, again resumed that office. William IV. having died on the 
20th of June 1837, was succeeded by Queen Victoria, and Lord Mel- 
bourne retained the office of premier till August 30, 1841, when he 
resigned, and Sir Robert Peel again became prime minister, The 
Duke of Wellington accepted a seat in the Cabinet, but without taking 
office. After the death of Lord Hill, December 10, 1842, the Duke of 
Wellington succeeded him as Commander-in-Chief of the Forces, and 
continued uninterruptedly to perform the duties of that office till the 
termination of his life. The Duke's last political difficulty occurred 
in 1846, when the repeal of the Corn-Laws had become a necessity. 
Sir Robert Peel saw the necessity: he knew that there would bea 
large majority in the Commons, but success in the Lords depended on 
the influence of the Duke, who refused to support the measure, and 
Sir Robert Peel resigned office. The Queen then sent for Lord John 
Russell, but he was unable to form a ministry, and Sir Robert Peel 
was recalled. The Duke then saw the necessity of the repeal. He 
put aside his own opinion, stood by his friend Sir Robert, told the 
Lords distinctly that they must yield to the Queen and the Commons, 
and by his influence and his proxies passed the measure through the 
House of Lords, May 28, 1846, by a majority of 47. 

The Duke of Wellington died Sept. 14, 1852, at Walmer Castle, 
aged 83, seeming as if he had fallen asleep in his chair, after a slight 
illness in the morning. He was buried in St. Paul’s Cathedral, London, 
under the dome, and beside the remains of Lord Nelson. The funeral 
was public, and similar to that of Nelson, which took place Jan. 9, 1806 ; 
and during the procession to the cathedral, Nov. 9, the deep sympathy 
of all classes of the people for the loss of the greatest of Britain’s mili- 
tary commanders was as strongly manifested as it had been at the 
funeral of her greatest naval hero. He was succeeded in his title and 
estates as Duke of Wellington by his eldest son Arthur, Marquis of 
Douro, who was born in 1807. The Duchess of Wellington died in 
1831. 

The leading characteristic of the Duke of Wellington’s mind seems 
to have been sound good sense, based on patient examination into 
details, and a careful study of the whole in order to arrive at a right 
conclusion. He made allowance for contingencies, passions, interests, 
estimated things at their real value, and was rarely wrong. His great 
principle of action seems to have been a sense of duty rather than the 
stimulus of glory or ambition. His manner was in general singularly 
calm. He never seemed to be elated by success, nor depressed by 
discouragements or difficulties. Quickness of decision and energy of 
execution marked his character during the whole of his life. He was 
not inflexible however in carrying out his plans as a commander or bis 
views as a statesman; but altered his course when new information or 
a change of circumstances offered a sufficient reason for a change of 
determination. He was regular in his attendance in the House of 
Lords, and spoke frequently. His influence over the members of that 
House was such as probably has never been possessed by any other 
individual. As a public speaker, his delivery, without being fluent or 
rapid, was emphatic and vehement. In private life he was simple and 
methodical. He was temperate in the use of food and wine, slept on a 
hair-mattrass on a simple camp-bedstead, was an early riser, and was 
indefatigable in his attention to business, He seldom made use of a 
carriage, and continued to ride on horseback when from the infirmities 
of age he could no longer sit erect, and he also used the exercise of 
walking even to the last, though his steps were slow and faltering. 

WELLS, CHARLES WILLIAM, physician, was born at Charles- 
town in South Carolina, U.S., in May, 1757. His father and mother 
were natives of Scotland, and emigrated in 1755. He was sent by his 
father to Dumfries and afterwards to Edinburgh, for the purpose of 
being educated, and returned to Carolina in 1771. The revolutionary 
movements shortly after commenced in America, and his father, who 
espoused the royalist party, was obliged to flee to Great Britain, where 
he was followed by his son in 1775. He then went to Edinburgh, and 
commenced the study of medicine, and here formed an intimacy with 
David Hume, and William Miller, afterwards lord Glenlee. After 
acting as surgeon in a Scotch regiment in Holland, he graduated at 
Edinburgh, in 1780. He returned to America the same year, and 
with the remains of his father’s and brother’s property went to 
St. Augustine, in East Florida, where he conducted a newspaper in his 
brother's name. On the preliminaries of peace being signed in 1783, 
he again went to Charlestown, where he was seized and thrown into 
prison, and continued there for three months, having escaped further 
confinement by paying a ransom. On returning to St. Augustine he 
was shipwrecked, and only saved his life by swimming on shore. He 
returned to London and commenced practice as a physician in 1785. 
In 1790 he was appointed physician to the Finsbury Dispensary, and 
in 1795 was elected assistant-physician to St. Thomas's Hospital, and 
full physician in 1800. 

Dr. Wells was a fellow of the Royal Society, and published the 


following papers in their ‘Transactions:—1, In 1795, ‘On the 
Influence which incites the Muscles of Animals to contract, in M, Gal- 
vani’s Experiments.’ 2, In 1797. ‘ Experiments on the Colour of the 
Blood.’ 8, In 1811, ‘Experiments and Observations on Vision.’ In 
the 2nd and 8rd volumes of the ‘Transactions of a Society for the 


Promotion of Medical and Surgical Knowledge,’ he published several — 


papers on various departments of medicine. His contributions to 
newspapers and magazines were very numerous, embracing politics, 
general literature, and biography. His last work, and the one on 
which his reputation as a philosopher must rest, is his ‘ Essay upon 
Dew,’ which was published in 1814. The demonstration of the nature 
of dew in this work is an extremely fine application of the principles 
of induction in philosophical inquiry, and has deservedly given the 
author a wide-spread reputation. The experiments involved in this 
inquiry were such as to lead him to expose himself frequently for long 
intervals together to the night-air. The consequence was, that it 
brought on attacks of disease from which he never ultimately re- 
covered, and he died on the 18th of September 1817. Dr. Wells was 
an accurate observer and an acute reasoner, and all his productions 
bear marks of a superior mind. In an edition of his works published 
in 1821 is an autobiography written a short time previous to his 
decease, from which this notice has been chiefly drawn. 

WELSTED, LEONARD, a small poet, or versifier, of the last 
century, was sprung from a reputable Leicestershire family, and was 
the grandson, through his mother, of the lawyer and antiquary 
Thomas Staveley, known for his curious volume against popery, 
entitled ‘The Romish Horseleech.’ Welsted was born at Abington in 
Northamptonshire, in 1689, and was educated at Westminster School. 
The common statement that he afterwards studied at both universities 
rests upon no better authority than a satirical pamphlet, called ‘ The 
Characters of the Times,’ published, in 8vo, in 1728, which has been 
sometimes ridiculously attributed to Welsted himself, who is one of 
the persons satirised in it. arly in life, by the interest of the Earl of 
Clare (afterwards Duke of Newcastle), he obtained a situation in the 
Ordnance-Office, which he held till his death, in 1747. Welsted’s 
earliest production is supposed to have been a short poem of some 
humour, called ‘ The Apple-Pie, a Tale,’ which may be read in Nichols’s_ 
‘ Select Collection of Poems,’ with notes, iii. 78. But this was originally 
attributed to Dr. William King (of whom there is a notice in John- 
son’s ‘ Lives of the Poets’); nor was it claimed for Welsted till 1735, 
when he was asserted _to be the author in a periodical publication 
called ‘The Weekly Chronicle’ (for 16th August), with the remark, 
that King had “let it pass some years, without contradiction as his 
own,” King died in 1712. Others of Welsted’s poems appeared in 
1709, 1710, &e. One of his literary performances is a translation of 
Longinus from the French; another is a comedy, entitled ‘ The Dis- 
sembled Wanton; or, My Son, get Money,’ which was brought out 
with considerable success at Lincoln’s Inn Fields in 1726, and printed 


the same year. But what has chiefly been the means of preserving © 


Welsted’s name is a piece called ‘ The Triumvirate, or a letter in verse 
from Palemon to Celia at Bath, which he published in 1718. For 
this, which, according to one of the notes on the Dunciad,’ “was 
meant for a satire on Mr. Pope and some of his friends,” the luckless 
author was immortalised ten years after in the third book of that 
poem, in the following parody on Denham’s well-known lines :— 


** Flow, Welsted, flow! like thine inspirer, beer ; 
Though stale, not ripe; though thin, yet never clear ; 
So sweetly mawkish, and so smoothly dull; 

Heady, not strong ; o’erflowing, though not full.” 


But there is a note of Pope’s on the prologue to the Satires, which 
implies that there was also a personal cause for Pope’s animosity 
against him. He is also noticed in the second book, and in the 
treatise ‘Of the Art of Sinking in Poetry,’ published the year before 
the ‘Dunciad.’ A note on the passage quoted above affirms that 
Welsted was one of Sir Robert Walpole’s anonymous writers, and that 
it appeared from the Report of the Secret Committee of 1742 that he 
had at one time received 500/. for his secret services in that capacity, 
Welsted was twice married : first, to a daughter of Henry Purcell, the 
eminent musical composer; secondly, to asister of Bishop Walker, the 
defender of Londonderry, who survived him. 

WENCESLA’US, or WENZEL, Emperor, or more correctly King, 
of Germany, the eldest son of the Emperor Charles IV., of the house 
of Luxemburg, was born in 1361. Charles intended to intrust the 
education of Wenceslaus to his personal friend Petrarch, but the poet 
declined the honour, and the young prince was instructed by other 
teachers. The system of education, which was planned by the emperor 
himself, was bad ; and the consequences were that Wenceslaus became 
unfit for the high post for which he was destined by his birth. At the 
age of two, he was crowned king of Bohemia; at twelve, he was 
invested with the margraviate of Brandenburg ; and at sixteen, he was 
chosen and crowned king of the Romans. From the accession of Ru- 
dolph I.,in 1273, no Roman king had been chosen, the electors thinking 
that the election of a successor to the reigning emperor was incompa- 
tible with the freedom of election. They objected to the youth of 
Wenceslaus, but Charles answered them that the sons of kings had 
received from God souls much more enlightened than those, of 
other men, and as their education was likewise more carefully con- 


Se Set ee 


633 WENCESLAUS. 


WERGELAND, HENRIK ARNOLD. 634 


ducted, they of course, at the age of sixteen, knew quite as much as, 
and were in every other respect superior to, common men of double 
that age. The electors were less persuaded by these arguments than 
by the wealth of Charles, who is said to have given one hundred 
thousand gold guldens to each of them, besides estates and other 
advantages, and thus Wenceslaus was chosen king at Frankfurt in 1376. 
Wenceslaus succeeded his father in 1378. The state of the empire 
was this :—After the death of Pope Gregory XI., at Avignon, in 1378, 
the Roman cardinals chose Urban VI., who was to reside in Rome. 
The French cardinals however chose Clement VII., who maintained 
himself a short time in Rome, but he was driven out by Urban VL, 
and took up his residence at Avignon. Wenceslaus recognised Ur- 
ban VJ. as pope, and in return received the papal recognition of his 
election to the imperial throne, which he had not yet obtained. This 
policy involved him in difficulties with the kings of France, Charles V., 
and, after him, Charles VI, from which however he disentangled 
himself by an alliance with King Richard II. of England, in 1381, 
who married the emperor's sister, Anne, and who likewise recognised 
Urban VI. As to the disturbances occasioned by the disputed govern- 
ment of two popes, the emperor was unable to quell them; and he 
only quieted Clement VII.’s adherents among the princes of the 
’ empire by granting to them several important privileges. Tio Leopold, 
duke of Austria, he pledged the imperial rights over the free cities of 
- Suabia for a large sum of money; but these cities, fearing that they 
would lose their freedom under Leopold, concluded an alliance to 
which a great number of towns and free cities on the Rhine adhered, 
and they defended themselves against the duke. Some other princes 
of Southern Germany also tried to obtain imperial rights, and then 
gradually the sovereignty over other towns and free cities, and for 
that purpose they concluded a union, which was headed by Eberhard, 
count of Wiirtemberg, and Leopold, duke of Austria, who had very 
extensive possessions in Suabia. The consequence was a dreadful 
civil war between the princes and the citizens, whose party was 
strengthened by the towns and cities of Switzerland, which was then 
a province of Germany. In Switzerland the princes were defeated in 
the battle of Sempach (9th of July 1386), where Duke Leopold of 
Austria was slain, with 656 counts and knights; but in Suabia the 
citizens were routed at the battle of Défingen (24th of August 1388) 
and in several other engagements. Wenceslaus tried to pacify the 
belligerent parties, but his measures were partial, and had no effect. 
In order to please the victorious princes, he cancelled the heavy debts 
which they had contracted by borrowing money from the Jews, a 
proceeding of which we find many other instances in Germany, 
England, and France: 5000 Jews were killed by the mob in Prague. 
For some time the emperor, who seldom left Prague, succeeded in 
‘maintaining peace in Bohemia and other parts of his own dominions, 
but he abandoned himself to a dissolute life and committed many acts 
of cruelty. By his order John Pomuk, commonly called Nepomuk, a 
virtuous divine, and afterwards a saint, was drowned in the Moldau, 
after Wenceslaus had tortured him with his own hand (1393). He 
showed himself faithless to his own brothers, and to Jobst of Moravia, 
who surprised the emperor and put him in prison, in order to obtain 
justice from him, but was compelled to liberate him at the summons 
of the other princes. As Wenceslaus resided at Prague, and seldom 
appeared in any other part of Germany, the princes declared that 
they would depose him if he did not fulfil his duty of visiting the pro- 
vinces of the empire, and contributing by his personal appearance to 
their tranquillity. Through sloth or timidity, Wenceslaus did not 
leave Bohemia, but appointed his brother Siegmund vicar-general of the 
Roman empire, and kept for himself nothing but the imperial name. 
The state of the Church was still deplorable: Boniface IX., the 
» suecessor of Urban VI., was pope at Rome, and Benedict XIII., the 
successor of Clement VII., was pope at Avignon. The doctrines of 
Wycliffe had found their way into Bohemia, where they were propa- 
gated by Huss, and the confusion was so great, that a general council 
was considered the only means of restoring peace to the church. On 
this Wenceslaus suddenly left Bohemia and appeared at the diet at 
Frankfurt (1398), but his propositions were so imprudent, and his 
conduct so destitute of good faith, that the princes resolved to depose 
him. He was summoned to appear at Lahnstein before the tribunal 
of the electors, and on his non-appearance he was declared to have 
forfeited his crown, and his deposition, founded on seven different 
charges, was pronounced by John, elector of Mainz, in the pre- 
sence of a numerous crowd (20th August 1400). Ruprecht, elector- 
palatine, was chosen emperor on the following day. Wenceslaus pro- 
tested against his deposition, and continued to style himself emperor, 
and as such he was recognised by the council of Pisa in 1409. But he 
had not influence enough to form a powerful party in the empire, and 
even his authority in Bohemia was disregarded by his brother Sieg- 
mund, who kept him in prison for two years. After the death of 
Ruprecht, in 1410, Wenceslaus, without giving up his imperial title, 
effected the election of his cousin Jobst of Moravia, who died in the 
following year (1411). The choice of the electors fell upon Siegmund, 
elector of Brandenburg and king of Hungary, the brother of Wences- 
laus, who now renounced the imperial title and lived quietly in 
Bohemia. He tried to protect Huss against the proceedings of the 
Council of Constanz, but did not succeed. After the burning of Huss, 
in 1415, his adherents in Bohemia formed a union, the ultimate con- 


have been received by the sovereign with peculiar gratification. 


sequence of which was the dreadful war of the Hussites against the 
empire. The beginning of this war was an outbreak at Prague in 
1419. Wenceslaus resided then at his castle of Kunratiz, and when 
the news of the outbreak reached him, he fell into a fit of passion, and 
died of apoplexy on the 16th of August, 1419. He left no male issue, 
and his nominal successor in the kingdom of Bohemia was his brother, 
the emperor Siegmund. 

WENTWORTH, THOMAS. [Srrarrorp.] 

WERGELAND, HENRIK ARNOLD, «a very distinguished Nor- 
wegian poet and political writer, was born on the 17th of June 1808 
at Christiansand, where his father, Nikolai Wergeland, a clergyman, 
was one of the assistant masters at the Latin school. The father, who 
was much respected, and who survived the son, was one of the deputies 
who, when in 1814 Norway was severed by the allied powers from 
Denmark and united to Sweden, met and framed the constitution of 
Eidsvold, the acceptance of which by Sweden laid the foundation of 
a new and much more prosperous and glorious period in the annals of 
Norway. He was afterwards appointed priest of the parish of EHids- 
vold, the place from which the constitution takes its name, which is 
at the distance of about 40 English miles from Christiania; and it was 
there and at Christiania, first at the cathedral school and afterwards 
at the university, that hi¥son received his education. It was in 1827 
that Henrik Wergeland commenced his literary career under the 
assumed name of Siful Sifadda, by a farce or dramatic satire entitled 
‘Ah.’ It was afterwards followed by twelve other farces of a similar 
kind, some in verse and.some in prose, and mostly of an Aristophanic 
vein, with a political bearing and a seasoning of personalities. It was 
not surprising that these productions should arouse the animosity of 
the parties to whom they referred, and for the ten years from 1827 to 
1837 Wergeland’s life was passed in what is familiarly called ‘hot 
water. His contributions to the Norwegian newspapers, some of 
which he occasionally edited, were very frequent; and his poems, 
many of which were on political subjects, were hardly less numerous. 
His admirers were at this time fond of calling him ‘the Byron of 
Norway ;’ but Dr. R. G. Latham, who knew him personally, and in 
his ‘Norway and the Norwegians’ gives an interesting account of a 
visit to the parsonage of Hidsvold, observes that his productions 
rather reminded him of those of Elliott, the Corn-Law Rhymer, and 
that he might be called an ‘ Elliott Ossian.’ His political feelings were 
intensely and exclusively Norwegian, and so narrow as to be antago- 
nistical even to the other members of the Scandinavian family, the Danes 
and Swedes. For some time he drew the whole youth of Norway 
with him, but in 1832 the appearance of an attack upon him by 
Welhaven, another rising poet and critic—‘ Henrik Wergelands 
Digtekunst og Polemik’ (Henry Wergeland’s Poetry and Polemics)— 
began to turn the current, though Wergeland’s father wrote vigorously 
in his defence, and at present it may be considered that the public 
opinion of Norway is in favour of the united action of the three 
Scandinavian countries. It was regarded however as a great triumph 
of Wergeland’s views that, in 1837, Sweden conceded the point of 
allowing a separate national flag to Norway. In the following year 
King Charles John (Bernadotte) paid a visit to Christiania, and Werge- 
land wrote a complimentary poem on the occasion, which was said to 
The 
Norwegian public was surprised to hear afterwards that the king had 
manifested his feelings by conferring on Wergeland, hitherto regarded 
as the chief ‘radical’ of Norway, an annual pension from his own 
privy purse, and a storm of indignation burst on the head of the poet. 
His position up to that time had been a somewhat precarious one. So 
far back as 1834 he had given up the clerical profession, after passine 
in 1829 his examination as candidate in theology, and officiating for 
some time as curate to his father. A poem which he had published, 
under the title of ‘Creation, Man, and the Messiah,’ which he regarded as 
his best work, and which many even of his admirers declared themselves 
unable either to admire or comprehend, contained views and opinions 
which were not considered compatible with the position of a minister 
of the church; and the general freedom of his life and opinions was 
also against him. On quitting theology he studied medicine; in 1836 
he was appointed keeper of the university library, and in 1840 keeper 
of the Norwegian archives. Giving up political writing after his 
pension, he devoted himself to poetry ; and though his productions at 
this time did not meet with the enthusiastic reception their prede- 
cessors had enjoyed, it is now acknowledged that they are the best of 
his whole career. In 1840 he married, and was enthusiastically 
attached to his wife. But his constitution, originally athletic and 
corresponding with his stature of six feet three, was irrecoverably 
shattered by an immoderate indulgence in brandy, and he died on the 
12th of August 1845, at the age of thirty-seven. 

A collected edition of the principal works of Wergeland was com- 
menced in 1851 by the Students’ Society of Christiania, under the 
editorship of H. Lassen. The last volume we have seen of it is the 
eighth, published in 1856, and it was to be completed in nine. The 
editor, who had the task of collecting many of these writings from 
magazines, reviews, and newspapers, has also had that of adding notes, 
which on some occasions were necessary to render them intelligible to 
those not intimately acquainted with the passing history of Norway 
at the time during which they appeared. ‘hree volumes of the eight 
are occupied with poetry, among which ‘Jan Van Huysum's Flower- 


635 WERL, OLAF. 


WERNER, ABRAHAM GOTTLOB. 638 


Piece’ and ‘The Spaniards’ are considered by far the best, One 
volume is filled with the farces; two others with dramatic poems. 
An early tragedy, entitled ‘Sinclair's Death,’ is founded on a well- 
known incident in the annals of Norway, the destruction of a body of 
Scottish mercenaries in Swedish pay by a treacherous attack of the 
Norwegian peasantry. An opera entitled ‘The Campbells,’ and two 
tragedies, ‘The Child-Murderess’ and ‘The Venetians,’ are of par- 
ticular merit. ‘Creation, Man, and the Messiah,’ is given in a revised 
and corrected shape, as left by the author. Of Wergeland’s prose 
writings the most interesting are a volume of short biographies of 
distinguished Norwegians, and a history of the formation of the 
constitution of Eidsvold. 

WERL, OLAF. [VeEretius, OLAvs. 

WERNER, ABRAHAM GOTTLOB, was born on the 25th of Sep- 
tember 1750, at Weslau on the Queiss, in Upper Lausitz. His father 
was superintendent of a foundry at that place. He gave his son 
minerals as playthings, and young Werner thus became acquainted, 
says Cuvier, with their names and characters as soon as he learned the 
letters of the alphabet, He received his early education at the school 
of the orphan asylum at Bunzlau in Silesia, but was afterwards placed 
at the celebrated school of mines at Freiberg in Saxony. He soon 
formed the resolution of entering into the mining establishment at 
that place; and as the regulations required a licentiate’s degree in 
law before admission, he studied jurisprudence for three years at the 
University of Leipzig, but at the same time continued to cultivate 
a knowledge of mineralogy. At that University he published, in 1774, 
being then twenty-four years of age, a treatise on the external 
characters of minerals,.in which he proposed a methodical and precise 
language to describe the sensible qualities of mineral substances. By 
this work, consisting of a few leaves, Werner, says Cuvier, rendered a 
service to mineralogy analogous to that which Linnzus had rendered 
to botanical science by the terminology made use of in his ‘ Philo- 
sophia Botanica,’ and effected a revolution in the science of minera- 
logy. He here expressed his ideas on the deficiencies existing in 
mineralogical science, and on the means of removing them. He 
observes that the external characters of minerals had been neglected 
in their description; and at the same time he showed that these 
characters were not to be applied to the systematic distribution of 
minerals, but to determine the conception of their exterior, and to fix 
a method of describing them; that the external characters, previously 
employed by mineralogists, were very indefinite, and that the perfec- 
tion and utility of the external description of minerals depended on 
the complete definition and arrangement of the external characters. 
This work of Werner soon became popular in Germany, but it was 
several years before it became more extensively known. A French 
translation, by Picardet, appeared in 1790, and one in English, by Mr. 
Weaver, was published in Dublin in 1805. In his native country it 
appears to have earned Werner a reputation, for in the year following 
its publication (1775), we find him appointed professor of mineralogy 
in the School of Mines at Freiberg, and inspector of the mineralogical 
cabinet at that place. He held these offices for seventeen years. 

In 1780 Werner published a translation of Cronstedt’s Mineralogy, 
with notes, and in the following year a catalogue of the private col- 
lection of minerals of Papst d’Ohain. In both these works he intro- 
duced his method of. distribution and descriptions of minerals accord- 
ing to his terminology, giving the name ‘ Oryctognosy’ to the study, 
while he termed the knowledge and science of the positions of minerals 
and fossils in the crust of the globe, and the classification of rocks 
and the inferences to be drawn as to the period and circumstances of 
their origin, ‘Geognosy. Although in the former department Werner 
had done great practical service, it is in connection with the latter 
division, and his theory of geology, that his name must be always 
associated, © 

In 1787 Werner published a little work on the classification of 
rocks, ‘Kurze Klassifikation und Beschreibung der verschiedenen 
Gebirgsarten ;’ in which he points out the mineralogical distinctions 
of rocks, but the work contains none of Werner's theoretical views 
respecting formations, and the classification he has given in it was 
materially altered by him at a subsequent period. Werner now pro- 
ceeded to teach in his lectures the doctrine of the formation of the 
primitive and other rocks by chemical precipitation from water; and 
in the same year, 1787, from an examination of the Erzgebirge (or 
Ore-Mountains), in Saxony, and the basaltic rocks of the neighbour- 
hood, he extended the application of this doctrine to the origin of 
trap rocks. Raspe, a German, had as far back as 1768 described the 
basalt of Hesse as of igneous origin. To Werner’s limited sphere of 
‘observation, his erroneous opinions on this and other subjects may in 
some measure be attributed. He found the basaltic rocks of Saxony 
and of Hesse forming the summits of the hills in tabular masses, and 
not occurring in dykes and veins, or extending downwards into the 
valleys, and hence some of the strongest proofs by which these rocks 
are now universally admitted to be of igneous origin were absent in 
the phenomena which came under his actual observation. But many 
even of the appearances in the neighbourhood of Freiberg, Werner 
appears to have overlooked or misconstrued. Thus within a day’s 
journey of his school, the porphyry, called by him primitive, has 
been found not only to send forth veins or dykes through strata of 
the coal formation, but to overlie them in mass, The granite of the 


Harz mountains, on the other hand, which he supposed to be the 
nucleus of the chain, is now well known to traverse and breach the 
other beds, penetrating even into the plain (as near Goslar) ; and still 
nearer Freiberg, in the Erzgebirge, the mica-slate does not mantle 
are as granite, as was supposed, but abuts abruptly against it. 

yell. ' 


These views of Werner were soon followed by the promulgation in | 


his lectures of his Theory of Formations, which, of all that he taught, 
we are inclined to select as his greatest achievement in the science. 
His ideas respecting the division of rocks into great classes we have 
seen was not original, but he was the first to observe that “ the masses 
or strata that constitute the surface of the globe present themselves 
in groups or assemblages, the members of which are generally associ- 
ated wherever they occur, and are so connected as to exhibit a certain 
unity of character.” These he termed ‘ formations,’ and taught that 
“the exterior of the earth consists of a series of these formations laid 
over each other in a certain determinate order.” This was a most 
startling announcement when we consider what a small portion of the 
globe had undergone a geological examination, and that even with 
that which had been examined, the author of this bold theory had 
little practical acquaintance. But if this reflection increases our 
surprise, it must also increase our admiration for the sagacity which 
announced from such small data a truth which, combated and resisted 
at the time, now receives the assent of all geologists, and which 
extended observations in all parts of the globe confirm. Ideas of 
this magnitude are, says Cuvier, the true characteristics of genius, 

Unfortunately however but as the natural consequence of his notions 
respecting basaltic and other rocks, now deemed of igneous origin, he 
included the latter among his series of constant universal formation 
and it is almost needless to say that this part of the theory has bee 
as effectually disproved as the rest has been confirmed. Werner 
taught that these formations, including his primitive rocks, as well as 
his flétz or secondary rocks, were produced by a series of precipita- 
tions and depositions formed in succession from water, which he sup- 
posed to have covered the globe, and, existing always more or less 
generally, contained the different substances which have been produced 
from them. In almost necessary connection with this hypothesis, he 
supposed a number of successive and universal changes in the level of 
the sea, of very great extent. 

In November 1791, Werner published his ‘ Theory of the Formation 
of Veins,’ which he had also taught for some years previously in his 
lectures. In this work he contended that veins were originally open 
fissures, He accounted for the existence of the fissures by supposing 
mountains to have been formed in the manner above stated, namely, 
by deposition from the sea of beds one above another, and that the 
mass of these beds being at first wet, and possessed of little tenacity, 
the mountain yielded to its weight, cracked, and sunk down on the 
side where support was wanting; and that as the waters also, which 
assisted in giving them support, began to lower their level, the mass 
would more readily yield to its weight, and would fall to the side 
where least resistance was opposed. The shrinking of the mass in 
drying, and the operation of earthquakes, might, he supposed, have 
further assisted in the production of such rents. Having thus 
accounted for the origin of the fissures, he believed, and endeavoured 
to prove, that the materials filling the veins were introduced into 
them from above, and that the mass of veins have been formed by a 
series of precipitations from water, which have filled, in whole or in 
part, the spaces or fissures; that these precipitations entered by the 
superior parts of the rents which were open, and were furnished by 


a solution in water, generally chemical, which covered the country in 


which these rents existed. To account for the high degree of erystal- 
lisation which prevails in the veins, he supposed that the precipitations 
and depositions which formed them were made with more tranquillity 
than those which produced beds and formations; that mechanic; 
solutions and depositions had disturbed the formation of veins much 
less than of beds, and that the spaces in which veins are found pre- 
served for a longer time the faculty of receiving and retaining different 
solutions, (Playfair, ‘ Edin. Review,’ vol. xviii.) 


A French translation of the work, by D’Aubuisson, appeared at 


Paris in 1802, and an English translation by Dr. Anderson, at Edin- 
burgh in 1809. This was the last work Werner wrote. It is said he 
had a most singular aversion to the mechanical act of writing, which 
he carried to such an extreme as never to reply to letters, and which 
even deterred him from reading them, least he should be tempted to 


reply. 

In 1792 he was appointed Counsellor (Bergrath) of the mines of 
Saxony. Von Charpentier held the situation of Captain-general (Berg- 
hauptmann) in the same establishment, and there appears to have 
been a feeling of rivalry between the two officers, although the labours 
of Charpentier were principally confined to the practical details of 
mining. In 1795 or 1796 Werner introduced into his lectures the 
doctrine of a new class of rocks, to which, as lying between the Pia 
mitive and secondary or flétz, he gave the name of ‘transition.’ The 
total number of distinct formations or rocks of all these classes to 
which he assigned precise relative places, was between thirty and forty. 
The establishment of the transition class completed Werner's labours, 
and the promulgation and further illustration of his views now occu- 
pied his lectures. He had at this time acquired a great celebrity 


637 WERNER, ABRAHAM GOTTLOB. 


WERNER, FRIEDRICH LUDWIG. 


638 


throughout Europe as the first geologist and mineralogist of the day, 
and was looked upon as the founder and author of mineralogy as a 
science. His fame was not so much acquired through his writings as 
by means of his lectures, for we have seen that some of his principal 
views were only promulgated in this channel. He was an admirable 
lecturer. One of his pupils describes his appearance in 1799 as very 
remarkable and striking at the first interview. He was middle-sized, 
and broad-shouldered ; his round and friendly countenance did not at 
first sight promise much, but when he began to speak, he at once 
commanded the most marked attention. His eye was full of fire and 
animation, his voice from its high tone was sometimes sharp, but 
every word was well-weighed; a cautious clearness and the most 
marked decision in the views he expressed were apparent in all that 
he said. With all this there was united a good feeling which irresis- 
tibly won every heart. In mineralogical investigations his discrimina- 
tion of the most delicate distinctions was remarkable. In recognising 
and exhibiting these, his whole demeanour presented a combination 
of earnestness and assured conviction. Every single obscurity annoyed 
him, and he almost compelled his hearers to distinguish with the 
greatest possible certainty the most trivial variations in the mixtures 
of colours occurring in minerals, all the characters of which were 
classified with extreme minuteness, and every instance of deviaticn 
from his arrangement and every case of doubt, vexed and annoyed him. 
Although he employed no mathematical formule in the arrangement of 
his crystals, afterwards so successfully adopted by Haiiy, yet the crystal- 
line structure, the number of cleavages, and their relative position 
were materials in Werner’s classification. Whoever, under his instruc- 
tion, undertook a mountain expedition, received an extremely minute 
plan according to which he was to make his observations. Every 
deviation, even the slightest, from the rules thus laid down, and every 
neglect of any portion of them, was severely blamed. It was necessary 
that he who wished to derive advantage from Werner’s instruction, 
should give himself up to his master, for the whole system was so 
intimately linked together, and the various elements of discrimination 
in mineralogy were so closely united with the mode of observation in 
geology, that the disturbance of any of them rendered all the others 
uncertain and doubtful. (Professor Steffens, ‘ Was ich Erlebte.’) 

He considered minerals under their chemical, economical, and even 
geographical aspects, and he arranged his collections under these 
different modes of treating the subject. He showed or attempted to 
show the influence of the mineral composition of rocks upon the 
habits, history, and even moral qualities of nations, and it may there- 
fore be easily seen that his lectures had some points of interest even 
' for the coldest minds. (Cuvier, ‘Biographie Universelle.’) He asso- 
ciated everything with his favourite science, and in his excursive 
lectures he pointed out all the economical uses of minerals, and their 
application to medicine ; the.influence of the mineral composition of 
rocks upon the soil; and of the soil:upon the resources, wealth, and 
civilisation of man. The vast sandy plains of Tartary and Africa, he 
would say, retained their inhabitants in the shape of wandering 
shepherds ; the granitic mountains and the low calcareous and alluvial 
plains gave rise to different manners, degrees of wealth, and intelli- 
gence. The history even of languages, and the migration of tribes, 
had been determined by the direction of particular strata. The 
qualities of certain stones used in building would lead him to descant 
on the architecture of different ages and nations; and the physical 
geography of a country frequently invited him to treat of. military 
tactics. The charm of his manners and his eloquence kindled enthu- 
siasm in the minds of his pupils; and many who had intended at first 
only to acquire a slight knowledge of mineralogy, when they had once 
heard him, devoted themselves to it as the business of their lives. 
(Cuvier, ¢ loge de Werner ;’ Lyell, ‘ Principles of Geology,’ vol. i.) 

This extended and popular treatment of the science attracted some, 
while others to whom the love of science for science sake was not a 
sufficient inducement, became his pupils from the connection that 
his lectures, from the situation he filled, necessarily had with mining. 
Among his pupils or attendants on his lectures may be enumerated 
Alexander Humboldt, Von Buch, D’Aubuisson, Jameson, Brocchi, 
Napione, Freisleben, Raumer, Englehart, Karsten, Mohs, Herder, 
Wiedemann, Emmerling, Reuss, Steffens, Breithaupt, Esmark, Wad 
(Denmark), D’Andrada (Brazil), and Elbyar (Spanish Mexico), In 
consequence of Werner writing so little, and his lectures not being 
preserved, it is to the works of many of these pupils that recourse 
must be had to acquire a perfect acquaintance with the details of their 
preceptor’s views, and the gradual extension of his theories and dis- 
coveries. That Werner’s powers of external discrimination were 
extremely acute, we have seen in speaking of him as a mineralogist, 
and his talent and tendency for classifying were in his mineralogical 
studies fully fed by an abundant store of observation; but when he 
came to apply this methodising power to geology, the love of system, 
so fostered, appears to have been too strong for the collection of facts 
he bad to deal with. 

To return to the biography of Werner. In 1802 he visited Paris, 
and was received with great honour by the scientific and learned 
bodies. The Academy of Sciences elected him one of their eight 
foreign associates ; and the leaders of the French republic sent him a 
diploma as ‘ Citoyen,’ an honour which somewhat perplexed Werner, 
as he was a loyal Saxon, and firmly attached to his prince. Werner 


was so devoted to his country that he never would enter into any 
other service, although the most tempting offers were repeatedly 
made to him. 

Werner suffered for many years uninterruptedly from a stomach 
complaint. The distresses of his country, consequent upon its being 
made the theatre of the campaign of 1813, seem to have preyed upon 
his mind, increased his malady, and produced a complication of 
diseases from which he never rallied. In 1817 he went to Dresden, 
in the hope of obtaining some relief from his sufferings. He became 
worse, and died there on the 30th of June, in the arms of his sister, 
in the sixty-seventh year of his age. Béttiger pronounced his funeral 
oration: Ritter delivered his ‘loge’ at the Academy of Munich, and 
Baron Cuvier at the Academy of Sciences in Paris. Werner was never 
married, He had surrendered in his lifetime the whole of bis valuable 
collection of minerals, comprising upwards of 100,000 specimens, and 
also a large collection of Greek and Roman medals, to the School of 
Mines at Freiberg, for 40,000 crowns, a price considerably below the 
value ; and in consequence of the distressed state of Saxony at that 
period, he accepted only a small part of the reduced sum, reserving a 
moderate interest upon the remainder under the form of an annuity, 
and bequeathing the capital after his death to the academy in which 
he had been more than forty years the most distinguished professor. 

WERNER, FRIEDRICH LUDWIG ZACHARIAS, an eminent 


German dramatist, was born on November 18, 1768, at Kénigsberg, 


in East Prussia, in the university of which town his father was pro- 
fessor of history and rhetoric. The death of his father left him at an 
early age to the sole care of his mother, a woman of considerable talent 
and of a lively imagination. In 1784 he began to prepare for the civil 
service, and attended lectures on jurisprudence and finance in Kénigs- 
berg, and also those of Kant, to which he gave much attention. In 
1793 he entered the Prussian civil service as secretary in the Finance 
department, in which capacity he lived for a considerable time at 
Warsaw, which had recently been taken possession of by Prussia. In 
1800 he there produced his first dramatic work, ‘ Die Séhne des Thals,’ 
a work distinguished by the simplicity of its plot, its successful cha- 
racterisation, depth of feeling, and power of language. On February 
24, 1804, his mother died at Konigsberg on the same day with his 
friend Mnioch, and the sad remembrance gave the title to his most 
celebrated tragedy, ‘ Der vierundzwanzigster Februar,’ a play elevating 
itself far above those of later imitators in a similar style by a terrible 
originality, a keenly penetrating insight into the human heart, an 
artistical arrangement of the action, and a rare and discriminating use 
of language. After his return to Warsaw he wrote ‘Das Kreuz an 
der Ostsee ’ (The Cross on the Baltic), for which G, T. A. Hoffmann 
composed the music. In 1805 he was removed to an official situa- 
tion in Berlin, but his mind, always eccentric, became now more 
decidedly erratic. His religious feelings were strongly excited, and 
an irrepressible desire for change possessed him, with an almost total 
want of stability. He gave up his office and separated from his wife, 
an amiable Polonese, whom he had married in 1799, after having 
divorced two other wives. He then wrote for the Berlin theatre, 
‘Martin Luther, oder die Weihe der Kraft’ (The Consecration of 
Strength), in which he mixed up history with mysticism, but which 
has fine poetical passages, After this he wandered through Germany, 
and remaining at Weimar for three months, returned to Berlin in 
1808. His stay was short there; he travelled into Switzerland;and 
at Interlaken became acquainted with Madame de Stael-Holstein. 
In the autumn of the same year he was in Paris, and in December 
again at Weimar, where the duke bestowed a pension on him, while 
almost at the same time the Grand-duke of Hesse-Darmstadt created 
him a counsellor of state. He next resided for four months at Coppet 
with Madame de Stael and A. W. Schlegel, and afterwards, on their 
recommendation, proceeded to Rome in 1809. In April 1811 he was 
secretly admitted as a member of the Roman Catholic Church, and for 
atime studied theology privately. In 1814, having removed to the 
seminary at Aschaffenburg, he was consecrated priest, went to Vienna 
during the sitting of the Congress in the autumn of that year, commenced 
preaching, and attracted large audiences. Part of the years 1816-17 he 
passed in Poland. Soon after his return to Vienna he quitted, to the 
great surprise of the public, the order of the Redemptorists into which 
he had been admitted two or three years previously, though he still 
continued to preach. In 1820 he wrote his last tragedy, ‘Die Mutter 
der Makkabier,’ which, with passages of considerable poetical beauty, 
evinces the same striving after novelty shown in his other pursuits. 
He affects a roughness of language, a rude and often indelicate humour, 
widely different from his earlier works, but of which some of bis inter- 
vening ones had shown symptoms, for during all this vacillatidn of 
opinion and constant .change of scene, he had not lost or altogether 
neglected his poetical powers, though the changes he had adopted in 
their development were by no means improvements. He had writteu 
‘Attila, Konig der Hunnen,’ ‘Wanda, Konigin der Sarmaten,’ ‘ Kune- 
gunda,’ and other poems, among which were hymns, that do not add 
greatly to his reputation as a poet. As a preacher he was popular, 
but his sermons, while they possess an attractive and inventive manner 
of explanation and illustration are disfigured by poor witticisms not 
unfrequently irreverent, and an obtrusive humility. He continued 
to preach until a short time before his death, which happened on 
January 18, 1823. His dramatic works were collected and published 


639 WERNER, JOANNES. 


WESLEY, JOHN. 610 - 


in 1817-18 in six volumes, containing all but the ‘Mother of the 
Maccabees,’ In 1836 his posthumous sermons were published, and 
in 1839-41 a complete edition of his collected works in fourteen 
volumes. 

WERNER, JOANNES, a German mathematician and astronomer, 
was born at Niirnberg on the 14th of February 1468. Nothing appa- 
rently is known of his life, except that, when he was twenty-five years 
of age, he went to Italy, where he made some astronomical observa- 
tions; and he is said to have made a series of observations on the 
comet which appeared in the month of April 1500. From observations 
which he made on the positions of Regulus, a Virginis, and a Libra, 
compared with those which had been assigned to the same stars by 
Ptolemy and Alphonso, he determined the precession of the equinoxes 
to be 70 minutes of a degree in 100 years, a quantity much too small ; 
and he found the obliquity of the ecliptic to be 23° 28’. 

In 1514 he published ‘ Annotations on the First Book of Ptolemy’s 
Geography,’ in which he endeavoured to explain an obscure passage 
concerning the projection of the celestial sphere on a plane surface ; 
and it deserves to be remarked that in this work we find the first 
notice of the method of determining geographical longitudes by the 
angular distance of the moon from some star: he recommends, for 
making the observation, the ‘ cross-staff,’ or ‘ fore-staff,’ a rude instru- 
ment which has long since been disused by mariners. In 1522 he 
published at Niirnberg, in 4to, his ‘Opera Mathematica,’ in which is 
contained a tract on conics: he also published a work on trigonometry, 
in five books, containing a great number of astronomical and geogra- 
phical problems. 

Werner wrote explanations of the construction and uses of meteoro- 
logical instruments; and it is said that he collected a number of 
observations with a view of discovering from them rules for deter- 
mining the changes which take place in the atmosphere. He executed 
a machine in which the movements of the sun, moon, and planets 
were represented conformably to the Ptolemaic system ; and he wrote 
a work on ‘ The Movement of the Eighth Sphere.’ He died in the year 
1528. 

WESLEY, JOHN, was the most distinguished member of a family, 
several of the other members of which however also claim to be shortly 
noticed, either on their own account or in consequence of their connec- 
tion with him. It will be-most convenient to comprise all the Wesleys 
under one head, and to take them in chronological order. 

The Wesleys, or Westleys, as they formerly spelled their name, are 
said by Dr. Adam Clarke, in his ‘Memoirs of the Wesley Family,’ to 
have believed their progenitors to have come to England from Saxony ; 
and it has been suggested that they might possibly have been of the 
same stock with the once famous reformer, Jobn Wesselus, otherwise 
De Wesalia, or Basilius, of Groningen, who died in 1489. (See ‘ Bio- 
graphical Notices of the Rev. Bartholomew Westley,’ &c., by William 
Beal, 8vo, London, 1839; and Wessrt.) Supposing the name to be 
English, or Anglo-Saxon, a doubt has been entertained as to whether 
it is properly Westleigh or Wellesleigh. There is reason to believe 
that the family name of Wellesleigh (probably taken from the village 
so called near the city of Wells) has generally passed into Wesley: 
Wood, in the ‘ Athenze Oxonienses,’ has a notice of a bishop of Kildare, 
of the early part of the 16th century, whom he describes as ‘ Walter 
Wellesley, commonly called Wesley ;’ and it is known that, when 
John Wesley’s younger brother Charles was at Westminster School, an 
Irish gentleman, Garret Wellesley, Esq., of Dungannon, M.P. for the 
county of Meath, considering the boy to be of his own family, offered 
to make him his heir if he would have relinquished the intention of 
proceeding to Oxford, and gone over and settled in Ireland. This 
was before 1727, in which year Mr. Wellesley died, leaving his estates 
and also his name to his cousin, Richard Colley, Esq., who was created 
Baron Mornington (in the Irish peerage) in 1746, and was the father of 
the first Earl of Mornington, and the grandfather of the Marquis Wel- 
lesley and the Duke of Wellington. 

THE Rey. BartHoLoMew Westiey is the first of John Wesley’s 
ancestors of whom there is any distinct record. He was born about 
1600 ; was educated at one of the universities, where he studied both 
divinity and medicine; became, in the time of the Commonwealth, 
minister of Charmouth and Catherston (two adjoining villages near 
Lyme in Dorsetshire) ; and was ejected from the first of these livings 
immediately after the Restoration, and from the second on the passing 
of the Act of Uniformity in 1662. He continued to reside at Char- 
mouth, practising physic, till the passing of the Five-Mile Act in 1665 
drove him, with other nonconformists, to a secluded spot at Pinney, 
now known by the name of Whitechapel Rocks; and there he is 
believed to have spent the remainder of his days, which appear not to 
have been many, though we do not find the date of his decease stated. 
“He lived several years,” Dr. Calamy tells us, “after he was legally 
silenced ; but the death of his son made a very sensible alteration in 
the father, so that he afterwards declined apace, and did not long 
survive him.” 

Tue Rev. Jonn WestLey, M.A., son of this Bartholomew, was born 
about 1636, and studied at New Inn Hall, Oxford, where he applied 
himself particularly to the Oriental languages, and adopted the 
opinions as to church government and other subjects of the vice- 
chancellor of the university, the celebrated Dr. Owen, who is said to 
have shown great kindness for him. After preaching for some time to 


what was called “the gathered church,” at Weymouth, and at the 
neighbouring village of Radipole, he was appointed in May 1658 to 
the vicarage of Winterborne-Whitchurch, in the same county of 
Dorset. He married a daughter of Mr. John White, one of the lay 
assessors of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, and commonly 
called ‘the Patriarch of Dorchester,’ in which town he was rector of 
Trinity Church for about forty years. Mrs. Westley is also stated to 
have been a niece of Dr. Thomas Fuller, the celebrated historian: it 
is probable that she was his wife’s niece. Westley appears to have 
been thrown into prison for something he had uttered in the pulpit 
very soon after the Restoration: he lay in confinement till he was 
discharged by an order of the privy council, dated July 24, 1661, on 
his taking the oaths of supremacy and allegiance. He was seized a 
second time in the beginning of 1662 as he was leaving the church, 
and carried to prison at Blandford, where he lay for some time; and 
soon after he got out the Act of Uniformity deprived him of his 
living, and left him for several months a wanderer and an outcast. At 
length, in May 1663, a pious and charitable person gave him a house 
rent-free at the village of Preston, a few miles from Weymouth. At 
one time he thought of emigrating to Surinam or Maryland; but he 
finally resolved that it was his duty to remain at home. He continued 
to preach when he could find a safe opportunity, both at Preston and 
Weymouth ; and he eventually united himself as pastor to a small 
congregation at Poole, though without going to reside among them. 
He was often apprehended while thus engaged, and, besides being 
several times fined, was subjected to four imprisonments at Poole and 
Dorchester. Yet this elder John Westley does not appear to have 
been a person of extreme opinions, or one who habitually allowed his 
zeal to hurry him into disregard of danger or other indiscretions. 
His principle and his practice was to join on ordi occasions in 
public worship with the members of the Established Church; and we 
are told that, while some of his nonconformist brethren in Dorset 
preached and administered the ordinances of religion to the small 
congregations who acknowledged them as their pastors openly and at 
all hazards, he “thought it his duty to beware of men—that pru- 
dently he should preserve his liberty and his opportunity to minister 
in holy things as long as he could, and not by the openness of one 
meeting to hazard the liberty of all meetings.’ (Beal, p. 27.) The 
Five-Mile Act however, which drove his father from Charmouth, 
drove him also from Preston, and forced him to retire to some place 
of concealment which does not appear to be known, Venturing forth 
again some time after to visit his family and to preach to his congre- 
gation, he was apprehended:and suffered another imprisonment. . Many 
more hardships incident to his situation he also underwent, and it 
seems to be intimated that his spirits at last sunk under the public 
and personal afflictions with which he was tried. If he was only 
three or four and thirty, as Southey states (‘Life of Wesley,’ i. 5), 
when he died, that event must have been before or in the year 1670. 
His death, as already mentioned, was speedily followed by that of his 
father, at about double the age. ‘ 
Tur Rey. SAMUEL WESTLEY, or WESLEY, was a younger son of this 
John Westley, and was born at Preston, according to one account in 
1668, by another in 1666, by a third “about the year 1662, or perhaps 
a little earlier.’ (Compare Beal, p. 31, and Southey, i. 7, where it is 
remarked that the earliest date is established by certain extracts from 
the Registers of Exeter College, which are given, but which do not 
appear to us to prove any thing on the subject.) He is said to have 
been designed by his father for the ministry among the Dissenters, 
and to have been sent with that view, after leaving the free grammar- 
school of Dorchester, first to the academy at Stepney, kept by Edward 
Veal, B.D., and next to that kept by Charles Morton, M.A., at Newing- 
ton Green. Wesley however soon left the Dissenters. When he 
joined the Established Church he was abandoned by his relations ; 


but making. his way to Oxford, with only 2/. 16s. in his pocket, he 


entered himself at Exeter College as a poor scholar; and, although 
all he ever after received from any of his friends was a matter of five 
shillings, he managed to take his Bachelor's degree, and by acting as a 
private tutor bad accumulated the sum of 10/. 15s., when he pro- 
ceeded to London and got ordained. In all the accounts that we have 
examined it is asserted that the year in which he went to college was 
1684, and one of the extracts which Southey prints certainly seems to 
imply that he made a deposit of caution-money as a poor scholar on 
the 26th of September in that year; but it will be found that this 
date will not agree with the rest of his history as commonly related. 
At all events it is clearly impossible that if he only became a member 
of the university in 1684, he could, as we are told, have taken his 
degree of B.A., been ordained, served a curacy in London for a year, 
been for another year on board a man-of-war as chaplain, and then 
served another London curacy for two years, during which he married, 
had ason, became known as a writer for the press, and got a small 
living in the country (supposed to be that of South Ormsby, in Lin- 
colnshire), all before James II. published the order in council com- 
manding his Declaration for Liberty of Conscience to be read in the 
churches, in May 1688. At this time Wesley is represented as having 
been a person of such importance that urgent solicitations and pro- 
mises of preferment were addressed to him to induce him to support 
the measures of the court, which however he resolutely refused to 
do; not only omitting to read the king’s declaration, but preaching a 


ee 


641 WESLEY, JOHN. 


WESLEY, JOHN. 642 


pointed discourse against it before an audience composed in great part 
of courtiers, soldiers, and informers. 

Other facts equally go to strengthen the improbability of bis having 
gone to college only in 1684. It is stated to have been after he 
returned from sea that he married Susannah, youngest daughter 
of the Rey. Dr. Samuel Annesley, one of the most eminent of the 
London nonconformist clergy, and a near relation of the Irish Earl of 
Anglesey. This lady, as appears from one of her own letters, which 
has been printed, had, like her husband, of her own accord left the 
Dissenters, and that at the early age of not full thirteen, after having, 
as she intimates, thoroughly examined the controversy between them 
and the Established Church, Another daughter of Annesley (who 
had originally held a living in the Church, and was ejected by the Act 
of Uniformity) was the first wife of the eccentric John Dunton, book- 
seller, publisher, and author, in whose curious autobiographical per- 
formance entitled his ‘ Life and Errors’ there are several notices of his 
brother-in-law ; and Dunton published for Wesley the first work that 
had his name, an octavo volume of verse, entitled ‘ Maggots, or Poems 
on several subjects,’ which appeared in 1685. Wesley, besides being 
already married to Miss Annesley, appears to have been at this time 

_ an established writer, though only anonymously, for the booksellers. 

When the revolution took place, Wesley, it is said, wrote a book in 

defence of it; but neither the date nor even the title is given. As it 
’ is said to have been dedicated to the queen—who in consequence, we 
are told, gave the author the living of Epworth, in Lincolnshire, about 
1693—it may possibly have been not anything concerning the revolu- 
tion, but an heroic poem, in folio, entitled ‘ The Life of Christ,’ which 
he published that year and dedicated to her majesty, and which was 
reprinted, with large additions and alterations, in 1697. Another folio 
volume of verse, under the title of ‘Elegies on Queen Mary and 
Archbishop Tillotson,’ followed in 1695; ‘The History of the New 
Testament attempted in verse, and adorned with 152 sculptures, done 
by J. Sturt,’ 12mo, in 1701; and ‘The History of the Old Testament 
in Verse, with 180 sculptures, by Sturt,’ 12mo, in 1704, “In 1705 
‘Wesley published a poem on the battle of Blenheim, for which the 
- Duke of Marlborough made him chaplain to one of the regiments 
then stationed in England, and would, it is said, have procured him a 
prebend, had it not been for the influence of the Dissenters at court 
and in parliament, which was powerful enough not only to prevent 
this promotion, but soon after to procure the removal of Wesley from 
his chaplaincy. In the next reign however he received and held with 
Epworth the small living of Wroote in the same county. He died on 
the 30th of April 1735, and the same year appeared, under the care 
of his eldest son, his most elaborate work, entitled ‘Dissertationes in 
Librum Jobi, a Latin commentary on the Book of Job, for the publi- 
cation of which proposals had been first circulated in 1729. ‘A 
Treatise on the Sacrament’ is mentioned, without date, in a list of 
Samuel Wesley’s publications in Nichols’s ‘Select Collection of Poems,’ 
ii, 99 ; and he is stated by his son John, in his ‘ History of England,’ to 
have been the author of the defence delivered by Dr. Sacheverell 
before the House of Lords. His poetry is occasionally harsh in 
expression, but is not without feeling and animation; some passages 
are elegant and even elevated. By his wife, who was in many respects a 
very remarkable woman, he had a family of nineteen children, of 
whom one daughter, Mehetabel, who made an unfortunate marriage 
with a person of the name of Wright, evinced much literary talent, 
and was the mother of Mrs, or Miss Mehetabel Wright, who distin- 
guished herself as a modeller in wax; and three sons, Samuel, John, 
and Charles, all attained more or less celebrity. : 

Tur Rey. Samurt Wesiey, the Younger, was the eldest, or at 
least the eldest surviving, son of the Reverend Samuel Wesley of 
Epworth. He is stated to have been born there, Whitehead, in his 
‘ Life of Wesley,’ says about 1692; Coke and Moore, in 1690. Yet the 
latest of these dates, it will be observed, is earlier than that assigned 
for his father’s induction to the living of Epworth. It is related that 
he was four years old before he spoke a word; but from that time he 
spoke not only without any difficulty, but with an undérstanding 
above his years. He was sent to Westminster School in 1704, was 
admitted a king’s scholar in 1707, and in 1711 was elected to Christ’s 
Church, Oxford, where he remained at least till he had taken his 
degree of M.A. He had acquired much reputation for his proficiency 
in classical learning both at school and at the university, and he was 
now appointed one of the ushers of Westminster School, in which 
situation he remained for nearly twenty years. He had taken holy 
orders soon after leaving college; but he never obtained any prefer- 
ment in the church, though his religious convictions appear to have 
been strong, and his epitaph, besides giving him a high character both 
for benevolence and piety, says that he was an excellent preacher— 
adding that his “ best sermon was the constant example of an edifying 
life.” It is understood that his intimacy with Bishop Atterbury and 
the other Tory wits of the day, and his warm advocacy or avowal of 
the principles of that party, stood in the way of his advancement. 
Both he and his younger brothers, John and Charles, as it has been 
observed, seem to have imbibed their political opinions from their 
mother, who, although she concealed her sentiments during all the 
reign of King William, differed from her husband in his approval of 
the Revolution—a fact which the latter only discovered by perceiving 
that in the king's last illness she did not say “Amen” to the prayers 

BIOG, DIV. VOL, VIL 


for his recovery. But Samuel carried both his political toryism and 
his high-church notions much further than his brothers, whose “ new 
faith,” as he termed it, and canonical irregularities, he viewed with 
great concern and disapprobation. But he scarcely lived to see more 
than the beginning of Methodism. In 1732 he was appointed head 
master of Tiverton School, in Devonshire ; and there he resided till 
his death, 6th of November, 1739. He is the author of a collection of 
poems, first published in 4to, in 1736, and a second time in 8vo, in 
1743. Some of them, especially those of a humorous cast, have much 
merit. The collection of ‘Original Letters by the Reverend John 
Wesley and his Friends,’ published by Dr. Priestley in an 8vo volume, 
at Birmingham, in 1791, consists for the most part of the corres- 
pondence between Samuel Wesley and his brothers, obtained from 
Samuel's daughter and grand-daughter. 

THE Rey. JoHn WESLEY, the most eminent person of his name 
and family, was the second, or the second who grew up to manhood, 
of the sons of the Reverend Samuel Wesley, of Epworth, and was born 
there, 17th of June (0. s.), 1703. He was still very young when he 
was sent to the Charter-House, whence, at the age of seventeen, he 
proceeded to Christchurch, Oxford. The account of bis official bio- 
graphers, Coke and Moore, is, that having taken the degree of B.A., 
he was elected Fellow of Lincoln College in 1724, was ordained by 
Potter then bishop of Oxford, afterwards archishop of Canterbury, in 
1725, and graduated as M.A. in 1726 (pp. 42 and 47). Southey’s 
account, which is probably correct, is that he was not elected to his 
Fellowship till March 1726. In the end of the same year he was 
appointed Greek lecturer and moderator of the classes. } 

From his earliest years Wesley had been of a serious temper, and 
more especially from the commencement of his residence at college 
religious impressions had taken a strong hold onhim. It is related 
that two books in particular, which he read in the course of his pre- 
parations for ordination, produced a powerful effect on him ;—the 
treatise ‘De Imitatione Christi,’ attributed to Thomas-a-Kempis, and 
Jeremy Taylor’s ‘Rules of Holy Living and Dying. From about the 
time when he was ordained he began to keep a diary, a practice which 
he continued to the end of his life. <A large portion of this record, 
under the title of his ‘ Journal,’ was published by himself, in 21 parts, 
and has been several times reprinted. 

Soon after he was ordained, he went to officiate as curate to his 
father at Wroote, and here he resided for about two years; during 
which time, in 1728, he received priest’s orders from the same prelate 
by whom he had been ordained deacon. It appears to have been in 
the end of this year that he was summoned back to college, in con- 
sequence of a regulation that such of the junior fellows as might be 
chosen moderator, should perform the duties of their office in person. 
Here he found his younger brother Charles, then an undergraduate of 
Christchurch, one of a small association of students already dis- 
tinguished in the university by the derisive appellations of the Holy 
Club, the Godly Club, the Bible Moths, the Bible Bigots, the Sacra- 
mentarians, and the Methodists. At first, we are told, their religious 
enthusiasm only carried them the length of devoting Sunday evenings 
to the reading of divinity, the other nights being given to secular 
studies; but very soon religion became the sole business of their 
meetings; they communicated once and fasted twice a week, employed 
much of their time in visiting the prisons and the sick, gave away 
whatever they could spare in charity, observed among themselves a 
regular system of prayer, meditation, and self-examination; in short, 
exhibited in all things a zeal and abstraction from the world such as 
has scarcely been surpassed by the most rigid order of monkish 
devotees. John Wesley appears to have immediately joined this 
society, which now consisted of about fifteen individuals, of whom the 
most remarkable, besides the two brothers, were Mr. Morgan, whose 
mortifications are supposed to have shortened his life, James Hervey, 
the well-known author of the ‘ Meditations, and George Whitefield, 
who shares with Wesley the fame of having been one of the two chief 
founders of Methodism. , 

It was very soon after this that Wesley became acquainted with 
William Law, the author of the ‘Serious Call’ and other similar 
works; the two brothers used to travel from Oxford on foot two or 
three times a year to visit Law at his house in the neighbourhood of 
London, and his conversations and writings, harmonising in the main 
with their own previous notions and feelings, exerted a powerful 
influence over them. Meanwhile however the less ardent or resolute 


-of their Oxford associates dropped off one by one; and the number, 


which had at one time been seven and twenty, declined at last to five. 
Most of this had happened during the absence of the two Wesleys on 
a short visit to their parents, in 1732. In these circumstances, when, 
the next year, it was proposed that he should apply for the next pre- 
sentation to his father’s living of Epworth, John Wesley came to the 
conclusion that it was his duty rather to remain at the university, as 
the field where his exertions were most needed, and where also they 
were likely to find the greatest stimulus. Nevertheless a few months 
after his father’s death he was induced to go out with General Ogle- 
thorpe to Georgia, in North America, to preach to the settlers and 
Indians in the colony which the general was founding there. He and 
his brother Charles, who now took holy orders, sailed from Gravesend 
on the 14th of October 1735, in the same vessel with a party of six 


and twenty Morayians. ‘They anchored in the Savannah Hise on the 
T 


WESLEY, JOHN. 


643 


WESLEY, JOHN. 


644 


6th of February 1736. Charles returned to England, sent home by 
Oglethorpe with despatches, early in'1737 ; John remained in America 
till the close of that year. The most remarkable incident of this part of 
his history is the affair in which he became involved with Miss Sophia 
Causton, niece of the chief magistrate at Savannah, whose partiality he 
for some time encouraged, but whom he eventually, on the advice of 
his Moravian friends, declined to marry. On this disappointment 
Miss Causton married Mr. Williamson ; and soon after Wesley refused 
to admit her to the communion, upon which her husband indicted him 
for defamation, laying his damages at 10007. The affair was never 
brought to'an issue; but it was the occasion of driving Wesley from 
the colony, which he left on the evening of Saturday, the 3rd of 
December 1737, shaking the dust off his feet, to use his own expression, 
after a residence of one year and nearly nine months. The singular 
account which his followers give of this matter may be read in Coke 
and Moore (pp. 114-130). 

He reached England February Ist, 1738. While he had been 
abroad, the religious excitement which now began to be generally 
known by the name of Methodism had made great progress in London, 
Bristol, and other parts of the south of England, under the impulse 
of the enthusiastic preaching of Whitefield, who had sailed from the 
Downs for Georgia only a few hours before the vessel which brought 
Wesley back from thence cast anchor there, the two ships in fact 
passing in sight of each other, As soon as he arrived in London, 
Wesley hastened to renew his connection with the Moravians. It was 
not however till some months after this, that, according to his own 
account, he for the first time attained to true views of Christianity. 
His conversion, we are assured, took place about a quarter before 
nine o'clock on the evening of Wednesday, the 24th of May, at a meet- 
ing, to which he had gone very unwillingly, of “a society in Alders- 
gate-street, where one was reading Luther's ‘ Preface to the Epistle to 
the Romans.’” 

About three weeks after his ‘new birth,’ on the 15th of June, he 
set out for Germany, to visit the Moravian brethren at their original 
seat of Herrnhut. He met Count Zinzendorf, the head of the Mora- 
vians, at Marienborn, was brought before the prince royal of Prussia 
(afterwards Frederick the Great) at Weimar, and having reached 
Herrnhut, in Upper Lusatia, on the Ist of August, remained there 
for about a fortnight, and then set out on his return to England, 
where he arrived about the middle of September. From this date the 
history of Wesley merges in the history of Methodism; and all we 
can attempt here is to note briefly the succession of the principal 
events and circumstances with which he was personally most con- 
cerned. 

Whitefield returned from Georgia in the latter end of 1738; and 
he and Wesley immediately again became intimately associated. The 
example of preaching in the open air, first set by Whitefield on the 
17th of February 1739, was shortly after followed by Wesley at the 
same place, the neighbourhood of Bristol. The first separate meeting- 
house for the Methodists was begun to be built in the Horse Fair, 
near St. James’s church, Bristol, on the 12th of May in that same 
year. Lay preaching, of which the first example had been set by an 
individual named Bowers, in Islington churchyard, after a sermon by 
Whitefield, was, not without some hesitation, sanctioned by Wesley 
soon after his return to London in the autumn. This last movement 
in particular gave to Methodism in most people’s eyes the distinct 
appearance of a schism in the church. Accordingly, when, before the 
end of the year, Wesley's mother professed her accordance in his 
views, her son Samuel wrote to her expressing the exceeding concern 
and grief with which he had heard that she countenanced the spread- 
ing delusion so far as to become “one of Jack’s congregation.” The 
old lady had, like her son John, been converted in a moment—and 
from that time continued to live with him, and to attend his ministry 
till her death in 1742. 

In July, 1740, Wesley solemnly separated himself from the Mora- 
vians, with whom he had now come to differ, or had discovered that 
they differed from him, on some fundamental points of doctrine; and 
soon after he broke with Count Zinzendorf, the two parting, say his 
official biographers, “ without the least prospect of a reconciliation.” 
Their last interview took place in Gray’s Inn Walks. His separation 
from Zinzendorf and the Moravians, which made the two parties 
immediately bitter enemies, was followed before the close of the same 
year by a breach with Whitefield, which however although it divided 
the new religionists into two permanently distinct bodies, only sus- 
pended for a time the friendship and mutual regard of the two 
fathers of Methodism, 

From this time Wesley’s life was spent in preaching, travelling, 
writing books, and labouring in all other possible ways for the con- 
solidation and extension of the new church, the management of which 
‘was now wholly in his own hands. No man ever gave himself up 
more entirely to any object, or prosecuted it either with more zeal 
and determination, or more method and skilful management, Not an 
hour, scarce even a minute, was abstracted from the service of the 
cause on which he had set his heart; and rarely has any ambition 
been so well seconded by the other qualities and habits of mind, and, 
it may be added, of body too, necessary to sustain it and give it full 
effect. He rested nowhere, seldom riding less than forty, fifty, or 
sixty milesa day; even on his journeys from place to place he read 


and wrote; and he generally preached three or four times, sometimes 
five times, a day. For a long time he usually travelled on horseback ; 
latterly he used a chaise; “nor do we believe,” say his official bio- 
graphers, “there could be an instance found, during the space of 
fifty oo wherein the severest weather hindered him even for 
one day.” a 

About the year 1750, soon after his brother Charles had become a 
husband, Wesley married Mrs, Vizelle, a widow with four children. 
This step was made a little awkward at first by his having a few years 
before published a tract entitled ‘Thoughts on a sing Life,’ in 
strong recommendation of celibacy for all who were able to subject 
themselves to that restraint. The marriage turned out a very unhappy 


one: Wesley, who had stipulated that he should not preach one ser- 


mon nor travel one mile the less on account of his change of condition, 
was little at home: the lady "became jealous; robbed him of his sub- 


stance, as he states in one of his letters, to prevent his giving it to : 


bad women; and committed sundry other extra ces and outra 
Wesley had high notions of the authority of a husband, and the supe- 
riority of his own sex: “ Know me,” he wrote to her, “and know 
yourself, Suspect me no more, asperse me no more, provoke me no 
more; do not any longer contend for mastery, for power, money, or 
praise ; be content to be a private, insignificant person, known and 
loved by God and me, Attempt no more to abridge me of my liberty, 
which I claim by the laws of God and man; &e,, &. ... . Of what 
importance is your character to mankind? If you was buried just 
now, or if you never lived, what loss would it be to the cause of 
God?” The end was, that after she had several times run away from 
him and been induced to return, she repeated the experiment once 
more, and was not asked to come back. “Non eam reliqui,” 
Wesley in his journal, “non dimisi, non revocabo—I did not forsake 
her, I did not dismiss her, I will not recall her.’ This was in 1771. 
She lived for ten years longer, and died at Camberwell, where a s 

is placed at the head of her grave in the churchyard, setting forth 

she was “a woman of exemplary piety, a tender parent, and a 
sincere friend.” She bore no children to her second husband, . 

Wesley died after a short illness at his house in London, on the 2nd 
of March 1791, in the eighty-eighth year of his age. His publications 
are far too numerous for us to attempt any account or even an enume- 
ration of them: among the most remarkable, besides his Journal, are 
—a corrected translation of Thomas-i-Kempis, said to have been pub- 
lished by him in 1735, a short time before his departure for America; 
various collections of hymns, most of which however were written by 
his brother Charles; a History of England; a short Roman History; 
‘Primitive Physic;’ and many short tracts on theological subjects. 
There are at least two collected editions of his works: one in 32 vols, 
8vo, printed immediately after his death; another in 16 vols. 8vo, 
printed in 1809. The ‘Arminian Magazine,’ now called the *‘ Metho- 
dist Magazine,’ was established by Wesley in 1780, and was conducted 
under his superintendence so long as he lived. 

Of several lives that have been written of Wesley, the two principal 
are that compiled immediately after his death by Dr. Thomas Coke 
and Mr. Henry Moore, to whom all his manuscripts were left, and 
published in one volume, 8vo, 1792; and that by the late Dr. Southey, 
in 2 vols. 8vo, London, 1820. Prefixed to the latter is a list of the 
chief printed materials for the biography of this extraordinary man, 

Tue Rev. CHARLES WexsLEY, the younger brother of John 
Wesley, was born at Epworth in 1708, and was educated at West- 
minster School under his brother Samuel, his school-bills there for 
several years being discharged by the relation or namesake who, as 
related above, offered to make him his heir if he would accompany 
him to Ireland. He was elected to Christchurch in 1726, and from 
this time his history makes part of that of his brother, with whose 
labours in the diffusion of his religious views and in the establishment 
of Methodism he was associated from their commencement. It was 
contrary to the scheme of life he had laid out for himself, which was 
to spend his days at Oxford as a tutor, that he was prevailed upon, in 
1735, to take orders, and to accompany his brother to Georgia. After 
their return from America, they had occasional differences eee points 
both of doctrine and practice, but none that ever produced any 
serious disunion. In 1749 Charles was married by his brother, at 
Garth in Brecknockshire, to Miss Sarah Gwynne, a lady of a good 
family in that county. After his marriage he confined his ministra- 
tions almost entirely to London and Bristol, Charles Wesley was an 
able preacher, and “ possessed,” say Coke and Moore, in their Life of 
his brother, “a remarkable talent of uttering the most striking truths 
with simplicity, truth, and brevity.” He early showed a turn and 
talent for writing in verse; and most of the new hymns published by 
John Wesley in his various collections were of Charles’s composition. 
“In these hymns,” observes his brother, in one of his prefaces, “ there 
is no doggerel, no botches, nothing put in to patch up the rhyme ; no 
feeble expletives. Here is nothing turgid or bombast on the one 
hand, or low and creeping on the other. Here are no cant expressions, 
no words without meaning. Here are (allow me to say) both the 
purity, the strength, and the elegance of the English language, and 
at the same time the utmost simplicity and plainness, suited to every 
capacity.” This is a just character of Charles Wesley's poetry, both 
in his hymns and other compositions, Harmoniously as the two 
brothers co-operated throughout their lives, they were very unlike in — 


oF 


ee = ST 


——— ee ee ee 


645 WESLEY, CHARLES and SAMUEL. 


WESSEL, JOHN. 646 


character. Charles appears to have been naturally of a quiet and 
domestic disposition, with little ambition or love of management and 
power; and, with all his sincere and fervent piety, so far from any 
inclination towards asceticism, as to be rather a lover of laughter and 
other joyous emotions, which his brother counted it almost a sin to 
indulge in. Charles died in London on the 29th of March 1788, Two 
of his sons, whom (contrary to his brother’s wish) he had educated as 
musicians, became very distinguished in their profession. 

WESLEY, CHARLES and SAMUEL, sons of the Rev. Charles 
Wesley (see the preceding article), are both entitled to our notice as 
remarkable instances of a distinct and unquestionable manifestation 
of musical genius, during almost the earliest periods of infancy. 

CHartes WusLey was born in 1757; and the Honourable Daines 
Barrington, who has devoted several pages of his ‘ Miscellanies’ to the 
youthful Wesleys, tells us, on the authority of their father, he, 


_ Charles, could “play a tune on the harpsichord readily, and in good 


time, when he was only two years and three-quarters old;” and that 
when he played, his mother “used to tie him up by his backstring 
to the chair, for fear of his falling. .... Whatever tune it was, he 
always put a true base to it.” He became a fine performer on the 


_ organ and harpsichord; at a time however when the art of playing 


on keyed instruments, and indeed on all other musical instruments, 
was far behind what it is in the present day, and only advancing to 
that state of perfection which it has since reached. He early in life 
was brought under the notice of George III., who was much pleased 
with him, and he had the honour to entertain the king, in hours of 
royal leisure, by his performance of Handel’s music. He was also 
much patronised by the upper classes, for the sake of his practical 
skill, and highly esteemed by all for his moral worth, for the simplicity 
of his manners, and his amiable qualities; but, as too often happens 
in instances of premature development of genius, the flattering pro- 
mises of his youth were not fulfilled in future years. After attaining 
a certain degree of excellence as a mere performer, he remained 
stationary ; and, as regards composition, left not, we believe, any 
proof that he had ever passed the boundaries of mediocrity. He held 
during many years the appointment of organist to St. George's, 
Hanover-square. He died unmarried in 1815. 

SAMUEL WESLEY was born in 1766. ‘ The seeds of harmony,” says 
Mr. Barrington, “did not spring up in him quite so early as in his 
brother, for he was three years old before he aimed atatune. His 
first was ‘God save great George our King,’ and such like, mostly 
picked up from the street organs. He did not put a base to them till 
he had learnt his notes.” We may here add, that Mrs. Wesley—a 
very sensible woman, whose testimony may safely be relied on—told 
Mr. Barrington that she had had “an elder son, who died in his 
infancy, and who both sung a tune and beat time when he was but 
twelve months old.” Samuel from his cradle enjoyed the advantage 
of hearing his brother’s performances on the organ, and his superiority 
may undoubtedly be partly ascribed to this circumstance. He was 
not five years old when Handel’s oratorio of ‘Samson’ fell into his 
hands, and by this alone he taught himself to read words. Soon after 
he learned, without instruction, to write. But before he had acquired 
the art of transferring his thoughts to paper, he composed, in his mind, 
much music. “Thus,” states his father, “he set ‘Ruth,’ ‘The Death 


_of Abel,’ &c.” He was eight years old, continues the same, “ when 


Dr. Boyce came to see us..... He had by this time scrawled down 
his oratorio of ‘Ruth.’ The doctor looked over it very carefully, and 
seemed highly pleased with the performance. His words were, ‘ These 
airs are some of the prettiest I have seen: this boy writes by nature 
as true a base as I can by rule and study.’ ” ’ 

The young musician was now introduced into all companies as a 
prodigy, and excited the astonishment of everybody, including the 
most distinguished professors. Mr. Barrington fills pages in recount- 
ing the marvellous things he not only did, but said; for that acute- 
ness which was so striking a feature in him when a man, was not less 
sonspicuous in his youthful days. When about eight years of age he 
received some instruction on the harpsichord, as well as in composition, 
and at the same time studied the violin, to which instrument he 
devoted much time, and completely mastered it. In 1777 he pub- 
lished eight lessons for the harpsichord, and at this period had 
acquired so much notoriety that his portrait was engraved, and is 
said, by Mr. Barrington, to have been a strong resemblance. 

We have understood that he began to consider music as his pro- 
fession when he had arrived at his twelfth year, but have in vain 
endeayoured to trace his history during his progress from adolescence 
to manhood. Concerning his general education, we must suppose 
that it was attended to carefully, for he was a good Latin scholar, 
was not ignorant of Greek, possessed some knowledge of Italian, and 
had successfully cultivated that taste for polite literature which he 
may be said to have inherited. From personal knowledge we can 
state that his conversation was that of a man of letters accustomed to 
the best society. His steady friend, Mr. W. Linley, introduced him 
to Mr. Sheridan, at his villa in Surrey, where he passed two days, the 
party consisting only of those three. That great wit and most dis- 
cerning man some time afterwards said of his guest, ‘I am no judge 
of Mr. Wesley's musical abilities, but I will venture to assert that his 
intellectual powers and education would have enabled him to dis- 
tinguish himself in any walk of life.” 


Mr. Wesley’s prospects were early clouded by an accident he met 
with in 1787. In passing along Snow-hill one evening, he fell into a 
deep excavation which had been prepared for the foundation of a new 
building. It is supposed that the severe injury he sustained was the 
source of that state of mind which subsequently checked the progress 
of a career that promised to be so brilliant. During seven years he 
continued in a low desponding state, refusing the solace even of his 
favourite art. On his recovery however he prosecuted it with renewed 
ardour, and then brought into notice the works of Sebastian Bach, at 
that time alike unknown here and on the Continent. In 1815 he 
suffered a relapse, and was again obliged to retire from public life 
during another period of the same duration as the former, In 1823 
he once more recovered, and up to 1880 was much engaged in various 
professional pursuits. The disease then recurred, and it was evident 
that his constitution was undergoing a great change. He now retired 
from society, and became inactive; though on the Saturday imme- 
diately preceding the day of his decease he exhibited his extempora- 
neous powers to a friend, and composed some psalm-tunes. On the 
Monday he took to his room, under a presentiment that he should 
never quit it, which was too truly verified. He died two days after 
on October the 11th, 1837. 

Mr. Wesley produced many compositions, but few of them were 
calculated to please the multitude. He wrote a grand mass for the 


chapel of Pope Pius VI., for which the sovereign pontiff thanked him 


in a Latin letter. He then made his ‘amende’ to the Protestant 
church by composing and publishing a complete Service for the use 
of our cathedrals. He left a numerous family. . 

WESSEL, JOHN, Latinised WESSE’LUS, a Dutch divine, was 
born at Groningen in 1419. At an early age he lost his parents, and 
was educated by a charitable lady, who afterwards sent him to the 
college of the priests of St. Jerome at Zwoll, where he studied divinity; 
but he never took orders, though this has been said. He continued 
his studies at Cologne, where he perused with great zeal the theolo- 
gical works of the Abbot Rupert, the manuscript of which was in a 
convent at Deutz, opposite Cologne; and being an accomplished 
Greek and Hebrew scholar, he undertook to purify his religious 
knowledge by reading the original sources of the Christian religion. 
He was soon suspected of heterodoxy, and for this reason the univer- 
sity of Heidelberg, where Wessel went to teach divinity, would not 
admit him among the professors, on the ground that he was not a 
doctor of divinity, and that they could not confer this dignity upon 
him because he was a layman. Wessel consequently left Heidelberg, 
and lived some years at Cologne and Louvain, where he made himself 
a great name by his private lectures on divinity and philosophy. His 
philosophical system was that of Aristotle, and his power of argumen- 
tation was so great that few doctors ventured to engage in disputes 
with him. Wessel made himself no less known by several treatises 
on religion and the state of the church, and he attacked abuses with 
as much boldness as learning and shrewdness. From Louvain he went 
to Paris, then the theatre of violent disputes between the Realists, the 
Formalists, and the Nominalists. Wessel at first attacked the For- 
malists, but at last he became a Formalist himself. Notwithstanding 
this change of principles, he maintained his name as one of the greatest 
dialecticians of his time, and as such the public voice recognised him 
by the surname of ‘ Magister Contradictionum,’ which was probably 
given him in Paris. A divine possessing the learning, the talents, and 
the character of Wessel might have attained the highest dignities in 
the church, at a time when the Hussites were defending their religious 
principles for seventeen years against the thunders of the Vatican and 
the armies of the Holy Roman empire; and when this war and the 
degenerate state of the church led to the general councils of Pisa, 
Constanz, Siena, and Basel. Francis della Rovere, general of the 
Minorites, who became afterwards pope under the name of Sextus IV., 
made the acquaintance of Wessel at an early period, and continued to 
be his friend and patron. It is said that Wessel accompanied Francis 
della Rovere to the council of Basel; but as this council began in 
1431, and was finished in 1443, Wessel must have been very young 
when he went there, unless he was born in 1398, as some say, though 
the best authorities agree that he was born in 1419. Francis della 
Rovere, having been chosen pope in 1471, told his friend Wessel that 
he was ready to bestow any favour upon him which he should desire, 
and asked him if he would accept a bishop’s see; but Wessel declined 
honours and dignities, demanding nothing but a Greek or Hebrew 
bible from the library of the Vatican. After a sojourn of several 
years at Rome, Wessel returned to Groningen, where he died on the 
4th of October, 1489. 

Wessel is frequently called a forerunner of Luther, and justly so, 
inasmuch as he tried to eradicate abuses and errors, and to restore the 
Christian religion to its original purity. It seems that the doctrines 
of Wycliffe had great influence upon him. But there is this remark- 


‘able difference between Luther and Wessel: Luther attacked the 


foundations of the Roman Catholic system ; Wessel only wrote against 
particular doctrines, such as purgatory, the ban, indulgence, &c., and 
he took his arguments from the philosophical systems of the middle 
ages quite as often as from the simple truths of the gospel. He was 
nevertheless suspected of heresy, and after his death some monks at 
Groningen burnt a valuable part of his manuscripts. Wessel argued 
that the pope was not infallible, and that general councils alone were. 


647 WESSELING, PETER. 


WEST, BENJAMIN. 648 


His principal productions are treatises and dissertations -—1, ‘De 
Oratione;’ 2, ‘De Sacra Eucharistia;’ 3, ‘De Purgatorio et Indul- 
gentiis;’ 4,‘De Dignitate et Potestate Ecclesiastica;’ 5, ‘Proposi- 
tiones de Potestate Paps et Ecclesia,’ &c, He wrote also numerous 
notes and additions to the works of the Abbot Rupert, and he used to 
call this voluminous production ‘Mare Magnum.’ The editio princeps 
has the title ‘ Farrago Rerum Theologicarum,’ Leipzig, 1522, reprinted 
at Basel, 1523. Luther, who esteemed Wessel very highly, wrote a 
preface to it. This edition is not complete. The first complete edition 
was published at Groningen, 4to, 1614; 2nd edition, Amsterdam, 
4to, 1617. Some of Wessel’s treatises are contained in the first volume 
of Goldast, ‘ Monarchia Sacri Romani Imperii.’ 

WESSELING, PETER, one of the first scholars of the 18th cen- 
tury, was born on the 7th of January 1692, at Steinfurt, the capital 
of the present principality of Bentheim Steinfurt, in Prussian West- 
phalia, where he received his first education. In 1712 he went to the 
university of Leyden, where he studied the classical languages under 
Perizonius, Gronovius, and Wesselius; and in 1714 he went to the 
university of Franeker, in West Friesland, where he finished his 
studies under Vitringa, Andala, and Bosius. His first intention was to 
study divinity, but he soon devoted himself to philology. In 1717 he 
was appointed conrector of the lyceum at Middleburg, with the title 
of prorector; in 1719 he was appointed prelector or professor of 
history and eloquence in the lyceum of Deventer; and in 1723 he 
became professor of history and eloquence in Fraueker, which office 
he held during eight years. In 1735 he was appointed professor of 
Greek, and Roman and Greek antiquities, at Utrecht; in 1746 the 
chair of philosophy of law, or ‘jus nature,’ as it was then, and is 
sometimes still called, as well as that of the public Roman and German 
law, was conferred upon him, and he was created doctor of law. He 
became director of the public library at Utrecht in 1750, or perhaps 
as early as 1749. Hemsterhuys invited him to teach at Leyden, but 
- Wesseling preferred stopping at Utrecht. Wesseling was rector of the 
university of Franeker, in 1733, and twice, in 1736 and in 1749, he was 
chosen rector of the university of Utrecht. He died on the 9th of 
November 1764. His reputation as a scholar and a sagacious critic 
was great. Yet he was little disposed to critical investigations, till 
his friend and colleague at Franeker, Hemsterhuys, succeeded in per- 
suading him, as Ruhnken states, that no learning, however extensive 
and profound, would be of any use unless it were guided by criticism. 
Wyttenbach calls Hemsterhuys, Valckenaer, and Wesseling, the trium- 
viri of philology. an : 

The principal works of Wesseling are:—1, An edition of Diodorus 
Siculus, Amsterdam, 2 vols. fol., 1745-46, This edition contains the 
prefaces of Henry Stephens and Rhodomann, and the Latin version of 
Rhodomann, revised by Wesseling, who collected valuable materials, 
such as the notes of Camusat, and of several other scholars: De la 
Barre at Paris, Cocchi at Florence, and Assemani at Rome, had ex- 
amined for Wesseling the manuscripts in the libraries of those three 
cities. The Bipont edition of Diodorus Siculus is little more than a 
reprint of the edition of Wesseling, though it contains the notes of 
Heyne and Eyring, who had access to two manuscripts at Vienna, 
which were not used by Wesseling. 2, An edition of Herodotus, 
Amsterdam, fol., 1763. Wesseling had collated the best manuscripts 
of England, Paris, and Vienna, and several at Rome which were in the 
possession of Passionei, or to which this learned cardinal had access. 
This edition contains the Latin version of Laurentius Valla, and the 
notes of Gale, Gronovius, Valckenaer, and of the editor: it was con- 
sidered the best edition of Herodotus, till that of Schweighiiuser ap- 
peared in 1816. 3, ‘ Dissertatio Herodotea,’ 8vo, Utrecht, 1758, treats on 
several passages which have been erroneously attributed to Herodotus, 
and on several other subjects connected with Herodotus. 4, ‘ Veterum 
Romanorum Itineraria,’ Amsterdam, 4to, 1735, contains the Itinerary 
of Antoninus, that of Jerusalem, and the ‘Synecdemus’ of Hierocles, 
which had previously been published by Bandurius, in his ‘ Imperium 
Orientale.’ This isa useful edition. 5, ‘Observationum Variarum Libri 
Duo,’ Amsterdam, 8vo, 1727; 2nd ed., by Professor Frotscher, Leipzig, 
8vo, 1832, contains various notes on Dion Cassius, Xiphilinus, Ammi- 
anus Marcellinus, Euripides, Sophocles, Plato, and other Greek and 
Roman writers. Besides several other valuable works, such as ‘ Liber de 
Judzorum Archontibus,’ ‘ Note ad Samuelis Petiti Leges Atticey,’ Kc., 
Wesseling wrote eight orations in classical Latin, among which are the 
following :—*‘ Oratio de Origine Pontificiee Dominationis,’ Franeker, fol., 
1724; ‘ Oratio in Obitum celsissime et regi Principis Annex, Foederat. 
Belgic. Gubernatricis,’ Utrecht, fol., 1759 ; and nineteen ‘ Dissertations,’ 
among which are ‘ Dissertatio Historico-critica de 8. Pauli ad insulam 
Melitam Naufragio ; ‘De Origine et Progressu Religionis Christians 
in Veteri Persarum Regno;’ and ‘ Epistola ad H. 8. Reimarum, qua 
selecta queedam Dionis Cassii loca pagtim emendantur, partim illus- 
trantur.’ A complete list of the works and other productions of 
Wesseling is contained in ‘ Elogium Wesselingii,’ in Frotscher’s edition 
of Wesseling’s ‘Observationum Variarum Libri Duo,’ Wyttenbach, 
‘Vita Davidis Ruhnkenii,’ p. 46; David Rubnken, ‘ Elogium Tiberii 
Hemsterhusii,’ 2nd ed., 1789, p. 60, &c. Strodtmann, ‘Das Neue 
Gelehrte Europa,’ parts iv., ix., xx.: Wesseling’s ‘ Preface’ to his 
edition of Herodotus. 

WEST, BENJAMIN, president of the Royal Academy, and a dis- 
tinguished historical painter, was born on October 10th, 1738, at 


Springfield in Pennsylvania, in the United States of North America: he 
aas the tenth child of John and Sarah West. John West was born and 
educated in England, and was of the Quaker family of the Wests of 
Long Crendon in Buckinghamshire, of whom was Colonel James West, 
the friend of John Hampden, Benjamin’s birth was brought on pre- 
maturely by a vehement sermon preached in the fields near his 
mother’s residence by Edward Peckover; the subject was the corrupt 
state of the old world and its imminent destruction. Mrs. West was 
carried home ill, and Benjamin was born after an illness of twelve 
days. The peculiar circumstances of his birth gave rise to various 
surmises and prophecies regarding the child’s future destiny, and 
those which promised his future greatness were credulously cherished 
by his father. The first indication West gave of his talent was in his 
seventh year, when set to watch the sleeping infant of his eldest sister. 
He drew a sort of likeness of the child in red and black ink, a feat 
which appeared so wonderful in the eyes of his parents, that 
recalled to mind the predictions of Peckover. When he was about 
eight years old, a party of Indians paid a visit to Springfield, and 
struck with the drawings young West had made of birds, fruits, and 
the like, they taught him to prepare the red and yellow colours with 
which they stained their weapons; and these, together with the 
indigo given him by his mother, with the aid of some hair-pencils 
supplied from his mother’s favourite’s cat’s back, enabled him to 
make more satisfactory efforts than his pen-and-ink sketches had been. 
A merchant of the name of Pennington and a cousin of the Wests saw 
some of these attempts, and upon his return home he sent his young 
cousin a box of colours with pencils, canvas, and six prints. Young 
West from this time forsook school and almost shut himself up with 
his presents in a garret, which he converted into his studio. He made 
a picture from two of these prints, and Galt, West’s biographer, saw 
this early attempt in the same room with the great painting of Christ 
rejected; and he relates that West told him that there were touches 
in that first essay which he had never surpassed. 

In his ninth year West accompanied his friend Mr. Pennington to 
Philadelphia, and that gentleman introduced him to a painter of the 
name of Williams, who was delighted with the boy’s efforts, gave him 
two books to read, Du Fresnoy’s and Richardson’s, and invited him to 
come and see his pictures whenever he pleased. From this time West 
was determined to become a painter,and his parents were pleased 
with his resolution. West's first patron was Mr. Wayne, who gave him 


a dollar each for three poplar-boards upon which he had drawn some ~ 


figures; and he was at the same time assisted by Dr. Morris, who” 
gave him some money to purchase prepared pannels with. His first 
painting which attracted much notice was the portrait of Mrs. Ross, 
of Lancaster, a neighbouring town. This led to many other portraits, 
anda gunsmith of the same place requested him to paint a picture of 
the death of Socrates. West said he could paint faces and men 
clothed, but he asked what he was to do with the slave who presented 
the poison, who, he thought, should be naked. The gunsmith answered 
his question by going to his shop, and returning with one of his 
workmen, who was half naked, and offering him as a model. The 
picture was painted, and attracted much attention. 

Upon his return to Springfield, when he was about sixteen years of 
age, the propriety of his following professionally such a vain and 
sensual occupation as that of a painter was canvassed by his Quaker 


friends; but after they had satisfied themselves of the distinction ” 


between the use and the abuse of the art, they agreed unanimously 
that in his case they might suspend the strict operation of their 
tenets : and his becoming a painter by profession was sanctioned by 
the whole Quaker community of Springfield. Shortly after this 
event, West served as a volunteer under Major Sir Peter Halket, and 
went in search of the remains of the army which had been lost under 
General Braddock. But from this service he was soon called home by 
the illness of his mother, and he arrived just in time to see her die. 
After this event, which he appears to have greatly felt, he left his 
home, and established himself, then only in his eighteenth year, as a 
portrait-painter at Philadelphia. He charged two guineas and a half 
for a head, and five for a half-length. He painted at this time his 
picture of the Trial of Susannah. From Philadelphia he went to New 
York, and doubled his prices. Here he had an opportunity of going 
to Rome, a journey he had long desired to make. He arrived at 
Rome in July 1760, and was well received. When he was introduced, 
by Lord Grantham, to the old Cardinal Albani, who was blind, as 
a young American who had come to Rome to study the arts, the 
Cardinal asked whether he was black or white. 

West however soon attracted other attention than that of mere 
curiosity. He painted a portrait of Lord Grantham, which was placed 
in the gallery of Crespigné, where artists and amateurs used to meet, 
The picture was almost universally supposed to be by Mengs, and all 
were greatly surprised when they heard that it was painted by the 
young American, Mengs himself is said to have told West that he 
had no occasion to come to Rome to learn to paint; and he advised 
him immediately to visit the principal cities of Italy, and examine the 
various great works in them, and then to return to Rome and paint 
some historical picture. An illness prevented West from putting this 
plan into execution; he was confined through a fever eleven months 
at Leghorn. When he recovered, instead of being without means, he 
found to his great astonishment that his agent had orders to give him 


iam ee 


eee ae SS 


a 


—— 


ee 


; 
= 


649 WEST, BENJAMIN, 


WEST, BENJAMIN, 650 


unlimited credit. He owed this to the generosity of two Philadelphia 
merchants, Mr, Allen and Governor Hamilton. He now pursued the 
plan recommended by Mengs; and after he had examined all that was 
worth studying in Florence, Bologna, Venice, and Parma, he returned 
to Rome, and painted two pictures, which were well received; one of 
Cimon and Iphigenia, ‘and one of Angelica and Medora. He was 
elected a member by the academies of Florence, Bologna, and Parma. 
In 1763 West visited England on his way back to his own country ; 
and in London he had the good fortune to meet three of his best 
friends, Messrs, Allen, Hamilton, and Dr. Smith, who had always taken 
great interest in him. He soon made connections by the help of his 
many friends, and the two pictures mentioned above, and a portrait of 
General Monckton, second in command to Wolfe at Quebec, all of 
which he exhibited in town, procured him a few commissions. He 
painted the parting of ‘Hector and Andromache’ for Dr. Newton, and 
the ‘Return of the Prodigal Son’ for the bishop of Worcester. Lord 
Rockingham offered him 700/. per annum to decorate his mansion in 
Yorkshire; but this offer, by the advice of his friends, he declined. 
His success was such as to induce him to remain in this country, and 
having been long attached to Elizabeth Shewell, a young American 
lady, he requested her to come over to him to England, which she 
‘did, and they were married in 1765, at St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields. 
West’s good fortune seemed to keep pace with his years, Dr. 
-Drummond, the archbishop of York, commissioned him to paint a 
picture of Agrippina landing with the Ashes of Germanicus ; and the 
prelate was so well pleased with the performance, that he attempted 


_ to procure the painteran annuity by subscription, so as to enable him 


to desist from painting portraits and to confine himself to historical 
subjects. He proposed to raise 3000/., he and his friends subscribing 
1500/.; he however failed in the enterprise, but he praised both the 
painter and the picture so highly to George IIL, that the king desired 
he would send the young painter with his picture to him. West was 
well received by the king, who presented him to the queen, and com- 
missioned him to paint a picture for him of the Departure of Regulus 
from Rome. This was the commencement of nearly forty years’ 
intimacy with George III. West’s excellence as a painter however 
was not the only source of his good fortune; he was an excellent 
skater, and acquired many acquaintances of rank through this accom- 
plishment. When the Serpentine river in Hyde Park was frozen over, 
a great circle of spectators was frequently seen to admire the young 
American painter cutting the Philadelphia salute. 

-The picture of Regulus was exhibited in the first exhibition of the 
Royal Academy, of which West was one of the principal members; 
he had previously been a member and director of the Society of 
Artists, incorporated in 1765. But his ‘Death of General Wolfe’ was 
the first work which caused much stir among artists. Instead of 
representing his actors in Greek and Roman costumes, as was usual, 
he very sensibly painted them in their own dresses; an innovation 
which Sir Joshua Reynolds had tried to dissuade him from. When 
the picture was finished, according to Galt, “ Reynolds seated himself 
before the picture, examined it with deep and minute attention for 
half an hour; then rising, said to Drummond, ‘ West has conquered 
—he has treated his subject as it ought to be treated—I retract my 
objections. I foresee that this picture will not only become one of the 
most popular, but will occasion a revolution in art.” West was now 
thoroughly established both in the king’s favour and in that of the 
public, and he continued to produce in rapid succession a series 
of large historical pictures, and there can be no question that the 
great reputation he acquired was relatively well merited. Lord 
Grosvenor purchased the picture of the ‘Death of Wolfe,’ and West 
made a copy of it for the king. He painted also for the king, the 
‘Death of Epaminondas’ as a companion to it; the ‘ Death of the 
Chevalier Bayard ;’ ‘Cyrus liberating the Family of the King of Ar- 
menia ;’ and ‘Segestus and his Daughter brought before Germanicus.’ 
He painted the following series of large historical works for George 
III. at Windsor :—Edward III. embracing the Black Prince, after the 
battle of Cressy; the Installation of the Order of the Garter; the 
Black Prince receiving the King of France and his Son prisoners at 
Poictiers; St. George killing the Dragon; Queen Philippa defeating 
David of Scotland in the battle of Neville’s Cross; Philippa inter- 
ceding with Edward for the Burgesses of Calais; Edward forcing 
the passage of the Somme; and Edward crowning Sir Eustace de 
Ribaumont at Calais. 

After the completion of these works, West proposed to the king to 
paint a great series upon the Progress of Revealed Religion; but his 
majesty, before consenting to this proposal, consulted some of the 
dignitaries of the Church as to the propriety of introducing.paintings 
into a place of worship: Bishop Hurd answered for himself and col- 
leagues, and said that the introduction of religious paintings into his 
majesty’s chapel could in no respect violate the laws or usages of the 
Church of England. Out of thirty-five subjects proposed by West, 
all were approved of by the bishops: he afterwards added another to 
the number. He divided the series into four dispensations,—the Ante- 
diluvian, the Patriarchal, the Mosaic, and the Prophetic. Half of the 
subjects were from the Old Testament and half from the New. They 
were all sketched, and twenty-eight of them were executed, for which 
West received 21,7051. He painted also in the meantime nine pictures 
of portraits of the royal family, for which he received 2000 guineas. 


After the death of Reynolds, in 1792, West was unanimously elected 
president of the Royal Academy, and the king sent the Duke of 
Gloucester to him to inquire whether the honour of knighthood would 
be acceptable to him, but West declined it; stating however at 
the same time that with his “hereditary descent and the station I 
occupy among artists,a more permanent title might become a desirable 
object” were he possessed of fortune, independent of his profession, 
sufficient to enable his posterity to maintain the rank. In 1801, 
during the illness of George III., West met with perhaps the first 
reverse in his life: Mr. Wyatt, the royal architect, called upon him, 
and told him that the pictures painting for the chapel at Windsor 
must be suspended until further orders. Deeply affected he wrote a 
letter to the king, which was carried to the court by Wyatt, but he 
received no answer to it. When the king recovered, West sought 
and obtained a private audience, and he found that the king did not 
know of the order to suspend the paintings, and that he had not 
received any letter from him. He spoke very kindly to West, and 
said, “ Goon with your work, West; go on with the pictures; and I 
shall take care of you.” This was West's last interview with his early, 
constant, and truly royal patron. “ But he continued,’ says Galt, “ to 
execute the pictures, and in the usual quarterly payments received his 
10007. per annum till his majesty’s final superannuation ; when, with- 
out any intimation whatever, on calling to receive it, he was told it 
had been stopped, and that the paintings for the chapel, of Revealed 
Religion, had been suspended. He submitted in silence—he neither 
remonstrated nor complained.” During the thirty-three years which 
West worked for George III., he received 34,1871. from the king. This 
sum was held up to the public by West’s enemies, without any state- 
ment of how it had been earned; and although it is a large sum in 
itself, yet when West’s professional position and abilities, and his years 
of toil for it, are considered, it makes but a poor income, and much 
less than would satisfy any successful portrait-painter of that or the 
present day. After the peace of Amiens West visited Paris, where 
he was remarkably well received, to see the great collection of works 
of art which Bonaparte had assembled in the Louvre. After his 
return he retired from the president’s chair in the Academy owing to 
a strong opposition among its members. Wyatt, the architect, was 
put in his place, but in the following year, 1803, he was, with one 
exception, unanimously restored to the chair. The dissenting voice 
was supposed to be that of Fuseli, who voted for Mrs. Lloyd, an 
academician, and when he was taxed by some of the members with 
having given this vote, says Mr. Knowles, his biographer, he answered, 
“Well, suppose I did; she is eligible to the office—and is not one old 
woman as good as another?” 

When West lost the patronage of the court, although sixty-four 
years old, he commenced a series of great religious works on a larger 
scale than any of those for George III. The first of this series was, 
Christ Healing the Sick, which was purchased by the British Institu- 
tion for 3000/. and presented to the National Gallery. The picture 
was painted as a present for an hospital established by the Quakers at 
Philadelphia; but when it was sold, West sent them a copy of it with 
some alterations in its stead. The copy was exhibited at Philadelphia, 
and the profits of the exhibition enabled the committee of the hospital 
to enlarge the building. 

The success of this piece induced West to continue even with 
greater works, He painted a Crucifixion, sixteen feet by twenty-eight; 
also an Ascension, and Inspiration of St. Peter, and a Descent of the 
Holy Ghost on Christ at the Jordan, all of very large dimensions. In 
1814 he exhibited a picture of Christ rejected by the Jewish High- 
Priest, and in 1817 he exhibited his extraordinary picture of Death on 
the Pale Horse, from the Revelations. Others of his large works are 
the Brazen Serpent, in the possession of Mr. Neeld, and St. Paul on 
the Island of Melita, now the altar-piece at Greenwich Hospital. 
Besides these works, he painted several others of a different kind, which 
were very popular: of these the Battle of La Hogue is one of the 
best; there is an excellent engraving of it by Woollet; the same 
artist engraved his picture of the Death of Wolfe. John Hall also 
engraved three beautiful plates of Penn treating with the Indians, 
the Battle of the Boyne, and Cromwell dismissing the Long Parliament. 
The Battle of the Hogue and the Death of Wolfe are accounted 
Woollet’s masterpieces. The Departure of Regulus, and its com- 
panion, Hannibal swearing enmity to the Romans, have been scraped 
in mezzotinto by Valentine Green. 

In 1817 West lost his wife, and he survived her little more than 
two years; he died at his house in Newman Street, March 11, 1820, 
and was buried with great pomp in St. Paul’s cathedral. Two sons 
survived him. 

West’s works are numerous: he painted or sketched about four 
hundred pictures, many of which are the largest works that have been 
executed in this country, and he left about two hundred drawings. 
He drew well, and many of his works are well conceived and com- 
posed; but in colouring he was far from successful, his pictures are 
too often of a uniform reddish-brown tint; and in expression he was 
decidedly deficient in character, and monotonous both in feature and 
countenance. His great works taken from Classical and Biblical history 
show considerable academical talent, but not a spark of genius. His 
best works are his ‘Death of General Wolfe,’ the ‘Battle of La 
Hogue,’ and one or two more of that class, When West was elected 


651 WEST, GILBERT: 


WESTMACOTT, SIR RICHARD. 652 


president of the Royal Academy, he imitated the example of Sir 
Joshua Reynolds, and read discourses to the students at the distribu- 
tions of prizes. As literary compositions these» discourses are far 
from remarkable, and they are chiefly distinguished for their simplicity 
and common sense. The British Institution arose out of a favourite 
plan of West’s, which failed, to establish a national association for 
the encouragement of works of high art. There is a full-length 
portrait of West, by Sir Thomas Lawrence, in the National Gallery. 

WEST, GILBERT, was the son of the Reverend Dr. West, by whom 
an edition of Pindar was published at Oxford in 1697, and who died 
in 1716: his mother was Mary, the eldest of the three sisters of Sir 
Richard Temple, afterwards Lord Cobham; the second of whom, 
marrying Mr. Richard Grenville, succeeded her brother as Viscountess 
Cobham, and was afterwards created Countess Temple; and the 
third of whom married Sir Thomas Lyttelton, father of the first Lord 
Lyttelton. West is supposed to have been born about 1705. It 
was intended by his father that he should go into the Church; and 
with that view he was first sent to Eton and afterwards to Oxford; 
but, obtaining a commission through the interest of his uncle, Lord 
Cobham, he was induced to make the army his profession. It is sup- 
posed however that his tastes did not well accord with a military life, 
and he after some time resigned his commission and “ engaged,” says 
Dr. Johnson, “in business under the Lord Townshend, then secretary 
of state, with whom he attended the king to Hanover,” This must 
have been in 1721, when Townshend, in his second secretaryship, went 
to Hanover with George I., and the struggle for pre-eminence com- 
menced between him and his colleague Carteret, which ended, three 
years after, in the removal of the latter. West probably continued to 
act as secretary or in some such capacity, tv Townshend till the 
resignation of that minister, in May 1730. Johnson states that in May 
1729, his patron rewarded him with a nomination to be clerk extra- 
ordinary to the privy council, which however produced him no imme- 
diate profit. But he seems to have had some resources, for we are 
told that soon after this he married and settled in a very pleasant 
house at Wickham, in Kent, “where he devoted himself to learning 
and to piety,” and where he was often visited by his relations, the first 
Lord Lyttelton and the elder Pitt. It is said that the education of 
the young Prince George of Wales (afterwards George III.) was once 
offered to him, “but that he required a more extensive power of 
superintendence than it was thought proper to allow him.” It was 
not till 1752 that he reaped the benefit of Townshend’s nomination, 
by succeeding to one of the clerkships of the privy council; and soon 
after his friend Pitt, now in office, made him treasurer of Chelsea 
Hospital. But he did not long enjoy this increase of income; in 1755 
he lost his only son; and on the 20th of March 1756, he was himself 
carried off by a stroke of palsy. > 

Gilbert West is the author of several poetical productions, of which 
his versions of some of the Odes of Pindar, first published in 4to, in 
1749, are the best known, or rather attracted most notice in his own 
day, for the work is now nearly forgotten. It has little merit, except 
~ gome elegance or smoothness of versification. The publication is 
entitled ‘ Odes of Pindar, with several other Pieces in prose and verse, 
translated from the Greek ;’ the two most important of the other 
translations are one of the ‘Iphigenia in Tauris,’ from Euripides, and 
one of Plato’s ‘Menexenus.’ There is also an elaborate ‘ Dissertation 
on the Olympick Games.’ West’s literary reputation principally rests 
on his ‘ Observations on the Resurrection,’ first published in 1730, and 
since often reprinted. This tract, for which the University of Oxford, 
in March 1748, made the author a Doctor of Laws by diploma, used to 
rank as one of the ablest examinations in English theological literature 
of a particular point in the evidences of Christianity, forming a com- 
panion to Lord Lyttelton’s ‘Dissertation on the Conversion of St. 
Paul,’ which is addressed to West, and was written in consequence of 
the convictions which West’s conversation was the means of suggesting 
or impressing. Both West and Lyttelton had at one time adopted 
infidel principles, and “ when West’s book was published,” Dr. Johnson 
tells us, “it was bought by some who did not know his change of 
opinion, in expectation of new objections against Christianity.” 

WESTALL, RICHARD, R.A., was born at Hertford in 1765. In 
1779 he was apprenticed to Mr. Thompson, an engraver, in the city, of 
heraldry on silver, but his superior abilities having been perceived by 
Mr. Alefounder, a miniature painter, he was recommended by that 
gentleman to study drawing, and make painting his profession, He 
accordingly obtained leave from his master in the last year of his 
apprenticeship to draw in the evenings at the Royal Academy, and in 
1786 he was at liberty to follow the bent of his own inclination. He 
took, jointly with his friend Sir Thomas (then Mr.) Lawrence, a house 
in Soho-square, in the corner of Greek-street, which they held together 
for some time. 

Westall’s first performances which attracted the notice of the public 
were some highly finished historical pieces in water-colours, in which 
he was without a rival: of these the following were particularly 
admired:— Sappho in the Lesbian Shades, chanting the Hymn of 
Love; Jubal, the first voice of the Lyre; the Boar that killed Adonis 
brought to Venus; the Storm in Harvest; the Marriage Procession 
(from the Shield of Achilles); besides many others, He made alsoa 
series of graceful designs to illustrate Milton, for Alderman Boydell ; 
and he was a contributor to the ‘Boydell Shakspere,’ He painted at 


the same time several large historical pictures, but he met with so little 


success in the disposal of them, that he was almost compelled to con- 


fine himself to making small designs for booksellers, and in the number 
and popularity of his designs of this class he was second only to 
Stothard, They added however little to his reputation, for, owing 
probably to the great number required of him, he fell into a peculiar 


and decided mannerism. Among many other works, he illustrated — 


Crabbe’s ‘Poems,’ and Moore's § Loves of the Angels.’ Westall was 
elected. a member of the Royal Academy in 1794, the same year in 
which Sir Thomas Lawrence and Stothard were elected, In 1808 he 
published a book of poems illustrated by himself. Towards the close 
of his life he became very much embarrassed in his m owing to 
some unsuccessful speculations in foreign pictures and some imprudent 
partnership engagements, His last occupation was giving lessons in 
drawing and painting to her present majesty while Princess Victoria, 
He died on the 4th of December 1836. 

WESTALL, WILLIAM, A.R.A., younger brother of the above, was 
born at Hertford, October 12,1781. He studied at first under his 
brother, and subsequently at the Royal Academy. Here however his 
studies were interrupted, by his appointment, in 1801, on the retoms 
mendation of the President, West, to accompany Captain Flinders in 
the Investigator as a draftsman on his voyage of discovery. Westall 
was with Flinders for two years, when, the Investigator having been 
abandoned, he was transferred to the companion ship, the Porpoise, in 
which he was wrecked on a coral reef on the north coast of Australia 
on his voyage home. The ship which picked up Westall and his com- 


panions was bound to China, and he remained some months in that 


country, when he secured a passage to India, Here he also remained 
some time, making a journey into the interior and occupying himself, 
as elsewhere, in sketching the more striking scenery and objects. 
Not finding, on his return to England, employment as readily as he 
anticipated, he made a voyage to Madeira and the West India Islands ; 
and on his return opened, in 1808, an exhibition of the large collection 


of watercolour drawings and sketches he had made of the various iy 


countries he had visited: it proved however an unsuccessful s 

tion. Captain Flinders returned to England in 1810, and Westall was 
directed by the government to prepare his sketches for engraving to 
illustrate the account of the voyage; he was also commissioned to paint 


several views of the coasts and interior of Australia, Of these he 


exhibited at the Royal Academy, in 1812, his views of ‘Port Bowen, 
and ‘Seaforth’s Isle in the Gulf of Carpentaria;’ and the 


character of the scenery, and the rich and novel herbage, which he had — 


depicted with the fidelity of a botanist, rendered them very attractive. 
They secured his election as Associate of the Royal Academy in the 
same year: he had for some time previously been a member of the 


Society of Painters in Water-Colours. Unfortunately perhaps for his 


reputation, he did not steadily follow up the path he had thus opened. 


He turned his attention to making drawings for engraving, in which © 


he for many years found ample and profitable employment, but he 
thus contracted a neatness and prettiness of style which proved 
destructive of all grandeur of effect when applied in his paintings 
Among his best known series of engraved designs are his views of the 
lakes of Westmoreland and Cumberland, which are drawn with great 
fidelity, though with some deficiency of power: he was a frequent 
visitor to this district, where he enjoyed the warm friendship of 
Southey and Wordsworth by both of whom he was greatly esteemed. 
He also drew and engraved in aquatint a series of views of the Pacha 
and of the Abbeys and other Monastic Ruins of Yorkshire, of the Isle 
Wight, Oxford, Cambridge, the Residences of the Poets, &c, His con- 
tributions of oil paintings to the exhibitions of the Royal Academy 
were comparatively few, and in his later years | 
they might else have been, from finding himse 
from the full honours of that institution. Mr. Westall met with a 
severe accident, in 1847, by which his left arm was broken, and he 
received some internal injuries, and from the effects of which he never 
wholly recovered. He died January 22, 1850. _ = 
WESTMACOTT, SIR RICHARD, R.A., was born in London in 
1775. His father was a sculptor of some eminence in his day, and in 
his studio (Mount-street, Grosvenor-square,) the young Westmacott 
learned the use of the chisel. In 1793 he went to Rome, where he 
had the benefit of instruction from Canova. His career as a student 
in Italy was a distinguished one. He carried off the first prize in 
sculpture at the Academy of Florence, in 1794; and in 1795 the medal 
given by the pope. He was elected a member of the Academy of 
Florence in 1795. After a somewhat prolonged stay in Italy, he 
returned to London, and was soon pital 9 as one of the best of the 
young sculptors of the day; and his future career was on the whole a 
very prosperous one. His imaginative works were of an exceedingly 
graceful, chaste, and poetic character, classic in feeling, and in execu- 
tion resembling that of the modern Italian school; several of these 
will retain their place among the best poetic works of the English 
school of sculpture. The most popular is his very pleasing statue of 
‘Psyche,’ executed for the Duke of Bedford, and now, with a com- 
panion ‘Cupid,’ at Woburn. Among the best known of his other 
poetic ‘works are the ‘Euphrosyne,’ executed for the Duke of New- 
castle; an exquisite figure of ‘A Nymph unclasping her Zone,’ the 
property of the Earl of Carlisle; ‘The Distressed Mother,’ executed 
for the Marquis of Lansdowne; ‘The Homeless Wanderer ;’ ‘ Devo- 


n 3 
adn s 


_ 
eo 


became fewer than 
in reality excluded 


ae 
r cre 


oe | 


i died 


Own AM 


*.. 


4 
vi 


ri 


? 


= ‘i 


: 
i : e 

A RER h i fee 

ess ee A ee 


es 


ei. 
ee | 


———— ee a CU 


653 WESTMACOTT, RICHARD, R.A. 


WEYER, SYLVAIN VAN DE, 654 


tion,” &¢. He also executed several important works in alto and bas- 
relief; one of the first of which was probably his portion of the frieze 
on the Marble Arch (now at Cumberland Gate), the sculptors of other 
portions being Flaxman and Baily. His latest work in this style 
was the pediment of the British Museum. He also executed for the 
late Earl of Egremont, a large alto-rilievo in marble of the ‘ Death of 
Horace’ for the gallery at Petworth. <A large portion of his time was 
however occupied, and much of his reputation now rests, on public 
monumental statues. Of these it will suffice to mention his statues of 
Pitt, Fox, Spencer Perceval, and Addison (1809), which, with his 
monuments of the Duc de Montpensier, and Mrs. Warren and her 
Child, are in Westminster Abbey; Sir Ralph Abercromby, Lord 
Collingwood, and Generals Pakenham and Gibbs, in St. Paul’s Cathe- 
dral; Lord Erskine in the Old Hall of Lincoln’s Inn; Fox in Blooms- 
bury-square; Francis, Duke of Bedford, in Russell-square; and the 
Duke of York on the column at Waterloo-place. The so-called 
‘Achilles,’ copied from the statue at Monte Cavallo, Rome, and 
inseribed by the Women of England to the Duke of Wellington, was 
modelled by Westmacott, but whether the choice of the figure is to be 
laid to the charge of bis taste, or that of the womeén of England, we do 
not know. 

Westmacott was elected A.R.A. in 1805, and R.A. in 1816. In 
1827 he succeeded Flaxman as Professor of Sculpture at the Royal 


. Academy, which office he held till his death. He was a man of exten- 


Sive reading and sound judgment, and his lectures were marked by 

these qualities, and by the absence of pretension. Shortly after her 

accession to the throne, her Majesty conferred on him the honour of 
hthood. He died on the lst of September 1856. 

*WESTMACOTT, RICHARD, R.A., son of the preceding, was born 
in London in 1799. He studied under his father, and in 1820 pro- 
ceeded to Italy, where he remained six years diligently occupied in 
studying the remains of Greek and Roman art, and investigating their 
history. The works of Mr. Westmacott are in many respects not 
unlike those of his father; graceful and tender in conception, with 
something of classic severity in the style, and never failing purity of 
feeling,—but his genius is of a graver character, and he excels in 
monumental and devotional subjects, and in fancies of a thoughtful 
and reflective cast. He is especially happy in the treatment of rilievi. 
Among his classical and academic works may be noticed his rilievi of 
* Venus and Ascanius, and ‘ Venus instructing Cupid,’ executed for the 
Earl of Ellesmere; a seated statue of the ‘Cymbal Player,’ the pro- 
perty of the Duke of Devonshire; ‘Venus carrying Cupid;’ the 
statue of ‘Ariel;’ ‘Paolo and Francesco,’ an admirable bas-relief exe- 
cuted for the Marquis of Lansdowne. More original in style are his 
charming fantasies the ‘Bluebeil’ and the ‘ Butterfly,’ two exquisite 
bas-reliefs executed for the Earl of Ellesmere (1836-38). As examples 
of his monumental works, we may instance his recumbent figure of 
the Archbishop of Canterbury, in Canterbury Cathedral, and that 
of Earl Hardwicke at Wimpole; and the Ashburton monument, and 
especially the grand figure of the ‘ Angel Watching.’ Of his religious 
works we may mention the fine statue of ‘David as the Slayer of 
Goliath ;’ ‘ Prayer and Resignation ;’ and the bas-relief ‘Go and Sin 
no More.’ Of late years Mr. Westmacott has been chiefly occupied in 
the execution of monumental and portrait sculpture. His busts are 
very numerous, and include those of Lord John Russell, Sir Francis 
Burdett, Sydney Smith, Sir R. Murchison, and other celebrated per- 
sonages; but he is perhaps most successful in female busts. The 
pediment of the Royal Exchange is from his chisel. Mr. Westmacott 
is also distinguished for his literary attainments. He has contributed 
several valuable papers to various serial publications, among others, 
the articles ‘Sculpture’ to the ‘Penny Cyclopedia,’ and to the ‘ Ency- 
clopedia Metropolitana ;’ and he has delivered courses of lectures on 
the history and principles of Sculpture at the Royal and London 
Institutions. He was elected F.R.S. in 1837; A.R.A. in 1838; R.A. in 
1849; and to succeed his father as Professor of Sculpture in July 1857. 

WESTMORLAND, MILDMAY FANE, ssconp EARL OF, was 
born about the year 1600. He was one of the Knights of the Bath at 
the coronation of Charles I., and at the breaking out of the civil war 
he ranged himself under the Royal banner; but in 1643 (according to 
Whitelocke’s ‘ Memorials’) he “came into parliament, along with 
divers other delinquents, desiring the benefit of the declaration of 
both kingdoms for composition:” he subsequently took the parlia- 
mentary oath. Concurring however in the restoration of the monarchy, 
he was taken into the favour of Charles II., and appointed joint lord- 
lieutenant of Northamptonshire. His name is best known as the 
author of a scarce volume of poems of more than ordinary merit, 
printed only for private circulation in 1648, and entitled ‘ Otia Sacra.’ 
He died in 1665. The family of Fane, we should add, is descended 
from a common ancestor with the Vanes of Cleveland, namely, Howell 
ap Vane, who held landed property in Monmouthshire before the 
Norman Conquest. 

* WESTMORLAND, JOHN FANE, ELteventh EARL OF, anda 
general in the army, is the eldest and only surviving son of the tenth 
earl by his first wife, the daughter and heiress of Robert Child, Esq., 
banker, of Osterley Park, Middlesex. He was born in 1784, and was 
educated at Westminster School. Entering the army in 1803, he 
served as aide-de-camp to the late Sir A. Don in the expedition to 
Hanover of 1805-6. He subsequently served in Sicily, the Darda- 


nelles, Egypt, and the Peninsula, where he was aide-de-camp to the 
Duke of Wellington. Having served through a great part of the cam- 
paigns of Spain and Portugal, he accompanied the Allied Armies in 
Germany as military commissioner in 1813, and in the following year 
became envoy at the court of Florence. In 1815, whilst still bearing 
the courtesy title of Lord Burghersh, he accompanied the Austrian 
army in the campaign which ended in the restoration of the Bourbons 
to the throne of the Two Sicilies; he was also for some years British 
minister at the court of Tuscany. In 1841 he succeeded to his father’s 
title, and was appointed ambassador at the court of Berlin, and held 
that post for ten years, In 1851 he was sent to succeed the late Lord 
Ponsonby as ambassador at Vienna, and in that capacity acted on the 
part of the British government in the discussion of the complicated 
Eastern question, out of which the Russian war arose. He retained 
this position down to the year 1855, when Lord John Russell was 
sent to Vienna on a special mission to co-operate with him in the 
Vienna Congress. In December 1855 he returned home, being 
replaced in his diplomatic post by Sir G. Hamilton Seymour. Besides 
being a soldier and a diplomatist, Lord Westmorland bears the 
reputation of being a distinguished musician, and has of late years 
taken the greatest interest in the Concerts of Ancient Music. He has 
received at various times the foreign orders of Maria Theresa, San 
Ferdinand, San Josef of Austria, and of Henry the Lion of Bruns- 
wick; he is also a Knight Grand Cross of the Bath in England, a 
member of her Majesty’s Privy Council, and colonel of the 56th 
regiment of Foot. He married in 1811 a daughter of Lord Mary- 
borough, afterwards third Earl of Mornington, by whom he has two 
daughters and two surviving sons, the elder of whom, Lord Burghersh, 
was aide-de-camp to the late Lord Raglan in the Crimea, and is now 
captain in the Coldstream Guards and a Companion of the Bath. 

WETSTEIN, JOHN JAMES, distinguished for his labours on the 
text of the Greek New Testament, was descended from a family which 
had long been one of distinction in the city of Basel. His grandfather, 
Johu Rudolph Wetstein, who was born in 1614 and died in 1684, was 
professor of Greek, and afterwards of divinity, in the university there, 
as was also one of his sons of the same names, who was born in 1647 
and died in 1711,. Another son, Henry, was the well-known learned 
Dutch printer, and died in 1726. Rudolph, a son of the second John 
Rudolph, was professor of divinity at Basel; and John Henry, another 
son, became a bookseller at Amsterdam. 

The subject of the present notice was born at Basel in 1693. After 
having studied divinity under his uncle the professor, and Hebrew 
under Buxtorf, he was admitted a minister of the national church in 
1713, on which occasion he printed a Latin thesis in defence of the 
substantial genuineness and authenticity of the commonly received 
text of the Greek Seriptures, under the title of ‘ Dissertatio de Variis 
Novi Testamenti Lectionibus, 4to. To this subject he may be said to 
have thenceforth devoted his life. He commenced by visiting France 
and England, as well as the various libraries in Holland, for the 
examination of manuscripts; he was in England in 1716, and again in 
1720, and he appears to have been employed for some years in this 
work by Bentley, who had himself printed a new edition of the Greek 
Testament (see Life, by Monk, pp. 311 and 429). It was not till 1730 
that Wetstein produced his next publication, a quarto volume of 
‘Prolegomena’ to a proposed new edition of the Greek text according 
to the most ancient codices. By this time however his critical investi- 
gations had alarmed a party among his clerical brethren, who had 
influence enough not only to obtain a decree from the senate of Basel 
condemning his project as both unnecessary and dangerous, but even 
to get him prohibited from officiating as a minister. On this he 
retired to Amsterdam, where the Remonstrants or Arminians 
appointed him successor to Le Clere in the professorship of philo- 
sophy and history ; and although, on his making a public apology 
for some opinions savouring of Socinianism that had been ascribed to 
him, the decree of the Basel senate was reversed in May 1733, he 
resided at Amsterdam for the rest of his life, and died there on the 
24th of March 1754, He had meanwhile paid another visit to England 
in 1746. His edition of the Greek New Testament appeared at last, 
‘at Amsterdam, in 2 vols. folio, in 1751 and 1752. Notwithstanding 
many errors by which it is disfigured, this edition (now become very 
scarce) is of great value for the purposes of the critical student. The 
first volume of an intended reprint of it, in 4to, corrected and 
improved, appeared at Rotterdam in 1831, under the care of the 
learned J. A. Lotze; but his death prevented its being continued. 
The portion published contained only the Prolegomena. There is 
also a previous republication of the Prolegomena at Halle, in 1764, 
under the care of Dr. John Solomon Semler. Two epistles attributed 
to Clemens Romanus, which Wetstein had printed at the end of his 
New Testament, from a Syriac manuscript, have been proved by 
Lardner to be spurious. ; 

*WEYER, SYLVAIN VAN DE, a distinguished Belgian writer and 
statesman, well known in English society, was born at Louvain in 1803, 
the son of a commissary of police. He studied at the university of 
his native town, and afterwards became a member of the Brussels bar, 
but at an early age was named librarian of the city of Brussels, and 
devoted himself chiefly to literary pursuits. In 1825 he published at 
Louvain an edition of the philosophical works of Francis Hemsterhuys, 
the son of Tiberius Hemsterhuys, the eminent classical scholar, both 


655 WEYERMAN, JACOB KAMPO. 


WHARTON, MARQUIS OF. 656 


of them Dutchmen by birth, but of whom the father wrote exclusively 
in Latin and the son in French.: Van de Weyer, in a ‘Letter to 
M. Munch on the National Language,’ showed a fondness for the 
French language and a contempt of his native Flemish, which drew on 
him the indignant remonstrances of his countryman Willems. “I 
have the honour,” said Willems, in a printed letter addressed to him 
in 1829, “to know you and to know something of the language that 
has always been spoken in your family and mine. When you protest’ 
aloud before the public that a man like M. Van de Weyer would think 
himself dishonoured if he had written in favour of that language, I 
think I have some right to place myself among the public as one of 
your judges.” The question of language was one of the many that 
embittered the disputes then pending between the Belgian people and 
its governors. Van de Weyer became a writer in the leading news- 
paper called the ‘Courier des Pays Bas, the principal organ of the 
popular party, and when M. de Potter was prosecuted by the govern- 
ment for sedition, he made his first conspicuous appearance as an 
advocate as one of the counsel on his trial, A verdict was pronounced 
against De Potter, and Van de Weyer was dismissed from his post as 
librarian, but the Paris revolution of 1830, and the Belgian revolution 
in consequence, followed so immediately, that he had no time to 

regret the loss. He was one of the members of the Committee of 
Safety appointed to re-establish order in Brussels after the retirement 

of the Dutch ‘authorities, and also a member of the provisional 

government named on the 24th of September. At the beginning of 
November he was charged with an important mission to the English 

government, his brilliant success in which fixed him during the prime 

of his life to a diplomatic career. He procured the assent and support 
of the British government to a proposition for consolidating the changes 

which had taken place in Belgium by a conference of the great powers, 

to be held in London. To this conference Van de Weyer was accre- 

dited, and achieved further diplomatic success, Under the regency 

of Surlet de Chokier he was nominated to the ministry of foreign 

affairs in Belgium, and in this position proposed the name of Prince 

Leopold as a candidate for the Belgian throne, and materially con- 

tributed to promoting his election. He was sent by King Leopold as 

his ambassador to the court of London, and in 1839 married Miss 

Bates, the daughter of an American partner in the great commercial 

house of Baring. In 1845, on the fall of the Nothomb cabinet, he 

was recalled to Brussels as premier; but in his endeavours to reconcile 

the conflicting views of the Catholics and Protestants on the education 

question he did not meet with his wonted success, and he returned 

the next year to his London embassy, in which (1857) he still con- 

tinues. M. Van de Weyer is in great favour with the highest London 

society; his name stands high as an authority in literature and the 

arts, and he has frequently given evidence before royal commissions 

and committees of the House of Commons on questions in which they 

were concerned. His political career put an end to his appearance as 

a writer, except that he wrote his two pamphlets on the Belgian 

question under the assumed names of Victor dela Marre and Goubeau 

de Rospoel. He has lately shown an inclination to resume his inter- 

rupted studies. He is one of the members of the recently-established 

Philobiblon Society of London, which circulates an occasional volume 

of ‘Bibliographical and Historical Miscellanies, in an edition of a 

hundred copies only, and has commenced what promises to be an 

interesting series of articles ‘On the English Authors who have written 

in the French Language.’ 

WEYERMAN, JACOB KAMPO, a Dutch fruit and flower painter, 
was born at Breda in 1679. Weyerman, though a clever painter, is 
chiefly notorious for his bad character and scandalous writings. He 
wrote a set of lives of Dutch painters, which, according to Van Gool, 

‘are full of calumnies; and Descamps says of him, “ Il] a rempli ses 
écrits dordures, d’impiétés, et de calomnies.” His work is entitled 
* Levensbeschryvingen der Nederlantsche Konstschilders en Schilder- 
essen,’ 4to, Sgravenhage, 1729. In one of his scandalous writings he 
attacked the Dutch East India Company; and in 1739 he was con- 
demned to perpetual imprisonment at his own cost, in which he died 
in 1747. Weyerman learnt painting of Ferdinand van Kessel, and 
had great skill in his style and great facility in writing ; he however 
neglected his art and abused his abilities, and, according to all ac- 
counts, appears to have been a thoroughly bad man in every respect. 

WHARTON, REV. HENRY, was born on the 9th of November 
1664, at Worstead in Norfolk, of which his father, the Rev. Edmund 
Wharton, the descendant of an ancient family, and afterwards rector 
of Saxlingham in the same county, was then vicar. After being 
tanght Latin and Greek by his father, he was admitted of Caius 
College, Cambridge, February 17th, 1680, and at Michaelmas in the 
same year was chosen to one of the scholarships founded by Mr. 
Matthew Stockys, who was his great-uncle. Having taken his degree 
of B.A. in 1684, he resided in his college till 1686, when he was taken 
into the employment of Dr. William Cave, then engaged in the com- 
pilation of his ‘Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Historia Literaria,’ in 
which Wharton assisted him not only as an amanuensis, but to so 
great an extent, in at least the collection of materials, that a dispute 
afterwards arose as to his claim to be considered the author of a con- 
siderable part of the work. Cave himself acknowledges his obligations 
in large terms in his Preface; but after Wharton’s death he addressed 
a long letter to Archbishop Tenison, which is printed in Chalmers’s 


‘Biographical Dictionary,’ in confutation of an account of the matter 
which Wharton had left behind him. The publication of Cave’s work 
(in 1688) immediately made Wharton’s name known, and brought him 
into reputation as a young man of remarkable talents and acquire- 
ments. The year before it appeared he had been ordained deacon, 
and had also taken his degree of M.A., and he was now sought out by 
Dr. Tenison, then vicar of St. Martin’s, afterwards primate,-who 
employed him to translate and epitomise a Latin manuscript on ‘The 
Incurable Scepticism of the Church of Rome,’ written by Jean de la 
Placette, the French Protestant divine, which it was thought desirable 
to make public in an English dress. He was also, on Tenison’s recom- 
mendation, engaged by the second Lord Arundel, of Trerice, as tutor 
to his son; and about the same time he was presented to Archbishop 
Sancroft, who soon after made him one of his chaplains, and otherwise 
took him into great favour. Having been ordained priest in November 
1688, he was collated the following year both to the vicarage of Min- 
ster in the Isle of Thanet, and to the rectory of Chartham. The 
catalogue of the works which he wrote or compiled, or in the publi- 
cation of which he was concerned from his first appearance as an 
author till the close of his short life, makes one of the most notable 
displays of literary ardour and exertion on record. His biograpbers 
enumerate eight or nine treatises which he had already published or 
edited even before he had taken priest’s orders; their titles may be 
found in the account of his Life prefixed to his Sermons, and, 
abstracted thence, in the ‘ Biographia Britannica.’ They were princi- 
pally directed against Popery. The most important was a quarto 
volume, entitled ‘A Treatise of the Celibacy of the Clergy, wherein 
its Rise and Progress are historically considered,’ which appeared in 
1688, the imprimatur being dated November 3rd, 1687. In 1691 he 
brought out at London, in 2 vols. folio, his great work entitled ‘ Anglia 
Sacra,’ being a collection of original histories of archbishops and 
bishops in England from the introduction of Christianity to the year 
1540. In this undertaking his patron had been Bishop Lloyd, who 
appears to have generously defrayed all the expenses of transcribing 
the manuscripts and printing the work. Unfortunately very much of 
it has been hurriedly prepared, and it abounds with errors both of 
the printer and of the amanuensis; but the original matter that 
Wharton has supplied evinces a great command of antiquarian learn- 
ing; and of many of the pieces in the collection there is as yet no 
other edition. The ‘Anglia Sacra,’ accordingly, with all its defects, 
still retains a high value. In 1692 Wharton published, in 8vo, ‘A 
Defence of Pluralities,’ which was held to display great ability. In 
1693 he edited, in a 4to volume, some hitherto unpublished works of 
Bede, under the title of ‘Bedae Venerabilis Opera quaedem Theolo- 
gica,’ &c.; and the same year, under the fictitious name of Anthony 
Harmer, he published an 8vo pamphlet entitled ‘A Specimen of some 
Errors and Defects in the History of the Reformation of the Church 
of England, written by Gilbert Burnet, D.D.’ Burnet replied, acknow- 
ledging the ability of his assailant, but complaining of his bitterness 
and bad temper ; and Wharton did not continue the controversy. In 
1695 appeared another of the most elaborate and valuable compilations 
of this indefatigable illustrator of our ecclesiastical history—the first 
volume, in folio, of ‘The History of the Troubles and Trials of Arch- 
bishop Laud.” ‘This is Laud’s own account, written during his 
imprisonment in the Tower, accompanied with his Diary of his Life 
and other papers, printed from the originals, which had been placed in 
Wharton’s hands by Archbishop Sancroft a few days before his death. 
A second volume, consisting of further collections relating to Laud, 
was left ready for the press by Wharton, and was published by his 
father in 1700. ' 

Wharton died at Newton in Cambridgeshire, worn out by his 
labours, on the 5th of March 1695. Two octavo volumes of his 
Sermons were printed after his death ; and his papers, among which 
were several transcripts of old English historians, and notes upon 
various printed books, were purchased by Archbishop Tenison, and 
are now in the library at Lambeth. The second edition of Cave's 
‘ Historia Literaria,’ printed at Oxford, in 2 vols. folio, 1740, 1743, is 
enriched with many additions from Wharton’s manuscripts. 

WHARTON, THOMAS WHARTON, MARQUIS OF, was the 
eldest son of Philip, Lord Wharton,—one of the few noblemen who 
adhered to the parliament in the civil wars, and who is characterised 
by Clarendon as “a man very fast” to that side,—by his second wife, 
Jane, daughter and heiress of Arthur Goodwyn, of Upper Wichendon, 
in Buckinghamshire, Esq. Mr. J. T. Rutt, in a note to his edition of 
Burton’s ‘Diary’ (i. 367), makes him to be the son of whom Lord 
Wharton’s lady is recorded in the Diary to have been delivered on 
Tuesday, 13th January 1657—an event which his lordship’s relation, 
Sir Thomas Wharton, is stated to have related to the writer “ with 
great joy ;” but this we apprehend must be a mistake. The common 
account is that he was born about 1640. In a note on a passage of 
Burnet’s ‘ History of his Own Time’ (i. 790), in which mention is 
made of Lord Wharton, Swift says—“ famous for his cowardice in the 
rebellion of 1642;” upon which the Oxford editor remarks, “It was 
Mr. Wharton, his son, as Speaker Onslow has noted.” It is evident 
that this bad repute, on whatever it was grounded, could not have 
been earned by a person born only in 1657. Besides, Swift, to whom 
he was personally well known, elsewhere speaks of him in 1710 as 
having “passed some years his grand climacteric.” Mr. Thomas 


657 WHARTON, DUKE OF. 


WHARTON, DUKE OF: €58 


Wharton, who did not succeed to his father’s title till 1696, is stated 
to have entered parliament in the reign of Charles II.; and from the 
commencement of his political life he adhered steadily to the Whig 
party. On the landing of the Prince of Orange at Torbay, in Novem- 
ber 1688, he and his father were among the first who joined him; and 
after the settlement of the new government he was made comptroller 
of the household, and sworn of the privy council. In April 1697, 
being now a peer, he was appointed lord-lieutenant of Oxfordshire, 
and also one of the two chief justices in eyre, then an office of some 
importance. On the accession of Anne he was removed from his 
places by the Tory ministry, which then came into power; but after 
Whig principles re-acquired the ascendancy, his eminent abilities came 
again into request, and, after having given his assistance as one of the 
commissioners in arranging the treaty of union with Scotland, he was, 
in December 1706, created Viscount Winchendon and Earl of Wharton. 
In 1708, he was appointed lord-lieutenant of Ireland, and he held 
that post till after the overthrow of the Whig administration of Lord 
Godolphin in the autumn of 1710. For the remainder of the reign 
of Anne he was one of the most active leaders of the opposition. In 
September 1714, immediately after the arrival of George I., he was 
made lord privy seal, and on the 1st of January 1715, he was created 
- Marquis of Wharton and Malmsbury in the peerage of England, and 
Baron Trim, Earl of Rathfarnham, and Marquis of Catherlogh in that 


_ of Ireland; but he died at his house in Dover Street, London, on the» 


12th of April in the same year. 

The Marquis was twice married: first to Anne, daughter of Sir 
Henry Lee of Ditchley, in Oxfordshire, by whom he had no issue; 
secondly, to Lucy Loftus, daughter of Viscount Lisburne, by whom 
he had the son who succeeded to his honours. Both these ladies were 
cultivators of literature. Some account of the first, who died in 1685, 
and also some poetical pieces written by her, may be read in Nichols’s 
‘Collection, i. 51-53, and ii. 329. She is highly complimented in 
various passages by Waller, especially in his ‘ Two Cantos of Divine 
Poesy, occasioned upon sight of the 53rd chapter of Isaiah turned 
into verse by Mrs. Wharton.’ Some love-verses by the second (entitled 
‘To Cupid’) are in Nichols, v, 10. The famous ballad of ‘ Lillibur- 
lero,’ made on the Earl of Tyrconnel, who had in 1686 been appointed 
lord-lieutenant of Ireland by James II., going over to his government 
for the second time in 1688, is said to have been written by Lord 
Wharton (see Percy’s ‘ Reliques,’ iii. 373-376). 

The Marquis of Wharton, probably on account of his eminent 
abilities and services to his party, appears to have been an object of 
special dislike to the Tories of his own day. There are two characters 
of him by Swift, one in his ‘Four Last Years of Queen Anne,’ which 
is severe enough; the other dated London, August 30th, 1710, a con- 
centration of bitterness and venom. In the latter he says, among 
other things, “He bears the gallantries of his lady with the indif- 
ference of a Stoic, and thinks them well recompensed by a return of 
children to support his family,’ &. This would seem to imply that 
the Marquis’s second wife bore him several children. In the notes 
upon Burnet’s ‘ History of his Own Time,’ by Lord Dartmouth, among 
other caustic things, it is said that the marquis, “ in respect to his 
great sincerity and veracity, went amongst his own party by the name 
of honest Tom Wharton.”. 

WHARTON, PHILIP WHARTON, DUKE OF, was the son (we 
believe the only son) of Thomas, Marquis of Wharton, and was born 
in December 1698. Having early shown great quickness of parts, he 
was carefully educated at home under the superintendence of his 
father, whose ambition was to make him both a great orator and a 
great patriot; the latter term meaning in his lordship’s notion not 
only a pure Whig in politics, but further, it would seem, a Presby- 
terian in religion. Either the training he received, however, or pos- 
sibly the nature with which he had come into the world, proved more 
favourable to the intellectual than to the moral progress of the boy. 
His first folly was an early one, his getting himself married clan- 
destinely at the Fleet, when he was scarcely sixteen, to the daughter 
of Major-General Holmes, a shock which his father took so much to 
heart, that it is said to have killed him in six weeks. The old marquis 
died April 12th, 1715; and the marchioness, also, it is affirmed, killed 
in effect by the same stroke, followed her husband to the grave in the 
course of the next year. Yet it is admitted by Wharton’s biographers 
that, although the match he had made was “no ways suitable to his 
birth, fortune, or character, and far less to the great views which his 
father had of disposing of him in such a marriage as would have 
been a considerable addition to the fortune and grandeur of his 
illustrious family,” the lady was unobjectionable, except upon the 
score of the inequality of her: condition, and “deserved infinitely 
more happiness than she met with in this unfortunate alliance.” They 
appear to have parted soon after the marriage; in the beginning of 
1716 the marquis, probably in obedience to directions left by his 
father, went abroad with a French Huguenot governor to be educated 
or confirmed in strict Presbyterian principles at Geneva. In passing 
through Germany, his vanity was gratified by receiving an order of 
knighthood from some petty court; he also immediately began to run 
in debt; his Huguenot governor only disgusted him by his “dry 
moral precepts and the restraints he endeavoured to lay upon him;” 
the Geneva discipline proved intolerable, and, after a brief space, 
cutting all entanglements, he left the Huguenot behind, and, “as if 

BIOG, Div. VOL. VI. 


aad * 


he had been flying from the plague,” set out post for Lyon, where he 
arrived on the 13th of October 1716. His next proceeding was to 
write a letter to the Pretender, then residing at Avignon, which he 
forwarded with the present of a fine stallion ; the Chevalier in return 
sent for him to his court, where he spent a day, and, it is said, accepted 
from the soi-disant king the title of Duke of Northumberland. After 
this he presented himself in Paris, where he visited the widow of 
James II, at St. Germain, and borrowed 2000/. from her; without 
however declining the attentions of the English ambassador, Lord 
Stair, at whose table he repeatedly dined. To get the money from the 
queen-dowager, who was obliged to pawn her jewels to raise it, he is 
asserted to have engaged to employ it in promoting the interest of 
her family in England: at the same time he told a friend who remon- 
strated with him, that till he could repay what he had thus borrowed, 
he must remain a Jacobite, but when that obligation was discharged he 
would return to the Whigs. 

Having signalised his stay in Paris by sundry extravagances, he 
returned to England in December, but soon after set out for Ireland, 
where he was immediately allowed to take his seat in the House of Peers, 
although as yet only in his eighteenth or nineteenth year. Whether 
he had purchased this indulgence by any engagement to support the 
government does not appear; but he forthwith took that side with all 
apparent sincerity and zeal, and speedily raised himself to such dis- 
tinction by the figure he made in debate, that, under age as he still 
was, it was thought proper to raise him to the highest rank in the 
English peerage, and on the 20th of January 1718, he was created 
Duke of Wharton. If we put aside those bestowed on members, 
legitimate and illegitimate, of the royal family, this was certainly the 
most extraordinary creation of an English dukedom on record; and 
it may also be regarded as the most remarkable passage even in Whar- 
ton’s singular career. Notwithstanding the practice which then pre- 
vailed, of conferring that dignity with much less reserve than at 
present, the attainment of it in such circumstances must be held to 
bear strong testimony to the impression which the talents of the young 
nobleman made at his first appearance on the political stage. 

It was probably not till after he had attained his majority, early in 
1720, that he took his seat in the English House of Peers, His name 
first appears in the records of the debates on the 5th of April in that 
year. Up to this time he is said to have continued to support the 
ministry ; but he now warmly joined the opposition to the great 
government measure of the South Sea Bill, in the debate on the 
motion for its committal, which took place on the above-mentioned 
day. He also spoke several times on the same subject at the explosion 
of that wild scheme ; and it was in replying to a bitter invective of his, 
on the 4th of February, 1721, that Earl Stanhope, then secretary of 
state, burst a blood-vessel, which occasioned his death the next day. 
His next prominent appearance was as an opponent of the bill of 
pains and penalties against Atterbury, in the great debate about which, 
on the 15th of May, 1723, on the motion that the bill should pass, he 
delivered a long and able speech, a full report of which was soon 
after published. This is the last speech of the Duke of Wharton’s 
that is noticed in the ‘Parliamentary History.’ His estate, worth, 
it is said, 16,0007. a year when he came to it, had by this time 
become so involved, that his property was placed in the hands of 
trustees, for the benefit of his creditors, and he was allowed only 
12007. per annum. He now, perhaps in the hope of making money by 
the speculation, set up a twice-a-week political paper, under the title of 
‘The True Briton? the first number appeared on Monday, June 3rd 
1723; the second, on the following Friday; the 74th and last, on 
Monday, February 17th 1724. At the same time he exerted all his 
influence in every other way against the ministry and the court; even 
getting himself made a member of the Wax-Chandlers’ company in the 
city of London, that he might speak and vote at common-halls and 
other civic meetings. But he soon got tired of that unprofitable work, 
and giving out that his intention was to retrench for a few years, he 
went off to the continent, apparently in the early part of the year 
1724. Proceeding first to Vienna, he made a distinguished figure at 
that court for a short time; then he set out for Madrid, “ where,’ 
says his original biographer, “his arrival alarmed the English minister 
so much, that two expresses were sent from Madrid to London, upon 
an apprehension that the duke was received there in the character of a 
minister himself; upon which his grace was served with an order 
under the privy seal to summon him home.” This order he entirely 
disregarded : * His grace,” says one account (Salmon, in ‘ Chronolo- 
gical Historian,’ under date of June 1726), “being in a coach when it 
was delivered to him, contemptuously threw it into the street without 
opening it; and soon after, it is said, declared himself a Roman 
Catholic.” He “endeavoured,” continued the writer of his Life, “ to 
stir up the Spanish court not only against the person that delivered 
the warrant, but against the court of Great Britain itself, for exercising 
an act of power, as he was pleased to call it, within the jurisdiction of 
his Catholic Majesty’s kingdom. After this he acted openly in the 
service of the Pretender, and appeared at his court, where he was 
received with great marks of favour.” 

The subsequent conduct’ of this spoiled child of fortune can only be 
attributed to a species of madness. His duchess, whom he had 
entirely neglected from an early period of their marriage, having died, 
April 14th 1726, he immediately offered his hand to Miss pee: the 

U 


6:9 WHARTON, DUKE OF, 


WHATELY, ARCHBISHOP, 660 


daughter of a deceased Irish colonel in the Spanish service, who was 
then one of the maids of honour to the queen of Spain: her majesty 
at first refused her consent to their union, but he threatened to kill 
himself, or at least to die, if she would not relent; and the marriage 
took place, After this he went to Rome, where he accepted the order 
of the garter from the Pretender, and openly assumed the title of 
Duke of Northumberland, formerly bestowed upon him by that per- 
sonage. But it seems to have been soon discovered that he was 
likely to be more detriment than service to the cause in which he had 
thus enlisted himself. -“ As he could not always keep himself within 
the bounds of the Italian gravity,” says his first somewhat tender 
biographer, who has been substantially followed in all the later ac- 
counts, ‘and had no employment to divert and amuse his over-active 
temper, he ran into his usual excesses; which being taken amiss, 
without falling into actual disgrace, it was thought advisable for him 
to remove from that city for the present.” His next appearance was 
at the siege of Gibraltar, in the spring of 1727, where, having offered 
his services as a volunteer to the King of Spain, he was appointed by 
the Conde de las Torres one of his aides-de-camp. Here, we are told, 
he was often in the trenches, and exposed himself wherever any 
service was going forward; but his conduct appears to have partaken 
quite as much of mere recklessness and bravado as of real gallantry. 
“He went one evening,” it is related, “ close to the walls, near one of 
the posts of the town, and ejther called to, dared, or threatened the 
soldiers of the gartison. They asked who he was: he readily answered, 
‘The Duke of Wharton :’ and, though his grace appeared there as an 
enemy, they suffered him to return to the trenches without firing one 
shot at him; had they done otherwise he must inevitably have 
perished.” The only injury he received at the siege was a slight 
wound in his foot from the bursting of a grenade; and as a reward for 
what he had done, the King of Spain gave him a commission of 
colonel-aggregate to one of the Irish regiments. But this was small 
compensation for what his frantic conduct lost at home: where, soon 
after, a bill of indictment was preferred against him for high treason, 
committed by appearing in arms before, and firing off cannon against, 
his majesty’s town of Gibraltar, upon which a conviction followed in 
due course, and he lost both his peerage and all else that he possessed 
in his native country. Before this had happened however he had 
written to the Pretender, proposing to come back to Rome, but 
received for answer a strong exhortation rather to make the best of 
his way to England, and try if he could accommodate matters there. 
On this he set out with his duchess for Paris, where he arrived in 
May 1728. He immediately waited upon Mr. Walpole, the English 
ambassador, who received him with abundance of civility, but was not 
a little surprised when, at parting, his grace told him he was going to 
dine with the Bishop of Rochester (the exiled Atterbury). Walpole 
replied, that if he meant to dine with that prelate, there was no 
reason why he should tell him of his intention. From Paris he went 
to Rouen, and here, where he first heard of his indictment, it is 
affirmed that he was visited by two emissaries from the English 
minister (Walpole), who endeavoured to persuade him to avert his 
fate by making some sort of submission to the government; but he 
remained deaf to all they could urge. The rest of his history reads 
like an account of a long fit of drunkenness—which indeed it no doubt 
in great part actually was. He extorted some further pecuniary 
assistance from the Pretender, and also from other quarters; but, 
notwithstanding these occasional supplies and his military pay, he was 
now commonly involved in all the embarrassments of the most ex- 
treme poverty ; for whenever he received any money, if it escaped his 
clamorous rabble of creditors, it was spent as fast as his still untamed 
profusion and taste for luxury and dissipation could squander it. He 
moyed about as whim, or hope, or sometimes desperation drove him: 
first to Paris, then to Orleans, then to Nantes, whence he took ship 
for Bilbao, and, leaving his duchess there, went to join his regiment, 
which appears to have been stationed at Madrid. Some time after he 
is stated to have been in garrison at Barcelona, where he got into a 
quarrel with the Marquess de Risbourg, governor of Catalonia, the end 
of which was that he received orders from court not again to enter 
Barcelona, but to repair to his quarters at Lerida. On this, we are 
told, giving way to melancholy, he fell into a deep consumption ; so 
that, by the beginning of the year 1731, he had lost the use of his 
limbs, and was not able to walk from his bed to the fireside without 
assistance. After about two months he rallied somewhat, from drink- 
ing a mineral water in the mountains of Catalonia; but in May, 
having gone with his regiment to Tarragona, he became again as ill as 
ever; and, going back to the mineral spring, “he fell,” says his 
biographer, “into one of thoze fainting fits to which he had for some 
time been subject, in a small village, and was utterly destitute of all 
necessaries, till some charitable fathers of a Bernardine convent, 
which happened to be near the place where he lay, hearing of his 
miserable condition, offered him what assistance their house afforded.” 
After languishing in the convent for a week, he died there on the 31st 
of May 1731, and was buried the next day by the monks in the same 
manner in which one of themselves would have been interred. His 
widow survived, in obscurity, till February 1777, when she died in 
London, and was buried in Old St. Pancras churchyard. 

The account from which the preceding facts are chiefly extracted 
was originally published in 8vo, at London, in 1731, under the title of 


‘Memoirs of the Life of his Grace Philip, late Duke of Wharton, by an 
Impartial Hand.’ It is prefixed to two octavo volumes published in 
1782, entitled ‘ The Life and Writings of Philip, late Duke of Wharton,’ 
but which contain only the 74 numbers of the ‘ True Briton,’ and the 
speech on the bill of pains and penalties against Atterbury, the 
paging of which is a continuation of that of the ‘ True Briton,’ although 
it has a title-page of its own, dated 1724, There is another publi- 
cation, in two volumes, 8vo, without date, entitled ‘ The Poetical 
Works of Philip, late Duke of Wharton, and others of the Wharton 
Family, and of the Duke’s Intimate Acquaintance, particularly Lord 
Bolingbroke, Dean Swift, Lady Wharton, Doctor Delany, Lord Dorset, 
Major Pack, the Hon. Mrs. Wharton, &.’ These two volumes how- 
ever appear to have been all printed in 1727 (before the duke’s death), 
with the exception only of this general title-page and a Life of the 
duke, which is substantially the same with that noticed above, and is 


here stated to be “communicated by a person of quality, and one of 


his grace’s intimate friends.” The volume contains very little that is 
even attributed to the duke; but in the second are some letters in 
prose, addressed to Lady Wharton, his father’s first wife, and her 
poetical paraphrase of the ‘ Lamentations of Jeremiah.’ It is said that 
Ritson had at one time an intention of collecting and publishing the 
poetical productions of the Duke of Wharton, which however pro- 
bably would not be very easily ascertained. Nichols has printed two 
poems by his grace in the 5th volume of his ‘Collection, pp. 24-33. 
Pope’s highly finished character of him in his ‘ Moral Essays, begin- 
ning “ Wharton, the scorn and wonder of our days,” is familiar to 
most readers. 

*WHATELY, THE MOST REY. AND RIGHT HON. RICHARD, 
ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN,.was born in Cavendish-square, London, 
in 1787, the fourth son of the Rev. Dr. Whately of Nonsuch Park, 
Surrey. He was educated at Oriel College, Oxford, where he gra 
duated B.A. in 1808, taking a second class in classies and iniathe- 
matics; in 1810 he gained the university prize for an English Essay; 
in 1811 he became a Fellow of Oriel; and in 1812 he took his 
M.A. degree. Oriel College is celebrated as having sent forth some of 
the most eminent English theologians of recent times, such as Arnold, 
Coplestone, and the elder Newman. At this college also Whately 
distinguished himself by his theological bent, attaching himself to the 
“liberal” or “Low Church” as distinct from the “High Church” 
party of which Newman, till his secession to the Romish Chureh, 
was one of the leaders. In 1822 he held the Bampton Lectureship at 
Oxford ; and in the same year he was appointed to the rectory of 
Halesworth in Suffolk, a living of 450/. a year. In the p i 
year he had married the daughter of William Pope, Esq., of Hillingdon, 
Middlesex. It was while he was rector of Halesworth that he became 
known by his theological and theologico-political writings as one of 
the rising intellects in the English Church. In 1821 he had published 


‘The Christian’s Duty with respect to the Established Government — 


and the Laws, Considered in Three Sermons,’ and in the same year, 
anonymously, his curious work entitled ‘Historic Doubts relative to 
Napoleon Bonaparte ;’ these were followed in 1822 by his eight 
Bampton Lectures 6n ‘The Use and Abuse of Party Feeling in 
Religion ;’ to which succeeded ‘Five Sermons on several occasions 
preached before the University of Oxford’ (1823), and ‘Essays on 
some of the peculiarities of the Christian Religion’ (1825). In 1825 
he was chosen Principal of St. Alban’s Hall, Oxford; and about this 
time he took the degree of D.D. While Principal of St. Alban’s Hall 
Dr. Whately extended his theological and literary reputation by 
various works, including his celebrated ‘ Elements of Logic,’ origin 
published in 1826, and since then reprinted more frequently than 
any work of the kind; his ‘Elements of Rhetoric,’ first printed in 
its complete form in 1828, after the substance of it had been con- 
tributed to the ‘Encyclopedia Metropolitana ;’ his ‘Essays on some 
of the Difficulties in the Writings of St. Paul, and in other parts of the 
New Testament’ (1828); his ‘Thoughts on the Sabbath,’ in the form 
of an additional note to the Essays last named (1830); his ‘ Errors of 
Romanism traced to their origin in human nature’ (1830); and 
detached addresses and sermons on various topics. In 1830 he had 
been appointed Professor of Political Hconomy at Oxford; and in 
1831 he published ‘ Introductory Lectures to Political Economy,’ also 
an ‘Essay on the Omission of Creeds, Liturgies, and Codes of Eccle- 
siastical Canons in the New Testament,’ and several sermons. In the 
same year (1831), the Whigs being then in office, he was consecrated 
Archbishop of Dublin and Bishop of Glendalagh; and since 1846 he 
has also been Bishop of Kildare. As primate of Ireland Dr. 

has led a most active and influential life, taking interest as a liberal 
churchman in all questions of social and ecclesiastical importance, 
and more especially in Irish education. He was one of the Commis- 
sioners of National Education in Ireland, but resigned his connection 
with the commission in 1853, His public duties as archbishop how- 
ever have not interfered with his continued activity as a theological 
writer. Besides separate sermons, charges to his clergy, &c. too 
numerous to be specified, he has issued the following publications— 
‘The Evidence before the Committee of the House of Lords respecting 
Tithes in Ireland,’ 1832; ‘ Thoughts on Secondary Punishment,’ 1832; 
‘ Reply to the Address of the Clergy of the Diocese of Dublin and 
Glendalagh on the Government Plan for National Edueation in Ireland,’ 
1832; ‘ Introduction to Political Economy; section 9th,’ 1832; ‘Speech 


-_ 


. — 


661 WHEATLEY, FRANCIS, R.A. 


WHICHCOTE, BENJAMIN, D.D. 662 


on Jewish Disabilities in the House of Lords,’ 1833; ‘Remarks on 
Transportation, in a Letter to Earl Grey,’ 1833 ; ‘Sermons on Various 
Subjects,’ 1835; ‘Essays on some of the Dangers of Christian Faith 
which may arise from,the teaching or the conduct of its professors,’ 
1889; ‘The Kingdom of Christ delineated, in two Essays on our Lord’s 
account of his Person and the Nature of his Kingdom,’ 1841; ‘ Thoughts 
on the Proposed Evangelical Alliance,’ 1846; ‘Introductory Lectures 
on the study of St. Paul’s Epistles,’ 1849; ‘English Synonyms: a 
collection of, edited by Archbishop Whately,’ 1851; ‘Inaugural 
Address delivered in the Exhibition Payilion, Cork,’ 1852; ‘ Address 
to the Members of the Manchester Atheneum,’ 1852; ‘On the Origin 
of Civilisation,’ a lecture to the Young Men’s Christian Association of 
London, 1855 ; and ‘Thoughts on the New Dogma of the Church of 
Rome,’ 1855. A publication attributed to Archbishop Whately is one 
entitled ‘Lectures on Scripture Revelations respecting Good and Eyil 
Angels,’ 1855; an Introduction from his pen is prefixed to ‘The 
Remains of the late E. Coplestone, Bishop of Llandaff, published in 
1854; and he has recently (1856) published an edition of Bacon’s 
Essays with annotations. A work entitled ‘Selections from the 
Writings of Archbishop Whately’ is now in progress. To the merit 
of all these writings must be added the value of the influence exer- 


' eised by Archbishop Whately in stimulating and superintending the 


literary labours of others, Few men of the age have led a life of such 


~ activity. 


WHEATLEY, FRANCIS, R.A.,, an English painter of various sub- 


jects. He excelled in rural pieces with figures, and in landscape, 


which he painted in oil and water colours. His father was a tailor 
in London, where Wheatley was bornin 1747. He received his first 
instruction as an artist in Shipley’s school, and when young obtained 
several premiums from the Society of Arts. He assisted Mortimer in 
a ceiling which he painted for Lord Melbourne at Brocket Hall, Hert- 
fordshire. Wheatley led a very irregular life; ‘the left London,” 
says Edwards, “for Dublin in company with Mrs. Gresse, with whom 


he had the folly to engage in an intrigue, for which he was prosecuted 


and cast in the Court of King’s Bench.” While in Dublin, Wheatley 
painted an interior view, of considerable merit, of the Irish House of 
Commons, in which he introduced portraits of several of the members, 
One of Wheatley’s best works, a picture of the London riots of 1780, 
was burnt in the house of James Heath, the engraver, who had made 
a print of it for Alderman Boydell, who gave 200/, for the use of it. 
Wheatley was elected a member of the Royal Academy, in 1791: he 
died in 1801, 

WHEATON, HENRY, an eminent American diplomatist and writer 
on international law, was born at Providence, Rhode Island, U.S., in 
November 1785. Having completed his education at Brown Univer- 
sity in his native city, he graduated there in 1802; studied law under 
Mr. N. Serle ; and was admitted to the bar. He then passed a couple 
of years in Paris and London, during which he acquired considerable 
acquaintance with civil law, and rendered himself a complete master 
of the French language. On his return to America he settled in 
New York; commenced practice in his profession, and in 1812 became 
editor of the ‘ National Advocate,’ which journal he continued to 
conduct for about three years with merited success. He contributed 
to it, among other things, a series of disquisitions on the law of nations. 


_ In 1815 he was appointed one of the justices of the Marine Court, and 


the same year he published a ‘ Digest of the Law of Marine Captures 
and Prizes, which was received by the profession with much favour. 
He was about this time appointed reporter to the Supreme Court of 
the United States, an office he held for twelve years; his ‘Reports of 
Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court:of the United 
States,’ in 12 vols., are considered to be of great value. He had 
besides written a life of William Pinckney; contributed numerous 
articles to the ‘ North American Review ;’ published several orations 
and addresses; and edited several English and other law books. Mr. 
Wheaton had by this time taken high rank asa civilian. The degree 
of LL.D. was conferred upon him by Harvard University in 1819, 
and by Brown University in 1820. He was called upon to lecture 
upon the subject of International Law, before the New York His- 
torical Society, the New York Athenzeum, and other learned societies. 
He was appointed in 1821 a member of the convention for revising the 
constitution of New York; and in 1825 a commissioner for revising 
the laws of that state. He resigned his offices however in 1827, on 
being appointed by President J. Q. Adams as first chargé d’affaires to 
the court of Denmark. This important post he held until 1834, when 
he was transferred to the court of Prussia. During his residence in 
Denmark Mr, Wheaton greatly increased his reputation as a publicist 
by his conduct on several matters of considerable importance, and by 
his despatches, in which various questions of international law and 
policy were discussed. But he also found time to devote to the study 
of Scandinavian history and literature, the result of which he pub- 
lished in London in 1831, under the title of ‘The History of the 
Northmen, or Danes and Normans, from the Earliest Times, to the 
Conquest of England by William of Normandy ;’ this work he after- 
wards revised and greatly extended for a French version by M. P. 
Guillot. He also, in conjunction with Mr. Crichton, wrote a history 
and description of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, under the title of 
‘Scandinavia.’ 

On the accession of Mr, Van Buren to the Presidency (1837) 


Mr, Wheaton was raised to the rank of minister plenipotentiary to the 
King of Prussia; and during his nine years’ tenure of this high office, 
he was regarded as at the head of the American diplomatists in 
Europe, and his advice was almost invariably sought by other Ame- 
rican ministers in all matters of difficulty, whilst his attainments as a 
publicist, and his personal character and bearing, gave him great 
weight and won for him high esteem and respect with the courts 
and cabinets of the continent. He was recalled by President Polk in 
July 1846, 

Mr. Wheaton’s chief literary production, ‘The Elements of Inter- 
national Law,’ was published in 1836, and at once took its place as a 
standard work on the important subject of which it treats, and of 
which it affords a complete survey. This work he followed up by a 
history of International Law, which he wrote in French in con- 
sequence of the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences of the 
Institute of France offering a prize for a treatise on the subject; it 
was published at Leipzig in 1841, under the title of ‘Histoire du 
Progrés du Droit des Gens en Europe depuis la Paix de Westphalie 
jusqu’au Congrés de Vienne, avec un précis historique du Droit des 
Gens Européen avant la Paix de Westphalie.’ The author afterwards 
remodelled the work and published it in English in one thick yolume 
(New York, 1845), under the title of ‘ History of the Law of Nations in 
Europe and America from the Earliest Times to the Treaty of Washing- 
ton.’ Notwithstanding his advancing years Mr. Wheaton continued after 
his return to America to pursue his usual studies. He had even accepted 
the offer of the chair of International Law in Harvard University, and 
was preparing to enter upon its duties, when he was suddenly cut off 
on the 11th of March 1848. Since his death there has been published a 
fourth edition of the ‘ Elements of International Law. By the late Hon. 
Henry Wheaton, LL.D, Revised, Annotated, and brought down to 
the present time, with a Biographical Notice of Mr. Wheaton, and an 
account. of the Diplomatic Transactions in which he wasconcerned. By 
Hon. William Beach Lawrence, formerly Chargé d’Affaires at London.’ 

* WHEATSTONE, CHARLES,* 

WHETSTONE, GEORGE, a voluminous writer of prose and verse, 
lived in the latter half of the 16th century. Both the place and time 
of his birth are unknown; but he claimed kindred with Serjeant 
Fleetwood, the recorder of London. His history was that of a suc- 
cession of misadventures. He began by wasting his patrimony in 
seeking a place at court: he then served abroad as a soldier, and 
was an eye-witness to the fall of Sir Philip Sydney at Zutphen: 
he was next an unsuccessful farmer; afterwards he sailed with the 
abortive expedition of Gilbert to Newfoundland ; and, finally, return- 
ing to England, he appears to have been chiefly occupied during the 
remainder of his life in literary labour, which he had previously 
practised occasionally, and now attempted with indifferent success as 
a means of subsistence, He is now chiefly known as having been the 
author of the rude play (or rather two plays) called ‘ Promos and Cas- 
sandra,’ which, having been printed in 1578, ranks as one of our 
earliest extant comedies; while it has the further interest of having 
the same plot with Shakspere’s ‘ Measure for Measure.’ It is reprinted 
in Steevens’s ‘ Six Old Plays,’ 1779. In Chambers’s ‘ English Poets’ is 
Whetstone’s Life of George Gascoigne: of his other works, a curious 
account, with specimens, will be found in Mr, Collier’s ‘Poetical 
Decameron.’ 

*WHEWELL, WILLIAM.* 

WHICHCOTE, BENJAMIN, D.D., was the sixth son of Christopher 
Whichcote, Esq., of Whichcote Hall, in the parish of Stoke, Shrop- 
shire, and was born there on the 11th of March 1610. He studied at 
Emmanuel College, Cambridge, where he was admitted in 1626, and of 
which he was elected a Fellow in 1633. Having taken holy orders 
in 1636, he soon after set up an afternoon Sunday lecture in Trinity 
Church, and was also appointed one of the university preachers. 
Meanwhile he had attained distinguished reputation as a college 
tutor. In 1643, being presented by his college to the living of North 
Cadbury, in Somersetshire, which vacated his Fellowship, he went to 
reside there, and married; but early in the next year, on the ejection 
of Dr. Samuel Collins from the provostship of King’s College by the 
parliamentary visitors, Whichcote, whose principles were less rigid or 
uncomplying, though scarcely a greater friend to the existing order in 
Church and State, was appointed to succeed him. Having taken his 
degree of D.D. in 1649, he was in that year, or-soon after, on the 
death of Dr. Collins, presented by his college to the rectory of Milton, 
in Cambridgeshire, on which he resigned his Shropshire living. At 
the Restoration Dr. Whichcote was removed from his provostship by 
the new government, rather to mark their disapprobation of the cir- 
cumstances of his induction than from dislike of the man or his 
conduct; for he had never signed the Covenant, nor taken any part in 
the violent proceedings of the times. He retained his rectory of 
Milton, and, coming up to London, was chosen minister of St. Anne’s, 
Blackfriars. From this church he was burned out by the great fire in 
1666; but two years after he was presented by the crown to the 
vicarage of St. Lawrence, Jewry, on the promotion of Dr. Williams to 


*Tn some instances, not before pointed out, notices of eminent individuals 
which haye been in preparation have not been received in time for insertion in 
their alphabetical order. The articles on Proressor WHEATSTONE and Dr. 
WHEWELL are amongst these; and, with others, will be supplied in a brief 
Supplement which will follow the conclusion of this Division. 


— 


663 WHISTON, WILLIAM. 


WHISTON, WILLIAM. 664 


the bishopric of Chester. He died while on a visit to Cambridge, at 
the house of his friend Dr. Cudworth, master of Christ’s College, in 
May 1683. 

Dr. Whichcote is regarded as one of the heads, if not the chief 
founder, of what is called the Latitudinarian school of English divines, 
as holding those views of Christianity which attribute least importance 
to minute points of doctrine, and are favourable to the largest compre- 
hension of such as hold a few principles conceived to be alone funda- 
mental and essential. But it was principally by his preaching and 
other oral teaching that Dr. Whichcote diffused his opinions while 
alive. An 8vo volume of his ‘Observations and Apophthegms,’ taken 
down from his own mouth by one of his pupils, was published in 
1688, and passed at least through two editions. The first selection of 
his sermons was published, in 8yvo, in 1698, by the third Earl of 
Shaftesbury, the author of the ‘Characteristics,’ with a preface in 
which he recommended them as making religion to consist rather in 
natural goodness of disposition than in anything either divinely re- 
vealed or having respect to the rewards and punishments of another 
life. This collection was reprinted at Edinburgh in 12mo, in 1742, 
preceded by a recommendatory epistle from the Rev. Dr. William 
Wishart, principal of the university there. Meanwhile three more 
volumes of Whichcote’s sermons had been published from the original 
manuscript in 1701-3, by Dr. Jeffery, archdeacon of Norwich, and a 
fifth volume by Dr. Samuel Clarke, in 1707. A new edition of the 
whole appeared at Aberdeen, in 1751, in 4 vols. 8vo, under the super- 
intendence of Drs. Campbell and Gerard. There is also a volume of 
‘Moral and Religious Aphorisms,’ collected from Whichcote’s manu- 
scripts, which was first published in 1703, by Jeffery, and which was 
re-edited, with additions, in 1753, by Dr. William Salter. Dr. Which- 
cote, who was possessed of considerable property besides his endow- 
ments, was a person of much active benevolence and charity, and was 
eminently distinguished for his command of temper and general 
excellence of character. 

WHISTON, WILLIAM, was the son of Josiah Whiston, rector of 
Norton, near Twycross, in Leicestershire, and was born at that place, 
December 9, 1667. The materials for his Life are mostly contained in 
his singular autobiography, published in 1749; and from these the 
account given in the ‘ Biographia Britannica’ is mostly taken. These 
memoirs, like others of the same kind, are to be read with allowance 
for the character of the author, in which there was much of vanity 
combined with unsuspected integrity. There never was a writer of 
his own life who laid his weaknesses more plainly before the reader, 
unless it were Boswell. Whiston was educated by his father (who was 
blind in the latter part of his life, and employed his son largely as an 
amanuensis) till the age of seventeen. He was then sent as a pupil to 
Mr. Antrobus at Tamworth, whose daughter he afterwards married. 
At the age of nineteen he was entered at Clare Hall in Cambridge, 
where he applied himself to the study of mathematics and the Carte- 
sian philosophy. He took his degree in Lent 1689-90, was elected a 
Fellow of his college in the following June, and received ordination in 
1693. In 1694 his health obliged him to give up his pupils, and he 
was made chaplain to Dr. More, bishop of Norwich, In this year he 
became acquainted with Newton, whose ‘Principia’ he had already 
studied. In 1696 he published his first work, the celebrated ‘ Theory 
of the Earth, which went through six editions. His fancies on this 
subject, particularly his management of the comet for the production 
of the Deluge, are well known: there was a joke against it, which was 
not without foundation, namely, that he had covered the whole earth 
with water, without providing any means of drawing it off again. In 
1698 he got the living of Lowestoft in Suffolk, and by his subsequent 
marriage vacated his Fellowship: during his tenure of this preferment 
he performed his duties with singular disinterestedness and industry. 
But his connection with the university was soon revived, for in 1701 
Newton made him his deputy in the duties of the Lucasian chair, and 
in 1703 resigned the chair itself, and procured Whiston to be appointed 
as his successor: on this he resigned his living, and settled at Cam- 
bridge. In 1702 he published an edition of Tacquet’s Euclid, which 
was several times reprinted. He had also some clerical duties, 
obtained the character of an eminent preacher, and was fairly in the 
road to high preferment, when his theological studies, in which he 
was most assiduous, brought about a gradual change in his opinions, 
which ended in his becoming an Arian; he finally added the rejection 
of infant baptism to his system. His views on the matter were much 
influenced by a conviction which he obtained that the ‘ Apostolic Con- 
stitutions’ were not only genuine books, but equal if not superior in 
authority to any of the books of the ordinary canon. The change in 
his opinions soon appeared in his sermons and in his writings, which 
came out with great rapidity and were very niimerous. The list was 
too long even for the ‘ Biographia Britannica.’ Very wide varieties of 
doctrine were common enough at that time in the Church of England; 
and, if not made too public, views which were called heresies were 
connived at. The bishop of Ely (Dr. Patrick), even when Whiston 
had gone so far as to omit part of the Litany, and had consequently 
been cited, contrived to break up the court before the promoter made 
his appearance; and subsequently contented himself by desiring 
Whiston not to do the duties of a lectureship which he held at Cam- 
bridge, promising that the salary should be continued. But Whiston, 
whose whole life was one uncompromising act of maintenance of his 


own opinions, and defiance of his opponents, immediately resigned 
both office and salary. 

In October 1710, the storm burst upon him. The heads of houses, 
after several hearings, to which they would not allow Whiston to 
bring a single friend, banished him from the university, after the usual 
offer of leave to recant. A year afterwards they declared his professor- 
ship vacant. Both proceedings, as being done by the heads without a 
public trial in the vice-chancellor’s court, were highly irregular, if we 
may trust the opinions given in subsequent affairs of the same kind ; 
but the Court of Chancery confirmed them. Whiston was now thrown 
upon the world, but he had a small patrimony, and with this, his 
writings, his public lectures, and the occasional liberality of those who 
admired his unflinching character, particularly (towards the end of his 
life) of his son-in-law, he never was in want. His trials however were 
not yet over, and the heads of them will show how difficult, then, as 
now, it was to define and prosecute heresy in the Church of England. 
The lower house of convocation censured his writings in 1711, but the 
censure happened to get mislaid before it was brought to the queen. 
Whiston, nothing daunted, published his ‘ Primitive Christianity’ in 
November, whereupon the lower house applied to the upper house for 
a censure, but without effect. Further steps were thought of, and the 
judges were applied to for information on the extent of the powers of 
convocation : four were of opinion that there was no power to cite a 
heretic, but the rest were the other way. Still the convocation did 
not move, and in 1713 a private incumbent in London delated Whiston 
of heresy before the Dean’s court of St. Paul’s. The commissary of 
this court would not assume jurisdiction, but referred the matter to 
the Dean of the Arches, who in his turn objected to hear it except as 
an appeal, The delator thereupon applied to the Chancellor, who 
appointed a court of delegates, who decided that the Dean of Arches 
ought to have heard the case, but proceeded to treat it as an appeal 
made to themselves. Whiston was accordingly cited, and appeared, 
but not until the court had managed to dissolve the sitting, after 
declaring him in contempt. This sort of thing happened so often, 
that we cannot but suspect the courts liked in such cases to take 
advantage of some party being a few minutes behind his time, and to 
escape the discussion. The lay delegates subsequently declared they 
would not proceed without a court of adjuncts to determine what 
heresy was. One of the delegates (a judge) affirmed that he would not 
take heresy on his shoulders nor on his conscience, and another kept 
whispering Whiston’s counsel (Sir Peter King, afterwards lord chan- 
cellor) to move for a prohibition. Finally, in the court of adjuncts, 
the chief justice declared he would not be a judge of heresy ; and so 
proceedings were delayed till 1715, when all heresy was pardoned by 
an act of grace; and neither excommunication nor degradation ever 
followed. Whiston declares that he never lost more than two or 
three hours’ sleep during the whole five years; he handed about his 
‘Proposals for finding out the Longitude at Sea by Signals’ at the 
door of the court, and on one occasion presented each of his judges 
with a sheet, wet from the press, which they supposed was a petition, 
but which on being opened displayed the following title :—* The Cause 
of the Deluge demonstrated.’ During the remainder of his life 
Whiston had no serious annoyance for his opinions. He was preached 
against and refused the communion by the clergy, foremost among 
whom was the famous Dr. Sacheverel, but he was never averse from 
controversy, and would have been anything but pleased if he had not 
excited attention. He was also refused admission into the Royal 
Society. According to his account, Sloane and Halley one day asked 
him (in 1720) why he was not a Fellow: he replied, that they durst 
not choose a heretic; upon which Halley proposed Whiston, and 
Sloane seconded him. When Newton heard this, he said that if 
Whiston was chosen a member, he would not be president. The 
reason of this could not have been disapprobation of Whiston’s 
opinions, for even supposing that Newton was not himself an Arian 
(which is a disputed point), his most particular friend Dr. Clarke was 
one, and we can hardly suppose that he would not endure in a Fellow 
of the Society the opinions of his own most intimate associate, 
Whiston states what he considers to be the reason as follows :—“ Now if 
the reader desires to know the reason of Sir Isaac Newton's unwilling- 
ness to have me a member, he must take notice that as his making me 
first his deputy, and giving me the full profits of the place, brought 
me to be a candidate; [and] as his recommendation of me to the heads 


of colleges in Cambridge made me his successor; so did I enjoy a 


large portion of his favour for twenty years together. But he then 
perceiving that I could not do as his other darling friends did, that is, 
learn of him without contradicting him when I differed in opinion 
from him, he could not, in his old age, bear such contradiction, and so 
he was afraid of me the last thirteen years of his life.” Whiston was 
a singularly vain man, but no one can read his writings without seeing 
a good portion of shrewdness mixed up with his vanity. Some of his 
retorts deserve to be celebrated in the history of such things. Talking 
with Chief Justice King, he says, “ We fell in debate about signing 
articles which we did not believe, for preferment, which he openly 
justified, and pleaded for it, saying, ‘We must not lose our usefulness 
for scruples.’ I replied, that I was sorry to hear his lordship say so ; 
and desired to know whether in their courts they allowed of such pre- 
varication or not. He answered, they did not allow of it. Which 
produced this rejoinder from me: ‘Suppose God Almighty should be 


% 


665 WHITAKER, REY. JOHN. 


WHITAKER, REV. THOMAS DUNHAM, LL.D. 666 


as just in the next world as my lord chief justice is in this; where are 
we then?’ ‘l'o which he made no answer; and to which the late 
Queen Caroline added, when I told her the story, ‘Mr. Whiston, no 
answer was to be made to it.’” On another occasion (and this story 
does not come from Whiston himself, but from the ‘Biographia 
Britannica,’ in which the writer assures us that he has it from un- 
doubted authority), being in company with Pope, Addison, Walpole, 
Craggs, and others, they appealed to Whiston on the subject they 
were debating, namely, whether a secretary of state could be an honest 
man. Whiston’s reply may be imagined; on which Craggs said, “ It 
might do for a fortnight, but not longer.’ To which Whiston replied : 
“Mr. Secretary, did you ever try it for a fortnight?” To which 
Craggs answered nothing, and Mr. Walpole said he could not answer. 
The story of his telling Queen Caroline, at her request, one of her 
faults, talking during public worship, and refusing to tell another till 
she had amended that one, is well known. Such readiness in conver- 
sation, it may easily be supposed, was invaluable to a person in 
Whiston’s position. 
There are various circumstances of Whiston’s life which it is not 
necessary to do more than name: his formation of a religious society 
which met at his own house—his various philosophical lectures, oral 
and printed—his multifarious speculations on prophecy, particularly 
his decision that the Jews were to be restored and the millennium to 
~ commence in 1766; his speculations on finding the longitude, whether 
by attempting to moor fixed light-vessels in the sea (which he thought 
everywhere fathomable), by the dipping-needle, or by Jupiter’s satel- 
lites, &c.; his survey of the coasts of England by subscription, which 
produced a useful chart, &e. He died on the 22nd of August 1752, 
in London, at the age of eighty-five, having never remitted his efforts 
for the diffusion of his opinions, nor forfeited in the smallest point his 
character for courageous consistency. He left several children, one of 
whom, John Whiston, made a fortune as a bookseller, and published 
many of his father’s later works. The titles of Whiston’s writings, up 
to 1737 only, are 59 in number, Only one has lasted, the translation 
of Josephus, published in 1737. This book has been reprinted a great 
many times, but is of little value. [JosEPaus.] 

WHITAKER, REV. JOHN, was born at Manchester about 1735, 
and studied at Oxford, where he took his degree of M.A. in 1759, and 
B.D. in 1767: he was also a fellow of Corpus Christi College, In 
Reuss’s ‘ Register of Living Authors of Great Britain’ (8vo, Berlin, 
1791), there is attributed to Whitaker a ‘Survey of the Doctrine and 
Arguments of St. Peter’s Epistle, with a Paraphrastical Exposition,’ 
published in 1751; but this is probably a mistake. His first publi- 
cation appears to have been the first volume, in 4to, of ‘ The History 
of Manchester,’ which appeared in 1771, and which was followed by a 
second volume in 1775; the first having been reprinted, with cor- 
rections, in 2 vols, 8vo, in 1773. Meanwhile also he had published, in 
an 8vo volume, in 1772, his ‘Genuine History of the Britons asserted,’ 
in answer to James Macpherson’s ‘ Introduction to the History of Great 
Britain and Ireland,’ which had appeared the preceding year. Macpher- 
son (already made famous by his ‘Ossian’), and the Rey. Dr. John 
Macpherson of Skye, whose ‘ Dissertations on the Caledonians’ James 
Macpherson had published, with a preface, in 1768, had maintained 
that the modern Scotch Highlanders were the descendants of the 
ancient Caledonians spoken of by Tacitus and other Roman writers ; 
Whitaker endeavoured to show that they were sprung from an Irish 
colonisation subsequent to the Roman invasion of the country. Which- 
ever of the two opinions may be true, or nearest to the truth, it will 
now be admitted that neither the Macphersons nor Whitaker threw 
much light upon the subject, and that the speculations of both have 
been superseded and made quite valueless by subsequent investi- 

ations. 
: In November 1773 Whitaker was appointed morning preacher of 
Berkeley Chapel, London; but the person, Mr. Hughes, who had given 
him the situation, thinking proper to remove him in about two months 
after, Whitaker published a statement, under the title of ‘The Case 
between Mr, Whitaker and Mr. Hughes, &c.,’ in which, his biographer 
in Chalmers (a personal acquaintance) tells us, “he expressed himself 
so indiscreetly that his ‘Case’ was considered as a libel by the court 
of King’s Bench.” This would seem to mean that the publication 
had been made the subject of an indictment or an action. Having 
soon after this given substantial proof of his scrupulous orthodoxy 
by refusing a living in the Church which was offered to him by a 
Unitarian patron, he remained with nothing but his fellowship till 
1778, when he succeeded, on the presentation of his college, to the 
valuable rectory of Ruan-Langhorne in Cornwall. Taking up his 
residence here, he became involved in a contest with his parishioners 
about his tithes, which appears to have almost wholly occupied him 
for some years; but he proved finally victorious in the courts of law, 
and after a time, we are told, he had also “the satisfaction to perceive 
a visible alteration in the behaviour of the principal parishioners, and 
a mutual good understanding was established between the pastor and 
his flock.” He was an animated and impressive preacher, and in all 
respects an attentive and zealous clergyman. His principal publi- 
cations after this were—an 8vo volume of ‘Sermons upon Death, 
Judgment, Heaven, and Hell,’ in 1783; ‘Mary Queen of Scots vindi- 
cated,’ in 3 vols. 8vo, 1787, of which a second edition, much enlarged, 
appeared, in the same number of volumes, in 1790; Gibbon’s ‘ History 


of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Reviewed,’ 8vo, London, 
1791; ‘The Origin of Arianism disclosed,’ 8vo, 1791; ‘The Course of 
Hannibal over the Alps ascertained,’ 2 vols. 8vo, 1794; ‘The Ancient 
Cathedral of Cornwall historically surveyed,’ 2 vols. 4to, 1804; and 
‘The Life of St. Neot,’ published in 1809, after his death. He had 
besides projected and in part executed a History of London and a 
History of Oxford, and at least talked of bringing out Notes on 
Shakspere and Illustrations of the Bible. He also wrote some fugitive 
poetry, printed in the collection of the works of ‘The Cornwall and 
Devon Poets, 2 vols. 8vo; and he contributed many articles to the 
‘English Review, the ‘British Critic,’ and the ‘ Antijacobin Review,’ 
He died at his rectory some time after having had a stroke of paralysis, 
on the 30th of October 1808. 

Asaman, Whitaker appears to have been a person of warm and 
hasty but generous feelings, better liked by those to whom he was 
well known than by those who were only for a short time or occa- 
sionally brought into contact with him. As a writer he is lively and 
ingenious, and scatters about a great quantity of curious reading and 
research ; but his learning is more excursive and various than pro- 
found or exact, and his fancy is much too active for the strength of his 
judgment. His most important work certainly is his ‘ History of 
Manchester,’ which is in fact a description of the general state of the 
country during the Roman and Saxon Times; much of it indeed is 
merely conjectural, though set down in the most dogmatic style; but 
valuable ideas and luminous views are occasionally thrown out. 

WHITAKER, REV. THOMAS DUNHAM, LL.D., was descended 
from an elder brother of Dr. William Whitaker, the Cambridge pro- 
fessor of divinity and eminent polemic of the 16th century. At the 
time when he was born, June 8th, 1759, at the parsonage-house of 
Rainham in Norfolk, his father was curate there; but the next year 
he succeeded to the family estate of Holme, in Lancashire, which his 
ancestors had possessed from about the year 1431. In 1775 he was 
sent to St. John’s College, Cambridge; and in 1780 he proceeded 
LL.B., with the design of following the profession of the civil law; 
but having by the death of his father, in 1782, become proprietor of 
the family estate, he changed his views, and determined to enter the 
Church. He was ordained deacon in 1785, and priest the next year. 
It is not stated however that he held any preferment till he became 
perpetual curate of Holme, in 1797, probably on his own presentation. 
Having taken the degree of LL.D. in 1801, he was in 1809 presented 
by the Archbishop of Canterbury to the vicarage of Whalley, and in 
1818 to that of Blackburn. On being inducted into the latter living, 
he resigned the rectory of Heysham, which he had previously held 
along with Whalley, but for how long is not stated. He died at 
Blackburn, on the 18th of December 1821, leaving by his wife Lucy, 
daughter of Thomas Thoresby, Esq., of Leeds, who survived him, 
three sons and one daughter, besides a daughter whom he had lost in 
1816, anda son, his eldest, who had been killed by a fall from his 
horse the year after. 

Dr. Whitaker’s publications consist of a number of single sermons 
and of the following antiquarian works :—‘A History of the Original 
Parish of Whalley and Honour of Clitheroe, in the Counties of Lan- 
caster and York,’ 4to, 1801 (reprinted, with additions and corrections, 
in 1806, and again in 1818; ‘ History of the Deanery of Craven,’ royal 
4to, 1805, reprinted 1812; an account, in Latin, of the rebellion of 
1745, ‘De Motu per Britanniam Civico annis 1745 et 1746,’ 12mo, 
1809 ; ‘ The Life and Original Correspondence of Sir George Radcliffe, 
Knt.,’ 4to, 1810; an edition of ‘The Visions of Peirs Ploughman, 4to, 
1810; a new edition of Thoresby’s ‘Ducatus Leodinensis, or the Topo- 
graphy of Leeds,’ fol., 1816; ‘Loidis and Almete, or an Attempt to 
Illustrate the Districts described in these words by Bede, and supposed 
to embrace the lower portions of Aredale and Wharfdale, together 
with the entire Vale of Calder, co. York, 4to, 1816. To these is to 
be added a portion of an intended ‘ History of Yorkshire,’ compre- 
hending Richmondshire and Lunedale, which he left ready for the 
press, and which was published in folio after his death, He also pub- 
lished, in 1812, an edition in 8vo of ‘The Sermons of Dr. Edwin 
Sandys, formerly Archbishop of York, with a Life of the Author ;’ and 
‘The Substance of a Speech delivered at a General Meeting of the 
Magistrates, Clergy, Gentry, and other Inhabitants of the Hundred of 
Blackburn, convened at Blackburn, Monday, February 10th, 1817, to 
support the existing Laws and Constitution of England.’ This speech 
(which is inserted in full in the ‘Gentleman’s Magazine,’ vol. Ixxxvii., 
part i, pp. 213-220) is a strong expression of such anti-democratical 
and conservative opinions as, whether right or wrong in themselves, 
might be expected from an enthusiastic antiquary. As an illustrator 
of the national antiquities, Dr. Whitaker a good deal resembled his 
namesake, the author of ‘The History of Manchester,’ with whom he 
has sometimes been confounded. He was not a mere grubber in the 
earth for forgotten facts, deriving for the most part their only value 
from their having dropped out of sight and been thus laboriously 
recovered, but looked at the past in a poetical spirit, with fancy and 
feeling—which no doubt however sometimes led him wrong where a 
colder or duller investigator might not have made the same mistakes, 
He was also, like the other Whitaker, a good classical scholar, as well 
as conversant with the learning of the middle ages. Some able articles 
on antiquarian subjects in the early numbers of the ‘Quarterly Review’ 
are understood to have been contributed by Dr. Whitaker. 


ee 


667 WHITBREAD, SAMUEL. 


WHITBY, DANIEL, D,D. 


WHITBREAD, SAMUEL, for many years a leading member in the 
House of Commons, the son of a wealthy brewer of the same name, 
by his wife Mary, third daughter of the first Earl of Cornwallis, was 
born in London in 1758. He inherited the brewery, and, by a clause 
in his father’s will, he was compelled to retain a majority of the shares 
in his own hands, At his death he held five-eighths, which, would of 
themselyes have been a princely fortune; but in addition to this he 
possessed landed estates to the value of 20,000/. per annum (upon the 
plantations of one of which alone he had expended 120,000/.) and 
large property in the funds, Independent of his personal talents, 
Mr, Whitbread must in this country have occupied a position among 
the untitled aristocracy, both on account of his wealth and his 
connections. : ; 

Great pains were taken with his education. He was sent for the 
usual time to Eton, and removed thence to St, John’s College, Cam- 
bridge. On leaving the university he made the tour of Europe under 
the care of Mr (afterwards Archdeacon) Coxe. In 1789 Mr. Whitbread 
married Lady Elizabeth, eldest daughter of the first Earl Grey; and 
six years later the lady’s brother, Sir Charles, married Mr. Whitbread’s 
sister. Mr. Whitbread entered parliament in 1790, as representative 
of the borough of Steyning; he continued a member of the House of 
Commons till his death in 1815, but during the greater part of the 
time he represented the town of Bedford, in which he possessed large 
property. As might have been anticipated from his education under 
Mr. Coxe, and from his family connections, Mr. Whitbread attached 
himself to the Whig party. During the life of Fox he continued a 
vealous and personally-attached adherent of that statesman. After 
Fox’s death, Mr. Whitbread, though he could scarcely be called the 
leader, was one of the men of most influence in the ranks of the dis- 
organised opposition. Though he had received a liberal education, 
Mr. Whitbread owed his political power rather to natural shrewdness, 
unquestioned sincerity, and vehement energy, than to extensive know- 
ledge or polished oratory or argument. The unimaginative and even 
common-place character of his mind kept him secure from vacillation 
or inconsistency ; his strong passion, made him an active and assiduous 
member of the legislature ; and his benevolence and integrity of pur- 
pose lent a moral dignity to his oratorical displays. Like most mem- 
bers of parliament of his character, he could not elevate himself above 
mere personal conflict, and his vehemence of disposition gave his 
attacks an appearance of asperity alien to his native kindness of dispo- 
sition. The most prominent event in Mr. Whitbread’s parliamentary 
career was the impeachment of Lord Melville, which he conducted. 

He was a warm advocate of popular education, and a man of deep 
religious impressions. There was however nothing ascetic in his 
religion, as may be inferred from the active part he took in the affairs 
of the Drury Lane Theatre. In private life he was amiable and irre- 
proachable. Mr. Whitbread terminated his own life during a tempo- 
rary aberration of intellect, July 6, 1815. He had some time previously 
been liable to attacks of a morbid despondency, under which he 
imagined himself the victim of conspiracies and the object of public 
ridicule or condemnation. A local pressure on the brain, discovered 
on dissection, seems to account sufficiently for this malady. 

WHITBY, DANIEL, D.D., an English divine of great celebrity in 
his own day, and some of whose works are still in considerable repute, 
was born in 1638, at Rushden, or Rusden, in Northamptonshire. In 
1658 he was admitted of Trinity College, Oxford, of which he was 
elected a scholar in June 1655; he took his degree of B.A. in 1657, 
and that of M.A. in 1660, and was elected Fellow of his college in 
1664, Having taken holy orders, he found a zealous patron in Dr. 
Seth Ward, bishop of Salisbury, who made him his chaplain, and col- 
lated him in October 1668 to a prebend in his cathedral, and in 
November following to another. In September 1672, he was admitted 
chantor or precentor of the same church, and immediately after 
accumulated the degrees of B.D.and D.D. About the same time he 
was presented to the rectory of St. Edmund's church, in the city of 
Salisbury ; but, although his life lasted for more than half a century 
longer, this was the last of his preferments. He died at Salisbury, at 
the age of eighty-eight, on the 24th of March 1726. 

Dr. Whitby’s first publications were a series of attacks upon popery, 
in the course of the active controversy upon that subject which was 
kept up almost without intermission in England from the Restoration 
to the Revolution :—‘ Romish Doctrines not from the beginning,’ 4to, 
London, 1664, an answer to Serenus Cressy; ‘Ads 7od ord, or an 
answer to Swre Footing’ (an anonymous work by a Popish missionary 
called John Sergeant, alias Smith), 8vo, Oxford, 1666; ‘A Discourse 
concerning the Idolatry of the Church of Rome,’ 8vo, London, 1674, 
in defence of Stillingfleet, and against his popish assailant Dr. Thomas 
Godden, alias Browne; ‘The Absurdity and Idolatry of Host-worship 
proven,’ 8vo, London, 1679; ‘A Discourse concerning the Laws, eccle- 
siatical and civil, made against Heretics by Popes, Emperors, &c.,’ 4to, 
London, 1682, reprinted at London in 8yo in 1723, with an Introduc- 
tion by Bishop Kennet, in which it is erroneously ascribed to Dr. 
Maurice, In 1671 he also published at Oxford, in 8yvo, ‘Adyos rijs 
Tilotews, or the Certainty of the Christian Faith and of the Resur- 
rection of Christ,’ 

In 1683, unfortunately for his peace and his reputation, he turned 
aside from attaching the Papists to defending the Dissenters, pub- 
lishing in that year, at London, an 8vo volume entitled ‘The Pro- 


testant Reconciler, humbly pleading for condescension to Dissenting 
Brethren in things indifferent and unnecessary, for the sake of peace, 
and showing how unreasonable it is to make such things the necessary 
conditions of communion,’ The book (which was anonymous, but 


the authorship of which appears to have been soon discovered) was — 


immediately attacked with great fury from various quarters: the 
University of Oxford, in a congregation held on the 21st of July, 
condemned it to be burnt by the hand of the marshal in the Schools 
Quadrangle ; and at length Whitby, on the requisition of his diocesan 
and patron, Bishop Ward, signed on the 9th of October a strong 
expression of his sorrow and repentance for haying “ through want of 
prudence and deference to authority” caused it to be printed and 
published, and his distinct retractation of its two main principles— 
that it is not lawful for superiors to impose anything in the w 
of God not antecedently necessary, and that the duty of not offending 
a weak brother is inconsistent with all human rights of making laws 
concerning indifferent things—both of which he now professed to 
have discovered to be false, erroneous, and schismatical, The same 
year he also published a second part of the ‘ Protestant Reconciler, 
earnestly persuading the Dissenting laity to join in full communion 
with the Church of England, and answering all the objections of non- 
conformists against the lawfulness of their submission unto the rites 
and constitution of that church.’ 
. He now, after publishing a Latin compendium of ethics, ‘ Ethices 
Compendium in usum academics juventutis,’ 8yo, Oxon., 1684, returned 
to his old subject, the errors of popery, and published ‘A Treatise in 
confutation of the Latin Service in the Church of Rome,’ 4to, London, 
1687; ‘The Fallibility of the Roman Church demonstrated,’ 4to, 
London, 1687, a treatise against the worship of images; ‘A Demon- 
stration that the Church of Rome and her Councils have erred,’ 4to, 
London, 1688, on communion in one kind; and ‘Treatise of Tradi- 
tions,’ part i,, 4to, London, 1688; part ii., 4to, London, 1689. ; 

He next came forward in defence of the Revolution, in two treatises: 


the first entitled ‘Considerations humbly offered for taking the Oath — 


of Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary,’ 4to, London, 1689; 
the second, ‘An Historical Account of some things relating to the 
Nature of the English Government, &c.,’ 4to, London, 1690. These 
were followed by ‘ A Discourse confirming the Truth and Certainty of 
the Christian Faith, from the Extraordinary Gifts of the Holy Ghost 
youchsafed to the Apostles,’ 4to, 1691; a treatise in Latin against 


Arianism and Socinianism, ‘Tractatus de Vera Christi Deitate, 4to, — 
Oxford, 1691; and ‘A Discourse of the Love of God,’ 8vo, London, 


1697. é 

In 1703 appeared, in two volumes folio, his principal work, ‘A 
Paraphrase and Commentary on the New Testament.’ This has been 
often reprinted, and is still held in much esteem by the adherents of 
the Arminian system of doctrine. The best edition is that of 1760, 


in 2 vols. folio. In connection with jt he afterwards published ‘A 
Discourse of the Necessity and Usefulness of the Christian Revela-— 


tion, by reason of the Corruptions of the Principles of Natural 
Religion among Jews and Heathens,’ 8vo, London, 1705; ‘ Reflections 
on some Assertions and Opinions of Mr. Dodwell, &c.,’ 8vo, London, 
1707 ; ‘A Discourse concerning the True Import of the words 
Election and Reprobation, 8vo, London, 1710 (commonly called 
‘Whitby on the Five Points,’ and often reprinted; the best edition 
is that of 1735); ‘Four Discourses’ (on Election and Reprobation), 
8vo, London, 1710; a treatise against the doctrine of Original Sin in 
Latin, ‘ Tractatus de Imputatione Divina Peccati_ Adami Posteris ejus, 
&e.,’ 8vo, London, 1711. Whitby had been bred a Calvinist, his 
teachers at the university having been all of that persuasion; and, as 
he states himself in a preface to one of the above tracts, his own 
investigations and reflections had gradually brought him round to the 
opposite opinions. 

But his views afterwards underwent a still further change. Dr. 
Clarke’s ‘Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, which appeared in 1712, 
made him a convert to Arianism, and he afterwards published the 
following tracts in defence of his new creed :—‘ Dissertatio de 8. 
Scripturarum Interpretatione’ (against the authority of the Fathers in 
the controversies about the Trinity), 8vo, 1714; ‘A Discourse showing 
that the Expositions which the Ante-Nicene Fathers have given are 
more agreeable to the Interpretations of Dr. Clarke, &c.’ 8yo, London, 
1714; ‘A True Account and Confutation of the Doctrine of the 
Sabellians,’ 8vo, London, 1616; and a disquisition, in Latin, on the 
difficulties which attend the study of the doctrine of the Trinity, 
under the title of ‘ Disquisitiones Modeste in Bulli Defensionem Fidei 
Nicene,’ 8vo, 1720. This last tract involved him in a controy 
with the great Trinitarian champion, Dr. Waterland. Whitby de- 
fended himself in two additional pamphlets, published this same year, 
and retained his Arian principles to the end of his life, as appears 
from his posthumous work entitled ‘’forepa bpoyrldes, or the Last 
Thoughts of Dr, Whitby; containing his Correction of several passages 
in his Commentary of the New Testament; to which are added Five 
Discourses, published by his express order;’ 8vo, London, 1728. 

Meanwhile he had published another tract on the Romish question, 
entitled ‘Irrisio Dei Panarii Romanensium; the Derision of the 
Breaden God, &e.,’ 8vo, London, 1716; and he had also taken pet in 
the Bangorian controversy, by two pamphlets in defence of Bishop 


Hoadly; the first, ‘An Answer to Dr, Snape’s Second Letter to the — 


r a ‘ am 
- of ee Daher) 
Seite Ss he Ae Se 


# 


y ite kal Bd 


eve on 
a wen es 


4 
, 


669 ‘WHITE, GILBERT. 


WHITE, REV. JOSEPH. 670 


Bishop of Bangor,’ 8vo, London, 1717; the second, ‘ A Defence of the 
Propositions contained in the Lord Bishop of Bangor’s Sermons,’ 8vo, 
London, 1718. 

To this long list are still to be added six single sermons published 
at different times between 1671 and 1714; “Thirty-three Sermons 
upon the Attributes of God,’ 2 vols, London, 1710; ‘Sermons on 


'. Several Occasions,’ 8vo, London, 1720 ; ‘Twelve Sermons preached at 


the Cathedral Church of Sarum,’ 8vo, London, 1726; besides an 
anonymous pamphlet, entitled ‘A Short View of Dr. Beveridge’s 
Writings,’ 8vo, London, 1711—a severe attack on Bishop Beveridge— 
of which he is supposed to be the author. 

WHITE, GILBERT, the author of the ‘Natural History of Sel- 


borne,’ was born at Selborne on the 18th of July 1720, and received 


his early education at Basingstoke, under the Rev. Thomas Warton, 
father of the poet of that name. On leaving Basingstoke he was 
admitted a student of Oriel College, Oxford, and took his Bachelor of 
Arts degree in 1743. He was elected. a Fellow of his college in 1744, 
and became Master of Arts in 1746, and was made a senior Proctor of 
the university in 1752. He exhibited when young an attachment to 
literature and the study of natural history ; and it was to indulge in 
these tastes that he retired at an early period of his life to his native 
village. Here he lived surrounded by his friends, engrossed by his 
favourite pursuits during the whole of his life: he died on the 26th 


of June 1793. Although he had frequently offers of preferment in 


the Church, he declined them all : not that he was averse to the duties 
of the clerical profession; for during the latter part of his life he 
acted in the capacity of curate at Selborne, and had previously pér- 
formed the same duties in the adjoining parish of Faringdon. The 
work on which the reputation of White as a naturalist rests, and which 
must ever claim for him a conspicuous position amongst the culti- 
vators of science, as well as the classical writers of Great Britain, is 
his ‘ Natural History of Selborne.’ This work was first published in 
quarto, in 1789, four years previous to the death of the author. In 
this first edition also appeared a chapter of the antiquities of Selborne, 
a part of the work which has been often, without sufficient reason, 
omitted in subsequent editions of the ‘Natural History.’ After the 
death of Gilbert White, Dr. Aikin published a work entitled ‘A 
Naturalist’s Calendar, with Observations in various branches of 
Natural History,’ the whole work being selected from a natural history 
journal which had been kept by White for twenty-five years. In 1802 
the ‘Calendar’ and ‘ Natural History’ were published together in two 
volumes, octavo. In 1813 the ‘ Antiquities,’ ‘Natural History,’ ‘ Ca- 
lendar,’ and some poems of the author's were published together in one 
volume, quarto, From this time various editions of these works have 
appeared, edited by the Rev. John Mitford, Sir William Jardine, Captain 
Brown, the Rev. L. Jenyns, and other editors. One of the best of the 
later editions was by the late Edward Turner Bennett, secretary to the 
Zoological Society. It containsthe ‘Natural History,’ ‘ Antiquities,’ 
and the ‘ Naturalist’s Calendar,’ and is enriched with copious notes by 
the editor, and by Messrs. Bell, and others; but an edition embodying 
in notes such general corrections, qualifications, and additions as 


recent investigations may have rendered necessary, and also a specific 


account of the present natural history of Selborne, would be a wel- 
come addition to our literature. 

The portions of White’s writings devoted to natural history are 
written in an elegant and pleasing style, and give to the reader some- 
thing of the enthusiasm of the writer. No one can fail wishing to 
participate in the quiet pursuits of the author in his rural solitude, 
after reading his letters, and they have much contributed to spread a 
taste for natural history in this country. But his letters and essays 
on subjects of natural history are not merely interesting for their 
style and matter ; they contain a large amount of original observation 
which has contributed much to a knowledge of the form, habits, and 
instincts of the animals that inhabit Great Britain. 

White was peculiarly fortunate in belonging to a family whose 
members all took great delight in natural history pursuits, and with 
whom he was in constant correspondence, Four of his brothers are 
referred to in his letters, and some of them are well known for their 
literary labours. Most of his brothers and sisters were married, but 
he died single. He however took great interest in the families of his 
near relatives, and carefully noted down in his diary the births of his 
nephews and nieces, who at his death amounted to the number of 
sixty-three, 

WHITE, HENRY KIRKE, was a native of Nottingham, where he 
was born on the 21st of March 1785. He was the son of John White, 
a butcher of that place, and of his wife Mary, whose maiden name was 
Neville, and who belonged to a respectable Staffordshire family. He 
early showed a passion for reading, and had begun to try his hand at 
composition in prose when he was about seven years old, His first 
attempts in verse appear to have been of considerably later date; the 
earliest that is given or mentioned by his biographer is a short poem 
stated to have been “ written at the age of thirteen.” He had now, in 
addition to writing and arithmetic, acquired an acquaintance with the 
French language; but up to this time it continued to be the intention 
of his father to breed him up to his own business, and one whole day 
in every week, and his leisure hours on other days, were employed in 


carrying the butcher’s basket. At last his mother, who appears to 


haye been a woman of some education, as well as of a superior cast of 


* 


mind, and who had now, in conjunction with her eldest daughter, 
opened a girls’ boarding- and day-school, which proved very successful, 
persuaded her husband to give up this plan; and at the age of fourteen 
Henry, being taken from school, was placed in a stocking-loom, that 
he might learn the hosiery business. But this proved scarcely more 
satisfactory than his original destination ; and after a year his mother 
found means to have him placed in the office of Messrs. Coldham and 
Enfield, attorneys and town-clerks of Nottingham. ‘To make up for 
the want of a premium, he was engaged to serve two years before the 
commencement of his apprenticeship, so that he was not articled till 
the beginning of the year 1802. By this time he had acquired a tole- 
rable knowledge of Latin with very little instruction, and had begun 
Greek. To these languages he afterwards added Italian, Spanish, and 
Portuguese; chemistry, astronomy, and electricity also engaged his 
attention ; drawing was another of his pursuits; and he played very 
pleasantly by ear on the piano-forte. He showed likewise a turn for 
practical mechanics. All this while too his time was principally occu- 
pied by the law, “to which,” says his biographer, “his papers show 
he had applied himself with such industry as to make it wonderful 
poe he could have found time, busied as his days were, for anything 
else.” 

By his fifteenth year he had already begun to acquire distinction as 
a speaker in a literary society in Nottingham, and as a correspondent 
of various periodical publications, the ‘ Monthly Preceptor, or Juvenile 
Library,’ the ‘Monthly Magazine, the ‘Monthly Visitor,’ and the 
‘Monthly Mirror.’ The encouragement of Mr. Hill, the proprietor of 
the last-mentioned work, and of Mr, Capel Lofft; induced him, about 
the close of the year 1802, to prepare a volume of poems for the press, 
It does not appear to have been published however till the end of the 
next year, or the beginning of 1804, when it came out, dedicated, by 
permission, to the Duchess of Devonshire. But her grace, after giving 
her name, forgot to give anything more, or even to notice the poems 
or their author; and the volume, which was harshly treated by the 
reviewers, appears to have attracted little of the public attention. It 
was the means however of making the youthful writer known to 
Southey, to whom he is principally indebted for the preservation of 
his memory and the general interest that is still felt about him. 

Before his first volume of poetry was published, a great change had 
been wrought in his opinions, and his whole intellectual being, by his 
conversion from an indifference to religion and a tendency towards 
infidelity, to a deep and passionate conviction of the truth of Christi- 
anity. What appears to have been most operative in drawing his mind 
and heart in this new direction was the circumstance of a young friend, 
who had been some time before suddenly struck in the same way, 
being about to proceed to- the University, a destination which White 
had often looked forward to. with intense desire, though with scarcely 
a hope. He now bent his whole soul to finding the means of following 
his friend to Cambridge, and getting himself educated for the Church, 
For some time the prospect was very discouraging; but at last the 
matter was managed, principally by means of Mr. Simeon, of King’s 
College, to whom he had been recommended, ahd who procured him 
a sizarship at St. John’s, with additional pecuniary assistance. He 
quitted his employers, who very kindly gave their consent to this 
arrangement, in October 1804. During his first term one of the Uni- 
versity scholarships became vacant, for which he was advised to offer 
himself as a candidate. He passed the whole term in preparing for 
this objéct; but his strength and spirits sunk under his exertions, 
and when the day came he found himself compelled to decline being 
examined. He had now only a fortnight to prepare for the general 
college examination: in his exhausted and desponding condition he 
would have declined that too; but he was prevailed upon to come 
forward, and was pronounced the first man of his year. 

He now paid a short visit to London, the excitement of which pro- 
bably only accelerated the progress of his disease. The next year, at 
Cambridge, he was again pronounced first at the college examination. 
The college mow offered him a private tutor in mathematics during the 
long vacation ; but relaxation, not stimulus, was what he wanted. He 
paid another visit to London, from which he returned to college only 
to die. His death took place on Sunday, the 19th of October 1806, 
when he had just passed the middle of his twenty-second year. 

His papers were put into the hands of his friend Southey, who in 
1807 published a selection from his poems and prose compositions, ia 
two volumes, accompanied with the memoir from which the above 
facts have been taken. A supplementary volume, consisting of addi- 
tional pieces, appeared in 1822; and both publications have since been 
incorporated, and in that form ‘The Remains of Henry Kirke White’ 
have been several times reprinted. The popularity which Henry Kirke 
White's poetry has enjoyed is owing perhaps more to the touching cir- 
cumstances of his history and the attractive picture of his disposition 


and eharacter which has been drawn by his enthusiastic biographer, 


than to its merit. It has in its best passages considerable feeling and 
melody, but its general tone is feeble, and the manner and spirit deci- 
dedly imitative. His acquirements also, though considerable for the 
circumstances under which they were made, were certainly not other- 
wise very remarkable, 

WHITE, REV. JOSEPH, was the son of a poor journeyman weaver 
of Gloucester, where he was born about 1746. His father brought 
him up to his own trade, but sent him for a time to a charity-school, 


671 WHITE, REV. JOSEPH. 


WHITE, ROBERT. 672 


where the education he received, whatever it amounted to, had the 
effect of inspiring him with a love of reading and study, which he car- 
ried so far in his leisure hours that his attainments at length attracted 
the notice of a neighbouring gentleman of fortune, who furnished him 
with the means of entering himself at Wadham College, Oxford. This 
was probably when he was about three-and-twenty, since he is stated to 
have taken his degree of M.A. in 1773. At that date the only one of 
the Oriental languages which he knew seems to have been the Hebrew. 
He now began, under the encouragement of Dr. Moore, afterwards 
successively Bishop of Bangor and Archbishop of Canterbury, to apply 
himself to the Arabic and others, and made rapid progress. In 1774 
he was elected to a fellowship in his college (worth about 70/. per 
annum), and next year he was appointed Laudian Professor of Arabic 
in the University, from which he derived about as much more, On 
entering upon this office, on the 7th of April 1775, he pronounced a 
Latin oration on the utility of the Arabic tongue in theological studies 
(‘De Utilitate Lingusze Arabic in Studiis Theologicis’), which was 
printed in quarto the same year, and brought him great reputation. 
His next publication was an edition, with a translation and notes, of 
the Syriac-Philoxenian Version of the Four Gospels (‘ Sacrorum Evan- 
geliorum Versio Syriaca Philoxeniana’), from a celebrated manuscript 
belonging to New College, which appeared in 2 vols. 4to, in 1778. 
This was followed the same year by a sermon preached before the 
University, on the 15th of November 1778, recommending a revisal of 
the authorised English translation of the Old Testament, which was 
much applauded both for its learning and eloquence. White was now 
appointed one of the preachers at Whitehall chapel, and, having taken 
his degree of B.D. in 1779, he continued to keep his name before the 
public by publishing in that same year ‘A Letter to the Bishop of 
London (Lowth) suggesting a plan for a new edition of the Septua- 
gint ;’ and the next year, in 4to, ‘ A Specimen of the Civil and Military 
Institutes of Timour, or Tamerlane, rendered from the Persian into 
English.’ The completed translation of the latter work, executed by 
Major Davy, appeared in 4to in 1783, with a preface, index, geographi- 
cal notes, &c., by White. 

Soon after this occurred the most remarkable passage in his life. In 
Easter Term, 1783, he was appointed to preach the Bampton Lectures 
for the following year: this duty he executed accordingly with extra- 
ordinary effect; and when the sermons, the subject of which was ‘A 
View of Christianity and Mahometanism, in their History, their Evi- 
dence, and their Effects,’ were published, soon after their delivery, the 
admiration with which they had been heard from the pulpit was borne 
out by an equally flattering reception from the reading world, which 
demanded a second edition of the volume within a twelvemonth. A 
wealthy prebend in the cathedral of Gloucester, bestowed upon him 
by the Lord Chancellor (Thurlow), speedily rewarded the learned and 
eloquent author, who in 1787 took his degree of D.D., and was now 
looked upon as one of the chief ornaments of the University. Soon 
after this however a strange discovery was made. In May 1788 died 
suddenly the Rev. Samuel Badcock, who had for some time been one of 
the most active and able writers in the ‘Monthly Review’ and other 
periodical publications of the day, chiefly on theological subjects ; and 
in his pocket-book was found a promissory note from White for 5001, 
dated Wadham College, 7th of August, 1786. From letters afterwards 
found among Badcock’s papers it was abundantly proved that this 
note was granted by White in payment for assistance which he had 
secretly obtained from Badcock in the composition of his Bampton 
Lectures. White, upon being applied to, first shuffled, and then tried 
what he could do by bullying: by his blundering management he pro- 
voked the parties in whose hands the secret was, to make an exposure 
of the whole affair; and then it turned out that Badcock had not been 
his only coadjutor—that he had also employed the services of Dr. Parr 
in the same way. Badcock, it would appear, was aware of Parr having 
a hand in the matter; Parr, much to his indignation when the truth 
came out, had been kept in entire ignorance of Badcock’s share in it. 
White had meanwhile paid the money to Badcock’s representatives ; 
but in 1789, Badecock’s friend, the Rev, Dr. R. B. Gabriel, preacher at 
the Octagon chapel in Bath, by whom the discovery had been made, 
published the whole story in an octavo pamphlet, entitled ‘ Facts 
relating to Dr. White’s Bampton Lectures.’? To this White replied the 
next year in another pamphlet, which he called ‘ A Statement of Dr. 
White’s Literary Obligations to the late Rev. Mr. Samuel Badcock, and 
the Rev. Samuel Parr, LL.D.’ This statement amounts substantially 
to an admission of the charges, the undeniable facts being merely 

- attempted to be excused or apologised for. But the most complete 
account of this curious affair is that given by Dr. John Johnson in his 
‘Memoirs of Dr. Parr,’ London, 1828, pp. 216-290. The numerous 
letters which are printed by Dr. Johnson present the strangest de- 
velopment of the system of importunate mendicaney which White 
appears to have carried on, not only upon this but other occasions. 
And yet it is difficult after all to assign what would seem to ordinary 
people an adequate motive for his conduct. He was unquestionably a 
man of sterling talent, and probably quite capable of writing as good 
lectures as those he begged or bought ; and it could hardly have been 
indolence that induced him to take the course he did; for the trouble 
he gave himself in managing his scheme of complicated deception, and 
in fitting into the form of a continuous writing what he wrote himself 
and what he got from others, must have been fully equivalent to the 


labour of original composition. One thing is clear, that his object was 
of the lowest kind—the producing such discourses as would be most 
likely to procure him preferment or money, however he might come 
by them. Parr, it may be added, who in one letter characterises him 
as uniting to the darkest management the clumsiest execution, always 
believed that his own and Badcock’s were not the only pens he had 
laid under contribution; his notion was, that another of White’s 
friends, Dr. John Parsons, afterwards Bishop of Peterborough, was a 
main auxiliary in the preparation of the Bampton Lectures from begin- 
ning to end, though “ without being let into the secret of other persons 
being also employed.” 

White’s calculation as to preferment was not disappointed. He was 
soon after promoted by the crown to a canonry of Christ Church ; 
besides which, having in 1790 vacated his fellowship by marriage, he 
was presented by his college to the living of Melton in Suffolk. His 
subsequent publications were his well-known ‘ Diatessaron,’ or chrono- 
logical arrangement of the passages in the Greek text of the Four 
Gospels containing the history of the Life of Christ, which appeared in 
&vo in 1800, and has been several times reprinted ; his ‘ Aegyptiaca, 
or Observations on certain Antiquities of Egypt’ (containing the Arabic 
text, with a Latin translation of Abdallatif’s Description of Egypt), 
4to, 1801; a critical edition of the Greek New Testament, exhibi 
the alterations proposed by Griesbach in the common text, 2 vols. er. 
8vo, 1808; and a sequel to this, ina Latin synopsis of the system of 
criticism adopted by Griesbach, ‘Crisews Griesbachianae in Noyum 
Testamentum Synopsis,’ which appeared in 1811. He died at his 
residence in Christ Church, May 22nd, 1814. 

WHITE, REV. JOSEPH BLANCO, was descended paternally from 
an Irish Roman Catholic family. In the early part of the last century, 
William White went over to Seville, in Spain, where he succeeded to the 
then flourishing business of an exporting merchant carried on by his 
mother’s brother. He was raised by the king of Spain to the rank of 
the noblesse, which his posterity retained. But when after bis death 
the business fell into the hands of his son; the house failed, and the 
family were left for a time with very limited resources. This son had 
married a Spanish lady of the name of Crespo y Neve, connected with 
the old Andalusian nobility; and Joseph Blanco White, commonly 
designated in Spain Don Jose Maria Blanco y Crespo, who was born at 
Seville, llth July 1775, was their son. : 

The commercial business of the family had been re-established after 
the bankruptcy, and Joseph was placed in the first instance in his 
father’s counting-house. When he was about twelve years old however 
his parents complied with his own desire of allowing him to be educated 
for the Church. In the end of the year 1799 he was ordained a priest. 
But a dislike to the profession he had thus chosen soon took possession 
ofhim. He came to England in March 1810, and spent the remainder 
of his life in this country. The same year he set up in Londona 
monthly periodical work in Spanish, entitled ‘ El Espafiol,’ which he 
carried on for nearly five years; and in 1814 upon its discontinuance 
the English government bestowed upon the editor a pension of 250/., 
which he enjoyed so long as he lived. About the same time he joined 
the Church of England, originally with the view of pursuing the 
clerical profession; but this intention he soon dropped. His religious 
creed after this gradually passed through various grades, from evan- 
gelicalism to unitarianism, then to rationalism, till at last it seems to 
have nearly evaporated into scepticism. He first made himself gene- 
rally known to English readers by a series of papers which he con- 
tributed in 1820 to the‘ New Monthly Magazine,’ under the title of 
‘Letters from Spain, by Don Leucadion Doblado, and which were 
afterwards extended and published separately in 1822. In the last- 
mentioned year he set up a second Spanish Journal, § Las Varie- 
dades,’ which was published quarterly, and continued for about three 
years. Other separate works followed, both in Spanish and English; 
those among the latter that attracted most attention being his ‘ Practical 
and Internal Evidence against Catholicism,’ 1825, and again 1826; 
‘The Poor Man’s Preservative against Popery,’ 1825, several times 
reprinted ; ‘Second Travels of an Irish Gentleman in search of a 
Religion,’ (in answer to Moore’s well known work) Dublin, 2 vols. 
12mo, 1833. He was also an occasional contributor to the ‘ Quarterly 
Review,’ to the ‘ London Review, established in 1829 (of which he was 
the editor for the six months that it lasted), to the ‘London and 


Westminster Review,’ to the ‘Journal of Edueation,’ to the ‘Dublin - 


University Review,’ and to the ‘ Christian Teacher.’ He resided occa- 
sionally at Oxford and Dublin as well as in London; and in 1839 he 
settled in Liverpool, where he continued till his death, which took 
place on the 20th of May, 1841. Of White's writings probably those 
that will last the longest are the papers which have been published 
since his death under the title of ‘The Life of the Reverend Joseph 
Blanco White, written by himself ; with portions of his correspondence ; 
edited by John Hamilton Thom,’ London, 3 vols. 8vo, 1845. 
WHITE, ROBERT, an English line and mezzotint engraver, born 
in London in 1645, He learnt drawing and etching of David Loggan, 
for whom he drew and engraved many buildings. He has engraved a 
large collection of English portraits, many of which were drawn 
by himself from the life in lead-pencil upon vellum, He drew also 
the heads of Sir Godfrey Kneller and his brother, which are engraved 
in Sandrart’s ‘Teutsche Academie,’ &c. Sir Godfrey painted White's 
portrait in return. White engraved the first Oxford Almanac in 1674, 


678 WHITEFIELD, REV. GEORGE. 


674 


WHITEFIELD, REV, GEORGE. 


He died in 1704, He was busily employed for forty years, and he had 
amassed about 5000/.; yet, says Walpole, by misfortune or waste he 
died indigent at last: in 1704 a printsellar however, in the Poultry, 
who purchased his plates, made a fortune in a short time. Walpole 
has given a list of about two hundred and fifty of White’s heads, and 
he acknowledges that it is not a complete catalogue of them. 

Grorer Warn, the son of Robert White, was also a clever mezzo- 
tint engraver and a painter. He was instructed by his father, and he 
completed some plates left unfinished by him at his death. He 
excelled his father in mezzotint, and the following heads in this style 
are very good:—the Duke of Ormond, Lord Clarendon, Sylvester 
Petyt, Sir Richard Blackmore, Colonel Blood, who stole the crown, 
and the notorious Jack Sheppard, after Sir James Thornhill. His last 
plate is dated 1731, and he probably died a few years later. 

WHITEFIELD, REV. GEORGE, the founder of one of the two 
great divisions of Methodism, was, as well as his fellow-labourer 
Wesley, of clerical lineage, although his immediate progenitors were of 
the laity. His great-grandfather, the Rev. Samuel Whitefield, was 
rector of North Ledyard in Wilts, and afterwards of Rockhampton in 
Gloucestershire ; in which latter charge he was succeeded by a son of 
the same name, who died without issue. Another of his sons, Andrew, 
_ probably his eldest, lived as a private gentleman on his estate. Thomas, 
the eldest son of this Andrew, was bred a wine-merchant, and followed 
- that business for some time in Bristol, where he married Miss Elizabeth 
Edwards, a lady respectably connected; but afterwards, having pro- 
bably been unfortunate, he transferred himself to Gloucester, and 
there took an inn. He and his wife, besides a daughter, had six sons, 
of whom George, the subject of the present notice, was the youngest. 
* T was born in Gloucestershire,” says Whitefield himself, “in the 
month of December, 1714. My father and mother kept the Bell Inn.” 
It appears from one of his letters that his birthday was the 16th of 
the month. 

His father died when he was two years old; but his mother, who 
continued to keep the inn, did her best, in the midst of declining 
circumstances, to bring him up creditably, having been used to say, 
even when he was an infant, that she expected more comfort from him 
than from any other of her children. ‘My mother,” says Whitefield, 
* was very careful of my education, and always kept me in my tender 
years (for which I can never sufficiently thank her) from intermeddling 
in the least with the tavern business.” He has painted the perversity 
of his youth in dark colours, but he appears to have been nothing 
more than a lively and somewhat mischievous and wilful boy, with far 
more promise of good in him than the reverse. Moreover, Whitefield 
is compelled to acknowledge that he had his occasional religious 
aspirations from his earliest years. He had always in fact a good and 
sensitive heart, and never was capable of any hardened or deliberate 
wickedness. Even when he took, as he says he did, the halfpence or 
other small change which his mother left carelessly in his way, he 
used to give part of the money, he tells us, to the poor. By the time 
he was ten years of age, too, he had formed the wish of entering the 
church. “I was always,” he says, “fond of being a clergyman, and 
used frequently to imitate the minister's reading prayers,” &c. Part of 
this ambition no doubt was inspired by the pleasure he had already 
begun to take in the exercise of his fine voice and power of declama- 
tion, which were among the greatest of his personal gifts. 

He was placed at the grammar-school of St. Mary de Crypt in his 
native city, when he was about twelve, and here he made considerable 
progress in Latin, distinguishing himself besides in delivering the 
speeches at the annual visits of the corporation, and also in acting 
(often in girl’s clothes) plays composed by the schoolmaster for the 
gratification of the magistrates. But after a time he got tired of this, 
“Before I was fifteen,” he proceeds, “having, as I thought, made 
sufficient progress in the classics, and at the bottom longing to be set 
at liberty from the confinement of a school,” he persuaded his mother 
not to let him learn Latin any longer. “‘ Hereupon, for some time I went 
to learn to write only. But my mother’s circumstances being much 
on the decline, and being tractable that way, I began to assist her 
occasionally in the public-house, till at length I put on my blue apron 
and my snuffers, washed mops, cleaned rooms, and in one word became 
professed and common drawer for nigh a year and a half.” After 
about a year, his eldest brother having married, his mother left the 
inn; and Whitefield, finding that he could not agree with his sister- 
in-law, followed his mother in a few months. But it appears that 
neither mother nor son had given up the idea of the latter yet making 
his way to the university. “ Having thus lived with my mother 
for some considerable time,” Whitefield goes on to state, “a young 
student, who was once my schoolfellow, and then a servitor of Pem- 
broke College, Oxford, came to pay my mother a visit. Amongst 
other conversation, he told her how he had discharged all college 
expenses that quarter, and saved a penny. Upon that my mother 
immediately cried out, ‘That will do for my son!’ Then, turning to 
me, she said, ‘ Will you go to Oxford, George?’ I replied, ‘ With all 
my heart.’ Whereupon, having the same friends that this young 
student had, my mother without delay waited on them. They pro- 
mised their interest to get me a servitor’s place in the same college.” 
The result was, that he went back to school, where, he states, he now 
spared no pains to get forward in his book; and that he was admitted 
a servitor of Pembroke College in 1733, Before he had left school, 

BOG, DIY. VOL. VI. 


the religious element in his character had been strongly developed. 
His own account is that for a twelvemonth he had gone on in a round 
of duties, “receiving the sacrament monthly, fasting frequently, 
attending constantly on public worship, and praying often more than 
twice a day in private.” He was thus in the fittest temper of mind 
for joining the Wesleys and their associates, who had been already 
for some years known in the University by the name of Methodists, 
and of whose proceedings he had heard before he came up. He was 
introduced to them after he had been about a year at college, and 
soon showed that he was to be outrun in zeal by no one. It had 
happened that, before he and the Wesleys met, Whitefield had been 
nourishing his devotional temperament by the same books to which 
they had devoted themselves—those of Thomas & Kempis, Scougal, 
and Law. 

Whitefield was ordairied deacon by Bishop Benson, of Gloucester, 
20th June 1736. Soon after, he returned to Oxford, and took his 
degree of B,A. From the first his preaching made an extraordinary 
impression, Even the doctrine he delivered was not so novel and 
arousing as the manner in which he delivered it. Such earnestness, 
such passionate enthusiasm, had not before been heard from the 
pulpit in England by that generation. But even this vehemence lay 
quite as much in the voice and action as in the language of the 
preacher, Whitefield’s voice, which is affirmed to have been so 
powerful as to be audible at the distance of a mile, appears by 
general testimony to have been in all other respects one of the most 
effective for the purposes of elocution ever possessed by man: capable 
of taking every various tone of emotion, and, whether poured forth 
in thunder or in softer music, making its way to the heart -with irre- 
sistible force and effect. Then he gesticulated, he stamped, he wept 
with a tempestuous abandonment to which the most successful efforts 
of the counterfeit passion of the stage seemed tame and poor. He 
first came up to London in 1737, to officiate for a time in the chapel 
of the Tower; but his first sermon in the metropolis was preached in 
Bishopsgate church. He then officiated for a few months as curate 
at Dummer, in Hampshire. While he was here he received from his 
friends the Wesleys, who were then in Georgia, in North America, an 
urgent invitation to follow them to that settlement. With this he 
immediately resolved to comply, but before leaving England he went 
to pay a farewell visit to his friends in Gloucester; and in that city 
and Bristol, and afterwards in London,’ he preached to such over- 
flowing audiences, and with such extraordinary effect, as made the 
whole country ring with his name. Breaking away however from all 
the inducements that were held out to keep him at home, he em- 
barked for Georgia on the 23rd of December. 1737, although it was 
not till the end of January following that, owing to contrary winds, 
the vessel got fairly under weigh, about the very time that the ship 
which brought Wesley back to England was getting into the port 
from which Whitefield had sailed. 

Whitefield remained in America till towards the close of the year. 
He then returned to England, mainly with the view of raising sub- 
scriptions for an orphan-house which he had established in Georgia, 
and which continued to be a principal object of attention with him 
during his life. Now began that course of preaching in association 
with Wesley, which may be said to have blown into a flame the 
sparks kindled by their previous separate exertions, and to have 
established Methodism as a popular faith, It was Whitefield who set 
the first example of preaching in the open air, which he did on the 
afternoon of Saturday, the 17th of February 1739, on Hannam Mount, 
at Rose Green, to the colliers of Kingswood, near Bristol. 

®rom this time forward his life was spent in incessant movement 
from place to place, and exercise of his wonderful power of exciting 
and swaying the feelings of all orders of persons by his peculiar pulpit 
oratory. He repeatedly revisited America, and traversed the whole 
extent of the British possessions there; when on this side of the 
Atlantic he generally made a yearly round through England and 
Scotland ; he was several times in Ireland; and in 1754, on one of 
his voyages to America, he spent a short time at Lisbon. To the end 
of his life his popularity as a preacher remained almost unimpaired ; 
multitudes, at least, continued to crowd to him whenever he appeared, 
and to hang with absorbed attention on his lips, although, as in the 
case of Wesley also, the more extravagant effects which his appeals 
had at first in many instances produced soon ceased to be commonly 
exhibited. Nor was it only the unlettered that he interested and 
delighted. It was in the year 1748 that he became known to Selina, 
countess of Huntingdon, who made him one of her chaplains. This 
connection introduced him to the highest circles both of rank and 
literature in the metropolis; and among his admirers and frequent 
hearers were now to be found not only numbers of court beauties and 
persons of both sexes of the first distinction in the world of fashion, but 
such men as Chesterfield, Bolingbroke, and Hume. So also in America 
he was listened to with wonder and complaceney by Benjamin Franklin. 

Whitefield and Wesley were in various respects very unlike one 
another, and, as is well known, they did not long continue to co-ope- 
rate. They quarrelled, so early as in 1741, about the great question 
of predestination; Wesley declaring for the Arminian theology, the 
milder nature of Whitefield, contrary to what might have been 
expected, standing up for the Calvinistic system of irresistible fate 


and eternal decrees of election and reprobation, They me came to 


an. WHITEHEAD, PAUL. 


WHITELOCKE, BULSTRODE,. 676 


ee upon this high matter; but the inflammation of feeling which 
their ditference at first excited on both sides soon cooled down, and 
although they never again acted in concert or association; their occa- 
gional intercourse was renewed long before they left the world. 
Whitefield, who felt that he was likely to go the first, always spoke of 
Wesley as the man who ought to preach his funeral sermon; and 
Wesley actually performed that office for his old friend. ¢ 

Whitefield lost his mother, in the seventy-first year of her age, in 
December 1751. While he was in America in the spring of 1740, he 
applied to two of his friends, a Mr. and Mrs. D. to ask if they would 
give him their daughter to wife, at the same time telling them that 
they need not be afraid of sending him a refusal; “ for I bless God,” 
said he in his singular epistle, “if I know anything of my own heart, 
-T am free from that foolish passion which the world calls love... . . 
But I have sometimes thought Miss E would be my helpmate; 
for she has often been impressed on my heart.” This attempt came | 
to nothing; but the next year, on the 11th of November, he was 
married in England ‘to Mrs. James of Abergavenny, a widow of 
between thirty and forty, who, he intimates, was neither rich nor 
beautiful, but had become religious after having once lived like the 
rest of the world. When his wife became pregnant, he announced 
publicly that the child would be a bey, and become a preacher of the 
gospel; he was right as to the sex, but the infant died at the end 
of four montls. His wife died in 1768; and one of his friends, 
Cornelius Winter, has recorded that Whitefield and she did not live 
happily together, that “she certainly did not behave as she ought,” and 
that “ her death set his mind much at rest.” . 

Whitefield himself, whose health had begun to give way about 1757, 
died at Newbury Port, near Boston, in America, on the morning of 
Sunday, the 30th of September 1770. His printed works, besides an 
edition of Clarke's ‘Commentary on the Bible,’ which he published in 
1759, consist principally of sermons, either printed from his own 
manuscripts or taken down by reporters as delivered ; of a few con- 
troversial tracts and other occasional pieces; of a copious journal of 
his life and labours, and of three volumes of letters, amounting to 
1465 in all, and extending over the time from July 18, 1784, to within 
a week of his death. A collection of his sermons, tracts and letters, 
in 6 vols. 8vo, was published at London in 1771: his journals, like 
Wesley, he published in his own lifetime; the second edition, with 
considerable corrections, appeared in 1756. 

WHITEHEAD, PAUL, was the youngest son of Edmund White- 
head, a tailor, of Castle Yard, Holborn, London, where he was born 
6th of February 1710, 0.8,, being St. Paul’s day, from which cireum- 
stance he is said to have derived his Christian name, ludicrously 
unsuitable to his character, and made more memorably ridiculous by 
his brother satirist Churchill’s well-known lines— 


‘* May I (can worse disgrace on manhood fall ?) 
Be born a Whitehead and baptised a Paul!’ 


On leaving school he was placed as apprentice to a mercer in the 
city ; but he afterwards found means, in what way is not explained, to 
escape from this position, and to enter himself at one of the inns of 
court as a student of the law. It does not appear that he was ever 
called to the bar; but in 1735 he obtained wherewithal to live in 
idleness, or without a profession, by marrying Anna, the only daughter 
of Sir Swinnerton Dyer, Bart., of Spain’s Hall, Essex, with whom he 
received a fortune of 10,0001. The lady, who did not live long, is 
stated to have been young, but very homely in her person and little 
better than an idiot. Two years before this he had published his 
first poem, entitled ‘State Dunces,’ a satire upon the ministry, which 
he inscribed to Pope, and which brought him both into notice with 
the public and into favour with the opposition, then headed by the 
Prince of Wales. This was followed, in 1739, by another piece, entitled 
‘Manners,’ in the same strain, but written with so much more daring 
that, on the motion of Lord Delawar, the author and his publisher, 
Dodsley, were ordered to attend at the bar of the House of Lords, 
and Whitehead found it necessary to abscond for a time. He was 
now, along with Ralph (upon whom he had poured unsparing abuse 
and contempt a few years before, in his ‘State Dunces’), a Dr. Thom- 
son, and others, one of the pack of literary lackeys kept about him 
by Bubb Dodington; and he distinguished himself by his zealous 
exertions in the cause of his patron, not only by his pen, but at elec- 
tions and in other ways. Besides ‘The Gymnasiad,’ a diatribe against 
boxing, which appeared in 1744, another satire against the govern- 
ment, entitled ‘ Honour,’ which he published about the same time, 
and ‘An Epistle to Dr. Thomson,’ in 1755, were the principal pro- 
ductions of this part of his life. Another of his patrons and boon 
associates was the notorious Sir Francis Dashwood, afterwards Lord 
de Despenser. Whitehead made one, with Dashwood, Sir Thomas 
Stapleton, Wilkes, and others, in the infamous revelries of Medmen- 
ham Abbey. In return Dashwood procured for him the household 
place of deputy treasurer of the chamber, which is said to have been 
worth 800/. a year, and which he held till his death. He spent his 
latter days at a villa which he erected on Twickenham Common; but 
he died at his lodgings in Henrietta-street, Covent-Garden, London, 
30th December 1774. His collected works—nearly all the veriest 
rubbish—were published, in a 4to volume in 1777, by Captain Edward 


Thomson, with a memoir of his life, 


WHITEHEAD, WILLIAM, was the son of a baker of Cambridge, 
where he was born in 1715. The interest of Mr. Bromley, afterwards 
Lord Montfort, who was one of the county members, procured him a 
nomination to Winchester; and after passing through that svhool, 
where he had been only two years when his father died, he was 
admitted a sizar at Clare Hall, Cambridge, in 1785, on one of the 
scholarships founded by Mr. Thomas Pyke, who had, like Whitchead’s 
father, been a baker in Cambridge, and had directed that they should 
be given in preference to the sons of deceased members of that trade. 
He was elected a Fellow of his college in 1742. In 1745 he became 
tutor to the son of William, third Earl of Jersey, and about a year 
after resigned his fellowship. In 1754 he went abroad with his pupil 
and Viscount Nuneham, the son of Earl Harcourt. After spending a 
summer at Rheims and a winter at Leipzig, they proceeded to View 
and thence to Italy, returning through Switzerland, Germany, and 
Holland, and reaching home in September 1756. During his absence 
from England, Whitehead had, by the interest of his patrons, been 
appointed to the patent place of secretary and registrar to the Order 
of the Bath; and the year after his return he was nominated to the 
office of poet laureate, vacant by the death of Colley Cibber. Both 
these offices he held till his own death, on the 14th of April 1788. 

Whitehead began very early to be known as a writer of verse; and 
his poems, consisting of epistles, tales, essays, odes, &c., were twice 
collected and printed under his own direction, first in 1754 and again 
in 1774: a third edition was published by Mason, with a memoir of 
the author, immediately after his death, in 1788; and they are also 
inserted in Chalmers’s edition of the ‘ English Poets,’ 21 vols. 8vo, 
1810. They are now however entirely neglected and forgotten. His 
most esteemed production is his tragedy of ‘The Roman Father’ 
(founded in part upon the ‘Horace’ of Corneille), which was first 
brought out at Drury Lane in 1750, and long continued a stock play. 
He is also the author of another tragedy called ‘Creusa, Queen of 
Athens,’ first produced in 1754; of ‘The School for Lovers,’ a comedy, 
in 1762; and of ‘A Trip to Scotland,’ a farce, brought out with con- 
siderable success in 1770. 

WHITELOCKE, BULSTRODE, was born August 2, 1605, in 
Fleet Street, London, the son of Sir James Whitelocke, who was a 
judge of the Common Pleas, by Elizabeth, the daughter of Edward 
Bulstrode. He was thus descended both by father and mother from 
wealthy families. He was educated at Merchant Taylors’ School in 


London, and in March 1620 was entered at St. Jolin’s College, Oxford, 


where Laud was then president, from whom he received kindness 
which occasioned him subsequently to refuse to be one of the com- 
missioners of the House of Commons appointed to draw up the 
charges against him. He quitted the university without taking a 
degree, and entered himself at the Middle Temple, where, under his 
father’s guidance, he acquired much skill in the common law, and made 
considerable progress in other studies. 
managers of the Royal Masque presented by the Temple to Charles I. 
and his court at Whitehall in 1633. In November 1640 he was elected 
member of the Long Parliament for Great Marlow in Buckingham- 
shire, in which county he had considerable property, and one of his 
earliest speeches was in defence of his father for having committed 
Selden to prison in 1626, when accused of too great boldness of 
speech in parliament. He was also appointed chairman of the com- 
mittee for managing the impeachment of the Earl of Strafford. He 
had thus early taken a decided part against the despotic measures of 
Charles I. and his ministers, but tolerance and moderation ever formed 
conspicuous traits in his character. He was an excellent specimen 
of the intelligent country gentleman, who, though fixedly determined 
not to submit to a tyranny, were yet unwilling to support violent 
measures, though often compelled to act with their party in matters 
they could not approve rather than break with them altogether. The 
support of such men was eagerly sought by the leading spirits of the 
party, but their influence was not sufficient to control the direction of 
the movement, In 1641, on the militia question Whitelocke con- 
tended that the power was neither vested in the parliament nor the 
king, but in both jointly. In 1642 he was appointed a deputy-lieute- 
nant of Bucks and Oxon, and in conjunction with Hampden dispersed 
the commissioners of array, assembled at Watlington. In October of 
this year his house at Fawley Court, in Buckinghamshire, was rifled 
by Prince Rupert, and garrisoned by the king's troo Whitelocke 
was present at the defence of Brentford in November 1642. In 
January 1642-43 he was appointed one of the commissioners to treat 
of peace at Oxford, and one of the lay members of the Assembly of 
Divines, in which he opposed the pretensions of the Presbyterians, 
and earnestly, but vainly, sought to bring about an accommodation 
with the king. In 1644 he. was made governor of Windsor Castle, 
and again, with Hollis and others, a commissioner to treat with the 
king at Oxford, where his desire for peace led him to make certain 
secret propositions to the king, which were revealed, and brought him 
into some danger. 
Kssex was about to bring accusations against Cromwell, he gave him 
an early intimation of it, and thenceforward had much of his con- 
fidence. In April 1645 he became one of the commissioners of the 
Admiralty, and caused the books and manuscripts at Whitehall to be 
removed and taken care of. He was one of the commissioners for the 
treaty of Uxbridge, and on August 6, 1645, supported in the House 


He was chosen one of the 


He opposed the self-denying ordinance, but when > 


ee ee 


Eo 


oe Se 


%¥ 


Fa 


677 . WHITELOCKE, BULSTRODE, 


WHITGIFT, JOHN, ARCHBISHOP. 678 


of Commons the acceptance of the king’s propositions. In June 
1646 he was one of Fairfax’s council of the siege of Oxford, and urged 
that honourable terms should be offered, in order to avoid damaging 
the university buildings. In December 1646 he supported the ordi- 
nances for taking away the arbitrary power of both Houses of par- 
liament, and opposed the disbanding of the army. In 1647-48 he 
withdrew for a time from the House in order to avoid being called on 
to act as Speaker. In March 1647-48 he was appointed one of the 
commissioners of the Great Seal. Shortly after the purging of the 
House of Commons by Cromwell and the soldiers, on December 6, 
1648, “‘a sad and most disorderly day” as he himself calls it, though 
not expelled, he retired. He had been named one of the membersto 
draw up the charges against Charles, but declined the commission, 
* being resolved to avoid meddling in that bad business . . .. it being 
contrary to his judgment, as he himself declared in the House.” This 
is his own statement in his ‘ Memorials,’ and it marks the character of 
the man, too conscientious to do what he thought wrong, but without 
sufficient vigour of mind to oppose himself against a powerful party 
with whom he had many feelings in common. ‘Though he refused to 
take any part in the proceedings of the High Court of Justice, he had 
frequent and free conferences with Cromwell. In February 1648-49 


- he declared in the House his disapprobation of the proceedings on the 


king’s trial, but was within a few days ordered to draw up a bill for 


- abolishing the House of Lords, and was made one of the commis- 


sioners of the Great Seal, both of which he wished to decline, but 
was not allowed. While in this office he rescued the royal library 
and the medals at St. James’s from being sold, and provided for their 
safe keeping. In 1650 he was at the head of a commission to consoli- 
date the statute laws. In Dec.{1651 he proposed in the House that 
terms should be made with the Prince of Wales or Duke of York, 
and in November 1652 urged the same course on Cromwell, who, he 
says, thereupon began to look cool upon him, and would have sent him 
as commissioner to Ireland, but he refused to go. On April 20, 1653, 
he unsuccessfully opposed the dissolution of the parliament, and Crom- 
well, offended, did not name him to his first parliament. In Septem- 
ber 1653 however he was appointed ambassador to Queen Christina of 
Sweden, of which embassy he left an interesting account. As ambas- 
sador he resolutely maintained the dignity of his country, and insisted 
successfully on all the outward marks of respect paid to the ambas- 
sadors of the sovereigns of Europe. He was not a man to succumb 
to outward dignity or even physical danger; it was the influence of 
genius only that kept his powers in subordination. He returned in 
June 1654, having concluded a satisfactory treaty, and in August he 
was elected member for Buckinghamshire in Cromwell’s second parlia- 
ment, but on its dissolution, and the issue of an ordinance by the 
Protector for regulating the jurisdiction of the chancery courts he 
resigned the Great Seal, and was made a commissioner of the treasury. 
Though Cromwell knew that Whitelocke did not approve of his 
present policy, he had much confidence in his truthfulness, honesty, 
and good sense, and therefore frequently consulted him on important. 
matters. Whitelocke recommended him to govern by means of par- 
liaments, which advice, though he could not resolve upon adopting it 
to its full extent, gave no offence, and Whitelocke was appointed one 
of the council of trade, and to negociate a treaty with the Swedish 
ambassador in England, In the third parliament he acted as Speaker 
during Sir J. Widdrington’s illness, and as one of a deputation from 
the House urged Cromwell to take the title of king; but he attended 
his inauguration as Protector in June 1657, with the Speaker and 
others investing him with the purple velvet robes, and riding in one 
of the boots of the state coach with the Protector’s son, Richard. 
Shortly afterwards he applied for the provostship of Eton College, 
then vacant by the death of Dr. Rouse, but not receiving it he retired 
to private life for a while. In December 1657 he was appointed one 
of the Lords of the Other House, and again advised the Protector 
against the frequent dissolutions of parliament. In April 1658 he was 
appointed one of the commissioners of the High Court of Justice for 
the trial of Dr. Hewett for high treason, though he had previously 
advised Cromwell to have recourse to the common law courts, and he 
therefore refused to act. These instances of opposition did not 
altogether lose him the esteem of the Protector, one of whose latest 
acts was to create Whitelocke a Viscount on August 21, which title 
he declined to accept, and on September 3, Cromwell died. Richard, 
in January, made him one of the commissioners of the Great Seal, and 


' consulted him about dissolving parliament, the judiciousness of which 


measure Whitelocke doubted. When the Council of Officers displaced 
Richard, Whitelocke’s office ceased, but he was named one of the 
Council of State on May 13, and as its president took successful 
measures for repressing the insurrection of Sir George Booth. He 
joined in an engagement to renounce the title of the house of Stuart, 
or the government of a single person, and he brought a bill before 
parliament for effecting a Union with Scotland. General Monk, then 
in Scotland, sent him an invitation to repair thither, but he declined, 
and continued to support the government until the remains of the 
Long Parliament being reassembled on December 26, 1659, he found 
that he was in danger. He therefore sent the Great Seal by his wife 
to Lenthal, the Speaker, and retired into the country, though it would 
appear from Lord Campbell’s ‘Lives of the Chancellors’ that he pro- 


posed carrying the Great Seal to Breda, and would have done so but 


for the timidity of Fleetwood. On the Restoration a small majority 
in the House of Commons inserted his name in the Act of Pardon 
and Oblivion. He retired to his estate of Chilton in Wiltshire, that 
at Fawley Court having being rendered uninhabitable by the royal 
troops, where he lived for fifteen years, dying on January 28, 1676, 
He left a number of manuscripts, of which ‘ Memorials of the English 
Affairs from the beginning of the reign of King Charles the First to 
the Happy Restoration of King Charles the Second,’ was printed 
in 1682, again in 1732 with many additions, reprinted at Oxford in 
4 yolumes in 1853, and is a valuable contribution to the history of the 
period. His ‘ Journal of the Swedish Embassy in 1653 and 1654 from 
the Commonwealth of England, —a most interesting work—was first 
published in 1772, and was again printed in 1855, carefully edited by 
A. Reeve. In 1709 was published ‘Memorials of the English Affairs 
from the supposed Expedition of Brute to this Island, to the end of 
the reign of King James the First, published from his original manu- 
script, with some account of his life and writings, by W. Penn, Esq. 
governor of Pennsylvania, and a preface by James Welwood, M.D,’ 
Several of his speeches are reported in his ‘ Memorials, and elsewhere. 

WHITGIFT, JOHN, ARCHBISHOP, the third primate of the 
Protestant Church of England after the Reformation, in the reign of 
Queen Elizabeth, was distinguished for his learning and for his zeal on 
behalf of the new establishment. He was the son of a merchant at 
Great Grimsby in Lincolnshire, where he was born in 1530. He was 
entrusted at an early age to the care of his uncle, Robert Whitgift, the 
abbot of a monastery of Black Canons dedicated to St. Augustine, at 
Wellow, or Welhove juxta Grimsby. To this circumstance the decided 
and consistent character of Whitgift’s religious views may be chiefly 
attributed ; for the abbot had predicted the downfall of the Roman 
Catholic Church, on account of its corruptions, some years before the 
Reformation, and had often been heard to say “that he had read the 
Holy Scriptures over and over, but could never find there that their 
religion was founded by God.” The mind of his pupil was therefore 
prepared at an early age to approve and hold fast to the doctrines of 
the Reformation, which were then rapidly spreading both in Germany 
and in England. After studying for some years with his uncle, young 
Whitgift was sent by him to an eminent school belonging to St. 
Anthony’s, a religious house, situated between Broad-street and 
Threadneedle-street, London. While at this school he lodged with his 
aunt in St. Paul’s Churchyard, a staunch Roman Catholic, to whom he 
gave great offence by his aversion to the ceremonies of the church. 
She in vain endeavoured to persuade him to accompany her to St. 
Paul’s and attend at mass, and at last determined to keep him no 
longer under her roof. On sending him home to his father in the 
country, she said “ that she thought at first that she had received a 
saint into her house, and now she perceived he was a devil.’’ In 1584 
he was sent to the University of Cambridge, where he was entered at 
Queen’s College. Thence he soon removed to Pembroke Hall, which 
had a more Protestant character, Bishop Ridley being the master, and 
Bradford (the martyr) and Grindal, fellows of that college. 

In 1554 he commenced Bachelor of Arts, and in the following year 
was elected Fellow of Peter-house. At this college he formed a strong 
attachment to the master, Dr. Andrew Perne, to whom he was indebted 
for much kindness and protection, which he never forgot. As he had 
pursued his studies at Cambridge in the reign of Edward VI., when 
the Protestant faith had been encouraged and protected, he made no 
secret of his opinions; but on the accession of Queen Mary he found 
himself, in common with other members of that university, in serious 
danger. Cardinal Pole, then archbishop of Canterbury, and the pope's 
legate, ordered a visitation of the university, and, in 1557, sent com- 
missioners to Cambridge to extirpate the Reformed religion, and to 
censure and punish its professors. Whitgift was so much alarmed at 
this visitation, that he had determined to escape it by quitting the 
university and going abroad. He was fortunately dissuaded from this 
intention by Dr. Perne, who contrived to screen him from the search 
of the visitors. His fears however were not exaggerated, for not only 
the public opinions and characters of men were canvassed, but their 
very books for private study were searched out, and, if deemed here- 
tical, were burned in the market-place. The bigotry of the visitors 
was displayed by digging up the dead bodies of Bucer and Fagius, 
and burning them in the market-place: and Whitgift had good reason 
to be grateful for his impunity. In this perilous year he took his 
degree of Master of Arts, and during the remainder of Queen Mary’s 
reign he continued his studies at the university, maintaining a cautious 
reserve as to his religious views. The accession of Elizabeth opened 
to him the happy prospect of preaching the gospel conscientiously, as 
a minister of the Protestant Reformed Church of England, and in 
1560 he entered into holy orders, and preached before the university 
at St. Mary’s. He continued his residence at Cambridge for upwards 
of fifteen years, being distinguished for his learning and talents, and 
holding many high offices and preferments. His lectures as the Lady 
Margaret’s professor of divinity obtained him much distinction. In 
1567 he was chosen master of Pembroke Hall, but only remained in 
that situation for three months; for his fame as a preacher having 
obtained him the honour of preaching before the queen, he acquitted 
himself so well that she made him her chaplain, and shortly afterwards 
master of Trinity College, Cambridge. In the same year also he took 
the degree of D.D., and succeeded Dr, Hutton as Regius Professor of 


679 WHITGIFT, JOHN, ARCHBISHOP. 


WHITGIFT, JOHN, ARCHBISHOP, 650 


Divinity. In 1568 the bishop of Ely, Dr, Cox, whose chaplain he had 
been for some time, conferred upon him a prebend in his cathedral, 

Meanwhile Dr. Whitgift was taking an active part in the government 
of the university, for which purpose he drew up, with the vice-chan- 
cellor and sonie of the heads of colleges, a body of new statutes. He 
was very strict in enforcing discipline and close conformity with the 
Established Church; and his activity in restraining any laxity of 
doctrine or practice in the university, while it brought him into much 
contention and raised him many enemies, may be regarded as the 
main cause of his future advancement in the Church. Mr. Cartwright, 
the Lady Margaret’s professor of divinity, having in his letters attacked 
episcopacy, the Church Liturgy, and other institutions settled at the 
Reformation, Dr. Whitgift challenged him to a public disputation, 
which was refused by him; and while the judicial proceedings against 
Cartwright were pending, which ended in his expulsion, he wrote an 
elaborate confutation of these schismatic opinions, and laid it before 
Archbishop Parker. In 1571 he filled the office of vice-chancellor to 
the university, and in the following year was elected prolocutor of the 
Lower House of Convocation. At this time a book was published, 
called ‘An Admonition to the Parliament,’ being a violent attack 
upon the entire constitution of the Reformed Church, its sacraments, 
its Liturgy, its dignitaries, and ministers. It was looked upon by the 
whole church as a most dangerous book, and Dr. Parker, then arch- 
bishop of Canterbury, who had already bad many opportunities of 
judging of Whitgift’s zeal and capacity, desired him to undertake an 
answer. This he accordingly did, under the immediate inspection and 
with the constant advice and assistance of the archbishop. His 
answer was published in the same year as the Admonition, and was 
an able work, of great learning, and evincing much skill in controversy. 
He treated the doctrines of his opponents with severity, but in a 
manner temperate, dignified, and lofty; and in his vindication of the 
compilers of the Liturgy, and other eminent churchmen who had been 
assailed in the Admonition, his zealous and reverential feelings are 
“expressed in a tone of worthy eloquence. The Admonition kad been 
supported by other pamphlets, to all of which Dr. Whitgift addressed 
replies in his Answer to the Admonition, Cartwright, who had now 
been expelled from the university, published a reply to Dr. Whitgift’s 
Answer to the Admonition, to which Whitgift prepared a Defence. 
His labours in this controversy met with the approbation of all those 
who were well affected to the Established Church, and obtained for 
him the deanery of Lincoln from the queen. Nor did his preferment 
rest here long, for on a vacancy occuring in the see of Worcester in 
1576, he was appointed to be bishop of that diocese. 

Here also his activity and zeal were conspicuous. His diocese was 
very full of Roman Catholics, at a time when their discovery and 
punishment were enjoined as the duty of the Church and the civil 
magistrate. He now acted in both capacities, having been appointed 
vice-president of the Marches of Wales in the absence of Sir Henry 
Sydney, the lord-president, then lord-lieutenant of Ireland. He 
exerted himself to repress the papacy on the one hand, and dissent or 
Puritanism on the other, and repeatedly obtained the thanks of the 
Privy Council for his success. At the same time he protected the 
rights and interests of the clergy of his diocese. The strictness of his 
orthodoxy and the severity of his discipline were displayed at a time 
most favourable for his future promotion. Grindal, then archbishop 
of Canterbury, had given great offence to the queen by his leniency to 
schismatics, and at length, on refusing to obey the queen’s orders in 
suppressing prophesyings (or meetings of the clergy for worship and 
the discussion of religious subjects in private houses), he was sus- 
pended from his office by the Star Chamber, and confined to his own 
house. Grindal, a meek and timid man, was anxious to’ resign at 
once his office and its cares; and Elizabeth offered the archbishopric 
to Whitgift, which he however declined to accept during the life of 
Grindal. That prelate soon ‘afterwards died, and in 1583 Whitgift 
succeeded him. 

The queen’s zeal for orthodoxy was now at its height, and the new 
archbishop lost no time in proving his determination to enforce con- 
formity. He immediately required all the clergy to subscribe to three 
articles before they were permitted to execute any ecclesiastical 
function, viz.:—1, That the queen was the supreme head of the 
church; 2, That the Ordinal and Book of Common Prayer contained 
nothing that is contrary to the Word of God; and 3, That the Thirty- 
nine Articles were to be admitted as agreeable to the Holy Scriptures, 
He suspended all the clergy who refused to subscribe to these articles, 
introduced greater strictness in the admission to holy orders, and 
exacted compliance with all the forms and ceremonies of the Church. 
He also obtained from the queen a new ecclesiastical commission, with 
greater powers than any of the preceding commissions—which he 
never flinched from exercising. Henceforward, from his high station 
in the Church and his personal influence with the queen and her 
councillors, his biography may be said to be the ecclesiastical history 
of England during the remainder of the reign of Queen Elizabeth. 
Religious persecution was the spirit of that age, and though cruelty 
does not appear to have been part of Whitgift’s character, he was a 
stern disciplinarian—inflexible in his principles, and resolute in their 
application, Doubt was unknown to him, and he would not allow it 
in others. With this strong conviction of right, he regarded all dis- 
sentients as obstinate schismatics unwilling to be conyinced of their 


errors, and therefore deserving of punishment. His chief object how- 
ever was to exclude nonconformists from the Church, rather than to 
seek out and punish heretics, To this duty he repeatedly affirmed that 
“her majesty moved and earnestly exhorted him, with strait charge, 
as he would answer the contrary ;” and he would listen to no solicita- 
tion to bend him from his purpose. Having heard of threats against 
his person, he writes to Lord Burghley, “ And if there be no other 
remedy, I am content to be sacrificed in so good a cause: which I will 
never betray, nor give over; God, her majesty, the laws, my own 
conscience, and duty, being with me.” The Lord Treasurer Burghley, 
who had always been his firm friend, often expressed his disapproba- 
tion of Whitgift’s severity, and contended wisely, as well as humanely, 
that the ministers of the Church ought not to be questioned upon 
minute points of doctrine, unless they were “notorious offenders in 


papistry and heresy,” and “wished that the spirit of gentleness 


might win, rather than severity ;” yet in spite of the remonstrances 
of that great man, and even of the council, Whitgift persisted in 
maintaining an inquisition in the Church which drove many pious 
men into dissent. 

Whether convinced of the evils of such inquisition, or at len 
overcome by the persuasion of others, we find him, in-1585, assenting 
to the advice of Secretary Walsingham, and agreeing to require sub- 
scription of those only who were hereafter to enter into livings or the 
ministry, leaving unmolested the clergy already in the enjoyment of 
benefices, provided they read the Book of Common Prayer according to 
the appointed ritual. 

In order to secure uniformity of opinion, he obtained from the 
court of Star Chamber, of which he was a member, a decree to restrain 
the liberty of the press. By this decree, of June 23, 1585, no printing- 
presses were allowed anywhere but in London, Oxford, and Cam- 
bridge; the number of these was to be settled by the archbishop and 
bishop of London: no book was suffered to be printed without 
having been perused by them, and all persons selling, uttering, 
or even binding unauthorised books were liable to three months’ 
imprisonment. 

Notwithstanding the strictness of Whitgift’s views in matters of 
ecclesiastical discipline, his natural character was free from harshness 
or severity. He earnestly besought the queen to pardon Udal, and 
others condemned to die for their sedition ; and for the dismission of 
Cartwright and other contentious ministers from the Star Chamber, 
His integrity, his piety, and his learning, gained the esteem of the best 
men of his time, and the respect of his most decided opponents. His 
respect for learning and learned men was evinced on various occasions, 
Hooker dedicated his ‘ Hcelesiastical Polity’ to the archbishop, not 
only on account of his high office in the Church, but in gratitude for 
previous favours and encouragement; and the learned antiquary Stow 
dedicated to him his ‘Annals’ in 1600, and said, “that his grace’s 
great love and affection to all good studies in general, and to antiquities 
in particular, had been so singular, that all who liked and loved good 
studies justly esteemed him their principal and gracious patron.” 

The archbishop always took a lively interest in the management of 
public charities, and contributed munificently to their foundation and 
support. In 1584 he restored the ancient hospital of Eastbridge, for 
the relief of the poor, in the city of Canterbury, enlarged its endow- 
ments, and placed it upon an improved foundation, He also built 
and endowed, entirely from his own revenues, an hospital, free-school, 
and chapel at Croydon in Surrey, the completion of which was accom- 
plished during his own life-time. His liberality gaye rise to exaggerated 
accounts of his wealth and the revenues of his see; to correct which 
the archbishop drew up an exact statement of all his purchases and of 
the yearly income of the archbishopric. His steward also stated in 
the House of Commons, about the same time, that the net income of 
the archbishop did not exceed 22007. 

On the death of Queen Elizabeth Whitgift was afraid lest King 
James should make alterations in the government and Liturgy of the 
Church ; and in order to conciliate him he deputed Dr. Nevyl, dean 
of. Canterbury, to wait upon his majesty in Scotland, and to recom- 
mend the Church of England to his favour and protection. The 
king’s answer was favourable to the stability of the Church; but the 
tenor of Whitgift’s correspondence from this time shows him to have 
been in continual apprehension of change. In October 1603, the king 
issued a proclamation for a conference of the clergy upon the state of 
the Church. In the January following this conference was held, in 
which the archbishop took a prominent part in explaining and defend- 
ing before the king the doctrines and practices of the Church, The 
result was a commission to the archbishop ‘and to certain bishops and 
lords of the council for the regulation of matters in the Church. The 
most important subjects submitted to them were, “that care be taken 
that one uniform translation of the Bible be printed, and read in the 
Church, and that without any notes;” and “that consideration be had 
what chapters both of the Apocrypha and Canonical Scripture, are 
meetest to be read in churches. Whitgift hotvever did not live to 
assist in the consultations of this commission. Soon after the con- 
ference, he caught cold while sailing to Fulham in his barge, and on 
the following Sunday, after a long interview with the king, he was 
seized with a fit, which ended in an attack of palsy and loss of speech. 
The king visited him at Lambeth, and told him “that he would pray 
for his life; and that if he could obtain it he should think it one of the 


Sel ee 


oe ee OOo 


~~ 


eS ee 


a 


il a i le a les 


WW 


1501, probably in London. 


631 WHITTINGTON, ROBERT. 


WICQUEFORT, ABRAHAM DE. 682 


greatest temporal blessings that could be given him in his kingdom.” 
He died on the 29th of February 1603-4, in the seventy-third year of 
his age, and was buried in the parish church of Croydon. 

(Strype’s Life and Acts of John Whitgift, D.D.; Life of Whitgift, 
by Sir George Paule, 8vo, 1699; Fuller's Church History of Britain.) 

WHITTINGTON, ROBERT, is the author of several grammatical 
treatises which were long used in the schools, and of which the fullest 
account is given in Dibdin’s edition of Ames’s ‘Typographical Anti- 
quities.’ He calls himself on the title-pages a native of Lichfield 
(Lichfeldiensis), and he appears to have been born there about 1480. 
He was educated by the eminent grammarian John Stanbridge, in the 
school then attached to Magdalen College, Oxford; and, after having 
taken priest’s orders, he set up a grammar-school of his own about 
All that is known of the rest of his 
history is that he was alive in 1530. But, besides his school-books, 
Whittington wrote also Latin verse with very superior elegance; and 
he is remembered in modern times principally as the last person who 
was made poet laureate (poeta lawreatus) at Oxford. This honour he 
obtained in 1513, on his petition to the congregation of regents of the 
university, setting forth that he had then spent fourteen years in 
studying and twelve in teaching the art of grammar (which was 


“understood to include rhetoric and poetry or versification), and 


praying that he might be laureated, or graduated, in the said art. 


- These academical graduations in grammar, on occasion of which, as 


Warton states, ‘‘a wreath of laurel was presented to the new graduate, 
who was afterwards usually styled poeta lawreatus,”’ are supposed to 
have given rise to the appellation as applied to the king's poet, origi- 
nally styled the king's versifier (versificator), who seems to have been 
merely a graduated grammarian or rhetorician employed in the service 
of the king. Whittington, as had been customary, on obtaining his 
laureateship, composed a hundred Latin verses, which were published 
by being stuck up on the great gates of St. Mary’s church. After this 
he used to style himself on his title-pages not only master of grammar 
(grammatices magister), but chief poet of England (protovates Anglic). 
The title however conferred no academical rank, and it is known that 
Whittington was afterwards admitted to the degree of Master of Arts. 
Whittington’s Latin verse has been highly praised. Of his ‘ Epigram- 
mata’ (printed by De Worde in 1519, and of the greatest rarity), being 
long addresses to Charles Brandon, duke of Suffolk, Sir Thomas More, 
and the poet Skelton (who, like himself, had been made poeta lawreatus 
at Oxford in 1489), Warton says, “Some of the lines are in a very 
classical style, and much in the manner of the earlier Latin Italian 
poets.” (* Hist. of Eng. Poet.,’ ii, 441, &c.) : 

_ WHITWORTH, the name of an ancient Staffordshire family, which 
has produced two diplomatists of some note. 

CuarLes WuitwortH, eldest son of Richard Whitworth, of Blower- 
pipe in Staffordshire, was born at Aldbaston about the time of the 
Revolution, and died in 1725, at London. He was an attaché of Mr. 
Stepney at several courts, and in 1702 was himself appointed resident 
to the Diet at Ratisbonne. In 1704 he was named envoy to the court 
of Russia; and in 1710 he was again sent to that court with the title 


_ of ambassador extraordinary, to propitiate Peter the Great, irritated 


by the arrest of his ambassador in the public streets of London at the 
suit of some tradesman. Whitworth was subsequently—plenipoten- 
tiary to the Diet of Augsburg and Ratisbonne in 1714 ; envoy extra- 
ordinary and plenipotentiary to the King of Prussia in 1716; envoy 
extraordinary to the Hague in 1717; again plenipotentiary at Berlin 
in 1719; and representative of Great Britain in the character of 
ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary at the congress of Cam- 
bray in 1722. He was created Baron Whitworth of Galway in 1721 
by George I. Lord Whitworth retired into private life in 1724, and 
died in the ensuing year, without issue. His ‘ Account of Russia as it 
was in the year 1710’ came into the hands of Horace Walpole, and 
was printed by him at the Shrewsbury press. In the preface Walpole 
mentions that many volumes of Lord Whitworth’s state letters and 
papers were in the possession of his relations. 

CHARLES WHITWORTH, grandson of Francis, a younger brother of 
the preceding, who was M.P. for Minehead in Somersetshire, surveyor- 
general of the woods and forests, and secretary of the island of Barba- 
dos, was born at Leybourne in Kent in 1754. His father, Sir Charles 
(also M.P. for Minehead), sent him to be educated at Tunbridge school, 
and on his leaving that place procured him a commission in the Guards. 
How he came to exchange the military for the diplomatic service does 
not appear, but in 1786 we find him sent to the court of Poland as 
minister plenipotentiary. 

In 1788 Whitworth was sent as envoy extraordinary and minister 
plenipotentiary to Russia, where he remained till 1806. Whitworth 
acquired and retained to the last a marked ascendancy over the 
councils of the ezarina Catherine II. After her death (February 1795) 
his troubles began. Paul I., resolute to undo everything that his 
mother had done, refused to ratify the treaty she had concluded with 
England immediately before her death. The patience and address of 
Whitworth were however at last successful : in 1797 Paul ratified a 
treaty of commerce with England. In December 1797 Whitworth 
signed a provisional treaty by which the Czar agreed to take part in 
the coalition against France; and in June 1799 a definitive treaty to 
the same effect. At this time the English minister stood so high in 
the good graces of the wayward emperor that Paul requested 


George III. to create him a peer (he had received the ribbon of the 
Bath in 1793). The request was complied with, but by the time the 
despatch announcing that he had been created an Irish baron arrived, 
Paul had quarrelled with Whitworth, and ordered him to quit his 
dominions, 

In 1800 Lord Whitworth was sent to Copenhagen to terminate 
amicably the differences arising out of the capture of the Danish 
frigate Freya and her convoy by English men-of-war. He concluded 
a convention with Count Bernstorff on the 29th of August, On the 
7th of April 1801 he married the Duchess-Dowager of Dorset, and 
remained unemployed till the latter end of 1802, when, having been 
previously sworn a privy councillor, he was appointed ambassador 
extraordinary and plenipotentiary to the French government. He 
remained at Paris till the 13th of May 1803. Little was effected or 
could be effected by this mission: the struggle between Bonaparte 
and England had already become a struggle of life or death, and both 
parties felt it, The most striking incident during Lord Whitworth’s 
embassy was the rude reception he experienced from Bonaparte in full 
court at the Tuileries, 

Lord Whitworth did not after his return from Paris hold any diplo- 
matic appointment; although a tour which he made to Paris and 
Naples in 1819, with the Duchess of Dorset and a numerous and 
rather ostentatious suite, gave rise to some gossip about secret missions. 
When the country was threatened with invasion from France he raised 
and clothed a battalion of infantry composed of 600 men. In March 
1813 he was made a lord of the bedchamber; on the 14th of June 
following he was created a British peer by the title of Viscount Whit- 
worth of Aldbaston; and in August he succeeded the Duke of Rich- 
mond as viceroy of Ireland. In January 1815, on the enlargement of 
the order of the Bath, he was made one of the twelve civil knights 
grand-crosses; and_in November he was advanced to the dignity of 
Baron Aldbaston and Earl Whitworth. He resigned the lieutenancy 
of Ireland in 1817, and was succeeded by Earl Talbot.. He died (with- 
out issue) on the 13th of May 1825. 

WICHMANN, JOHANN ERNEST, physician, was born at Hanover 
on the 10th of May 1740. After having received his early education 
at the Lyceum of Breme, he went in 1759 to Gottingen, and com- 
menced the study of medicine under Brendel. He graduated in 1762, 
and presented as his thesis a paper on the use of certain poisons in the 
treatment of the bites of rabid animals. After graduating he visited 
Paris and- London. This journey had a great influence on his future 
career. The influence of English practice on his views became remark- 
able in his writings, which are free from much of the speculation 
with which German writers abound. He returned to Hanover in 
1764, and commenced practice. It was not long before his merits 
were recognised, and on the death of Weilhoff he was appointed 
court-physician. Wichmann published several works on various 
departments of medicine, the most remarkable of which is his ‘Ideen 
zur Diagnostic,’ published at Hanover in 1794, in 3 vols. 8vo, This 
work went through several editions, and is possessed of great practical 
merit. He wrote several other smaller works on various diseases and 
their treatment, which were all published at Hanover. He died on 
the 12th of June 1804. 

WICKLIFFE, or WICLIF. [Wvyctirre.] 

WICQUEFORT, ABRAHAM DE, was a native of Holland, and was 
born, it is commonly stated, at Amsterdam, in 1598; but he early left 
his country and took up his residence in France. In 1626 he was 
appointed by the elector of Brandenburg his resident at the French 
court; and he held that post till 1658, when, at the instance of 
Cardinal Mazarin, he was arrested by a lettre-de-cachet, and thrown 
into the Bastile, on a charge of sending secret intelligence to the 
government of the United Provinces, and also of being a spy in the 
pay of other foreign governments. He remained in confinement fora 
year, and was then released and ordered to leave France. On this he 
passed over to England, and thence returned to his native country, 
where the Pensionary De Witt, with whom he had in fact carried on a 
clandestine correspondence, procured him the appointment of histo- 
riographer to the States, or, according to other accounts, of secretary- 
interpreter for foreign despatches. Possibly he held both these offices, 
or they may have formed only one office. At the same time the duke 
of Brunswick-Liinenburg appointed him his resident at the Hague. It 
was De Wicquefort’s ill fortune however to fall a second time under ~ 
the suspicion of betraying his trust; in March 1676, he was arrested 
and placed in confinement at the Hague, on the charge of holding 
secret correspondence with the enemies of the States, and in November 
following was condemned to perpetual imprisonment and to the 
forfeiture of all his effects. He remained in custody till 1679, when he 
effected his escape by exchanging clothes with one of his daughters, 
and took refuge at the court of the Duke of Zell. Quarrelling however 
with that prince because he would not exert himself with more zeal to 
procure the reversion of the sentence passed upon him by the Dutch 
government, he left him in 1681, and is supposed to have died the 
year after, 

In that age of profligate policy De Wicquefort was in much request 
for his dexterity and accomplishments (and the more perhaps from the 
belief of his unscrupulousness and want of principle); but he seems to 
have enjoyed no reputation on any other account. He is respectably 
known however in a literary capacity. His first publication appears to 


683 WIDNMANN, MAX. 


WIELAND, CHRISTOPH MARTIN. 


have been a translation into French from the German of the travels 
into Muscovy, Tartary, and Persia of Adam Olearius, ‘Relation du 
Voyage de Moscovie,’ &c., which appeared at Paris, in 4to, in 1656, 
again at Paris, in 2 vols. 4to, in 1659, and in a third edition, which is 
by far the best, at Amsterdam, in folio, in 1726. This was followed 
by a translation into French from the Spanish of the embassy of 
Garcias de Silva into Persia, ‘L’Ambassade de D, Garcias de Silva 
Figueroaen Perse,’ &c., Paris, 4to, 1667. After his imprisonment at 
the Hague he published at Cologne, in 12mo, a defence of himself 
under the title of ‘Mémoires touchant les Ambassadeurs, &c. par 
L. M. P.’ (meaning, it seems, ‘ Le Ministre Prisonnier’), But his two 
principal works are his treatise entitled ‘L’Ambassadeur et ses Fone- 
tions,’ first published at the Hague in 2 vols. 4to, in 1681, and sub- 
sequently at Amsterdam, in 1724, in 1733, and in 1736; and his 
* Histoire des Provinces Unies,’ or ‘ History of the United Provinces 
from the peace of Miinster,’ which he began to write on his return to 
Holland, in 1659, under the inspection of De Witt. He had both 
written and printed a considerable portion of this latter work when he 
was thrown into prison in 1676; but it was first published in a folio 
volume at the Hague, in 1719. Another posthumous work of De 
Wicquefort, entitled ‘Mémoires sur le Rang et la Preséance entre 
les Souverains de )’Europe,’ was published at Amsterdam; in 4to, 
in 1746. 

* WIDNMANN, MAX, professor of sculpture in the Royal Academy 
of Art at Munich, was born in 1812, at Eichstadt in Bavaria; received 
his early education in the gymnasium of that town; and while still a 
youth, entered as a student in the Royal Academy at Munich. There 
he studied sculpture under Schwanthaler, whose assistant he became ; 
but he also produced several independent works—among them a 
statue of ‘Ajax,’ anda group of ‘Samson and Delilah.’ In 1836 he 
went to Rome, where he remained three years, and whilst there pro- 
duced his Shield of Hercules, from the description of Hesiod—a 
work which gained him a high reputation. After his return to Munich, 
he executed among other things a group of ‘Apollo and Coronis ; 
several bas-reliefs ; a marble'statue of the statesman Johann Von 
Miindel; and one of General Von Heydeck ; as well as several busts 
for the Ruhmershalle at Munich ; and he steadily rose to be one of the 
first artists in the German metropolis of art. On the death of Schwan- 
thaler, in 1848, he was accordingly appointed to succeed him as pro- 
fessor of sculpture in the Academy. He has since produced, among 
other works, colossal statues of the musical composers, Orlando di 
Lasso and Gluck, for the Odeon; of Rauch in classic costume for the 
Glyptothek ; and the marblé group of ‘ A Hunter defending his Family 
from the attack of a Panther’ (1851): of this group, and of his Shield 
of Hercules, there are casts in the Crystal Palace at Sydenham. 

WIEBEKING, CARL FRIEDRICH, an eminent practical enginesar 
and writer on hydraulic and civil architecture, was born at Wollin in 
Pomerania, in 1762, He had applied himself so early and so earnestly 
to the practical study of topography, that when only seventeen he was 
entrusted with the task of making a statistical survey or chart of the 
duchy of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, which was engraved on nine sheets. 
His success in this, his first undertaking of the kind, caused him to be 
employed almost immediately afterwards by the Prussian government 
to make a similar survey of Pomerania between Belgard and Zamow. 
From about 1784 to 1788 he was engaged in making similar surveys 
of their territories for the dukes of Gotha and Weimar and the rulers 
of some other German states; during which period he also devoted 
a considerable portion of his time each winter to the study of archi- 
tecture, as well civil and military as hydraulic and engineering. In 
1788 he was appointed engineer in the service of the duchy of Berg, 
and in 1792 he first appeared before the public as a writer on pro- 
fessional and scientific subjects, in a work entitled ‘ Ueber Topogra- 
phische Charten,’ and his ‘ Beitriige, &e.,’ or ‘ Contributions to Practical 
Hydraulic Architecture and Machinery.’ From this time he was 
chiefly occupied for many years upon his large work, ‘ Wasser- 
baukunst,’ to collect materials and information for which he visited 
Holland, and afterwards France, the latter country together with his 
father-in-law, Oberbaurath Rousseau, the results of which scientific 
journey are given in the third and fourth volumes of the first edition, 
which was brought out in five volumes, from 1798 to 1805. This 
work obtained for him a high reputation not unattended with other 
advantages, for in 1802 his services were engaged by the Austrian 
government, with an accession to his income of 2000 florins as a salary, 
and he was employed to inspect the ports and harbours of Trieste, 
Venice, Fiume, and other places within the Austrian-Italian territory. 
He was thus occupied till about 1805, when he was invited to Bavaria. 
and there became chief engineer and inspector of roads and canals, 
which appointment he continued to hold till 1818, when he retired 
upon apension. While actively engaged in his extensive professional 
duties, he had not neglected his literary occupations, one of which was 
anew edition of his‘ Wasserbaukunst;’ and now that he was released 
from the former, he applied himself diligently to his pen, and under- 
took another very extensive work of a far more generally interesting 
and popular character than the former, namely, his ‘Theoretisch- 
practische Biirgerliche Baukunde,’ a general course of civil archi- 
tecture and its history, in 4 vols. 4to, with a very large folio atlas of 
plates, 1821-6. This work is certainly a very valuable contribution to 
architectural study, if only on account of the fund of fresh information 


it supplies relative to the architecture of Germany, Holland, Pola Ss 
Russia, and some other parts of Europe, in regard to which scar ad 
anything can be gathered from any other general collection of the a 
kind, But the Atlas is of an inconveniently large size, and the 


themselves are inferior specimens of architectural drawing, 
executed for the greater part in a coarse, loose, and untrustworthy 
style. Very great allowance however is to be made for the defects 
and deficiencies of a work so comprehensive in its plan as to exceed Fe 
the means of a single individual, however well qualified or however _ 
industrious. x ; 
As to Wiebeking’s own talents in architecture, it does not appear 4 
that he ever executed or designed any building actually erected,a  _ 
circumstance not particularly to be regretted if we may judge of what — “G 
he would have done from the specimens which he has given usin the 
work we have just been speaking of. Besides the works already 
mentioned, he published several others, his ‘ Theoretisch-practische 
Strassenbaukunde,’ 1808, and, so late as 1840, one entitled ‘ Analyse 
Historique et Raisonnée des Monumens de l’Antiquité; des Edifices — 
les plus remarquables du Moyen Age, &c,’ and dedicated to Queen 
Victoria of England. The Chevalier von Wiebeking, as he was usually _ 
called, being knight of several German and foreign orders, as well as 
member of nearly all the principal academies and learned societies in 
Europe, died at Munich, May 29th 1842, in his eighty-first year, with- — 
out having experienced much previous indisposition or the infirmities 
usually attending such advanced age. Z 
WIELAND, CHRISTOPH MARTIN, was born on the 5th of Sep- 
tember} 1733, at Oberholzheim, a village in the neighbourhood of 
Biberach in Suabia, where his father was pastor. Old Wieland, who 
belonged to the Pietistic party of German Protestants, was well 
acquainted with the ancient languages, and a good philosopher of the 
school of Christian Wolf. From Oberholzeim he was transferred 
soon after the birth of his son to Biberach, where he died at an 
advanced age as senior of the Protestant ministry of the place. The 
mother of Wieland was, according to his own description, a model of 
a pious, domestic, and affectionate woman. The influence of such 
parents is visible more or less throughout the life of Wieland, and 
under their direction his talents were awakened at an unusually early 
age. In his seventh year he read Cornelius Nepos with great facility, 
aud began to learn Greek; in his eleventh year he attempted to write 
Latin poetry, and in his twelfth he wrote a German epic on the 
destruction of Jerusalem. The early years of his life were passed. 
happily in his father’s house. In his fourteenth year his father sent 
him to the school of Klosterbergen, near Magdeburg; where he paid 
great attention to the ancient languages. Xenophon, especially the 
‘ Cyropedia,’ with its beautiful episode of Araspes and Panthea, and _ 
the ‘Memorabilia’ of Socrates, which he used to call the Gospel of — 
the Greeks, made the deepest impression upon him. — this 
period he also read with great zeal the German translations of Steele, — 
Addison, and Shaftesbury, and the original works of Voltaire, Pier 
La Metrie, and others, for he had learned French in a very short time 
without a master. His French reading tended to destroy his religious 
belief, and with it his. peace of mind. One of his teachers discovered ~ 
the change which had taken place, and succeeded in calming the 
struggle which was going on in his mind; but his health was already 
much impaired by it. When he had attained his sixteenth year, his 
father sent him to reside with a relation, a physician at Erfurt, for 
the recovery of his health, and to prepare himself for the university. 
After having spent eighteen months at Erfurt, a residence which, 
as he himself says, was more useful than agreeable, he returned, in 
the summer of 1750, to his parents at Biberach, where he passed six _ 
months, the happiest of his whole life—for it was the period of his _ 
first love for a cousin, Sophia von Gutermann, who afterwards became 
known as a writer under the name of Sophiade Laroche. The attach- 
ment to her and her conversation had an extraordinary influence upon 
Wieland : he describes it as having made him an enthusiast for reli- 
gion and everything that was good and virtuous. It was during a 
conservation with her that he conceived the idea of a didactic poem 
‘On the Nature of Things, or the most perfect World’ (‘ Ueber die 
Natur der Dinge, oder die vollkommenste Welt’), This poem, 
although Wieland afterwards wished to suppress it, as a juvenile pro- 
duction, excited among the leading men in matters of taste a very 
favourable opinion of the young author's talents. In the autumn of 
1750 Wieland went to the university of Tiibingen, professedly to study 
the law, but he occupied himself chiefly with classical literature, 
philosophy, and modern poetry, and devoted to his professional study 
only as much attention as was n to enable him to pass his 
examination. Socrates appeared to him the beau idéal of a man, and 
he resolved to follow his example. De Bar's ‘ Epitres Diverses,’ which 
then caused a great sensation in Germany, induced Wieland to write 
his ten moral epistles (‘Zehm Moralische Briefe,’ Tiibingen, 1751), 
which were addressed to Sophia. These letters, which are distin- 
guished for humour and delicacy of feeling, are the best picture of — 
the state of his mind at that time. Another didactic poem, the ‘ Anti- 
Ovid,’ the production of a few days, is greatly inferior to his moral 
letters. While at the university Wieland showed little inclination to 
form friendships with the young men of his own age: his great desire 
was to become acquainted with the chief literary men, and to join 
them in their labours for improving the national taste. With this 


= 


a 
5 * 


and soon found in him a second father. 


eo a ea ee a ee eee eee ss ee 


685 WIELAND, CHRISTOPH MARTIN. 


WIELAND, CHRISTOPH MARTIN. 686 


view he sent a specimen of an epic poem, ‘ Arminius,’ to Bodmer, at 
Ziivich, which laid the foundation of an intimate friendship between 
this great critic and Wieland. 

In 1752 Wieland returned to Biberach, and as he had no prospects 
of obtaining an appointment, he formed the plan of going to Gottin- 
gen, taking his degree and entering upon the career of an academical 
teacher there. But this plan was given up, and he accepted the invi- 
tation of Bodmer, who asked him to come to Ziirich and remain in his 
house, until a suitable appointment should be found. Wieland, on 
his arrival at Ziirich, was received in the kindest manner by Bodmer, 
Bodmer and Breitinger 
were then at the head of the new school of German poetry, which 
vigorously and successfully combated the pedantic formalism of 
Gottsched of Leipzig and his followers. Wieland gained the esteem 
and admiration of Bodmer, and was not only made acquainted with 
the best productions of German literature, but also with the most 
eminent men, who assembled round Bodmer as the greatest critic of 
the day. In the first year of his stay at Ziirich, Wieland, at the 
request of his patron, prepared a new edition of a collection of pole- 
mical essays against Gottsched, on the improvement of taste in Ger- 
many (‘Sammlung der Ziiricherschen Streitschriften zur Verbesserung 


des Deutschen Geschmackes wider die Gottsehed sche Schule, von 


1741-44’), and accompanied it with a preface. All that Wieland 


“wrote at Ziirich bears the strongest marks of Bodmer’s influence, 


both in form and sentiment, and although Bodmer himself was a poet 
of very inferior merit, Wieland expatiated at great length on the 
beauties of his poetry, especially the epic ‘Noah’ (‘Von den Schén- 
heiten des Bodmer’schen Gedichtes Noah’). Wieland showed himself 
still more as the disciple of Bodmer in his epic ‘ Der Gepriifte Abra- 
ham,’ in three cantos, in which Bodmer greatly assisted the young 
poet; in ‘ Briefe von Verstorbenen an hinterlassene Freunde’ (Ziirich, 
1753), and various other compositions : for during this period Wieland 
wrote with the same haste and want of reflection as his patron. 

In 1754 Wieland, fortunately for him, left the house of Bodmer, to 
undertake the education of the sons of two distinguished families at 
Ziirich, The circle in which he now began to move obliged him to 
make himself acquainted with Italian, French, and English poetry, 
and his continued study of Shaftesbury, Xenophon, and Euripides, 
gradually led him to the path which was most suited to his genius. 
His reason now began to gain the ascendancy over his imagination 
and feelings. The acquaintance of a distinguished actor induced 
Wieland about this time to try his strength in the dramatic line, and 
he wrote the tragedies ‘Lady Johanna Grey,’ ‘Clementina von Por- 
retta,’ and the comedy ‘Pandora;’ but these attempts met with no 
success, and he found out in time that the drama was not his proper 
sphere. After having been engaged asa teacher at Ziirich for four 
years he accepted the situation of tutor in a distinguished family at 
Bern, but he soon gave it up, and occupied himself with lecturing on 
philosophical subjects, and with new literary undertakings, His resi- 
dence at Bern, and especially his intercourse with women of acquire- 
ments and education, gave to his mind a more decided turn, and his 


real talents now began to be developed. Among those women who 


exercised a great influence over him, we may mention the celebrated 
Julia Bondeli, the friend of Rousseau. It was at Bern that Wieland 
wrote the beautiful story of ‘ Araspes and Panthea,’ and conceived the 
plan of his ‘Agathon,’ his most celebrated novel; he also wrote here 
the first five cantos of an epic called ‘ Cyrus,’ which appeared in 1757, 
and of which a new edition was published in 1759; ‘Cyrus’ however 
‘was never completed, 

In 1760 Wieland returned to Biberach, where he obtained an 
appointment in the administration of the town. He now sought and 
found recreation in the study of Shakspere, twenty-eight of whose 
dramas he translated into German (Ziirich, 1762-66, 8 vols. 8vo). 
This was the first German translation of Shakspere; but Wieland, 
whose mind had been nurtured chiefly by the study of Plato, Xeno- 
phon, Euripides, and the French writers, was not the man to give a 
faithful picture of the great dramatist; his translation has a certain 
prettiness, elegance, and polish, but he never comes up to the strength 
and pathos of Shakspere. Germany however must be grateful to 
him for having taken the first step towards nationalising Shakspere, 
and for having paved the way for his successors, Eschenburg, Voss, 
Schlegel, and others. Another circumstance which relieved the dull- 
ness of his life at Biberach, and gave to his mind a peculiar turn, 
was that Sophia de Laroche, accompanied by her husband and Count 
Stadion, caine to stay in the neighbourhood of Biberach, whither the 
count retired from public service, Wieland formed the acquaintance 
of the party, and became the sincere friend of all. The extensive 
library of the count, and his knowledge of the world, suggested new 
thoughts and ideas to Wieland. Wieland, who was at all times very 
susceptible to influences from without, became in the company of his 
new friends a man of the world. His religious enthusiasm left him, 
and a sort of practical wisdom became his guide, which to some 
extent destroyed the intensity of his feeling, but at the same time 
laid the foundation of his literary greatness. Wieland’s compositions 
of this period combine the refined sensuality of the Athenians with a 
sort of practical philosophy and the elegance of the French. That a 
voluptuous sensuality runs through all his productions of this period 
cannot be denied; but this sensuality, however seductive it may be 


to a youthful and inexperienced reader, was in reality only the playful 
musings of his imagination, and perhaps the consequence of his over- 
anxiety to obtain a numerous class of readers: his personal character 
at this, as well as all other periods of his life, was of the highest moral 
purity. His first production of this kind was his poetical story of 
‘Undine’ (1762),' which was followed by ‘Komische Erzihlungen’ 
(1768-64), ‘ Abenteuer des Don Silvio von Rosalva, oder der Sieg der 
Natur iiber die Schwiirmerei’ (1764) which is a sort of imitation of 
Cervantes’ ‘Don Quixote.’ During this period, which may be termed 
the frivolous period of his life, the things for which he had before 
entertained the highest enthusiasm, such as love, religion, virtue, and 
philosophy, were occasionally ridiculed as unnatural, and as the mere 
offspring of our fancy. But during this same period he produced his 
best novel, ‘Agathon’ (1766), the scene of which is ancient Greece, 
and in which he endeavours to show how far a man may advance in 
wisdom and virtue by the mere use of his natural faculties, and what 
influence outward circumstances may have upon him. The works 
which he wrote about or shortly after this time are all of an erotic 
character, such as his ‘Idris und Zenide’ (1767), a romantic poem in 
five cantos; ‘ Musarion,’ a work unique in its kind for the ease, grace- 
fulness, and harmonious beauty of its style, which the author himself 
called a philosophy of the Graces; and a poem entitled ‘ Die Grazien’ 
(‘The Graces’) 1770. In his novel, ‘Der neue Amadis’ (1771) 
Wieland endeavoured to show the superiority of intellectual over 
mere physical beauty; a theme which he took up again in his later 
years in his ‘ Krates und Hipparchia.’ 

In 1765 Wieland married the daughter of an Augsburg merchant, 
who was devotedly attached to him, and with whom he lived happily 
for thirty-five years, She bore him fourteen children in twenty years. 
In 1769 he was invited to the professorship of philosophy in the Uni- 
versity of Erfurt. He accepted the offer, and discharged the duties of 
his office with the most honest zeal, but the envy and the intrigues of 
the academic body, who thought it a disgrace that a poet, and an 
erotic poet too, should be among them, placed the most vexatious 
obstacles in his way. The secret and open attacks that were made 
upon him, drew forth the humorous poem ‘ Der Verklagte Amor,’ and 
‘ Nachlass des Diogenes von Sinope’ (1770). The former of these 
works is the last of his erotic poems, and was written to defend that 
kind of poetry. The latter was composed to defend his own views of 
human life and of philosophy. The works which now followed had a 
more serious and philosophical character, partly in consequence of 
his position at Erfurt, and partly the result of the events of the times, 
among which we must mention the effects produced by the works of 
Rousseau, and the reforms introduced by the Emperor Joseph II. 
Wieland attacked the doctrines of Rousseau in a small humorous 
novel entitled ‘Koxhox und Kikequetzel’ (1769 and 1770), and in 
his ‘Beitrige zur geheimen’ Geschichte des menschlichen Verstandes 
und Herzens, aus den Archiven der Natur’ (1770), Another work, 
which appeared two years later under the title ‘ Goldener Spiegel oder 
die Konige von Scheschian,’ is a collection of the most important 
lessons which the rulers of mankind should derive from history. 

Wieland was not at Erfurt long without attracting the attention of 
the Duchess Amalie of Saxe-Weimar. She wanted a person to com- 
plete the education of her two sons, and she chose Wieland on the 
recommendation of Dalberg. In 1772 Wieland accordingly went to 
Weimar, where he received the title of Hofrath, and a salary of 1000 
thalers, which was continued after the cessation of his duties under 
the name of a pension. The kind and honourable manner in which 
he was received at the court, the attachment of his pupils, and the 
intercourse of the distinguished men who were already assembled 
around the duchess, had such charms for Wieland, that he felt at once 
that he was in his proper sphere, His first literary productions at 
Weimar were a melodrame, ‘Die Wahl des Hercules,’ and a lyric 
drama ‘ Alceste’ (1772), which were received with extraordinary 
favour, and are still among the better productions of the kind in 
Germany. It was an important event in the literary history of 
Germany that Wieland established and edited the ‘ Deutscher Mercur,’ 
a monthly periodical devoted to criticism and matters of taste. 
Wieland alone edited it from 1775 to 1789, and from 1789 to 1805 in 
conjunction with the well-known archeologist Bottiger. Wieland’s 
own criticisms were on the whole neither true nor profound, and 
when he expounded his principles in his letters on his ‘ Alceste,’ 
Géthe and: Herder rose in arms against him. Gdéthe wrote his well 
known farce ‘ Gétter, Helden, und Wieland,’ to which Wieland replied 
in a humorous way and with his usual mildness. The affair drew the 
attention of Wieland’s pupils to Géthe, who was subsequently also 
invited to Weimar, and became the friend of Wieland. The first im- 
portant work which appeared after Wieland’s arrival at Weimar, was 
his humorous history of the inhabitants of the ancient town of Abdera 
(‘Die Abderiten,’ 1773), which the author intended to be an analysis, 
of the érrors, contradictions, and singularities in human nature. It 
was followed by ‘ Erziihlungen und Mabrchen’ (1775-83), which are 
distinguished from his earlier works of fiction by greater earnestness, 
depth of feeling, and the absence of voluptuous descriptions. The 
preatest of all Wieland’s poetical productions is his epic romance 
‘Oberon,’ in 12 cantos, which appeared in 1780. 

‘ After the publication of ‘Oberon,’ Wieland abandoned the field of 
romantie poetry, to devote the remainder of his life to the study of 


687 WIELAND, CHRISTOPH MARTIN. 


WIFFEN, JEREMIAH HOLME, 6:8 


the Greeks and Romans, and he formed the design of making all 
Germany acquainted with the masterpieces of the ancients by a 
series of translations. He began with a translation of Horace’s 
‘Epistles’ (1782, reprinted at Leipzig in 1816, 2 vols. 8vo, and at 
Leipzig, 1837, 4th edition), which was followed by Horace’s ‘Satires’ 
(1786, reprinted 1819, 2 vols. 8vo.). Both works are accompanied 
with commentaries and introductions, which are useful, especially for 
the history of the period of Horace, The translation itself is free, as 
it was intended more for the general reader than for scholars, and is 
more like a modernisation than a real translation. The next produc- 
tion was a translation of Lucian (Leipzig, 1788-91, 6 vols, 8vo.), like- 
wise with a commentary. ‘Tooke’s translation of Lucian is made 
from the German of Wieland. Wieland himself declares his transla- 
tion of Horace’s ‘Epistles’ and his commentaries upon them to be his 
best work, and that from which his own individuality could be best 
recognised. The fruits of Wieland’s long study of Lucian are also 
visible in the following works, which are very successful imitations 
of that writer:—‘ Dialogen in Elysium’ (1791), ‘ Géttergespriiche’ 
‘Gespriiche unter vier Augen,’ and ‘Peregrinus Proteus’ (1791). 
Simultaneously with these labours Wieland wrote a great number of 
essays for the ‘Deutscher Mercur,’ which, when collected, filled 
sixteen volumes of his works. A collection of all Wieland’s works 
was published at Leipzig from 1794 to 1802, in 36 volumes, and six 
supplementary volumes, in 4to, and great and small octavo. In this 
collection all the works underwent a careful revision, and some were 
almost entirely rewritten. The handsome remuneration which he 
received for his edition enabled him to realise one of his favourite 
schemes: he purchased the small country-house of Osmannstedt, near 
Weimar, in the picturesque valley of the Ilm, where he intended to 
spend the remainder of his life. He took up his residence there in 
1798, with his wife and children, and it was here, in the enjoyment of 
a quiet and patriarchal life, that Wieland unfolded all the excellence 
of his character. He continued however to devote the greater part 
of his time to literary labours. From 1796 till 1804 he alone edited 
the ‘Attisches Museum, and from 1805 to 1809, conjointly with J. 
Hottinger and Fr. Jacobs, under the title of ‘ Neues Attisches Mu- 
seum. This journal was chiefly devoted to the illustration of Greek 
literature, and here he resumed his old and favourite plan of giving 
to his countrymen a series of translations of the best Greek writers, 
of which a great many are contained in thisjournal. Some original 
works which appeared about this time contained the fruits of his 
renewed study of antiquity, such as ‘Aristippus und einige seiner 
Zeitgenossen’ (1800-1802), and the small novels ‘ Krates und Hippar- 
chia’ and ‘ Menander und Glycerion,’ 

Fortune, which had hitherto always been smiling upon Wieland, 
had reserved some of its hardest blows for his old age. After the 
death of Sophia Brentano, a grand-daughter of Sophia de Laroche, 
who had been living in his house and had been attached to him as to 
a father, he lost, in 1801, his wife. After this event the retreat of 
Osmannstedt had no more charm for him: owing also to some mis- 
fortunes, he would have been obliged to encumber it with debt, if he 
had kept it longer; accordingly he disposed of it, and returned in 
1803 to Weimar, where he soon formed an intimate friendship with 
Schiller. In the same year he was elected a foreign member of the 
National Institute of France; during the congress at Erfurt in 1808, 
Napoleon honoured him with the order of the Légion d’Honneur, and 
the Emperor Alexander of Russia with that of St. Anna. But the 
year before, death had deprived him of his friend and patron the 
Duchess Amalie, in whose company, during the last part of her life, 
he had spent some hours almost every day. In 1809 he,was seized 
with a long and dangerous illness, and he had scarcely got. over it 
when he broke one of his ribs by being upset in his carriage. But he 
got over this injury, and reappeared in the circle of his friends as 
cheerful as before. In the year 1806 he had commenced his last great 
literary undertaking, a translation of all the letters of Cicero, which 
he continued until his death, on the 20th of January 1813, without 
being able to complete it. It appeared at Ziirich, 1808-21, in 7 vols. 
8vo; the last two vols. were completed and edited by F. D. Griiter. 
In accordance with Wieland’s own wish his body was conveyed to 
Osmannstedt, and buried in the same tomb with his wife and Sophia 
Brentano. 

On the general character of Wieland we may add the following 
remarks. Wieland was not a poet of the first order: his peculiar 
talent consisted in appropriating to himself and further developing 
that which he acquired from others, though he always impressed upon 
it the peculiar stamp of his own mind. He never penetrated deep 
into the nature of man, but rather remained in the happy medium ; 
but he is unrivalled in the light and insinuating gracefulness of his 
productions and the elegance of his style, His philosophy breathes 
the spirit of Socrates, though not without a mixture of the principles 
of Aristippus. He did not acquire a thorough and lasting influence 
upon German literature, but his great merit consists in the amount of 
knowledge, taste, and refinement which he diffused among his con- 
temporaries, and which has been transmitted to their descendants. 
Moreover it must not be forgotten that it was Wieland who reconciled 
the higher classes of Germany to the literature of their own country, 
and who formed a beneficial counterpoise to the transcendental charac- 
ter which Klopstock and his school introduced into German poetry. 


* WIESELGREN, PETER, the Swedish apostle of temperance, and 
also a voluminous and industrious editor and compiler of miscellaneous 
works, was born on the 1st of October 1800, at the farm of Spinhult, 
not far from Wexio in the south of Sweden, the son of Jonas Jénsson, 
a peasant. From childhood he displayed an unusual sense of religion, 
at the age of eight he had read the Bible through, and at ten, at the 
instigation of his mother, had written psalms and a sermon. The 
minister of the parish took notice of his knowledge of the Scriptures, 
and recommended him, when ten years old, to a clergyman of the 
name of Malmberg, who taught him Latin on the condition that 


he should teach Malmberg’s son to read. Young as he was, the boy ~ 


was never afterwards without a pupil. At the age of eleven he was 
sent to the school of Wexio, where his entrance into a higher walk of 
life was signalised by his being equipped with a surname. The rector, or 
schoolmaster, Lundelius, hearing from the father, Jonas Jonsson, that 
he thought he was related to a family bearing the name of Wieselgren, 
conferred on the son, by his own authority, the name by which he has 
since been known. At the university of Lund, where he afterwards 
studied, he was shocked at the laxity of religious feeling which he 
found prevalent, and began to preach on what in England would be 
called ‘evangelical ’ principles, at the age of seventeen. From an early 
period his pen has been incessantly active as an author, and his first 
work of length ‘Which religion is that of Sweden,’ ‘Hvilken ir 
Sveriges Religion,’ published in 1827, is on a theological subject, but 
those of his works which have chiefly attracted attention are of a mis- 
cellaneous character. One of the most important is the ‘ Delagardiska 
Archivet,’ ‘ Archives of the De la Gardie family, or Papers from Count 
De la Gardie’s library at Loberod,’ twenty volumes octavo, with supple- 
ment (Lund, 1831-44). The De la Gardie family, descended from a 
Frenchman, is one of the most illustrious in Sweden, and the library 
at Léberod, their country-seat, was rich in important documents 
relating to Swedish history for the last three centuries. Wi 

who was invited by the Count to assist him in arranging the papers, 
was allowed to publish a selection, which extended to an unexpected 
length, but which comprises much valuable matter, and might ocea- 
sionally be consulted with advantage by English historians. In 1848 
the Count, at Wieselgren’s suggestion, presented the original collection 
to the library of the university of Lund. Another of his works, a 
history of the printed literature of Sweden, ‘ Sveriges Skona Lit- 
teratur, which was left imperfect, in three volumes (Lund, 1833-35), 
was founded on the academic lectures which he delivered at the 
university of Lund, in the capacity of assistant professor of zsthetics, 
to which he was appointed in 1824, much to his own surprise, by the 
Chancellor von Engestrém. In 1833 he quitted the university to 
officiate as a parish priest, and was led to occupy part of his leisure 
on a topographical work in three volumes of a description of the 
bishopric of Wexio ‘ Ny Smalands Beskrifning inskrinkt till. Wexié 
Stift,’ in which he was considered somewhat too fanciful in his intro- 
ductory speculations on remote antiquity. 

As a contributor to Palmblad’s Biographical Lexicon of celebrated 
Swedes [PatmBiaD] he wrote more than two hundred lives, and on 
Palmblad’s death, in 1852, took his place as editor of the work, which 
has now attained its twenty-second volume, and appears to be close to 
its completion. It is from his autobiography contributed as an 
article to this Dictionary that most of the foregoing particulars have 
been taken. It concludes with a list of his writings occupying three 
closely-printed pages; but almost the only important work that re- 
mains to be added, is his ‘ Historical Dissertation on Swedish Brandy- 
Legislation for the last two hundred years’ (Lund, 1840), with which 
he commenced his campaigns against Swedish intemperance, which he 
has now carried on for many years by preachiog-tours made during 
every summer. Wieselgren is also an active advocate of what is 
called in Germany and Sweden the ‘Inner Mission,’ a system of 
visitmg the poor for religious ) purposes, analogous to the ‘ Home- 
Missions’ of England. He is generally respected as sincere and well- 
meaning, and on one occasion was proposed by his colleagues to the 
government as a candidate for the bishopric of Wexio, but his judg- 
ment is sometimes less remarkable than his ardour, and as a compiler 
he is too apt to obtrude his own peculiarities on the reader. 

WIFFEN, JEREMIAH HOLME, was born in the neighbourhood of 
Woburn, in 1792, of Quaker parents, and was educated for the pro- 
fession of a schoolmaster, a vocation which he followed for several 
years. He very early however displayed a taste for poetry and literary 
composition. In 1812 he published a ‘ Geographical Primer,’ for the 
use of the junior classes of a school, and he contributed some poetical 
effusions of considerable merit to a volume entitled ‘ Poems by Three 
Friends.’ He next wrote some spirited stanzas on the portraits in 
Woburn Abbey, inserted in the Rev. Mr. Parry’s ‘ History of Woburn,’ 
and afterwards reprinted separately as ‘The Russells.” In 1819 he 
published ‘Aonian Hours,’ and other poems, which attracted the notice 
of the Duke of Bedford, who appointed him his librarian at Woburn, 
and jhis private secretary. From this time he lived in the enjoyment. 
of literary ease, but continued to employ himself actively. In 1820 
he published ‘Julia Alpinula, the Captive of Stamboul, and other 
Poems;’ in 1822, a translation of the poems of Garcilasso de la Vega : 
and for many years he contributed original poems and translations to 
‘ Time’s Telescope,’ and various other periodical works. Among the 
original pieces may be mentioned ‘ The Luck of Eden Hall,’ as a suc- 


-~\s 


a 


Se 


639 WILBERFORCE, WILLIAM. 


WILBERFORCE, WILLIAM. 690 


cessful effort in the old ballad style. In 1830 he published a transla- 
tion of Tasso’s ‘ Jerusalem Delivered,’ on whicl he had been engaged 
for several.years. He adopted the Spenserian stanza, and the versifi- 
eation is free and flowing, but as a whole it is certainly not calculated 
to supersede the bold aud vigorous translation by Fairfax. In 1833 he 
published in one 8vo volume‘ Historical Memoirs of the first race of 
ancestry whence the House of Russell had its origin; from the sub- 
jugation of Norway to the Norman Conquest ;’ which was followed 
immediately by two other volumes of ‘Historical Memoirs of the 
House of Russell, from the time of the Norman Conquest.’ The first 
volume is little more than a series of guesses as to the early history of 
the family, tracing its origin from Olaf, the sharp-eyed king of Berik : 
but the other two are interesting from the events in which the 
family can be traced authentically to have been engaged, and they are 
told with faithfulness, though with pardonable partiality. He latterly 
studied Hebrew and Welsh, from the last-named of which he made 
several successful poetical translations, Mr. Wiffen maintained his 
connection with the Society of Friends, holding offices of trust in it 
occasionally, until his death, which took place suddenly on May 2, 
1856, at Woburn Abbey. 
_ WILBERFORCE, WILLIAM, was born at Hull on the 24th of 
August 1759. His father, Robert Wilberforce, was a merchant in that 
town, descended from the ancient Yorkshire family of Wilberfoss; his 
“mother was the daughter of Thomas Bird, Esq., of Barton in Oxford- 
shire. His constitution was so weak from his infancy that in after-life 
he expressed his gratitude “that he was not born in less civilised 
times, when it would have been thought impossible to rear so delicate 
a child.” He was however an active and spirited boy, of good ability, 
and showing, even at the early age of seven, a remarkable talent for 
elocution. He commenced his education at the grammar-school of 
Hull, which he attended for two years; but on the death of his father 
in 1768, he was transferred to the care of his uncle, William Wilber- 
force, who placed him as a parlour-boarder in a mean school near 
Wimbledon. While at this school, his aunt, who was an ardent 
admirer of Whitefield’s preaching, first led his youthful mind to con- 
template the truths of religion, but at the same time imbued him with 
her peculiar views. His mother, on hearing that he was in danger of 
becoming a Methodist, withdrew him from his uncle’s care, and placed 
him at the Pocklington grammar-school in Yorkshire, under the Rev. 
K. Basket. His removal from Wimbledon exercised an important 
influence upon his future life. His own reflection, twenty-six years 
afterwards, was that it had “probably been the means of his being 
connected with political men, and becoming useful in life; and that if 
he had stayed with his uncle he should probably have been a bigoted 
despised Methodist.” At Pocklington his serious dispositions were 
soon dissipated by a life of ease and pleasure. His talents for society, 
and his rare skill in singing,.made him an acceptable guest with all 
the neighbouring gentry, and much time was thus wasted in gaiety. 
Yet we are told that “he greatly excelled all the other boys in his 
compositions, though he seldom began them till the eleventh hour.” 
It is very remarkable, in connection with his subsequent history, that 
when fourteen years of age he addressed a letter to the editor of the 
York paper “in condemnation of the odious traffic in human flesh.” 

In October 1776 he entered St. John’s College, Cambridge, at the 
age of seventeen. Here he was at first introduced to dissolute com- 
panions, whose habits were not very congenial to his taste, and he soon 
shook them off and entered into more suitable society. By the death 
of his grandfather and his uncle he had become possessed of a hand- 
some fortune, which enabled him to indulge in very extensive hospi- 
tality, and discouraged him from exerting himself in his college studies. 
In spite of his many temptations to idleness, he became a good classic, 
and acquitted himself well in his examinations; but the irregular and 
desultory habits which he acquired were not corrected by mental dis- 

' cipline, and he often had occasion to regret that the cultivation of his 
mind had been so much neglected. 

Before he had quitted Cambridge, Mr. Wilberforce determined to 
enter upon public life. A dissolution was shortly expected, and he 
aspired to represent his native town in parliament. He had scarcely 
completed his twenty-first year when parliament was dissolved, and 
after an active canvass he was triumphantly returned by the electors 
of Hull. He now came to London, and entered at once into the first 
society. He was elected a member of the most fashionable clubs, and 
became intimate with the leading wits and politicians of the day. He 
had been acquainted with Pitt at Cambridge, and they now met daily 
in society, and were inseparable friends. The gaiety of his London 
life did not distract his attention from public business, He attended 
constantly in the House of Commons, and, without taking much share 
in the debates, he formed his own judgment upon every question. 
He was generally an opponent of Lord North’s administration, and 
particularly adverse to the American war, but occasionally voted with 
the government. Meanwhile his intimacy with Pitt increased, and the 
genius which that great man displayed led Mr. Wilberforce to predict 
his rise. “He comes out,” he wrote to a friend, “as his father did, a 
ready-made orator, and I doubt not but that I shall one day see him 
the first man in the country.” In July 1782, Pitt took office with the 
Shelburne ministry, and Mr. Wilberforce was fixed upon to second the 
address on the meeting of parliament in December. From this time a 
tempting prospect of ambition opened itself to Wilberforce, His 

BLOG. DIV, VOL, VI, 


friend Pitt, who almost lived with him at Wimbledon, and travelled 
with him on the Continent, was daily becoming more powerful, and 
Wilberforce’s political opinions and position in parliament would have 
justified him in taking office with his friend and sharing in his future 
honours. At length, in November 1783, Pitt became prime minister, 
and Wilberforce, being entirely in his confidence, exerted himself 
strenuously, as an independent member, in support of the new adminis- 
tration. . In parliament his speeches attracted much notice, and in the 
country all eyes were soon turned upon him by an event most import- 
ant to the state of parties and to his own personal advancement. In 
March 1784, when the dissolution was approaching, a county meeting 
was summoned at York to vote an address in condemnation of the late 
coalition ministry, and of which the chief object was to defeat the pre- 
dominant influence of the great Whig families at the ensuing election. 
Wilberforce hastened to attend this meeting: he addressed the free- 
holders with singular eloquence and effect: the address was carried; 
and before he had ceased speaking, a shout arose in the castle-yard, 
“We'll have this man for our county member.” He had secretly 
cherished a hope of this result, yet, considering the overwhelming 
power of the Whig nobility, and his own youth and want of connec- 
tion in the county, he had not ventured to confide it even to Pitt. 
While an enthusiastic canvass and subscription were proceeding on his 
behalf, he was re-elected for Hull, and so great was his popularity that 
his opponents abandoned a contest which seemed hopeless, and, with- 
out venturing to a poll, permitted him to wrest from their hands a seat 
for the county. This signal triumph in the largest county in England 
contributed, in no small measure, to the success of Mr. Pitt’s ministry 
throughout the country; and in the next session Wilberforce had the 
satisfaction of seeing his friend supported by a vast majority of the 
House of Commons. 

Thus before he had completed his twenty-fifth year he had attained 
a station of the highest distinction, and a career of ambition and power 
lay open to him; but he was destined to follow an original course, to 
reject the opportunities of personal advancement which offered them- 
selves, and to devote all his energies and sacrifice all his interests to 
the noble cause of religion and philanthropy. The seductions of gaiety 
and of ambition had never wholly effaced from his mind the religious 
impressions of his youth; and a tour on the Continent with Isaac 
Milner in 1784-85 revived his latent zeal. Henceforth a spirit of earnest 
piety and devotion took entire possession of his mind, and directed all 
his actions for the remainder of his long and honourable life. 

He hastened from abroad to support Pitt’s measure of parliamentary 
reform, and early in the session of 1786 he himself proposed an import- 
ant plan for purifying county elections, by establishing a registry of 
frecholders, and holding the poll in various places at the same time. 
This scheme, so obviously useful, was not carried into effect until 
enacted by the Reform Bill in 1832. Early in 1787 his religious zeal 
was made public by his activity in promoting the establishinent of a 
society for the reformation of manners, and in obtaining a royal pro- 
clamation against vice and immorality ; but his conduct in the House 
of Commons had not yet borne evidence of the change in his opinions. 
He was deeply sensible however of the importance of rendering his 
public station and influence subservient to the advancement of religion, 
and only waited for a suitable occasion. While under the influence of 
these feelings, the slave-trade, which had roused his indignation at 
school, was again presented to him in all its atrocities, and he resolved 
to devote himself to its abolition. It required no little fortitude to 
undertake the cause of the negro race. Burke had shrunk from en- 
gaging in it from the conviction of its hopelessness ; and the harassing 
failures in store for Mr. Wilberforce would have discouraged any man 
whose exertions were not sustained by the highest principle. 

Relying more upon the humane and religious feelings of the country 
than upon parliamentary support, he availed himself of the agency of 
a society of which Granville Sharp was the president, and Thomas 
Clarkson the agent. Throughout the struggle, which lasted for twenty 
years, Mr. Wilberforce was indefatigable. Year after year his hopes 
were deferred. Thwarted at one time by the protracted examination 
of witnesses, outvoted at others, now in the Commons, now in the 
Lords, he never flinched from a renewal of the contest. In parliament 
he supported his cause by many admirable speeches, and by a diligent 
collection and sifting of evidence. Out of parliament he never lost 
sight of the same great object. In his conversation and his letters he 
conciliated the support of all parties. Cabinet ministers, opposition 
members, the clergy of all shades of opinion, and his own familiar 
friends, were alike solicited to advance the cause of abolition. No 
pains were spared to enlighten the public through the press, sometimes 
by his own pen, and sometimes by the pens of many willing friends. 
At the same time he was perpetually alive to all political changes at 
home and abroad, and ready to seize upon any occasion for improving 
the condition of the negro race by negociation with foreign powers or 
by the influence of the executive government. 

Apart from the opposition which he encountered from the West 
India interest, the fearful excesses of the French revolution and the 
rebellion of the slaves in St. Domingo led many to associate the abo- 
lition of the slave-trade with the frantic schemes of the Jacobins. For 
seven years this cause alone retarded the success of his endeavours. 
Meanwhile, though well fitted, morally, for the labours he had under- 


taken, it is marvellous how his weakly constitution Bae him to 
1 


691 


——————» »— 


WILBERFORCE, WILLIAM. 


WILBRORD, SAINT. 692 


bear up against the bodily fatigues which he was forced to endure. In 
the spring of 1788, when his labours were yet to come, his health 
appeared entirely to fail, from an absolute decay of the digestive 
organs, The first physicians, after a consultation, declared to his 
family “that he had not stamina to last a fortnight ;” and although 
he happily recovered from his illness, we find him exclaiming on New 
Year’s Day, 1790, “ At thirty and a half I am in constitution sixty.” 
From his infancy he had suffered much from weak eyes, and his exer- 
tions were constantly interrupted or rendered painful by this infirmity. 
Still rising with new hopes and vigour from every disappointment, he 
confidently relied upon ultimate success, At length the hour of triumph 
was at hand. In January 1807 he published a book against the slave- 
trade, at the very moment that question was about to be discussed in 
the House of Lords. The Abolition Bill passed the Lords, and its 
passage through the Commons was one. continued triumph to its 
author. Sir Samuel Romilly concluded an affecting speech in favour 
of the bill “ by contrasting the feelings of Napoleon in all his greatness 
with those of that honoured individual who would this day lay his 
head upon his pillow and remember that the slave-trade was no more ;” 
when the whole House, we are told, burst forth in acclamations of 
applause, and greeted Mr. Wilberforce with three cheers, 

During the whole of this period he had been actively interested in 
all the momentous questions of that time. He had opposed the war 
with France at the cost of a temporary estrangement from Pitt; he 
braved the court and the minister in resisting an addition to the 
income of the Prince of Wales, and clashed with his early friends in 
supporting the impeachment of Lord Melville; though no one could 
have felt more keenly than Mr. Wilberforce such sacrifices of friend- 
ship to duty. In the midst of his various engagements he had also 
done public service to religion. In 1797 he published his ‘ Practical 
View of the prevailing Religious System of professed Christians in 
the Higher and Middle Classes of this country, contrasted with real 
Christianity.’ This work met with extraordinary success, In a few 
days it was out of print, and within half a year five editions (7500 
copies) issued from the press. Since that time a large number of 
editions have been published in England and America. It has also 
been translated into the French, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, and German 
languages. Its merits were applauded by the highest dignitaries of 
the church, and by the most eminent of his contemporaries. Edmund 
Burke spent the last two days of his life in reading it, and sent a par- 
ticular message of thanks to Mr. Wilberforce for having written it. 
He had also during this period exerted himself to establish a national 
church in India, and led the way to the appointment of Indian 
bishoprics, The Church Missionary Society and other religious and 
aby associations were likewise indebted to him for his zealous 
aid. 

Mr. Wilberforce had represented Yorkshire during the whole of that 
portion of his parliamentary career which ended in the abolition of the 
slave-trade. Five times he was elected without a contest, and his sixth 
election tested the affection of his constituents even more than their 
previous unanimity. Immense subscriptions were immediately raised 
to defend him against his wealthy opponents, and such was the zeal of 
the freeholders in his favour, that while the joint expenses of Lord 
Milton and Mr. Lascelles amounted to 200,000/., the whole charge of 
bringing to the poll his large majority did not exceed 28,6001. At 
length, when a dissolution was expected in 1812, he determined to 
resign his seat for the county, although no contest was to be appre- 
hended. Among the chief causes which led to this determination were 
the great pressure upon his time and strength, in attending to the 
business of so large a constituency, and the desire of watching over the 
education of his children, 

In 1797 he had married Barbara Ann, the eldest daughter of 
J. Spooner, Esq., by whom he had a family of six children, the eldest 
at this time fourteen years old. Though unable to discharge to his 
own satisfaction the duties of a member for Yorkshire, he was unwil- 
ling to retire from parliament, and accepted a seat for the borough of 
Bramber. His activity in his new position appears to have been as 
unremitting as before. His chief care was to induce foreign powers 
to follow the example of England in abolishing the slave-trade. He 
overlooked no opportunity for furthering this object. The restoration 
of the Bourbons in France, the visit of the Allied Sovereigns to this 
country, and the Congress of Vienna especially, were seized upon by 
him as favourable occasions for enforcing upon European governments 
the abolition of the slave-trade. In personal interviews and correspond- 
ence he laboured to implant his principles in the most influential 
minds of Europe. ~The Emperor Alexander, the King of Prussia, Tal- 
leyrand, the Duke of Wellington, and Lord Castlereagh, were all in 
turn solicited, exhorted, or instructed. Even the pope did not escape 
his vigilance, whose influence he endeavoured to secure in condemna- 
tion of the slave-trade. 

Up to 1822 his public exertions had been confined to the universal 
extinction of the slave-trade, but his views of the ultimate abolition of 
slavery itself had not been withheld, and were now more distinctly 
declared. His declining health however precluded him from devoting 
the same labour to this cause that he had given to the former. He 
entrusted its management in the House of Commons to Mr. Fowell 
Buxton, and in 1825 retired from parliament, after having spent forty- 
six years in public life. He spent the remainder of his days in com- 


parative retirement,—an affectionate, cheerful, benevolent, and devout 
old man,—devoting, as he had done through life, much of his time 
and from one-third to a fourth of his income in acts of private charity, 
Family bereavements and loss of fortune were borne with pious resigna- 
tion, and his last days were cheered by the abolition of slavery. He 
died in Cadogan-place, when nearly seventy-four years old, on Monday, 
July 29th 1833; and at the very last sitting of the House of Commons 
on the preceding Friday, the bill for the abolition of slavery was read 
asecond time. “Thank God,” he exclaimed, “that I should have 
lived to witness a day in which England is willing to give twenty 
millions sterling for the abolition of slavery.” He was buried in West- 
minster Abbey, with all the honours of a public funeral, and a statue 
by Joseph is there erected to his memory. 

(Life of William Wilberforce, by his Sons; Parliamentary History 
and Debates.) 

* WILBERFORCE, RIGHT REV. SAMUEL, Bishop of Oxford, 
was born Sept. 7, 1805, at Broomfield, Clapham Common. He is the 
third son of the late William Wilberforce, M.P. He was educated 
at Oriel College, Oxford; in 1826 he graduated first class in mathe- 
matics and second class in classics ; and M.A. in 1829. He was ordained 
in 1828, and was appointed rector of Brightstone in the Isle of Wight 
in 1830. In 1837 he was select preacher before the University of 
Oxford. In 1839 he received the appointments of rector of Alver- 
stoke, archdeacon of Surrey, and chaplain to Prince Albert, and in 
1840 was made a canon of Winchester Cathedral, In 1841 he was 
Bampton lecturer. In 1844 he received the appointment of sub- 
almoner to the Queen, and-in 1845 that of dean of Westminster. In 
1845 he was again select preacher before the University of Oxford, 
took his degrees of B.D. and D.D., and in November 1845 was 
appointed bishop of Oxford, to which is attached the office of chan- 
cellor of the Order of the Garter. -In November 1847 he was 
appointed lord high almoner to the Queen. ° 

Bishop Wilberforce, besides several single sermons, charges to his 
clergy, and addresses delivered at public meetings, has published ‘The 
Life of William Wilberforce, by his Sons, R. I. Wilberforce, M.A., and 
S. Wilberforce, M.A.,’ 5 vols. 8vo, 1838. He has since published, 
‘Eucharistica,’ 32mo, 1839, consisting of prayers and reflections on 
the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, selected from old English divines; 
‘Sermons at Oxford,’ 12mo, 1839; ‘ Rocky Island, and other Parables? 
18mo, 1840; ‘ Agathos, and other Sunday Stories,’ 18mo, 1840; ‘The 
Correspondence of William Wilberforce, edited by his Sons, Robert 
Isaac Wilberforce, M.A., and Samuel Wilberforce, M.A.,’ 2 vols. 8vo, 
1840; ‘History of the Episcopal Church in America,’ fe. 8vo, 1844; 
‘Sermons,’ dedicated to the Queen, as having been “ preached before 
her, and now published by her command,” 12mo, 1844; and ‘Sermons 
preached on several Occasions,’ 8vo, 1854, 


WILBRORD, or WILLIBROD, SAINT, commonly characterised 


as ‘The Apostle of the Frisians,’ was a native of the Saxon kingdom 
of Northumbria, where he was born about the year 657. His father’s 
name was Widgils. He was placed, while still a child, under the 
charge of the inmates of Wilfred’s monastery at Ripon, and he 
remained there till the time when he received the tonsure, which he 
appears to have done before he reached his twentieth year, At that 
age he visited Ireland, and attached himself to the ministrations of 
Egbert and Wigbert, two members of the Anglo-Irish Church. The 
latter of these had been in Friesland, and had there preached 
Christianity two years in vain. Wilbrord remained for thirteen years 


in Ireland, and then resolved to attempt the conversion which had ~ 


bafiled his preceptor. He departed in the year 690, taking with him 
attendants or disciples to the number of twelve, as Bede and Alcuin 
say, though Mr. Wright states their number at eleven. They entered 
the Rhine and proceeded to Traject or Utrecht. Pepin had then just 
gained a victory over the Frisians, and the conqueror gave the apostle 
a warm welcome, The latter resolved to add to the influence of the 
monarch that of the pope, and with this view he visited Rome in 
692. Three years afterwards he made a second visit to the head of 
the Church, and, receiving the pall from the hand of Pope Sergius L, 
he returned with the title of bishop over the converts attached to his 
church at St. Cecilia, and with the ecclesiastical name of Clemens. 
He established his episcopal chair at Utrecht, where he built a church 
dedicated to St. Saviour, and restored one dedicated to St. Martin, A 
few years after these events Wilbrord made a proselyting tour through 
the territories in the vicinity of his diocese. He reached the country 
of the Danes, where, though Ongend their ruler resisted all his 
influence, he made several converts. Proceeding by sea, he reached 
an island called Fositisland, supposed to. be the same which is now 
ealled Heligoland. Its ancient name was given to it from that of an 
idol to whose worship it was sacred. The animals that lived upon the 
island were considered as consecrated, and were not to be used as 
human food, while the water of its fountains had a like hallowed 
character, Wilbrord appeased the hunger of his followers with the 
flesh of the sacred animals, and baptising converts in the hol 
fountains, roused the wrath of the heathen Frisians and their chied, 
who subjected him to an ordeal, or lottery, which constituted a form 
of trial for the indication of those who should be justly punished. 
The result of the ordeal was, it seems, miraculously in favour of the 
apostle; but though it occasioned his honourable acquittal, it does 
not appear to have increased the number of his converts. — 


a 


= 


ay 


lal 


ee SS se 


ae 


aS ee 


ae) ee 


i | 


~~ 


693 WILBYE, JOHN. 


WILFORD, FRANCIS. 694 


In 714 the death of Pepin restored within Wilbrord’s own diocese 
the authority of the same Pagan monarch, Radbod, who had subjected 
him to the above ordeal, and the people appear to have rapidly lapsed 
into heathenism. The successes of Charles Martel re-established the 
bishop in his influence, but the lapse of only two years seems to have 

ven him a great portion of his proselyting labours to do over again. 
With the assistance of the missionary Wulframn, he brought the 
stubborn and again defeated monarch Radbod so close to the point of 
conversion that he had come to the holy font and put one foot in the 


water, when he started the question whether there were a greater 


number of Frieslanders in heaven or in hell, On being incautiously 
told that all the unbaptised kings and nobles who had preceded him 
were in the latter place, he withdrew his foot, saying he would prefer 
going to the place where he would meet his ancestors to that which 
might only happen to be peopled by some of his descendants. Con- 
tinuing his missionary exertions under the patronage of Charles 


Martel, Wilbrord made a narrow escape, attributed to miracle, from 


death at the hands of the priest of an idol which he had destroyed, on 
the island of Walcheren. He founded the monastery of Epternach 
near Treves (at what time seems not clearly ascertainable), He there 
died and was buried, in 738, in his eighty-first year. His day in the 


calendar is the 7th of November. 


(Beda, Hist. Eecles., lib. v., chap, xi. xii.; Mabillon, Annales Ord. 


- 8. Bened., lib. xviii.; Wright, Biog. Brit. Lit., Anglo-Saxon Period, 


250-262. 

WILBYE, JOHN. Of this admirable composer—one of the 
brightest ornaments of the English school of music—all that is 
known, his works excepted, is, that in 1598 he was a teacher of music, 
and dwelt in Austin Friars. (Hawkins, iii. 387.) In that year he 
published a set of ‘ Madrigals, to three, four, five, and six Voices,’ 


and a second book of the same in 1609. These include some of the 1 


most lovely, and at the same time the most scientific compositions 
that, in this department, the art ever produced. Among them are, 
‘Flora gave me fairest flowers, ‘Ladye, when I behold the roses 
sprouting,’ ‘Sweet honey-sucking bees,’ ‘ Down in a valley,’ and ‘Stay, 
Corydon, thou swain;’ but only the second of these is mentioned by 
Sir John Hawkins, though an active member of the Madrigal Society ; 
and but two—the first and second of the above named—by the other 
musical historian, Dr. Burney. Mr. Warren (afterwards Warren Horne), 
the original secretary to the Catch Club, published, about seventy years 
ago, fourteen madrigals for three voices, selected from Wilbye’s two 
sets: these include, ‘ As fair as morn,’ and ‘ Fly, love, to heaven,’ with 
others of great merit. The Society of Musical Antiquarians have 
reprinted some of his madrigals in a very handsome manner. 

WILD, HENRY, known as the learned tailor, or the Arabian tailor, 
was a native of the city of Norwich, where he was born about the 
year 1684, and where he received the usual elementary education in 
Greck and Latin at the grammar-school; on being taken from which 
however he was bound apprentice to a tailor, with whom he is said 
to have served seven years in that capacity, and then to have worked 
seven more as a journeyman. Long before the end of the fourteen 
years his Greek and Latin had probably been nearly altogether forgot- 
ten, but he was now seized with an illness, which at last obliged him to 
give up working, and in this state he took to reading as an occupa- 
tion for his idle hours. The books which fell into his hands, or which 
he was either by accident or taste led to read, were some old works of 
controversial divinity ; and the quotations from the Scriptures in the 
original Hebrew, with which they happened to be interspersed, are 
said to have first excited him to an attempt to make himself master of 
that language. In prosecuting this object he by degrees recovered his 
Latin, thus enabling himself after some time to exchange his English 
Hebrew lexicon and grammar for better works of that kind written in 
Latin; and, what was of still more importance, in the course of his 
studies he also recovered his health, and was enabled to resume his 
trade. But he did not upon this lay aside his books: he worked part 
of the day, and devoted the rest, and often also a portion of the night, 
to study, so that he gradually made himself acquainted with others of 
the Oriental languages as well as the Hebrew. In March, 1714, he is 
mentioned as having within the preceding seven years mastered Latin, 
Greek, Hebrew, Chaldaic, Syriac, Arabic, and Persian. This statement, 
which is given in a letter from Dr. Turner of Norwich to Dr. Charlett, 
written at the time, and published in the ‘ Letters by Eminent Per- 
sons’ (edited by Dr. Bliss), 3 vols. 8vo, 1811, is, it may be observed, 
not very easily reconcileable with the common story of his having 
worked fourteen years as a tailor before he took to study : it would at 
least require that we should suppose him to have left the grammar- 
school and been apprenticed before he was nine years of age, instead 
of when he was “almost qualified for the university,” as the common 
accounts say. This letter of Dr. Turner’s too, in which he is spoken 
of as then about thirty years of age, is the authority for the date 


assigned to his birth. It is clear that either the time he is made to. 


have been at school, or that assigned to the part of his life which was 
subsequently spent without study, must be shortened. It appears to 
have been shortly before the date of Dr. Turner's letter that Wild 
was discovered by the learned Dr. Prideaux, then dean of Norwich, 
who, upon inquiring one day after some Arabic manuscripts, which a 
bookseller of the place had some time previous offered to him 
and which he had then declined to purchase, learned to his alarm 


that they had since been bought by a tailor. Wild was instantly sent 
for, and the dean was not only soon relieved from his apprehension 
that the precious parchments had been cut down for measures, but 
was astonished by the tailor telling him that he had bought them to 
read, and proving that he could do so on the spot. A subscription 
was soon after raised to rescue him from the necessity of labouring 
with his hands, which really does not seem to have been his proper 
vocation : ‘He is very poor,” writes Dr. Turner in his letter, “ and his 
landlord lately seized a polyglot Bible (which he had made shift to 
purchase) for rent ;”—a proof that he had hardly been able to make 
bread by his partial application to his trade of a tailor. Eventually 
he was taken to the Bodleian Library at Oxford, and employed in 
translating and making extracts of Oriental manuscripts; and he also 
added something to his means of subsistence by taking pupils in the 
Oriental tongues. He did not meet with much encouragement how- 
ever in the latter line, About the year 1720 he left Oxford and came 
to London, where he is believed to have spent the rest of his days 
under the patronage of Dr. Mead. The date of his death is unknown ; 
but he is supposed to have been dead before 1734, in which year was 
published a translation by him of an Arabic legend entitled ‘ Maho- 
met’s Journey to Heaven,’ his only literary production that ever found 
its way to the press. This self-taught scholar is said to have been a 
very inoffensive and amiable man. 

WILDENS, JOHAN, a celebrated Flemish landscape painter, born 
at Antwerp. He was the contemporary of Rubens, to many of whose 
pictures he painted landscape backgrounds, which he knew how to 
harmonise with the style and colouring of Rubens better than any 
other landscape painter. Rubens is said to have preferred the works 
of Wildens to those of Van Uden, whom he employed in the same 
way. Wildens painted large and small pictures, in some of which 
there are some good figures painted by himself; but in his best works 
the figures are painted by other masters. He painted twelve very 
clever and characteristic pictures of the twelve months, which have 
been engraved. He died in 1644: the year of his birth is not known; 
1584 and 1600 are both given by different writers. 

WILFORD, FRANCIS (Lieut.-Col.), known as an Oriental scholar 
by numerous contributions to the ‘Asiatic Researches, went out to 
India, in 1781, as lieutenant of some troops which were sent from 
Hanover, his native country, to reinforce the British troops of the 
line. Soon after the peace of Mangalore, in 1784, Wilford was sta- 
tioned at Russapugla, where he devoted some of the time which was 
not occupied by his professional duties to the elucidation of Hindoo 
antiquities by means of whatever notices he could find concerning 
them in Greek and Latin authors: he found however great difficulties 
from a total ignorance of the Oriental languages; and in his first 
essay, which was published in the ‘ Asiatic Researches’ (1787), he com- 
plains of having no time to study languages. <A few years afterwards 
he was stationed at Benares, the centre of Hindoo learning, where he 
engaged a Pandit to instruct him in the sacred dialect, and more 
especially to point out to him those passages from the Vedas and 
Purdan’as which in some measure related to the West. The first fruit 
of his investigation was an essay on ‘Kgypt and the Nile, from the 
ancient books of the Hindoos’ (1792). It is needless to say that the 
Pandit had forged authorities to suit the fancies of his unsuspecting 
employer; yet so skilful were these forgeries, that eveu the judicious 
Sir W. Jones was imposed upon by them. Wilford himself describes 
how the imposture was carried on in the following manner:—*[I 
directed my Pandit to make extracts from all the Purdn’as and other 
books relating to my inquiries, and to arrange them under proper 
heads. I gave him a proper establishment of assistants and writers, 
and I requested him to procure another Pandit to assist me in my 
studies; and I obtained, for his further encouragement, a place for him 
in the college at Benares. At the same time 1 amused myself with un- 
folding to him our ancient mythology, history, and geography. This was 
absolutely necessary, as a clue to guide him through so immense an 
undertaking, and I had full. confidence in him.” That is, Wilford 
wished to know whether there had been any connection between Egypt 
and India; and the Brahmin immediately substituted the word Lgypé 
for the name of any other country mentioned in the Purdn’as. We have 
thought it worth while giving the above extract, for it now renders it 
entirely unnecessary to give a detailed account of his works, which we 
shall mention, with a warning to our readers not to trust even those 
which he wrote after discovering the imposture in 1804. This cir- 
cumstance greatly disturbed his peace of mind, and brought on 
paroxysms, which threatened the most serious consequences to his 
then infirm state of health. He was an original member of the Asiatic 
Society, and associé étranger of the Institut de France (Académie des 
Inscriptions et Belles Lettres), and died at Benares, on the 4th Sep- 
tember 1822. The following is a list of his essays, which show great 
zeal for his subject but an utter want of sound judgment. They are 
all inserted in the ‘ Asiatic Researches :°—1, ‘ Remarks on the Town of 
Tagara,’ i. p. 869 (1787); 2,‘On Egypt and the Nile, &c.,’ iii., 295 
(1792); 3, ‘Dissertation on Semiramis,’ iv., 363; 4, ‘An Account of 
some ancient Inscriptions,’ v., 135; 5, ‘On the Chronology of the 
Hindus, v., 247 (1797); 6, ‘Remarks on the names of the Cabirian 
Deities,’ v., 297; 7, ‘On Mount Caucasus,’ vi. 455 (1799); 8, “ Essays 
on the Sacred Isles of the West, ix., 32; x., 27; xi, 11 (1805-10); 
9, ‘Chronology of the Kings of Magadha,’ ix., 82; 10, ‘ diras of; 


WILFRED, SAIN‘, 


WILKES, JOHN. 696 


Vikramaditya and Salivahana,’ ix., 117; 11, ‘On the Ancient Geogra- 
phiy of India,’ xiv. (1822). 

WILFRED, SAINT, a Saxon bishop, one of the principal instru- 
ments by which the papal authority was extended to Britain. He 
was descended of a noble family of Bernicia, where he is said to 
have been born in the year 634. He was taught the use of arms and 
other accomplishments of a Saxon noble. At the age of thirteen he 
became subject to the authority of an unkind step-mother, from which 
he was relieved by being received into Queen Eanfleda’s household. 
While only in bis fourteenth year he was directed by the queen to be 
an attendant on an aged Saxon noble named Cudda, who had resolved 
to spend the remainder of his days as patron of a small monastery in 
Lindisfarne. It is said that Wilfred here devoted himself to theological 
reading, in the course of which he discovered the difference between 
the practice of the Scottish Church and that of the rest of the 
Christian world as to the observance of Easter, and conceived the 
design of visiting Rome, that he might obtain a satisfactory solution of 
the difiiculty. In 653, when nineteen years old, he proceeded on his 
journey, accompanied by Benedict Biscop, who afterwards enjoyed a 
celebrity much resembling his own, and with recommendations from 
the courts of Bernicia and Kent. At Rome, where he remained for 
several months, he received special instruction on the subject as to 
which he had undertaken the journey, and on theological matters of 
more serious importance, from Archdeacon Boniface, by whom he was 
brought under the notice of the pope. In passing through Lyon he 
had secured the friendship of a powerful French prelate, Archbishop 
Delfinus, with whom he lived for three years on his return. Upon 
the fall of the Merovingian dynasty, Delfinus was put to death by 
Elvenius, mayor of the palace, and Wilfred narrowly escaped from 
sharing in his fate. Returning from the centre of ecclesiastical learn- 
ing and authority, Wilfred naturally obtained a high influence among 
the Saxon Christians, lay and ecclesiastical. From Alchfrid, king of 
Northumbria, he obtained a grant of land and a monastery at Ripon, 
within which, in 664, he was ordained a priest by Agilberct, bishop of 
the West Saxons. The ceremony was performed in time to give him 
a voice in the celebrated conference of Streaneshalch, or Whitby, 
where the Easter question and that of the tonsure were solemnly dis- 
cussed, The Scoto-Irish clergy having so far diverged from the 
commonly received interpretation of the decision of the Council of 
Nice, regarding the time of Easter, as to solemnise it on the day of the 
full moon when that day fell upon a Sunday, instead of waiting till 
the ensuing Monday, and having also adopted a peculiar practice in the 
tonsure, or shaving of the head, the King of Northumbria, whose 
dominions were under the spiritual jurisdiction of the Scottish 
bishops of Lindisfarne, was desirous that his clergy should conform to 
the practice of the rest of Christendom, or justify their divergence by 
authority. The conference was held at the monastery of Whitby, at 
the commencement of the year 664. His own practice was vindicated 
by Colman, bishop of Lindisfarne, on the example of St. Columba; 
but Wilfred adduced the higher authority of St. Peter, and the king 
decided in his favour. The jurisdiction of the Scottish bishops within 
Northumbria arose from the circumstance of the see of York having 
been left vacant. The king determined to fill the see, and his choice 
naturally fell on Wilfred. He saw difficulties in the way of being 
canonically consecrated in Britain, and proceeding to France, the 
ceremony was performed with much pomp by the’same Agilberct who 
had ordained him priest, and who had become bishop of Paris, The 
ship in which he returned was driven by a storm on the coast of 
Sussex, where he and his followers narrowly escaped being plundered 
and enslaved by the barbarous and unconverted inhabitants. In the 
meantime the influence of the Scoto-Irish and British party in the 
Church had got one of their own number, Ceadda, placed in the chair 
of York. Three years elapsed before Wilfred could get his claim 
enforced; but the arrival of the learned Theodore from Rome, and his 
elevation to the archiepiscopal see of Canterbury, decided the contest 
in favour of the Roman party in 669. Wilfred, in possession of a 
bishopric, soon showed the ambition and priestly pride of his character 
by enlarging the power of the Church and surrounding his own person 
with pomp and state. He carried on a bold contest for superiority on 
the side of the ecclesiastical against the kingly power, both of them 
but imperfectly developed, and depending for their extent very much 
on the personal character of the individuals who might wield them. 
He appears not to have been luxurious or sensual in his own personal 
habits; but he lived magnificently, kept a great table, and was sur- 
rounded by a body of attendants, which vied in number and splendour 
with the,king’s court. He was the first patron of ecclesiastical archi- 
tecture in England. Rome and the other continental cities he had 
visited naturally filled his mind with magnificent conceptions, which 
he embodied in the embellishments of the cathedral church of York ; 
covering the roof with lead, and filling the windows with glass. He 
built a church at Ripon of hewn stone, of which the great size and the 
columns and porticoes are the subject of admiration by the ecclesias- 
tical annalists; and another at Hexham, which was called the finest 
ecclesiastical edifice on the western side of the Alps. He had a great 
influence over Ktheldrytha, the queen, whom he persuaded to retire 
toanunnery. Lither by his interference or his ambition he roused 
the anger of the victorious Ecgfrid, now king of Northumbria, who 
resolved to break his power by dividing his bishopric into three, a 


project in which Theodore, the archbishop, concurred. Refusing his 
assent, Wilfred was deposed. He proceeded to Rome, to make a per- 
sonal appeal to the court; and on his way, being driven on the 
coast of Friesland, remained there for some time, converting the 
natives to Christianity. The pope naturally decided in his favour ; 
but the king, instead of seconding the papal decree, committed Wilfred 
to prison, whence he escaped to the wastes of Sussex, where he devoted 
the energies of his active mind to the conversion and civilisation of the 
heathen inhabitants. Caedwalla, who had been driven from his king- 
dom of Wessex, was aided in the recovery of it by Wilfred, and after- 
wards extended his authority over Sussex. Wilfred, powerfully 
befriended and supported by his eminent services to Christianity, was 
recalled to his see, and had hopes held out to him of succeeding 
Theodore in the primacy. The bishops however were still op 

to Wilfred as the head of the Roman party; and after the death of 
Theodore the primacy remained vacant for two years, and was then 
filled by Berctwald. This archbishop, soon after his accession, pre- 
sided at a council held in 692, at which the old question of the division 
of the see of York was revived. Wilfred on this occasion took high 
ground, charging his opponents with schism and apostacy in resisting 
the head of the Church; and he was deposed and excommunicated. 
Wilfred again proceeded to Rome, where he had in his favour his zeal 
in support of the papal authority, and the countenance of his old 
patron, Boniface. He remained some years at Rome, and did not 
reach England on his return till 705, The authority he brought with 
him overawed his opponents; but age and decrepitude seem to have 
quenched his ambition, and he neither sought the primacy nor a 
restoration to his see of York. He died at his monastery at Oundle in 
709, and his body was conveyed to Ripon, where it was interred. 

WILKES, JOHN, was born at Clerkenwell, October 17th, 1727. 
His father, a distiller in that place, gave him a liberal education ; 
for after he had spent several years at school in Hertford and in 
Buckinghamshire, he was sent, with a private tutor, to the univer- 
sity of Leyden. Wilkes did not neglect the opportunities afforded 
him, but evinced through life considerable scholarship and taste for 
classical literature and polite learning. He translated parts of Ana- 
creon, and printed handsome editions of the Characters of Theo- 
phrastus and of the poems of Catullus. His manners were elegant, 
and his conversation pleasing and witty. At an early age his accom- 
plishments secured him many friends of rank and influence, amongst 
whom maybe mentioned Lord Temple, and Mr. Pitt, afterwards 
Lord Chatham, His devotion to literature and the society of eminent — 
men did not secure his youth from vicious excesses. He was 
notorious for his dissipation and extravagance, and at an early age 
was embarrassed in fortune and tainted in character. In 1749 he 
married Miss Mead, of a Buckinghamshire family, but that lady was 
ten years older than himself, and their dispositions were by no means 
suitable. They continued to live together for some time, and a 
daughter was born of their marriage; but at length his excesses and 
mutual disagreement led to a separation. This was followed by a 
lawsuit concerning his wife's annuity, in which his character was 
exposed to much obloquy. His vices however were not destined to 
ruin him. Neither his character nor his talents would have raised 
him to political eminence; but the impolitic and illegal measures of 
his opponents made him the idol of the people. 

The first appearance of Wilkes in public was in April 1754, when 
he addressed the electors of Berwick-upon-Tweed with a view of 
becoming their representative in parliament. He did not however 
succeed in obtaining a seat in the House of Commons until 1757, when 
he was returned for the borough of Aylesbury, for which place he was 
re-elected in the next parliament, in 1761. In March, 1762, he pub- 
lished a very successful pamphlet, being ‘Observations on the Papers 
relative to the Rupture with Spain, laid before both Houses of Par- 
liament on Friday, January 29, 1762.’ It did not appear with his 
name, and Wilkes slily shifted the authorship upon others, In June 
of the same year he commenced the publication of his. celebrated 
newspaper, the ‘North Briton,’ which he undertook in opposition to 
‘The Briton,’ a paper written in defence of Lord Bute’s administra- 
tion. The unpopularity of Lord Bute was already very great, but 
the ‘North Briton’ increased it to an alarming extent, by stirring 
appeals to the passions and to national prejudices. The minister 
quailed before the clamour with which he was universally assailed, 
and withdrew from public affairs; but his known influence with the 
king, and the political complexion of the ministers under Mr. George 
Grenville, his successor, led to the belief that he still enjoyed a secret 
control over the national councils. Wilkes, with the assistance, it 
is said, of Charles Churchill and Lord Temple, continued his attacks 
upon the ministry with unabated activity. The government were 
watching an opportunity of punishing their mischievous opponent, 
and at length struck a blow which recoiled upon themselves. In 
No. 45 of his paper he charged the king with having uttered a false- 
hood in his speech from the throne; upon which a general warrant © 
was issued by Lord Halifax, one of the principal secretaries of state, 
commanding the apprehension of the authors, printers, and publishers 
of the ‘North Briton,’ as a seditious and treasonable paper. By 
virtue of this warrant the house of Wilkes was entered by three king’s 
messengers, his papers were searched, and he himself was seized and 
committed to the Tower. In a few days he was brought, by habeas 


See 


9 ' 


697 WILKES, JOHN. 


WILKIE, SIR. DAVID. 698 


corpus, before the Court of Common Pleas, and discharged out of 
custody on account of his privilege as a member of the House of 
Commons.. An information however was immediately exhibited 
against him by the attorney-general, to which he declined to appear. 


_ He was, at the same time, dismissed from his command in the militia, 


and his friend, Lord Temple, was deprived of his office of lord- 
lieutenant of Buckinghamshire. 

On the meeting of parliament in November (1763), the House of 
Commons were acquainted, by a message from the king, with the 
proceedings that had been taken against their member, and a copy of 
the obnoxious number of the ‘North Briton’ was laid before them. 
They immediately resolved that the paper “ was a false, scandalous, 
and seditious libel,” and ordered it to be burnt by the hands of 
the common hangman. When the sheriffs of London proceeded 
to execute this sentence at the Royal Exchange they were insulted 
by the mob, and a riot ensued, the first of many tumults in the 
cause of Mr, Wilkes. That which had been intended as a disgrace 
and punishment to Mr. Wilkes was the commencement of a series 
of triumphs over the ministers and the parliament. The people 
had regarded his imprisonment by a general warrant as illegal and 


oppressive, and his paper, though adjudged libellous in higher quarters, 


was read by them with enthusiasm, and its author greeted every- 
where with the loudest applause. On his liberation from the Tower, 


“Wilkes had brought an action against the under-secretary of state for 


the seizure of his papers ; and the cause now coming on for trial, he 
obtained a warrant in his favour, with 1000/. damages, On this occa- 
sion Chief Justice Pratt, afterwards Lord Camden, declared general 
warrants to be “ unconstitutional, illegal, and absolutely void.” 
Meanwhile Wilkes had been called upon by the House of Commons 
to answer the charge of being the author of the libel, but excused 
himself on account of a wound which he had received ina duel. He 
shortly afterwards withdrew into France, whence he forwarded to the 
Speaker a certificate of his ill-health and inability to attend. The 
House disregarded his excuse, proceeded in his absence to inquire into 
the authorship of the ‘ North Briton,’ and having proved Mr. Wilkes 
to be the author, expelled him the House, on the 19th of January 
1764. On the 2lst of February he was convicted in the Court of 
King’s Bench of re-publishing No. 45 of the ‘ North Briton,’ and of 
printing and publishing an ‘Essay on Woman.’ The latter was an 
obscene poem of which he had printed only 12 copies, and one of 
them had been surreptitiously obtained through a printer who had 
been employed at his private press. By convicting him of immorality 
the ministers hoped to lower the enthusiasm of the people in his 
favour; but the means to which they had resorted in obtaining 
possession of the book, increased the indignation against the govern- 
ment, and the sympathy for the victim of ministerial persecution. 
Wilkes remained abroad, and not,appearing to receive the judgment 
of the court, he was outlawed. fi) travelled on the continent for 
some years, but did not lose sight of his interests at home. He 
solicited pardon for the past, and employment or a pension for the 
future, and it is said that he obtained a pension of 1040/. a year from 
the Rockingham administration, paid out of their own salaries, viz., 
from the first lord of the treasury 300/., from the lords of the treasury 
60/. each, from the lords of trade 401. each, &c. (‘Letter of Mr. 
Horne,’ in ‘Junius,’ ii. 204). He also published at Paris, in 1767, ‘A 
Collection of the genuine Papers, Letters, &c., in the case of J. Wilkes, 
late Member for Aylesbury,’ by which he hoped to keep alive the 
public interest in his favonr. In 1768 he returned to England, and 
in March of that year offered himself as a candidate for the repre- 
sentation of the City of London. He succeeded in polling 1247 
votes, but in spite of the violent attachment of the populace, he failed 
in obtaining a majority. He then declared himself a candidate for 
the county of Middlesex, and on the 28th was returned by a large 
majority. Serious riots. occurred at both these elections, and the 
court party declared that the city, and even the king's palace, were 
in danger. Although an outlawry was hanging over his head, 
Wilkes was imprudently allowed to be at liberty all this time, and 
to appear on the hustings, and harangue immense mobs in London, 
Westminster, and Brentford. After his election he surrendered him- 
self before the Court of King’s Bench, but the court refused to com- 
mit him upon his outlawry, as moved by the attorney-general, and 
he was accordingly discharged. He was arrested immediately after- 
wards on a writ of ‘capias utlagatum.’ A tumult arose, and as the 
officers were conveying him to the King’s Bench prison, he was rescued 
by the mob. Not thinking it prudent however to take advantage of 
the popular zeal, he went privately to prison after the dispersion of 
the mob. He was still under confinement at the meeting of parlia- 
ment on the 10th of May, and a mob assembled before his prison to 
convey him in triumph to the House of Commons. A riot ensued— 
the military were ordered to fire, and -killed and wounded several of 
the rioters. The death of one person was brought in murder by the 
coroner's jury, and the magistrate who had given the order to fire was 
tried for that crime, but acquitted. This riot was distinguished 
by the popular party as the massacre in St. George’s Fields, and 
formed the subject of angry complaints against the government. Mr. 
Wilkes’s outlawry was afterwards reversed by Lord Mansfield, but judg- 
ment was pronounced upon him for his two libels, and he was sentenced 
to two fines of 500/. each, and to imprisonment for the two terms of ten 


and twelve months, Not contented with his imprisonment, the minis- 
ters devised fre8h means of persecution against Mr. Wilkes, which, like 
their previous measures, increased his popularity and diminished their 
own. He had contrived to obtain a copy of a letter addressed by 
Lord Weymouth to the chairman of the quarter-sessions at Lambeth, 
before the riot in St. George’s Fields; in which that nobleman 
recommended the early and effectual employment of the military to 
suppress disturbances. This letter was published by Mr. Wilkes 
with a preface, in which he charged the secretary of state with having 
‘planned and determined upon the horrid massacre in St. George’s 
Fields” three weeks before its execution. Lord Weymouth com- 
plained of this publication in the House of Lords as a breach of 
privilege. A complaint was addressed by the Lords to the Commons, 
and a conference held upon the subject. When Mr. Wilkes was 
brought to the bar to be heard upon a petition which he had pre- 
sented, he avowed himself the publisher of Lord Weymouth’s letter, 
and the author of the prefatory remarks; upon which the House 
resolved that his remarks were a scandalous and seditious libel, and, 
for the second time, expelled him. 

A new writ was issued for Middlesex, and Mr. Wilkes was re-elected 
without opposition and without expense. The House resolved that 
this election was void by reason of the expulsion, and issued another 
writ. Mr, Wilkes was again chosen without a contest, when the House 
declared him incapable of being elected into that parliament. Not- 
withstanding this declaration of incapacity, he stood once more, when 
My. Dingley, his opponent, could not even obtain a nomination, and 
Wilkes was returned a third time without opposition. This election 
was likewise declared to be void, and this time a new expedient was 
resorted to; the government persuaded Colonel Luttrell to vacate his 
seat in parliament, and to oppose Mr. Wilkes in the approaching elec- 
tion. Mr. Wilkes was returned by an overwhelming majority, and 
his opponent mustered less than 300 votes, yet the House of Com- 
mons declared that Mr. Wilkes had been incapable of being elected, 
and that Col. Luttrell, being next on the poll, and qualified to sit in 
parliament, was duly elected as member for the county. This violation 
of the rights of election was resented not only by the freeholders of 
Middlesex, but by the whole country. The battle was no longer 
between Mr. Wilkes and the ministers, but between the whole 
electoral body and the parliament. In the midst of petitions, 
addresses, and remonstrances, the letters of Junius inflamed the people 
and confounded the ministers. Truly did he say to the latter; “ You 
have united this country against you on one grand constitutional 
point, on the decision of which our existence, as a free people, abso- 
lutely depends.’ (Letter XI, to the Duke of Grafton.) Meanwhile 
the popular champion, through whose sides the constitution had 
been assailed, though still immured in the King’s Bench prison, was 
receiving substantial marks of public favour. Subscriptions were 
opened for the payment of his fines and personal debts, and upwards 
of 20,0002. were raised for that purpose in the course of a few weeks. 
Presents of all kinds were also heaped upon him ; plate, jewels, wine, 
furniture, and embroidered purses of gold. His portrait was in uni- 
versal request, and was reproduced in every form of art, from the 
marble bust to the village sign-board, 

Another legal triumph soon followed. On the reversal of his out- 
lawry, Mr. Wilkes had proceeded with an action against Lord Halifax 
for false imprisonment and the seizure of his papers. In November 
1769, the cause was tried in the Common Pleas, when he obtained a 
verdict, with 4000/. damages, which were defrayed by the crown. 

In the following April, Mr. Wilkes was discharged from his confine- 
ment, on giving a bond for his good behaviour during seven years, 
He was shortly afterwards admitted to the office of alderman for the 
ward of Farringdon Without, and aspired to other civic honours. He 
served as sheriff in 1771. In the two following years he was elected 
by the livery as one of the persons to be chosen lord mayor; and on 
his third nomination, in 1774, was chosen by the court of aldermen. 
On the 10th of October he was again elected for the county of Middle- 
sex, and continued in the House of Commons for many years. But his 
popularity had declined: to use hisown words, he was “a fire burned 
out;”’ but the comforts of the lucrative office of chamberlain of the 
City of London, which he obtained in 1779, were an ample compensa- 
tion for the loss of popular favour. 

One political triumph however was still reserved for him. In the 
parliaments of 1774 and 1780 he had made many unsuccessful 
attempts to expunge from the journals, the resolutions of the House 
of Commons in regard to the Middlesex elections ; but at length, on 
the dissolution of Lord North’s administration in 1782, he accom- 
plished his object. On the 3rd May, the House voted that the resolu- 
tion of the 17th February 1769, by which he had been declared 
incapable of re-election, should be expunged from their journals, “it 
being subversive of the rights of the whole body of the electors of 
the kingdom.” All the other regolutions and orders of the House 
concerning the Middlesex elections were also ordered to be expunged. 
In 1784 he was elected for the last time by the county of Middlesex ; 
he did not offer himself again at the dissolution in 1760, but retired 
into private life. In retirement he lived to be forgotten, and died 
December 27,1797, at the age of 70. : 

WILKIE, SIR DAVID, was born at the manse of the parish of 
Cults, on the banks of Eden-water, in Fifeshire, on the 18th of 


699 WILKIE, SIR DAVID, 


WILKIE, SIR DAVID. 700 


November 1785. He was the third son of David Wilkie, minister of 
Cults, and Isabella Lister, his third wife. Wilkie displayed what may 
be termed an innate love for drawing when quite a child: he has been 
heard to say that he could draw before he could read, and paint before 
he could spell. It became at length evident to his father that young 
David would turn his attention to nothing but painting, and eventually 
he consented to allow him to follow his own inclination, He was 
accordingly sent, in 1799, to the Trustees’ Academy of Edinburgh. 
John Graham was master of the academy at this time, and Sir William 
Allan and John Burnet were Wilkie’s fellow-scholars. The progress 
Wilkie made at this time, says Sir William Allan, “ was marvellous. 
Everything he attempted indicated a knowledge far beyond his years ; 
and he soon took up that position in art which he maintained to the 
last. He was always on the look-out for character: he frequented 
trystes, fairs, and market-places.” : 

In 1803 he won the ten-guinea premium that was awarded in that 
year, for the best painting of ‘ Callisto in the bath of Diana.’ In the 
same year he made the sketch of his picture of the ‘ Village Politicians.’ 
In 1804, in his nineteenth year, he left. the academy and returned 
home, At home he painted in the same year, for Kinnear of Kinloch, 
his picture of ‘ Pitlessie Fair,’ in which he inserted about 140 figures, 
mostly portraits, many of which he sketched while at church, as he 
had no other way of procuring them. For this picture he received 
only 252. He painted likewise at this time many portraits in small 
and in miniature, and the picture called the ‘ Village Recruit,’ which 
he took with him to London soon after it was finished, and exposed 
for sale in a shop-window at Charing-cross, aid at the low price it was 
marked, 6/., it soon found a purchaser. After he had found a lodging 
in No. 8, Norton-street, Wilkie lost no time in obtaining admission as 
a student at the Royal Academy. The young painter's first patron in 
London was Stodart, the pianoforte-maker, who happened to be 
married to a Wilkie, and had a taste for painting as well as music, 
He sat to Wilkie for his portrait, ordered him to paint two pictures for 
him, introduced him to a valuable connection, and procured him several 
sitters, The Earl of Mansfield, to whom Wilkie had been introduced 
by Stodart, commissioned him to paint a picture from his sketch of the 
‘ Village Politicians,’ for which Wilkie demanded fifteen guineas ; but 
the earl merely said, ‘ Consult your friends about the price.” When 
however the picture was finished and exhibited in the Royal Academy 
in 1806, it excited such universal admiration, that Wilkie was advised 
not to sell it for less than 30 guineas. The painter accordingly 
demanded 30 guineas of the earl, who paid the money, but first dis- 
. puted his right to make any such demand. Wilkie pleaded the earl’s 

advice, “consult your friends,” in justification of his proceeding, He 
had been offered from two other parties 100/. for the picture. 

From this time commissions were abundant, and instead of returning 
to Scotland, as he had intended, he found it necessary to establish 
himself in London. He received commissions from Mr. Whitbread, 
Lord Mulgrave, and Sir George Beaumont, who until his death proved 
a most sincere-and valuable friend to Wilkie. The picture of the 
‘Village Politicians’ was painted from the “ale caup commentators,” 
in the ballad of ‘ Will and Jean,’ by Macneil. As the production of a 
living artist, it was a thing quite new to the English painters of that 
time, and various comments were made upon it by the academicians. 
Northcote termed it the “pauper style;” and Fuseli, when he met 
Wilkie, after he had seen it, said, “ Young man, that is a dangerous 
work. That picture will either prove the most happy or the most 

. unfortunate work of your life.” It apparently proved to be the most 
fortunate; and although Wilkie was only twenty-one when he painted 
it, as a painting he never surpassed it afterwards, though in subject he 
produced several happier pictures. His next works were, the ‘ Blind 
Fiddler,’ for Sir George Beaumont; ‘Alfred in the Neatherd’s Cottage,’ 
for Mr. Davidson; the ‘Card-Players,’ for the Duke of Gloucester ; 
and the ‘Rent-Day,’ for the Earl of Mulgrave; painted in 1807 and 
1808. He then painted the ‘Sick Lady,’ the ‘Jew’s-Harp,’ and the 
‘Cut Finger. After these, the sketch of the ‘Reading of the Will,’ 
the ‘Wardrobe Ransacked,’ the ‘Game-Keeper,’ and the ‘ Ale-House 
Door,’ afterwards called the ‘ Village Festival,’ painted for Mr. Anger- 
stein for 800 guineas, and now in the National Gallery: all painted in 
1809, 1810, and 1811. In 1809 he was elected an Associate of the 
Royal Academy, and a member in 1811. 

Wilkie was naturally of a weak constitution, and his incessant appli- 
cation to his profession rendered necessary at this time a suspension 
of all exertion; and this, together with the declining state of his 
father’s health, induced him to pay a visit to his native place, where 
he arrived in August 1811. In October of the same year he returned 
to his easel in some new apartments at Kensington, as being the most 
healthy part of the metropolis. 

On the 1st of May 1812 he opened an exhibition at 87, Pall Mall, of 
all his pictures, twenty-nine in number, including sketches (some of 
which however were painted after the pictures), from which he 
expected to derive considerable profit; but although it extended his 
reputation, it appears to have been a very unprofitable expedient. 
The expense of the exhibition amounted to 414/. In December of 
this year he lost his father, and he invited his mother and sister to 
come to live with him in London, where he took a commodious house 
in Kensington, 24, Lower Phillimore Place, to receive them in. In 
1813 he exhibited his picture of ‘ Blindman’s Buff” which he painted 


for the Prince Regent, The prices Wilkie now received were very 
different from those which he had for his early pictures. For the 
‘ Letter of Introduction,’ and the ‘Refusal,’ or ‘Duncan Gray,’ both 


small pictures, painted in 1813, he received respectively 250 and 830 


guineas, yet he was not making 600/. a-year. He returned his income 
in 1813 for the income-tax, according to the average of three 
and making the necessary reduction for his house, at 5001, 

In 1814 he went with his friend Mr, Haydon to Paris, and carefully 


studied the pictures which Napoleon I. had collected in the Louvre— _ 
the spoils of the churches and galleries of the Continent. In 1814 a 


and 1815 he painted ‘ Distraining for Rent,’ the ‘Pedlar’ and the 
‘Rabbit on the Wall.’ The proprietors of the British Institution pur- 
chased the first for 600 guineas. In the summer of 1816 he went 
with Raimbach, the engraver, to Holland and Belgium. In 1816 he 
painted the ‘Breakfast’ for the Marquis of Stafford. In 1817 he 
painted his only landscape, a piece called ‘Sheep-Washing.’ For the 
‘ Breakfast’ the Marquis of Stafford paid him 4007. In 1817 also he 
commenced a picture for the Duke of Wellington, the ‘Chelsea Pen- 
sioners,’ and another, the ‘Penny Wedding,’ for the Prince 

In the same year he paid a visit to Scotland and Sir Walter (then Mr.) 
Scott, of whom and family he painted an interesting picture; he also” 
made at this time a sketch for his picture of the ‘ Whiskey-Still.’ 
After his return to London the authorities of Cupar sent him the 
freedom of the burgh. In 1818 he painted the ‘ Errand-Boy,’ ‘ China- 
Menders,’ ‘ Death of Sir Philip Sidney, all small pieces, and finished 
the ‘Penny Wedding’ and the ‘ Whiskey-Still.’ For the ‘Wedding’ 
he received 5451. including frame. In 1819 he commenced th 
‘Reading of the Will, for the King of Bavaria, which he finished 
in the following year, and was paid 447/. 10s. for it. In 1821 
he painted his ‘Chelsea Pensioners,’ which was exhibited in 1822, 
This picture, painted for the Duke of Wellington for 1200 guineas, 
is certainly Wilkie’s master-piece ; it is of its class the finest work 
that has been painted in England, and gives Wilkie rank among the — 
most celebrated masters of the Dutch school. The colouring is seber 
and true, the drawing good, and the character, composition, and exe- 


cution exquisite: almost its only bad point is the head and figure — 


of the female to the right; but Wilkie seldom introduced females 
into his earlier pictures, and when he did he generally failed. The 
subject of this picture is a veteran reading to some Chelsea pen- 
sioners the Gazette of the battle of Waterloo, which had been just 
brought by an orderly of the Marquis of Anglesey’s lancers, — Be 
We have now traced. Wilkie’s progress, with a few exceptions, from 
the first to the last of those pictures upon which his future fame will — 
rest—the ‘Village Politicians,’ and the ‘ Chelsea Pensioners.’ After 


the last-named picture he produced many excellent works, but it is — 


generally allowed that he did not add anything to his reputation. His — 
later works were certainly not sufficient even to uphold the reputation — 
which Wilkie had acquired. He not only changed his subjects, but 
he changed his style of execution also. In his own peculiar style he 
was without a rival; in the style which he at this time adopted he 
had many superiors. One of the worst and earliest of these new pro- 
ductions was the ‘Entrance of George IV. into Holyrood,’ a picture — 
confusedly composed, flat and ill-executed, and ill-drawn. At the 
death of Sir Henry Raeburn, in 1823, Wilkie was appointed limner to 
the king in Scotland. In 1824 he lost his mother and one of his — 
brothers, and he suffered himself so much from ill-health that he 
determined upon a protracted visit to the Continent. He set out with 
a friend and cousin in the summer of 1825 for Paris, from whence to 
Switzerland and Italy. In Italy Wilkie remained eight months. He — 
then visited Munich, Dresden, Téplitz, Carlsbad, Prague, and Vienna, 
and returned for another season to Italy. At Rome, on his second 
visit, a public dinner was given to him by the Scotch artists and 
amateurs, at which the Duke of Hamilton presided. During his 
second visit to Italy his health began to revive, and he painted three 
pictures at Rome. From Italy he went through the south of France, 


entered Spain in October 1827, and travelled to Madrid. In Madrid — . 


he painted a picture of a Spanish Council of War, and two other 
Spanish subjects, one of which was the ‘Defence of * in 
which he inserted the portrait of General Palafox, the defender of the 
place. In the summer he left Spain, and reached Paris in June 1828, 
and returned to England in the same month, after an absence of three 
years. In the exhibition of 1829 he had eight pictures, four Italian, 
three Spanish, and a portrait of the Earl of Kellie. The three 
Spanish and two of the Italian were purchased by George IV. In the 
same year he painted a portrait of the king in a Scotch dress. Some 
of these pictures were much admired by his friends, but far less by 


the public. The principal characteristics are effect of colour and light — 


and shade, which, with breadth and facility, he appears to have now — 
considered the proper objects of high art, and an advance beyond the 
truth, simplicity, and character of his earlier works. Of this new 


style, in a letter from Spain he speaks as follows:—“I have now, — 


a) 


from the study of the old masters, adopted a bolder and, I think, more 
effective style, and one result is rapidity.” In other letters he speaks 
of his imitation of Rembrandt, Correggio, and Velasquez. These 
pictures seem to be perishing almost as rapidly as they were painted ; 
whilst many of his earlier works are in excellent preservation, many 
of these are mere wrecks, After the death of Sir Thomas 
in 1830, Wilkie was appointed in his place painter in ord tohis | 


wrence, 


years, 


~ 


i= 


ye ae ere 


lh 
“vio 


, 


ao 


a 


ud 


] 
d 
| 


- —_—_| -—~— 


— 


_ mild, and beautiful, like the summer in England.” 


— ee ee eS ee ee ee ee 


701 WILKIE, SIR DAVID. 


WILKINS, SIR CHARLES, 702 


Majesty. He was also a candidate for the office of president of the 
Academy ; but there was only one vote in his favour, Sir M. A. Shee 
being the successful candidate. 

In the same year he exhibited his full-length portrait of George IV. 
in a Highland dress, and the king’s entrance into Holyrood. In 1831 
his only works in the exhibition were portraits of Lady Lyndhurst and 
Lord Melville. In 1832 he exhibited his celebrated picture of ‘John 
Knox preaching the Reformation in St. Andrews,’ painted for Sir R. 
Peel for 1200 guineas; and a full-length of William IV. In 1833 he 
exhibited a portrait of the Duke of Sussex in a Highland dress. In 
1834 he exhibited six pictures, of which four were portraits, among 
them the Duke of Wellington and Queen Adelaide. In 1835 he again 


exhibited six pictures, the great attraction of which was his picture of 


*Christopher Columbus submitting the chart of his Voyage for the 
discovery of the New World to the Spanish authorities :’ three of the 
others were portraits. His next principal works were, ‘ Peep-o’-Day 
Boy,’ painted after a visit to Ireland; and ‘ Napoleon and the Pope in 
conference at Fontainebleau,’ exhibited in 1836. In this year he was 
knighted by William IV.; and he removed to a more spacious house, 
in Vicarage-place, Kensington. In 1837 appeared his ‘Mary, Queen of 
Scots, escaping from Loch Leven;’ ‘the Empress Josephine and the 
Fortune-teller;’ and the ‘Cotter’s Saturday Night.’ In 1838, the 
Queen's First Council and a portrait of O’Connell. In 1839, his large 
picture of ‘Sir David Baird discovering the body of Sultan Tippoo Saib 
after storming Seringapatam,’ painted for Lady Baird for 1500 guineas. 
In 1840 Wilkie exhibited eight pieces: the most striking was that of 
* Benvenuto Cellini presenting for the approval of Pope Paul III. a silver 
Vase of hisown workmanship.’ His portrait of Queen Victoria, exhi- 
bited at the same time, was generally considered a complete failure. 

In the autumn of 1840 Sir David set out suddenly with his friend 
Mr. Woodburn upon his tour to the East: various rumours were cir- 
culated as the cause of his journey, but probably none quite correct. 
He went by Holland and the Rhine to the south of Germany, thence 
to Constantinople by the Danube, At Constantinople he painted a 
portrait of the young Sultan, who gave him four sittings. On January 
the 12th, Wilkie and his friend left Constantinople by steam for 
Smyrna, where they arrived on the 14th. They left Smyrna on the 
ist of February, arrived at Rhodes on the 2nd, and at Beyrout on the 
9th. At this time, says Wilkie, the weather was “remarkably fine, 
They arrived at 
Jaffa on the 25th, and at Jerusalem on the 27th of the same month, 
after a journey from England of six months and twelve days. Wilkie 
describes as follows the impression made upon him by the sight of 
Jerusalem—after ascénding an eminence on the road from Jaffa, he 
says, “‘ We saw—and, oh, what a sight !—the splendid walled city of 
Jerusalem. This struck me as unlike all other cities: it recalled the 
imaginations of Nicolas Poussii—a city not for every day, not for the 
present, but for all time.” While in the Holy Land he visited the 
Dead Sea, and tested its level by the barometer of Mr. J. Harvey, who 
had lent it to Sir David for that purpose. On the 17th of April they 
left Jerusalem for Jaffa, and that place.on the 8th for Damietta in 
Egypt, whence they started on the 22nd for Alexandria. At Alex- 
andria Wilkie complained of illness; he had felt slightly unwell for 
the last three months. He commenced a portrait of Mehemet Ali at 
Alexandria, who wished the portrait for himself, and sat very patiently 
two hours and a half the first sitting, On the 21st of May he embarked 
on board the Oriental for England ; on the 26th he arrived off Malta ; 
on the ist of June he expired off Gibraltar, and at half-past eight in 
the evening of the same day his body was committed ta the deep, in 
lat. 36° 20’ and long. 6° 42’: the burial service was performed by the 
Rey. James Vaughan, rector of Wroxall, near Bath. His death appears 
to have been hastened by imprudently indulging in fruit and iced 
lemonade at Malta. On the 28th of August 1841, a meeting of the 
friends of Sir David Wilkie took place at the Thatched House Tavern, 
St. James’s-street, at which Sir Robert Peel presided. The result of 
the meeting was a subscription for the purpose of erecting a suitable 
monument to the painter; and a statue of Sir David Wilkie was 
accordingly executed by Mr. Joseph, and placed in the inner hall of 
the National Gallery. 

Wilkie was tall and of sandy complexion, with sharp eyes, was 
polite and mild in his manners, was a staunch lover of everything 
Scotch, appears to have been of no party in politics, but shows in his 
letters an undue respect for the high in place and the wealthy. Asa 
painter, he was slow, and required models upon all occasions. In the 
fragments of a journal printed in his Life by Allan Cunningham, 3 
vols., 8vo, 1843, there are many details relating to his studies, which 
are interesting to the artist; in the same work there are a series of 
remarks upon painting by Wilkie, which contain many sound views, 
and are in parts well written. 

Wilkie’s works are well known by the excellent engravings of Raim- 
bach, Burnet, Cousins, Doo, and C. Fox. A set of coloured prints in 
‘imitation of Sir David's oriental sketches was published after his 
death. ‘To the ‘Life of Wilkie’ already referred to there is an appen- 
dix containing a list of all his works, with the proprietors’ names, and 
the prices received for them by the painter. At the sale of his effects, 
which realised several thousand pounds, there were many unfinished 
works, some of which were sold at very high prices; an unfinished 
picture of ‘ The School’ sold for 7507, 


WILKIE, WILLIAM, D.D., who enjoyed among his literary friends 
the title of ‘the Scottish Homer,’ was born at Echlin in Linlithgow- 
shire, N. B., on the 5th of October 1721. His inclination for poetry 
was early developed, and in the ninth volume of Sir John Sinclair’s 
‘Statistical Account of Scotland’ there are some verses which he is said 
to have written at the age of ten. He entered the University of Edin- 
burgh at the age of thirteen. Before he had completed his academical 
studies, his father, a farmer near Edinburgh, died, leaving him the 
current lease of his farm, and the duty of providing for three sisters, 
He thus became a practical farmer, and bringing his mind to bear on 
that pursuit, he astonished his neighbourhood by the variety and the 
theoretical character of his operations, and still more by the success 
with which many of them were rewarded. In the meantime he par- 
tially continued his studies; and having taken orders in the Church of 
Scotland, his clerical profession and his zeal for the cultivation of 
potatoes procured him the title of ‘the potato minister.’ At this tine 
he conducted three distinct occupations: he was an active farmer, 
frequently labouring with his own hand; he wrote epic poetry; and 
he occasionally preached in the parish church. © Iii 1757 he published 
‘The Epigoniad, a Poem, in nine books. The name was unfortunate, 
for it carried no associations to render the subject recognisable. The 
main incident was the sacking of Thebes by the Epigonoi, or descend- 
ants of those who had been slain at the first siege of the city. It was 
an attempt to produce an epic poem, and, though it showed much 
energy and imagination, the attempt failed. The work is now very 
little known, though it has been published in some of the collections 
of the British Poets. At the time when the ‘ Epigoniad’ appeared, 
there was an intense anxiety among Scotsmen to produce rivals of all 
the great names in every department of literature; and as Home was 
to be the Shakspere, Wilkie was to be the Homer of Scotland. The 
English critics found much food for ridicule in the Scotticisms of the 
‘ Bpigoniad,’and Hume wrote a vindication of it, at great length, in 
the ‘ Critical Review.’ A second edition of this poem was published 
in 1759, accompanied by ‘A Dream, in the manner of Spenser. In 
1753 Wilkie was ordained assistant and successor to the clergyman of 
Ratho, a parish near Edinburgh. In 1759 he was chosen Professor of 
Natural Philosophy at St. Andrews. In 1768 he published a volume 
of ‘Moral Fables, in verse, which suffered the fate of his epic. He 
died on the 10th of October 1772. He was a man of great learning. 
His eccentricities are the subject of many curious literary anecdotes. 
His manners were rude, and his habits filthy ; and the contrast between 
these peculiarities and the stores of learning and genius which he 
exhibited in conversation drew from Charles Townsend the remark, 
“that he had never met with a man who approached so near to the 
two extremes of a god and a brute as Dr, Wilkie.” 

WILKINS, SIR CHARLES, Knight and K.C.H., was born in the 
year 1749, at Frome in Somersetshire. His father, Walter, derived 
his descent from an ancestor of the celebrated John Wilkins, Bishop of 
Chester. An uncle, Mr. Charles Wray, from whom Mr. Wilkins derived 
his baptismal name, was a partner of Messrs. Hoares, the bankers, in 
Fleet-street, This gentleman, having received the offer cf a writer- 
ship on the Bengal establishment, accepted it for his nephew. Mr, 
Wilkins arrived at Calcutta in 1770, and in the course of a few years 
found means amidst his duties as a writer to make considerable 
progress in the knowledge of Arabic and Persian, as well as of some of 
the spoken languages of India. He effected this at a time when such 
studies were generally neglected, and when no part of them had yet 
been made compulsory. In 1778 he aided the efforts of the Governor- 
general Hastings for improving the education of the Company’s servants 
by printing the Bengalee grammar of Halhed, who, in his preface, 
informs us that after having failed to obtain types of the Bengalee 
character from the ablest artists in London, he had had recourse to Mr. 
Wilkins, whose success was complete. “This book,” Mr. Halhed 
observes, “will always bear an intrinsic value from its containing as 
extraordinary an instance of mechanic abilities as has perhaps ever 
appeared. In a country so remote from all connection with European 
artists, Mr. Wilkins was obliged to charge himself with the various 
occupations of metallurgist, engraver, founder, and printer.” Mr. 
Hastings, in a letter to the chairman of the Court of Directors, re- 
marks, that ‘‘to the ingenuity of Mr. Wilkins, unaided by models for 
imitation or by artists for his direction, the government was indebted 
for its printing-office, and for the many official purposes to which it 
had been applied.’ Lord Teignmouth also, in his ‘Life of Sir 
William Jones,’ attests, that “the art of printing had been introduced 
into Bengal by the untaught skill of Mr. Wilkins, and had advanced to 
great perfection, and that many publications equally useful and 
interesting had issued from the press which he had established.” 

In the same manner Mr. Wilkins formed a set of Persian types, 
which, as well as the Bengalee, continued to be employed for the 
service of the Company. As his proficiency in the native languages 
advanced, he became more convinced of the importance of endeavour- 
ing to make himself master of that parent dialect which he found 
diffused over them all, and which is the depository of the learning and 
science of India. He continued therefore during the remainder of his 
residence in that country to follow this hitherto untrodden path of 
science, and thus has justly obtained the title of ‘the Father of Sans- 
krit Literature.’ He was fortunate in having been the contemporary 
in India of Mr, Hastings and Sir William Jones, and of enjoying the 


703 WILKINS, SIR CHARLES. 


WILKINS, JOHN. 704 


intimate friendship of those distinguished men, who took the most 
lively interest in his literary pursuits, and whose approbation stimu- 
lated his exertions; nor can it be doubted that his knowledge of the 
Oriental languages, and the salutary influence which his Sanskrit 
learning gave him over everything connected with the Brahmins, were 
often eminently useful in the civil and judicial government of India. 
In some manuscript letters of Sir William Jones’s addressed to 
Mr. Wilkins, which are in the possession of his family, are numerous 
instances of Sir William’s references to him in aid of his own studies 
in Sanskrit, as well as relating to questions connected with his judicial 
office. In one of these letters he says, “‘ You are the first European 
who ever understood Sanskrit.” In another, “it is of the utmost 
importance that the stream of Hindoo law should be pure, for we are 
entirely at the mercy of the Hindoo lawyers through our ignorance of 
Sanskrit.” 

In the year 1784 Mr. Wilkins was instrumental, in union with the 
same accomplished scholar, in establishing the Literary Society of 
Caleutta, whose publications, called ‘The Asiatic Researches,’ were 
regarded with the greatest interest by the learned of Europe. A 
separate work however of his own operated perhaps still more strongly 
to excite curiosity, and to give hopes of an ample harvest in the field 
of Sanskrit letters: namely, his translation of the Bhagvatgita, one 
of the Episodes of the Mahabhdrata, or great national poem of the 
Hindoos. This translation having been transmitted in manuscript by 
the governor-general to the chairman of the Court of Directors in 
1785, with a recommendation that it should be published, was printed 
accordingly at the expense of the Company, together with the annexed 
letter of Mr. Hastings before alluded to, in which that enlightened 
statesman took occasion to communicate his views on the encourage- 
ment necessary to be given by the government of India to the culti- 
vation of languages and science. In 1786 the decline of Mr. Wilkins’s 
health, caused by the unremitted attention given to his studies and 
public duties, rendered necessary his return to Europe. At Bath in 
the following year he published an English translation of the ‘ Hito- 
padésa of Vishnu Sarma,’ being the Sanskrit original of that Persian 
collection of fables, the French and English versions of which are 
known by the name of the ‘Fables of Pilpay.’ Not long afterwards 
he began to arrange the materials for a Sanskrit grammar, which he 
had brought with him from India; and at his residence at Hawkhurst 
in Kent, following the same method which he had employed at 
Hoogley with the Bengalee types, he formed with his own hands a 
set of Devandgari characters in steel, made matrices and moulds, and 
cast from them a fount of types. He had already printed twenty 
pages of the grammar, when, in May 1796, his house was burnt to the 
ground, and so suddenly that although his books and manuscripts 
were saved, together with the greatest part of the punches and 
matrices, the types were lost or rendered useless. A copy of the 
printed pages had beén sent to his friend the late William Marsden, 
Esq. [Marspen, Wii1iaM], and is probably the only one extant. 
This misfortune, added to other circumstances, prevented the re- 
sumption of his labours till 1806, when, soon after the formation of 
the East India College at Hertford, the study of Sanskrit having 
become one of the most desirable branches of the system of education 
there established, Mr. Wilkins zealously aided this object, the gram- 
mar was speedily completed, new letters were cast, and in less than 
two years this, the greatest of Mr. Wilkins’s works, was published. 

In 1801 he had been appointed librarian to the East India Com- 

-pany. Under his fostering care the library and museum attained a 
degree of importance, utility, and interest which they had not before 
possessed; and became an attraction to visitors"both native and 
foreign, who, in common with those connected with India con- 
tinually resorting thither, were not less gratified by the obliging 
attentions of the librarian, than impressed with admiration of his pro- 
found and extensive knowledge: an elegant testimony to this effect 
is to be found in the amusing romance of ‘ Hadji Baba.’ In 1805 he 
became visitor and examiner of the students in the Oriental depart- 
ment both at Haileybury and at Addiscombe. These offices he held 
and performed the duties of them, with scarcely any intermission, 
until his death, which occurred on the 18th of May 1836, within a 
few days of attaining his eighty-seventh year. To such a degree did 
he enjoy the faculties of his mind to the last, that, not many days 
before the short illness which preceded his decease, he made, at the 
request of the president of the Board of Control, a translation of a 
letter from the Imam of Muscat, and forwarded it to that minister, 
Sir Charles Wilkins was twice married, and left three daughters. 

The published works of Sir Charles Wilkins, beside those already 
mentioned, are a new edition of Richardson’s ‘Arabic and Persian 
Dictionary’ (1806-10), and the roots of the Sanskrit language (1815). 
In Dalrymple’s ‘ Oriental Repertory’ are found also a translation of 
the Dushwarta and Sakoontala, an episode of the Mahabhdrata; and 
in the ‘ Annals of Oriental Literature’ another portion of a translation 
of the same great poem. ‘T'o these may be added some papers in the 
early volumes of the ‘ Asiatic Researches.’ Among his unpublished 
translations from the Sanskrit are ‘ The Institutes of Menu,’ of which 
he had completed more than two-thirds, when he was induced to desist 
by the knowledge that Sir William Jones was engaged on the same work, 
and which the latter published in 1794. Mr, Wilkins was a member 
ef the Royal Institute of Paris, and of many other learned societies 


abroad as well as at home. In 1825 the Royal Society of Literature — 
presented to him their gold medal, bearing the inscription * Carolo 
Wilkins, Literature: Sanscrite Principi.’” In 1833 George IV. conferred 
on him the honour of knight bachelor and knight commander of the 
QGuelphic order. : 

WILKINS, JOHN, Bishop of Chester in the reign of Charles IL, 
was, according to Anthony & Wood, “a person endowed with rare 
gifts,” ‘a noted theologist and preacher, a curious critic in several 
matters, an excellent mathematician and experimentist, and one as 
well seen in mechanisms and new philosophy (of which he was a great 
promoter) as any of his time.” He was the son of Walter Wilkins, a 
goldsmith and citizen of Oxford, but was born at the residence of his 
maternal grandfather, John Dod (a nonconformist of some note, and 
author of several theological works, from one of which, an Exposition 
of the Ten Commandments, he is styled ‘the Decalogist’) at Fawsley, 
near Daventry in Northamptonshire, in 1614. Wilkins appears to have 
remained with his grandfather until he arrived at a proper age for 
entering a grammar-school, when his father placed him under Mr. 
Edward Sylvester, an Oxford schoolmaster. In Easter Term 1627, at 
the age of thirteen, he was admitted a student at New Inn Hall, 
whence he shortly removed to Magdalen Hall, where for a short 
time he was under the tuition of John Tombes, the celebrated 
Anabaptist and opponent of Baxter. Tombes left the university 
while Wilkins was an under-graduate, and he did not proceed to 
his first degree at the usual time; but he took the degree of B.A. 
on the 20th of October 1631, and that of M.A. on the 11th of 
June 1634, Having then arrived at the age of twenty-one, he : 
orders, and became successively chaplain to William, Lord Say, George, 
Lord Berkeley, and Charles, Count-palatine of the Rhine, with whom 
he resided for a considerable time while he was in England. The 
skill of Wilkins in the mathematics, to which that prince was much 
attached, is said to have been his chief recommendation for the last- 
mentioned appointment, which gave him much opportunity for prose- — 
cuting his favourite studies. During this time he wrote several small 
treatises on mechanical philosophy. His early education had given 
him a strong bias towards puritanical principles, and accordingly on 
the breaking out of the civil war he took part with the parliament 
and Presbyterians, and became a party to the Solemn League and 
Covenant. Academical studies at the universities being much inter- 
rupted by the disturbances of that period, Wilkins assiduously pro- 
moted those meetings in London which eventually led to the formation ~ 
of the Royal Society. According to Bishop Sprat and Dr. Wallis, 
indeed, he was the principal promoter of the meetings referred to, at 
which political and theological discussions were strictly avoided, while 
every branch of natural philosophy was made a subject of inquiry. In 
1648 he was selected by a committee appointed for the reformation of 
the University of Oxford to fill the office of warden of Wadham 
College, and on the 13th of April, having taken the degree of B.D. on 
the preceding day, he was put in possession of the wardenship, which 
was rendered vacant by the ejection of the loyalist warden, Mr. John 
Pitt. On the 18th of December 1649 he became D.D., and about the 
same time he took the required engagement of fidelity to the new 
commonwealth. Being unable after his removal from London to 
attend the philosophical meetings, he took part in the establishment 
of an association of similar character at Oxford, and from the year 
1652, prior to which the society had met at the lodgings of Dr. Petty, 
e fs end of his wardenship, the meetings were held in Wadham 

ollege. ‘ 

In or about the year 1656 Wilkins married Robina, widow of Peter 
French, and sister of Oliver Cromwell, from whom he obtained a dis- 
pensation for retaining his office, notwithstanding the rules of the 
college, which imposed celibacy on the warden. Burnet states, in his 
‘History of his Own Time,’ that he made no other use of this alliance 
“but to do good offices, and to cover the University of Oxford from 
the sourness of Owen and Goodwin.” In the early part of 1659, after 
the death of Oliver, Richard Cromwell appointed Wilkins master of 
Trinity College, Cambridge, and there also he exerted himself to 
increase a taste for experimental philosophy, as well as to substitute a 
spirit of universal benevolence for narrow party feelings. At the 
Restoration, in the following year, he was ejected from his mastership, 
and for some time he remained out of favour, both at court and with 
the archbishop of Canterbury, on account of his marriage. While his 
fortunes were at this low ebb, Wilkins was chosen preacher to the 
Society of Gray’s Inn, and being thus again brought to reside in 
London, he entered with ardour into the proceedings of the philoso- 
phical association with which he had formerly been connected, and 
which now assumed a more organised form. In 1662 he was pre- 
sented to the rectory of St. Lawrence, Jewry, in the gift of the crown, 
and on the formation of the Royal Society in the following year, he 
became one of the council. Having obtained favour at court, he was 
soon promoted to the deanery of Ripon, and in 1668 to the bishopric 
of Chester, to which he was consecrated on the 15th of November: 
Dr. Tillotson, who had married his step-daughter, preached his conse- 
cration sermon. It is related that he obtained this bishopric through 
the interest of the Duke of Buckingham ; and Walter Pope, in his Life 
of Seth Ward, bishop of Salisbury, said that he had it not only with- 
out but against the consent of the archbishop of Canterbury (Sheldon), 
who subsequently, after he knew him personally, declared that the 


i 


t 


705 WILKINS, WILLIAM. 


WILKINS, WILLIAM. 76 


prejudice which he had entertained against him was unjust. Wilkins 
died November 19, 1672, of a suppression of urine, which was mis- 
taken for stone, and mistreated. He was at the time of his death at 
Tillotson’s house in Chancery-lane, London, and he was buried in the 
church of St. Lawrence, Jewry. Tillotson was appointed executor to 
his will, which gave 400/. to the Royal Society and 200/. to Wadham 
College. In Bliss’s edition of the ‘ Athens Oxonienses’ are notices of 
a eon other ecclesiastical preferments of Wilkins, not mentioned 
above. 

Wilkins’s opinions on ecclesiastical subjects exposed him to much 
animadversion ; but even those who were opposed to him in opinion 
bear testimony to his superior talents. Wood, whose panegyric has 
been quoted, observes that he could not say “that there was anything 


deficient in him but a constant mind and settled principles;” and 


other writers allude to his character -in similar terms. His avowed 
moderation and toleration to dissenters, and his readiness to swear 
allegiance to the ruling power, whatever that might be, are the points 
most dwelt upon by those who take an unfavourable view of his cha- 
racter; but his benevolence does not appear to be impugned, and he 
is said to have possessed a courage which enabled him to stand against 
the current reproaches which less kindly-disposed clergymen were 
ready to heap on him. - 

Some of Wilkins’s works are exceedingly curious, although, as might 
be expected from the state of science in his day, they contain much 
that is chimerical and absurd. The principal are the following :— 
1, ‘Discovery of a New World; or a discourse tending to prove that 
it is probable that there may be another habitable world in the Moon; 
with a discourse concerning the possibility of a passage thither.’ This 
work, which appeared in 1638, and was several times reprinted, excited 
much ridicule ; the last of the fourteen propositions which the author 
endeavours to establish—that it is possible for some of our posterity 
to find out a conveyance to the other world which he supposes to exist 
in the moon, and if there be inhabitants there, to have commerce with 
them,—is perhaps the only one that would now be generally regarded 
as absurd, Wilkins however endeavours to prove that the construction 
of a flying-machine of sufficient capacity for such a voyage is by no 
means the chimerical absurdity which most, even in the present day, 
would consider it. 2, ‘ Discourse concerning a new Planet, tending to 
prove that itis probable our Earth is one of the Planets,’ published in 
1640. These two works appeared anonymously, but were well known 
to be by Wilkins. 3, ‘ Mercury, or the Secret and Swift Messenger ; 
showing how a man may with privacy and speed communicate his 
Thoughts to a Friend at any distance.’ This curious volume contains 
notices of a great number of schemes for telegraphic communication, 
writing by cipher or in sympathetic inks, and other means of secret 
or rapid communication. One chapter, the eighteenth, is devoted to 
suggestions for “a language that may consist only of tunes and 
musical notes, without any articulate sound.” 4, ‘ Mathematical 
Magic, or the Wonders that may be performed by Mechanical Geo- 
metry,’ a singular work, the object of which is tolerably defined by its 
title, published in 1648. 5, In 1668 appeared in one folio volume, 
printed by order of the Royal Society, an ‘Essay towards a Real 
Character and a Philosophical Language,’ a work founded upon or 
suggested by a treatise published a few years previously by George 
Dalgarno. To this is appended an ‘ Alphabetical Dictionary, wherein 
all English. words, according to their various significations, are 
either referred to their places in the Philosophical Tables (in the 
Essay) or explained by such words as are in those tables,’ The first 
four of the preceding works were reprinted in 1708, and again in 
1802, in a collected form, together with an abstract of the ‘ Essay 
towards a Real Character.’ Wilkins also published several theological 
works, of which ‘ Ecclesiastes, or a Discourse of the Gift of Preaching 
as it falls under the Rules of Art,’ passed through several editions, the 
first having appeared in 1646. His ‘ Discourse concerning the Beauty 
of Providence, in all the Rugged Passages of it,’ first published in 
1649, and ‘ Discourse concerning the Gift of Prayer, published in 1651, 
were also repeatedly reprinted. Wilkins left his papers to the care of 
his friend Tillotson, allowing him to use his own discretion as to pub- 
lishing any of them; and in 1675 appeared a treatise ‘Of the Prin- 
ciples and Duties of Natural Religion,’ which he had left in an 
unfinished state. In 1682 Tillotson published a volume containing 
fifteen of Wilkins’s sermons, and some others were published separately 
during his life and also after his decease. 

WILKINS, WILLIAM, was born August 31, 1778, in the parish 
of St. Giles, Norwich, His father was a builder and architect of 
some eminence also named William, who practised at Norwich, but 
later in life removed to Cambridge: he was the author of an ‘ Essay 
on Norwich Castile,’ in vol. xii. of the ‘ Archeologia.’ Young Wilkins 
received his early education at the Free Grammar School, Norwich; 
matriculated at Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, in 1796; 
and graduated as sixth wrangler in 1800. Having in the following 
year obtained a travelling bachelorship, he visited Italy and Greece; 
and almost immediately after his return, published his ‘ Antiquities 
of Magna Grecia,’ imperial folio, 1807, a work rather unsatisfactorily 
executed and not containing much of particular interest to professional. 
students, owing to which it was coldly received by architects, It was 
however well calculated to recommend the author to scholars and 
obtain for him the patronage of the university, nor did it fail to do 

BIOG, DIV. VOL, VI. 


80. In the same year (1807) he was employed as architect of Downing 
College, and the buildings were forthwith -begun. They were left at 
his death very far from being completed. Wilkins in these buildings 
threw away a rare opportunity. Biassed by his previous studies, and 
ambitious of giving his own university a classical piece of architecture, 
he postponed all other considerations to that alone. Enamoured of 
the study of the Grecian style, he seems neither to have thought how 
far that style could be adapted to the oceasion, nor how far the occa- 
sion required what the style would not admit of, Instead of even 
endeavouring to adapt it, he merely applied it, just as he found it, to 
ranges of low buildings which derive their expression merely from 
their columns, for in other respects they are merely so many neat 
houses. Neither does the building make amends in other respects for 
its unsatisfactoriness as a piece of architecture, the accommodation it 
affords being very defective, although the cost was enormous. 

In the case of the East India College at Haileybury, Herts, which 
he built a few years afterwards, when he held the appointment of 
architect to the East India Company, there were at least no local 
associations to deter him from haying recourse again to ‘pure Greek’ 
architecture; but it is somewhat strange that, instead of endeavouring 
to improve upon his specimen at Cambridge, he should have done 
little more than repeat the same design, and with little more success, 
He afterwards succeeded somewhat better when he had to adopt gothic 
for the additions and alterations which he executed at the three 
colleges of Trinity (1823), Corpus (1823), and King’s (1828) at Cam- 
bridge ; at least they were at the time regarded as rather creditable 
than otherwise, though they would now be considered to evince a 
somewhat extraordinary ignorance of the true character of gothic 
architecture. 

In the fagade of the University College, Gower-street, originally 
called the University of London, he introduced a dome in combina- 
tion with a Grecian portico; and elevated the latter upon a substruc- 
ture the height of the basement floor, forming a picturesque arrange- 
ment of flights of steps. Of all his works perhaps this is the one 
which obtained for him most praise from both professional men and 
critics; but unfortunately the wings have not yet been erected, and 
those parts of the exterior to which they would have been conuected 
still remain in their first unfinished state: as to the interior, it was 
anything but convenient and has been considerably altered. The 
reputation acquired by this edifice, the only one he had then produced 
in the metropolis, except the University Club-house, Pall Mall East, 
suffered greatly by the nearly universal outcry raised against his 
National Gallery. No doubt he had many difficulties and adverse 
circumstances to contend with in that work: cramped by want of 
space, and thwarted in various ways, he had no little vexation to 
encounter, and had also to sustain a unanimous opposition against him 
on the part of the public press. Still it is difficult to conceive how 
he could have fallen so far short of his preceding work. Here the 
dome is a most unfortunate feature—offensive in outline and mean in 
character. The portico itself is very far from satisfactory ; but here 
the architect was restricted by being obliged to make use of the 
columns from the portico of Carlton House, to which however he did 
not restore their originally rich entablature ; the interior is in almost 
every respect bad. 

While the National Gallery was incurring such ample adverse cri- 
ticism, the architect entered into the competition for the new houses 
of parliament, in 1836; but his design did not obtain one of the pre- 
miums. The remarks however attached to it by its author in the 
descriptive catalogue of the designs were in a tone that called atten- 
tion to it there, and he immediately followed them up by ‘An Apology 
for the Designs of the New Houses of Parliament, marked * Phil- 
Archimedes ;”’ wherein he animadverted very freely, and with no 
little bitterness of tone, both on the successful design and the conduct 
of the commissioners, To annoyances and vexations of this kind 
succeeded an event which raised him to a more conspicuous emiuence 
in his profession; for on the death of Sir John Soane, in 1837, he was 
elected to succeed him as professor of architecture at the Royal 
Academy, of which he had been made a member in 1834. Yet while 
his acquirements were of a kind to do honour to the academic chair, 
it is scarcely probable that he would have proved a very competent 
instructor. His ‘Prolusiones Architectonice,’ the first part of which 
(the only one published) appeared just at that time, 1837, did not 
augur well for his future lectures, being minutely archxological, and 
withal fanciful. He did not however live to deliver any lectures at 
the academy, for before the term (two years) allowed to a new pro- 
fessor to prepare himself for them had expired, he himself was no more. 
His constitution had latterly been greatly impaired by gout, and he 
had been visibly sinking for some time. He died at Cambridge, 
August 31st, 1839, on his sixty-first birthday, and was interred in the 
chapel of Corpus Christi, a part of the new buildings at that college 
erected by him, and which he considered his best work. a 

Among other structures by him are :—the Nelson Pillar in Sackville 
Street, Dublin, 1808; the Nelson Pillar at Yarmouth, 1817; and St. 
George’s Hospital, Hyde Park Corner, which is remarkable for the 
tetrastyle portico of square columns in the east front. He also erected 
several private mansions. Besides the literary works already men- 
tioned, he published ‘Atheniensia, or Remarks on the Buildings and 


Antiquities of Athens” in 1816; and ‘The Civil Archon of 


WILKINSON, SIR JOHN GARDNER. 


707 


WILLAN, ROBERT. 708 


Vitruvius, containing those books relating to the Public and Private 
Edifices of the Ancients, imp. 4to; 1812. 

* WILKINSON, SIR JOHN GARDNER, Knight, was born in 
1798. Heis the son of the Rev. John Wilkinson by the daughter of 
the Rev. Richard Gardner, He was educated at Harrow School and 
at Exeter College, Oxford. He afterwards went to Egypt, where he 
remained twelve years, devoting himself to the study of the antiquities 
of the country, and making himself acquainted with the languages, 
manners, and customs of the modern inhabitants. He resided a con- 
siderable time in a tomb at Thebes, and employed himself in making 
accurate surveys of the district, and drawings of the stupendous 
architectural monuments, and in copying with minute fidelity the sculp- 
tures, paintings, hieroglyphics, and other objects of interest then 
existing. The works which he has since published afford abundant 
evidence, not only of his assiduity, but of the care and skill with which 
his investigations were conducted. 

In 1828 Mr. Wilkinson published at Malta ‘ Materia Hieroglyphica,’ 
in four parts; and in London, in 1835, ‘ Topography of Thebes, and 
General View of Egypt,’ 8vo. In 1836 he published the First Series 
of his great work on the Ancient Egyptians, ‘The Manners and Cus- 
toms of the Ancient Egyptians, including their Private Life, Govern- 
ment, Laws, Arts, Manufactures, Religion, Agriculture, and Early 
History, derived from a Comparison of the Paintings, Sculptures, and 
Monuments, still existing, with the Accounts of Ancient Authors,’ 
3 vols. 8vo, The Second Series, in 2 vols. 8vo, was published in 1840, 
in which year he received the honour of knighthood for his labours in 
literature and archeology. : 

In 18438, Sir Gardner Wilkinson, having previously been elected 
E.RS., M.R.C.L., F.R.G.S., &c., published ‘ Modern Egypt and Thebes, 
being a Description of Egypt, including the Information required for 
Travellers in that Country,’ 2 vols. 8vo.. The third edition of his 
‘ Ancient Egyptians,’ including both series, and illustrated with 600 
plates and wood-cuts, was published in 1847, in 5 vols. 8vo. In the 
same year Mr. Murray published as one of his series of ‘ Hand-Books,’ a 
*Hand-Book for Travellers in Egypt, including Deseriptions of the 
Course of the Nile, of the Second Cataract, Alexandria, Cairo, the 
Pyramids, and Thebes, the Overland Transit to India, the Peninsula 
of Mount Sinai, the Oases, &c., being a new edition corrected and con- 
densed of ‘Modern Egypt and Thebes,’ by Sir Gardner Wilkinson,’ 
12mo, In 1844 Sir Gardner Wilkinson travelled in Dalmatia and 
Montenegro, and in 1848 published ‘ Dalmatia and Montenegro; with 
a Journey to Mostar in Herzegovina, and Remarks on the Slavonic 
Nations, the History of Dalmatia and Ragusa, the Uscoes, &c.’ 2 vols. 
8vo. In 1850, he published ‘The Architecture of Ancient Egypt, in 
which the Columns are arranged in Orders, and the Temples clas- 
sified ; with Remarks on the Early Progress of Architecture, &c., 8vo, 
with a large Volume of Plates illustrative of the Subject, and in- 
cluding the various Columns and Details from actual Measurement,’ 
In 1851 he published ‘ The Fragments of the Hieratic Papyrus at 
Turin, containing the names of Egyptian Kings, with the Hieratic 
Inscription at the Back, 8vo, with a folio volume of plates. In 1854 
he published ‘A Popular Account of the Ancient Egyptians,’ revised 
and abridged from his larger work, with the addition of other matter 
in consequence of his having revisited Egypt, and of other discoveries 
having been made since the publication of his larger work. 

Lord Ripon, in an address to the Royal Society of literature, makes 
the following remarks on the great work, ‘ The Ancient Egyptians :’— 
“ Indefatigable in research, full of learning, accurate in facts, Sir 
Gardner Wilkinson has at the same time treated his subject with the 
enthusiasm of genius and the liveliness of poetry. He opens to you 
the temple of their deities, the palace of their sovereign, the field of 
battle, and the repositories of the dead. He traces for you their early 
history, he exhibits to you their knowledge of the arts and sciences, 
the course of their husbandry, and the process of their manufactures; 
and he introduces you to their private life with a graphic vivacity 
which makes you at once a judge of the virtues and vices of the 
Egyptian character, and a partaker as it were of the intimacies of their 
domestic society.” 

WILLAERT, ADRIA/NO, a composer much celebrated when musi- 
cal learning was more cultivated than musical genius, was born at 
Bruges, in the Netherlands, in the latter part of the 15th century. 
He first studied the law in the university of Paris, but, as often has 
happened, the most winning of the muses seduced him from so dry a 
pursuit, and thenceforward devoting himself to harmony, he soon 
became famous for his motets. These procured him the high situa- 
tion of Maestro di Capella of St. Mark’s, Venice, which he held till his 
decease at an advanced age. He was the master of Costanza Porta, of 
Cipriano Rose, and also of the famous Zarlino, who, in his ‘ Institu- 
tioni Harmoniche,’ mentions him in the most eulogistic terms. 

WILLAN, ROBERT, was born on the 12th of November 1757, at 
the Hill, near Sedbergh in Yorkshire, where his father had an exten- 
sive practice as a medical man. His parents belonging to the Society 
of Friends, he was brought up in the principles of this body, and re- 
ceived his early education in the grammar-school of his native place. 
His progress as a boy in his classical and mathematical studies was 
very remarkable, and in 1777 he went to Edinburgh well prepared to 
commence his medical studies, After the usual residence of three 
years, he graduated in 1780, on which occasion he presented an in- 


augural dissertation on inflammation of the liver. It was published 
under the title ‘De Jecinoris Inflammatione.’ He subsequently came 
to London for the purpose of further improvement, and was about to 
settle there, when a relative in a good practice at Darlington died, and 
Willan became his successor, He remained at Darlington about a 


ae 


ee! 


year, and returned to London in 1782. During the time he wasat — 


Darlington he analysed the sulphureous mineral-spring of Croft, and 
published the result in an octavo volume, with the title ‘ Observations 
on the Sulphur Water at Croft near Darlington.’ A second edition of 
this work was published in 1786. In this work is one of the earliest 
notices of the peculiar forms of vegetation that inhabit various mineral- 
springs. He recommends these waters particularly in skin diseases, 
and perhaps here may be found the germs of inquiry that led to his 
future labours. 

In 1783 the Public Dispensary in Carey-street was opened, and 
Willan was made physician. In 1785 he was admitted a licentiate of 
the College of Physicians, on which occasion he addressed to that 
body some congratulatory Greek verses. In 1786 he commenced a 


course of lectures at the Dispensary on the principles and practice of | 


medicine; but his success appears to have been small, He was sub- 
sequently appointed physician to the Finsbury Dispensary. He was 
remarkable for the punctuality with which he attended to his public 
duties, and it said he never sought relaxation by absence from London 


for thirty years. 


From an early period of his professional career Willan seems to have 


been dissatisfied with the existing nomenclature and classification of — 


cutaneous diseases. He sought by an accurate distinction of external 
forms to render their classification more simple, and their recognition 
more certain. In 1789 he had succeeded so far in this object, that 
a paper which he read before the Medical Society of London obtained 
for him the Fothergill gold medal of that year. This laid the foun- 
dation for the publication of his great work, the ‘ Description and 


Treatment of Cutaneous Diseases,’ This work’ was illustrated with — : 


coloured plates of the various diseases which were described in the 
letter-press. The first part was published in London in 1798, and eon- 
tained the first order into which he had divided cutaneous diseases, 
the papulous eruptions of the skin. The second order, scaly diseases 
of the skin, was published in 1801. He did not live to complete this 
work. Two more volumes appeared in 1805-7, containing a part of 
his third order, the rashes, in which the varieties of scarlet fever and 
measles were treated. A fourth part, containing the remainder of the 


rashes and the Bulle, or large vesications, was published in 1808. The — 


subject of vaccination haying excited great interest, Willan was induced 
to publish a volume on this subject out of the regular order of his 
work, and this appeared in 1806, with the title ‘On Vaccine Inocula- 
tion,’ In this work he gave a full account of Jenner’s disease the cow- 
pox, also of the chicken-pox, and of other cutaneous diseases which 


might be confounded with the vaccine disease. The remaining portions ~ 


of the work, including the pustular, vesicular, tubercular, and ma- 
cular orders, were not published as a completion of Dr, Willan’s work; 
but all the materials having been committed by him to the care of 
Dr. Bateman, were afterwards published by him in a work entitled 
‘Delineations of Cutaneous Diseases, exhibiting the characteristic 
appearances of the principal genera and species comprised in the clas- 
sification of the late Dr. Willan, and completing the series of engravings 
begun by that author,’ London, 1817. By the simple classification 
which he adopted, and its application to a large number of jer 
Willan did more for the advancement of the knowledge of diseases 
the skin than any previous writer, and laid the foundation for the 
successful labours of Bateman, Rayer, and subsequent writers on this 
subject. 

Besides this great work, Willan published several papers in Journals 
and Transactions, upon various professional subjects. During some 
part of the time that he was connected with the Dispensary in Carey- 
street, he published monthly reports of the cases, with observations. 
These reports contained much valuable information, and those from 
1796 to 1800 were published in a by eee volume, with the title 
‘Reports on the Diseases of London,’ London, 12mo, 1801. In the 
early part of his life he published a little volume entitled ‘ History of 
the Ministry of Jesus Christ, combined from the Narrative of it in the 
four Evangelists,’ This was published in 1782, and a second edition 
with notes and observations, appeared in 1786. Willan was fond o 
antiquarian pursuits, and read several papers before the Antiquarian 
Society, of which body he was elected a fellow in 1791, One of the 
most elaborate of his papers was an essay on the practice of lustration 
by need-fire, a practice which still continues in some of the northern 
counties of England. He was elected in 1809 a fellow of the Royal 
Society. 

During the latter part of his life he fesigned his public situations. 


He took an active interest in the establishment of the Fever Hospital, 


and was made one of its first physicians extraordinary. His health, 
which was never strong, began to decline in 1810, and his friends 
persuaded him to embark for Madeira, where he died on the 7th of 
April 1812, . 

At the time of his death he was engaged in investigating several points 
connected with the antiquities of medicine, Among other qa 
which occupied him was the nature of the ignis sacer ; the evidences of 
the prevalence of small-pox, measles, scarlet-fever, and other epidemic 


a 


| ers 


a 
4 
| 


709 WILLDENOW, CARL LUDWIG. 


WILLEMS, JAN FRANS, 710 


diseases amongst the ancients; the history of leprosy, and also of 
lues. Dr, Willan was a man of retiring and studious habits, devotedly 
fond of his profession. He had few connexions, and modest manners, 
so that his course to practice was slow, although it was ample in the 
end, He was much esteemed by his medical brethren, and beloved 
by the poor, to whom he was ever kind and attentive. He was a 
sound observer, and a good practical physician; and his classification 
of the diseases of the skin must ever be regarded as a great step for 
the advancement of the knowledge of the forms of disease. 

(Bateman, Memoir of Dr. Willan, in 82nd number of Hdinbw'gh 
Medical and Surgical Jownal). 

WILLDENOW, CARL LUDWIG, a botanist, was born in 1765, at 
Berlin, where his father was an apothecary. He received his early 
education at Berlin, and studied medicine at Halle, whence he pro- 
ceeded to Langensalza, for the purpose of studying chemistry in the 
laboratory of Wiegleb. He took his degree of Doctor of Medicine at 
Halle ; returned to his native city, and, having married, commenced 
the practice of his profession. He early turned his attention to botany, 
and before he had graduated he published his Prodromus of the 
Berlin Flora, with the title ‘Prodromus Flore Berolinensis,’ Berlin, 


8vo, 1787. On the occasion of his graduating at Halle he presented as 


his thesis a botanical work, which was entitled ‘Tractatus de Achilleis 


-et Tanaceto,’ Halle, 8vo, 1789. Shortly after this he published his 


‘Historia Amaranthorum,’ at Ziirich, illustrated with 12 plates. Nor 
did he confine his natural history studies to plants. He took great 
interest in zoology, and had collected in his museum many specimens 
of rare animals; and in 1789 he published a catalogue of butterflies in 
the Mark of Brandenburg, entitled ‘Tabellarisches Verzeichniss der in 
der Churmark Brandenburg einheimischen Schmetterlinge,’ Berlin, 8vo. 
In 1790 he published a memoirjof Gleditsch the botanist, and in 1792 
his elements of botany, with the title ‘Grundriss der Kraiiter-Kunde,’ 
Berlin, 8vo. This was one of the best elementary works on botany of 
the day, and was extensively used throughout Germany as a class- 
book. It was also translated into French and English, and in fact 
became the model on which most of the subsequent introductions to 
botany were written. He afterwards published a work of the same 
nature in 1804, entitled ‘ An Introduction to the Self-Study of Botany’ 
(‘Anleitung zum Selbst-Studien der Botanik’), but this is an inferior 
work to the first. In 1794 he published, in folio, a work on new and 
rare. plants, with the title ‘Phytographia, seu Descriptio rariorum 
minus cognitarum Plantarum,’ Erlangen. This was followed, in 1796, 
by a work on the trees and shrubs growing in the open air in the 
Garden of Berlin, with some account of their culture. Of this work a 
second edition appeared in 1811. 

The successive publication of these works had acquired for Will- 
denow the reputation of a first-rate botanist, and obtained for him in 
1798 the appointment to the chair of Natural History at Berlin. He 
was also appointed superintendent of the Botanic Garden at Berlin. 
Previous to his appointment this garden had been much neglected, 
but by his diligence it became the depository of some of the rarest 
plants growing in Europe. Willdenow corresponded with most of the 
botanists of his day, and from Klein he received plants from India; 
from Humboldt and Bonpland, those of America; from Labillardiére 
and Smith, those of New Holland; and from Desfontaines, those of 
Africa. It was thus that, instead of 1200 species he found growing in 
the garden, he left 6000. He also collected a large herbarium, con- 
sisting of above 20,000 species of plants. 

The great work of the life of Willdenow was his ‘Species Plan- 
tarum’ of Linneus. He commenced this work in 1797, and con- 
tinued publishing it at intervals till 1810, when his health became too 
enfeebled to enable him to go on. He proceeded as far as the first 
part of the fifth volume, which contained descriptions of the species 
of the natural order Filices. A second part of the fifth volume, 
including the mosses, was published by Schwagricher in 1830; and 
Link, in 1824, published two parts of a sixth volume, including 
the Fungi, Hyphomycetes, and Gymnomycetes. This work was the most 
important one of its day for systematic botany, as it included descrip- 
tions of all species that had been described since the first publication 
of the ‘Species Plantarum’ by Linnzus. The first volumes of the 
book are not so well executed as the last, which is easily accounted for 
when the different position in which the author was placed is con- 


- sidered. There are also many manifest errors in the references to 


works, and in the quotation of synonyms, which diminish its value, 
and which have produced some very severe criticisms. Every allow- 
ance however should be made on account of the magnitude of the 
work ; and, whatever might be its faults, there was nothing to supply 
its place till the publication of the ‘Prodromus’ of De Candolle, and 
where this was incomplete, the aid of the ‘Species Plantarum’ of 
Willdenow was still essential. The whole work is arranged according 
to the Linnean system. From 1803 to 1809 Willdenow published at 
intervals descriptions with coloured plates of plants growing in the 
Botanic Garden at Berlin, under the title ‘Hortus Berolinensis,’ 
Berlin, folio, He also contributed mai essays and papers to various 
Journals and Transactions of societies, In 1811 Willdenow went with 
his family to Paris for the purpose of studying and describing plants 
in the collections there. He however was able to effect little, on 
account of his health, and he returned to Berlin, where he died on the 
10th of July 1812, 


WILLE, JEAN GEORGE, a distinguished engraver, was born at 
Konigsberg, near Giessen, in Hesse, November 5, 1715. He was 
destined by his parents for trade, but from his earliest years he had a 
passion for drawing and design, and having by his own efforts learnt 
to engrave, he in his nineteenth year proceeded to Paris where he was 
employed by Dallé at a low salary. His improvement in his art was 
very rapid, and he finally attained an almost unrivalled reputation as 
an engraver of portraits and of figure pieces from the Dutch and 
Flemish masters. Among his most celebrated prints are the portraits 
of Marshal Saxe; Massé de Boullongne; Marigny, Count de Saint 
Florentin, &c., and his genre engravings, such as ‘ The Knitter,’ ‘The 
Reader,’ ‘An Old Woman of Normandy holding a Tulip, Terburg’s 
‘Satin Gown,’ Schalken’s ‘Family Concert,’ ‘Wandering Musicians, 
and many others from the works of Gerard Douw, Mieris, Dietrich, 
Terburg, and other masters of the Dutch school. Wille never left 
Paris after he entered it, and came, though born in Germany, to be 
generally regarded as a Frenchman. He was admitted a member of the 
Académie des Beaux-Arts, in 1761; was created a knight of the 
legion of honour by Napoleon L, and died at Paris on the 8th of 
August 1806, The engravings of Wille are correct in drawing, brilliant, 
yet.delicate and refined in effect, and convey with admirable precision 
and feeling the character of the masters from whose works they are 
executed. Among his ‘pupils were Muller, Schmuzer, Bervic, and 
others who have distinguished themselves in this profession. 

WILLEMS, JAN FRANS, the originator of what is called ‘ the 
Flemish movement’ for the revival of the cultivation of the Dutch 
language in Belgium, was born at Bouchout, a village near Antwerp, 
on the 11th of March 1793. The French sans-culotte army, under 
Dumouriez, was at that very time advancing to the siege of Antwerp; 
a party of his soldiers entered Bouchout on the night that Willems was 
born, and on hearing the state of affairs politely withdrew from his 
father’s house, observing that the new comer would be the first French 
citizen of the district, and little foreseeing how effective an opponent 
he would prove to the influence of France in Flanders. The attach- 
ment of Willems to the Flemish language first showed itself at the 
town of Lierre, where he was sent from the age of twelve to fifteen, to 
learn singing and playing on the organ, and where he was fortunate 
enough to meet with a protector and educator in the person of Mr. 
Bergmann, who, in the then cessation of public means of education in 
Belgium acted as tutor to his own family, and allowed young Willems 
to share their instructions in Latin and literature. Lierre was still in 
possession of some of the ‘ Réderyk-Kamers,’ or Chambers of Rhetoric, 
the existence of which was one of the most familiar literary features of 
olden Belgium, and they were in the habit of getting up theatrical 
entertainments. “The Cecilian Society of the principal church, St. 
Gummar’s, where I every day sang or played the organ, being,” says 
Willems, in a history which he afterwards wrote of the Chambers of 
Lierre, ‘in the mind to act some pieces for the benefit of the church, 
this was the occasion of first bringing me on the stage, and I repre- 
sented the angel Gabriel bringing the annunciation to the Virgin 
Mary, in the piece entitled ‘The Nativity and Youth of Jesus Christ. 
I remember that our manager, Mr. Van den Brande, churchwarden of 
St. Gummar’s, a very pious man, every evening before the curtain rose 
made us kneel down on the stage, and read the Litany of Our Lady 
that the performance might go off well. It was strange to see how all 


‘the characters were mingled together on their knees, and how St. 


Joseph and Our Lady (N.B., an Our Lady with a beard), Herod, the 
three Kings, the Jewish Scribes and Pharisees, the angels and the 
devils all joined in the responses, ‘Pray for us, pray for us.’ I shall 
never forget it.” The mysteries of the middle ages were thus, it will 
be seen, flourishing in the 19th century in Belgium, as well as in some 
more remote corners of Europe. 

When Willems was a boy of fourteen at Lierre he wrote a poetical 
satire in Flemish on the authorities of Bouchout, who had arbitrarily 
dismissed his father from the post of tax-collector. This and some 
other proofs of talent led his patron Bergmann to advise his parents 
not to bury him in the obscurity of his native village but send him to 
Antwerp, where he was placed as clerk to a notary, and, in 1812, con- 
tended victoriously against twenty-six competitors for the prize that 
was offered for the best poem on the battle of Friedland and the peace 
of Tilsit, An amateur theatre was his favourite recreation, and two 
plays of his composition ‘The Rich Antwerper’ and ‘ Quintin Matsys’ 
met with success both on the stage and in print. The union of 
Belgium with Holland, which followed the overthrow of the French 
dominion in both countries in 1814, naturally directed attention to the 
fact that the so-called Flemish language and the language of Amster- 
dam are in reality but very slightly differing dialects of one common 
language which was at one time more cultivated in Flanders and at 
another in Holland. Willems took the lead in reviving and making 
permanent what it is very singular should ever have been overlooked 
or forgotten. A spirited poem by him—‘ Aen de Belgen’ (To the 
Belgians)—published in 1818, exhorted his countrymen not to con- 
tinue to abandon the language of their fathers, which was also the 
language of Vondel and Bilderdyk. This poem, which produced a 
strong sensation, was accompanied by a French translation, which it 
may be remarked was not a very faithful one. It formed the prelude 
to Willems’s ‘Dissertation on the Dutch Language and Literature in 
connection with the Southern Provinces of the Netherlands’ (Ver- 


711 WILLIAM I. (OF ENGLAND). 


WILLIAM I, (OF ENGLAND). 712 


handeling over de Nederduytsche Tael- en Letterkunde opzigtelyk de 
Zugdelyke Provintien der Nederlanden), which was commenced in 
1819 and completed in 1824. In this work, which extends to two 
octavo volumes, he aimed at tracing the literary history of Flanders 
and Brabant from the 13th to the 19th century, showing that 
literature had flourished in those countries as long as the national 
language was cultivated, but that it had declined since the religious 
wars which led to the separation of the North and the South Nether- 
lands, because from that period Latin, and particularly French, had 
been looked upon as the only instruments of literary cultivation in 
the Catholic Netherlands, while the use of the native dialect, or of 
one nearly akin to it, had been abandoned to the Protestants of the 
Seven United Provinces. There was an outcry against the author of 
this work on two accounts, one from the antagonists of the union of 
Belgium with Holland, who stigmatised him as a sycophant of the 
government because his views tended to recommend the government 
measure of the introduction of Dutch as the official language, the 
other from zealous Catholics, who were indignant that a Catholic 
should maintain the superiority of the literature of the Protestant 
North to the Catholic South. The dissertation had great value at the 
time of its appearance as the only attempt at a connected history of 
Flemish literature, but the additional light since thrown on the subject 
by the researches of Willems himself and of several others has had 
the effect of rendering it in some degree obsolete. From the time of 
its publication Willems was looked upon as the champion of the 
Flemish cause, which he defended against all enemies and in particular 
against Van de Weyer [WEYER, VAN DE] in a French pamphlet, entitled 
‘De la langue Belgique, which appeared in 1829, only a year before 
the violent severance of Belgium and Holland. 

The revolution of 1830 appeared at first sight to be a mortal blow 
to the prospects of the Flemish language, and also to the fortunes of 
its champion. Willems had been placed by the Dutch government in 
the advantageous post of a receiver of some public dues at Antwerp, 
where he had been previously appointed by the city as an assistant 
keeper of archives, He had also been, in conjunction with Van de 
Weyer, one of the commission for publishing the historical monuments 
of the South Netherlands. Of these posts he was deprived by the 
provisional government of Belgium, and sent in an obscure position, 
with a reduced salary, to the small town of Eecloo, where, declining 
the offers of the Dutch government to place him in a more advan- 
tageous position in Holland, he remained for four years, By that time 
the indignant remonstrances of some of the chief literary men of 
Belgium, and in particular of his old opponent Van de Weyer, aroused 
the government to a sense of his unworthy treatment, and in 1835 he 
was placed at Ghent in a situation similar to that he had occupied at 
Antwerp. While at Eecloo he had published a modern Flemish 
version of the celebrated mediseval poem of ‘ Reynard the Fox,’ which 
he maintained to be of Flemish origin; on the sale of a copy of an 
old Flemish manuscript of the poem at London, in the auction of 
Richard Heber’s library, he applied to the Belgian government to 
secure it for Belgium, it was purchased at his recommendation for 
160/., and in 1836 the poem was printed under his editorship, with a 
preface, in which he maintained his views with great ability. From 
this time his life flowed in a course of literary labours and honours. 
A society was formed at Ghent “for the encouragement of the Low- 
Dutch language and literature,” which published a periodical, the 
‘Belgian Museum’ (Belgisch Museum), under the editorship of 

_ Willems, which was so entirely his work, that at his death it suddenly 
ceased, and was brought to a close, with, for its last article, the life of 
Willems, from which this notice has chiefly been taken. It extends to 
ten volumes, and is full of interesting matter. The cultivation of the 
Flemish language, which he had first promoted, went on increasing. In 
1841 a Flemish festival was held at the University of Ghent; two years 
later a meeting of the “ Taelverbond,” or ‘“‘ Language Association,” at 
Brussels, at which Willems officiated as president. ‘The movement was 
too powerful to be withstood by the government. Willems had no lon- 
ger to fear disgrace for his exertions, and had already, in 1838, been 
named a knight of the order of Leopold. The Flemish movement still 
appears to make progress, and the meetings which have been held of 
distinguished literary men of both the North and South Netherlands 
appear likely to result in placing the language in Belgium in a higher 
degree of estimation than it has been for centuries. Willems however 
was not destined to witness this triumph. He died at Ghent on the 
24th of June 1846, after a very brief illness, of an apoplectic attack. 

The list of his works given in the ‘ Belgisch Museum’ is forty-three 
in number, thirty-four in Flemish, five in French, and the remainder 
in both languages. The most important that have not been already 
mentioned are his ‘ Mengelingen van vaderlandschen Inhoud’ (Miscel- 
lanies on National Subjects), Antwerp, 1827-30; the ‘Rhymed Chro- 
nicle of Jan van Heelu;’ the ‘ Rhymed Chronicle of Brabant, by Jan 
de Klerk,’ edited for the Belgian Historical Commission; and the 
‘Chronicle of Edward the Third, king of England, written in rhyme 
re peat by Jan de Klerk,’ and first published by Willems at Ghent in 

WILLIAM I, King of England, styled THE CONQUEROR (in 
Latin Conquestor or Conquisitor, in French Conquerewr, meaning only, 
in the language of the feudal system, the acquirer), was the illegiti- 
mate and only son of Robert, Duke of Normandy, surnamed Le Diable 


(the Devil), and was born in 1027. The vulgar story makes his 
mother the daughter of Fulbert de Croy, a tanner or skinner of 
Falaise, whom Robert first saw and became enamoured of as she was 
dancing with some of her female companions: her nanie, it is said, 
was Arlette or Harlotta, whence our English ‘harlot.’ This is a very 
suspicious etymology. According to the contemporary historian 
William of Jumieges (Gemeticensis), the Conquerors mother was 
Herleva, the daughter of Fulbert, an officer of Duke Robert's house- 
hold. After Robert’s death she married a Norman knight (miles) 
named Herluin, by whom she had two sons, both of whom made a 
great figure in their time: Robert, who was created Earl of Montague 
in Normandy, and Odo, who became bishop of Bayeux; besides a 
daughter, who was married to Odo, earl of Albemarle. rad 
During his father’s life he was entrusted to the care of Henry I. of 
France, at whose court he resided. He succeeded to the duchy of 
Normandy as William II., on the death of his father in 1035. - it 
his minority the nobles several times revolted against his authority, 
and Normandy was a scene of constant hostility and desolation. 
Aided however by Henry I., and still more by the mutual jealousies of 
the nobles, he was enabled to maintain his position till 1047, when in 
a battle fought at Val des Dunes, between Caen and Argentan, he 
crushed his most formidable competitor, Guido of Macon, who was 


supported by nearly the whole body of Norman nobles. By the con- — 


sequences of this victory, and of subsequent advantages which he 
obtained over other assailants, the power of William was so far con- 
solidated as to lead him to extend his ambitious views to foreign 
lands, and especially to the British islands. The commencement of 
his transactions with England and his acquisition of the crown of that 
country by the victory of Hastings, or rather Senlac, gained Saturday, 
14th of October 1065, have been detailed in the articles EpwAnRD THE 
Conressor (ii. 707) and Harotp II. (iii: 299). 

On the death of Harold, Edgar Atheling was unanimously declared 
king by the Witan assembled in London; and the further m 
ment of the war with the Norman invader was committed to the two 
distinguished brother Earls Edwin and Mortar. But this opposition 
soon gave way. After a few days a deputation from the nobility, the 
clergy, and the citizens of London, headed by the two Saxon earls and 
the rival king, or pretender to the throne, Edgar himself, waited upon 
William at Berkhamstead, swore allegiance to him, gave him h 
and made him an offer of the crown; and his coronation took place in 
Westminster Abbey on the 25th of December, from which day accord- 
ingly is dated the commencement of his reign. 

The Conqueror’s first measures were conciliatory; even in reward- 
ing bis Norman followers, we are told, he deprived no Englishman of 
anything to which he had a just claim : he probably limited his seizures 
to the land and other property of those who had fallen in arms against 
him. He respected also the public liberties, as well as private rights ; 
the police of the kingdom were made much more eflicient, and at the 
same time the taxes were collected with lenity. But circumstances 
made it impossible that this state of things should last long. On the 
one side a numerous people, the old occupants of the country, exas 
rated by defeat, and on the watch for revenge; on the other, a handful 
of foreign intruders, flushed with recent victory, and feeling that in 
their swords alone lay their safety, as well as their rights: these were 
elements sure to produce a speedy explosion, even if William’s own 
passions had been much more temperate or more under control than 
they were. The Saxons and the Normans, it is to be remembered, 
although belonging to the same great Teutonic race, had been rivals 
and enemies, as far as their history can be traced, from their first 
appearance in Western and Northern Europe, and this island, origin 
wrested by the Saxons from their common prey the Celts, had been 
their chief battle-field for the last two hundred and fifty years; for 
the Danes, as they were commonly called, who had made re 
descents upon Britain ever since the beginning of the 9th century, 
were the same people who, under the name of Northmen, or Normans, 
had in the beginning of the 10th century effected a settlement in 
France, and had now, in the middle of the 11th, achieved the conquest 
of England. It can hardly be doubted, too, from the character of 
William, that the mildness of his government in the commencement 
of his reign was only an artful policy adopted to enable him the better 
to establish his power before carrying out what in that age, and down 


to a much later date, were held to be the unquestionable rights of - 


conquest. In fact he could not have retained the dominion of the 
country, if he had not made it furnish lands and lordships for his 
followers, as well as a crown for himself. , 

A few months sufficed to make an end of the apparent good agree- 
ment between the English and their new rulers, In March 1067, 
William, as if with no object beyond showing himself in triumph 
among his old subjects and receiving their congratulations, returned to 
Normandy, leaving the government of England in the hands of his 
half-brother, Bishop Odo, upon whom he had conferred the earldom of 
Kent, and of William Fitz-Osbern, also one of his relations, whom he 
had created Earl of Hereford. Whether it was that these regents 
attempted any new exactions or other acts of oppression, or only that 
advantage was taken of the absence of their master, not many weeks 
passed before the natives were up in arms in various parts of the 
country, William returned from Normandy in December. The 
ensuing two years Witnessed a far more severe contest than that 


713 WILLIAM I, (OF ENGLAND). 


WILLIAM I, (OF ENGLAND). 714 


which had been decided on the field of Hastings; in fact it was now, 
in 1068 and 1069, and not in 1066, that the subjugation of the country 
was really effected, aud the Norman dominion established. At first 
the enemy seemed to be evefywhere—nor were the insurgent natives 
the only power that threatened to dispute with William the possession 
of the country. His first movement was against the city of Exeter, 
the head-quarters of the south-western insurrection; but with all his 
vigour, it was not till after a siege of eighteen days that he forced 
his way into the place, and even then he engaged that the inhabitants 
should not be injured either in their lives, their properties, or their 
municipal privileges. In this quarter of the kingdom, as yet at least, 
the revolt scarcely seems to have been a Saxon or national movement ; 
it might have grown to that, but at present it was apparently little 
more than a resistance to some oppressive proceedings, or apprehended 
proceedings, of the established authorities. William was satisfied 
therefore with merely putting down the dangerous example, perhaps 
even at the cost of some concession or compromise; it was necessary 
that he should not leave such a flame behind him to gather strength 
while he should be engaged with the more formidable rebellion in the 
north. That occupied him with little intermission for the whole of 
the next and a great part of the succeeding year. At the head of it, 
when it had broken out, were the two earls Edwin and Morcar; 
they were fallen upon and compelled to make their. submission; and 


for a time the attempt seemed to be crushed. A second rising was as 


speedily put down; but in the course of the succeeding summer of 1069, 
first the three surviving sons of Harold landed at Plymouth from 
Treland, in June, with a fleet of sixty-four sail, and then, in July, 
Canute the son of Sveno, the Danish king, appeared on the eastern 
coast at the head of a much more formidable armament: the Irish 
invaders were driven back after having plundered the adjacent country ; 
the Danes were joined by the newly quieted inhabitants of Yorkshire 
and Northumberland (themselves mostly of Danish lineage), and a 
final struggle ensued, which did not indeed last long, and in which 
William came off victorious, but which left that part of his kingdom 
literally a desolate wilderness; for, after he had subdued all armed 
resistance, he found no other way which promised to be effectual in 
preventing a new insurrection, except actually to depopulate the 
country by fire and sword, and to reduce a large tract of it to the soli- 
tude and silence of death. Itis affirmed that above a hundred thousand 
men, women, and children were destroyed in this terrible operation, 
and that for nine years thereafter not a patch of tillage was to be seen 
between York and Durham; nor were the ruins of the buildings that 
had been thrown down in the reckless devastation cleared away for 
more than a century. 

From this time William ruled his kingdom like a true conqueror. 
The natives of the country were rapidly deprived of everything, and 
reduced to a state of complete slavery. All the offices both in the 
church and the state, from the highest to the lowest, were, with 
scarcely an exception, filled with Normans and other foreigners. On 
any pretence or no pretence at all, by confiscations and unjust decrees, 
by force or by fraud, nearly every Englishman was in the course of a 


few years ejected from all proprietorship of the soil, which was not 


merely, according to the principle of the feudal system, treated as 
derived from and held of the crown, but was actually seized by the 
crown, and either retained by it or redistributed at its pleasure. In 
other respects also feudalism was carried out with a rigour and to an 
excess that had nowhere else been exemplified. The people were 
ground to the earth by various new and oppressive imposts. Fortresses 
were erected and garrisoned in all the considerable towns to overawe 
the inhabitants. In short the country was reduced to a vast encamp- 
ment, in which the only freedom, public or private, that was left was 
the right of a small number of insolent masters to tyrannise at will 
over a multitude of toiling and helpless bondsmen. 

All this however, and the deluge of blood in which the northern 
rebellion had been quenched, had the full effect that was intended, of 
breaking the spirit of the nation, and hushing for the future the very 
sound of resistance. The only further trouble that William had with 
the native English was in putting down a band of outlaws, who, 
headed by the intrepid and skilful Saxon Hereward, for a short time 
set his power at defiance amid the fens and morasses of the Isle of 
Ely; and they were rooted out in the course of the year 1071. In 
1072 the Conqueror, all England being reduced to submission, found 
himself at leisure to lead a great army across the northern border to 
chastise the Scottish king Malcolm Canmore, who, besides having 
received and protected Edgar Atheling, whose sister he had married, 
had two years before, immediately after the suppression of the 


Northumbrian insurrection, made an inroad into the western parts of 


York and Durham, and spread almost as much devastation in that 
quarter as the vengeance of the English king had done along the 
eastern coast. As William advanced, the inhabitants not only fled 
before him, but, setting fire to their farm-houses and villages, and 
carrying away with them everything of value which the flames did not 
consume, left the land a bare and silent desert. He continued his 
unresisted march however as far as the Tay, and there, at Abernethy, 
Malcolm met him, and made his submission, which, according to the 
English chroniclers, went the length of swearing fealty to him for the 
kingdom of Scotland, but most probably amounted only to an acknow- 
ledgment of him as king of England by the performance of homage for 


Cumberland and the other English possessions annexed to the Scottish 
crown, Malcolm moreover is stated to have given hostages for his 
observance of the peace thus concluded; but no friendship was 
established between the two; the Scottish king continued to adhere 
to the cause of his brother-in-law, and a few years after this, in 1079, 
seizing his opportunity while William was in Normandy, he again 
crossed the border, and carried fire and sword into Northumberland as 
far as the Tyne. In the autumn of the following year William sent an 
army into Scotland under the command of his son Robert; but after 
advancing only a few miles (to a place which Simeon of Durham calls 
Eglesbreth), it returned without having effected anything. It was 
soon after this that the fortress of Newcastle was erected on the 
Tyne, with the view of checking these Scottish inroads, 

Meanwhile, in 1075, during another visit of William to his con- 
tinental dominions, a number of his Anglo-Norman barons, with 
Roger, the son of William Fitz-Osbern, and his successor in the earl- 
dom of Hereford, at their head, offended, as they professed, at his gene- 
rally haughty bearing and oppressive government, but chiefly moved, it 
is probable, by dissatisfaction at the lion’s share he had taken to him- 
self in the fruits of their common conquest, had entered into a con- 
federacy to drive him from the throne. But their conspiracy being 
detected, they were hurried into an armed rising before their plans 
were mature, and their forces were dispersed by the grand justiciaries 
William de Warrenne and Richard de Bienfait, in a battle fought at a 
place called, by Ordericus Vitalis, Fagaduna, by which is supposed to be 
meant Beecham, or Bicham, in Norfolk. On his return home William, 
the Saxon chronicler states, led a powerful army into Wales, and 
established his dominion over that country. ; 

The next and only other attempt which was made in William’s life- 
time to shake his throne, though it wore at first a formidable aspect, 
came also to nothing, as all the rest had done, defeated partly by his 
vigilance, promptitude, and energy, partly, as one would say, by his 
good fortune. In 1085 Canute, the son of Sveno, who had now suc- 
ceeded his father as king of Denmark, put himself at the head of a 
great naval armament with the avowed design of asserting his heredi- 
tary claim to the English crown. William immediately collected a 
great army to oppose him, by bringing over multitudes of mercenaries 
from every part of the continent; but the matter never came to the 
arbitrement of the sword: the sagacious English king is supposed to 
have employed his treasure in corrupting the forces of his enemy, as 
well as in hiring mercenaries for his own defence; be that as it 
may, one cause or another always prevented Canute from putting to 
sea; at last, after he had lain for more than a year in the port of 
Haithaby, or Haddeby (on the right bank of the Schle, opposite to 
Schleswig), a mutiny broke out in the fleet, and the enterprise was 
abandoned, It was to help him to meet this danger that William 
revived the odious tax called the Danegelt. 

Shortly after his conquest of England, William had promised to his 
eldest son Robert his hereditary duchy, but afterwards refused to 
resign it. This led to a contest of arms, in which the father and son 
are said to have on one occasion encountered without knowing one 
another, when the old king was wounded in the hand in the unnatural 
combat. This was while William was besieging the castle of Gerberoi, 
into which his son had thrown himself. They were eventually recon- 
ciled by the intercession of Queen Matilda. It was another quarrel 
about Normandy however with Philip I. of France, who had taken the 
part of Robert, that cost William his life. In the summer of 1087 a 
sarcasm of Philip’s on the corpulency of his brother of England, who 
was then confined to his bed by illness at Rouen (lying-in, as Philip 
phrased it), infuriated the proud Norman; he swore that at his 
churching he would set all France in a blaze: as soon as he was able 
to be on horseback, he collected an army, and made a dash at the city 
of Mante, formerly belonging to Normandy, which he took, and imme- 
diately ordered to be set on fire. This was on the 10th of August, 
He was enjoying the sight of the conflagration, in which many of the 
inhabitants perished, when his horse stumbled on some hot embers, 
and threw him forward on the pommel of the saddle, by which he was 
so much injured that, being carried back to Rouen, he never again left 
his bed, but died there on the morning of the 9th of September 
following, in the fifty-ninth year of his age and twenty-first of his 
reign. 

The principal. portion of the laws of the Conqueror that has come 
down to us consists of a capitulary, which is said to have been drawn 
up and agreed upon in an assembly of the principal persons of the 
realm, whom he called together about the year 1070. It is for the 
most part a selection of the laws previously in force in the Saxon 
times, according to the last general revision by Canute the Great. It 
exists both in Latin and in Romance, or old French; and the Latin 
version, which is preserved in the history attributed to Ingulphus, has 
usually been reckoned the original; but Sir Francis Palgrave, who 
has printed both versions from better manuscripts. than had been 
before employed, in his ‘Rise and Progress of the English Common- 
wealth,’ Proofs and Illustrations, lxxxviii.-civ., has advanced some 
reasons for believing that these laws of the Conqueror were most 
probably originally written in Latin, which was the language in which 
legal documents were commonly drawn up in England for some ages 
after this date. The common statement that William attempted to 
abolish the English tongue and to substitute the French, whether in 


715 WILLIAM II. (OF ENGLAND), 


WILLIAM II. (OF ENGLAND). 716 


the courts of law or in the ordinary intercourse of life, rests upon no 
good authority, and is irreconcilable with well-ascertained facts. The 
memorable survey of the kingdom completed by order of William in 
1086, and known as the Domesday-Book, need only be mentioned 
here. 

The wife of William the Conqueror was Matilda, daughter of 
Baldwin V., earl of Flanders, surnamed the Gentle. He married her 
before he acquired the crown of England, and she died on the 2nd of 
November 1083, Their children were, Robert, whom his father called 
Gambaron (Roundlegs), and Courthose (Shorthose), who died a prisoner 
in the castle of Cardiff in 1134; Richard, who was gored to death by 
a stag in the New Forest; William, by whom he was succeeded on the 
English throne; Henry, who succeeded William; Cecilia, who became 
abbess of the monastery of the Holy Trinity at Caen, and died there 
on the 13th of July 1126; Constance, who was married to Alan, earl 
of Bretagne and. Richmond, but died without issue; Adeliza, who 
died young before the Conquest; Adela, who married Stephen, earl of 
Blois, by whom she became the mother of Stephen, king of England, 
and who afterwards took the veil, and died in the nunnery of Mareigny 
in France about 1137 ; Gundred, who married William de Warrenne, 
earl of Surrey, and died in childbed at Castleacre in Norfolk, May 27, 
1085 ; and Agatha, who was contracted to Alphonso, king of Leon and 
Castile, but died before her marriage. He had also a natural son, 
William de Peveril, by Maud, daughter of Ingelric, a Saxon nobleman, 
who afterwards married Ranulph de Peveril. 

WILLIAM II, King of England, surnamed by his French and 
Norman contemporaries Le Rouge, and by the English The Red 
(meaning the Ruddy-faced), which epithets the Latin chroniclers have 
inaccurately translated not by the proper term Ruber, but by Rufus 
(which means the Red-haired), was the second of the three surviving 
sons of William the Conqueror, and was born in Normandy in 1056. 
He was educated under the care of the celebrated Lanfranc, whom, in 
1063, his father had called from his retirement at Bee to preside over 
the newly-founded monastery of St. Stephen, at Caen, and whom he 
afterwards, in 1070, made archbishop of Canterbury. Lanfrane was 
the young prince’s instructor not only in learning and piety, but in the 
art of war, and it was from Lanfranc that Rufus received his knight- 
hood. He appears to have been from his boyhood a favourite of his 
father, who saw reflected in him much more of his own character 
than in his eldest son, the thoughtless and indolent Robert. A few 
days before his death, the Conqueror, having assembled around his 
bed those of his prelates and barons who were with him at Rouen, 
declared to them that he was willing to leave the dukedom of Nor- 
mandy, which he had received from his ancestors, to his first-born; 
but that as for the succession to the kingdom of England, which he 
had acquired by his own good sword, he would leave that to the deci- 
sion of God. He added however that he earnestly hoped it might fall 
to William ; and he advised that prince, who was present (Robert was 
not), to repair immediately to England, giving him at the same time 
a recommendatory letter to Archbishop Lanfranc. William lost no 
time in setting out for the sea-coast; he heard of his father having 
breathed his last as he was about to embark at Wissant, neat Calais, 
having probably waited till he should be able to carry over that news; 
he concealed it however after he had landed till he had obtained pos- 
session of the fortresses of Dover, Pevensey, and Hastings, on pre- 
tended orders from his father ; he then hastened to Winchester, where 
he easily induced the master of the royal treasury, William de Pont 
de l’Arche, to give him his keys; and finally he presented himself 
before Lanfranc, to whom he had already forwarded his father’s letter 
by a confidential messenger. Lanfrane a few days after assembled a 
council of the prelates and barons; no one opposed his proposition 
that William should be declared king, and he was accordingly crowned 
by the Archbishop of Westminster, on Sunday the 26th of September 
1087. The commencement of his reign is dated from that day. 

The first business to which the Red King had to address himself 
was to defend the throne which he had thus mounted against his elder 
brother. Robert, who at the time of his father’s death had been living 
in exile and poverty at Abbeville in the dominions of the King of 
France, soon made his appearance at Rouen, and was at once acknow- 
ledged as Duke of Normandy. It may be doubted whether he would 
not have been satisfied with this ancestral inheritance if he had been 
left to himself; but this, in the circumstances, could hardly be, His 
chief instigator was-Odo, the bishop of Bayeux, who, in the latter 
years of the preceding reign, had fallen under the displeasure of his 
half-brother the Conqueror, and was now eager to avenge himself by 
the dethronement of Rufus. Many others of the English barons also 
who held possessions in both countries were strongly averse to their 
separation, as involving the inconveniences and risks of a divided 
allegiance. Odo is said to have arranged his plans with his friends at 
the festival of Easter 1088, which was kept by William at Winchester 
with great state. The insurrection broke out immediately after in all 
parts of the kingdom, But no efficient assistance came from Robert, 
William, with prompt sagacity, appealed to his Saxon subjects to 
stand by him against their hated Norman lords; the castles of Peven- 
sey and Rochester, with Odo in the former, and Eustace, earl of 
Boulogne, in the latter, were both compelled to surrender; and the 
rebels, after some further ineffectual resistance, soon everywhere threw 
down their arms, This unsuccessful attempt to make a revolution in 


England was speedily followed by a revolt of many of the Norman 
barons against Duke Robert, who with difficulty was able to maintain 
his ground, even with the assistance of his brother Henry, to whom 
in his necessity he parted with about a third of his dominions for the 
sum of 30002, [Henry I., vol. iii, 852.) After this civil war had 
gone on for some time, and Normandy had been reduced to a state of 
almost complete anarchy, William landed in that country at the head 
of an army, in January 1091. But the two brothers did not try their 
strength in battle: Robert applied for protection to his feudal lord, 
Philip I., king of France, and by his mediation a peace was concluded 
between them at Caen: By this treaty William retained p ; 
all the Norman fortresses of which his partisans had already made 
themselves masters, and that was the only actual result of the paci- 
fication. It was also indeed agreed that Robert should have compen- 
sation in England for the territory thus taken from him, and 
whichever of the two brothers should survive the other should inherit 
both countries; but these engagements, which cost William nothing 
at the time of making them, were certainly never looked upon by him 
nor perhaps even by Philip (whose desertion of his brother at a cri 
juncture he had already, some time before this, obtained by a judi- 
ciously administered bribe), as good for anything except to serve the 
purpose of the moment. Robert and William, now converted from 
enemies into allies, next turned their united arms against their 
remaining brother, and Henry was in his turn driven into exile, 
When Rufus returned to England, Robert accompanied him; but he 
soon found that his promised indemnity was not to be obtained, and 
he returned to Normandy in disgust. Meanwhile the Red King, in 
the latter part of 1091, had marched an army into Scotland to avenge 
himself on Malcolm Canmore, who had taken advantage of his absence 
in Normandy to invade Northumberland. The two kings settled their 
differences without fighting, by a treaty, in which Malcolm consented 
to do homage to William—whether for his kingdom of Scotland or 
for his English possessions is, as in other like cases, matter of dispute. 
This Scottish war broke out again two years after; Malcolm made 
another furious inroad into Northumberland in the winter of 1093, 
and, in an attempt to make himself master of Alnwick Castle, he was 
slain, on the 13th of November in that year, with his eldest son. In 
the spring of 1094, Rufus again passed over into Normandy, where his 
brother had once more called to his assistance the French king, and — 
the war between the two recommenced. Finding it to be going rather 
against him, Rufus had recourse to his old policy, in the conduct of 
which however he introduced a new stroke of ingenuity: having sent 
his commission over to England for an immediate levy of 20,000 men, 
when that force had assembled for embarkation at Hastings, an order 
suddenly came that they should all return home, each man merely 
leaving behind him, in lieu of his services in the field, the sum of ten — 
shillings, which is supposed to have been what each had received from 


his lord to maintain him during the campaign; the money thus pro- —__ 


cured William handed over to Philip, who thereupon withdrew from 
the war. Rufus was prevented from immediately taking full advantage 
of this arrangement by being recalled to England by a rising in Wales, 
and being alterwards.further detained by a conspiracy of his Norman 
subjects in the northern counties, at the head of which was Robert 
Mowbray, earl of Northumberland, one of the most powerful of his 
barons, He made two campaigns, with little success, against the 
Welsh in the summers of 1094 and 1095, and was at last obliged to 
rest satisfied with curbing them, and guarding the western counties 
from their incursions, by a chain of fortresses; but Mowbray and his 
adherents were, after a short contest of arms, effectually put down. 
Soon after this, in 1096, Robert, seized with the new spirit of taking 
the cross and setting out to fight the infidels in Palestine, freed William 
from all further trouble about Normandy by characteristically offering 
to put him in immediate possession of the whole duchy for 10,000/. The 
terms appear to have ineluded a right of redemption by Robert either 
within or after five years; but the transaction could not have appeared 
to anybody to amount really to anything else than a complete and final. 
surrender. Such at any rate we may be certain that William deter- 
mined it should be, whatever were the precise terms of the conveyance, 
Rufus at this moment had no more money than his needy brother; 
but by the instrumentality of the famous Ralph Flambard, who ever 
since the death of Archbishop Lanfranc, in 1089, had been at once his 
prime minister and chief agent of his oppressions, and the favourite 
companion of his debaucheries, he soon managed to raise the required 
sum, not, as an old writer expresses it, by merely fleecing his poor 
subjects, but rather, as it wefe, by flaying off their skins, The people 
of Normandy in general submitted quietly enough to this transference 
of themselves and theif country to a new lord; but the Manceaux, or 
inhabitants of the district of Maine, Robert’s right to which was dis- 
puted, rallied around his rival claimant, Helie de la Fléche, and 
attempted to set William’s authority at defiance. This opposition 
called over the English king once more to the Continent in 1100: he 
was hunting in the New Forest when a messenger arrived with the - 
news that Helie had surprised the town of Mans, and was besieging 
the Norman’ garrison in the castle. Rufus instantly rode to the 
nearest seaport, and, stepping on board the first vessel he found, 
directed the crew to hoist sail and begone, asking them, in answer to 
their entreaties that he would wait till the weather was calmer, if they 
had ever heard of a king that was drowned. “If I understand,” he 


77 WILLIAM III. (OF ENGLAND). 


WILLIAM IIL, (OF ENGLAND). 


* 


718 


also said, * the temper of the youth of this land, I shall have plenty 
of followers.” Nevertheless it does not appear that any considerable 
force accompanied him; but as soon as Helie heard of his arrival, he 
dismissed his troops and took to flight, upon which William shortly 
after returned to England. This was the last time that the Red King 
took the field. On the 2nd of August following he was shot dead by 


. an arrow as he was hunting in the New Forest, by whose hand was 


never certainly known, although the popular story of the time, dressed 
up with many striking circumstances by the monkish chroniclers who 
subsequently recorded it, attributed the act to Sir Walter Tyrrell, 
otherwise, from his estates in France, called Sir Walter de Poix, a bolt 
aimed by whom at a deer is said to have been turned aside by a tree, 


_ and, striking the king under his raised right arm, to have pierced his 


The dead body was left unnoticed till a late hour in the 
evening, when it was found by a poor, charcoal-burner, who put it in 
his cart and so conveyed it to Winchester. William’s successor on the 
English throne was Hrnry I. 

William Rufus was never married, and the genealogists haye not 
even assigned to him any natural children, notwithstanding all the 
licentiousness that is attributed to him in general terms. The chroni- 
clers, who were all ecclesiastics, have drawn his character in the 
darkest colours, and it may be presumed that he is indebted for some 
portion of the infamy and malediction they have heaped upon him to 


the manner in which he treated the church, of which he was through- 


out his reign the systematic oppressor and despoiler. At the same 


time it is sufficiently clear that neither as a man nor as a king did he 


much care for restraints of any kind more than those of religion. He 
was not only dissolute, but rapacious, crafty, unscrupulous, and in the 
main regardless of everything except his own interests and passions. 
Rufus, with all his ruffianism, had a taste for some of the true splen- 
dours of civilisation, and showed that he was not altogether sunk in 
sensuality by devoting part of his wealth to architecture, the only one 
of the fine arts which a king could in his day do much to encourage. 
Besides other erections of less magnificence, he was the builder of the 
first Westminster Hall. The commissioners of the Fine Arts, in their 
Report, dated March 24, 1843, state that “they have reason to believe 
that the original hall of King William Rufus occupied the same area 
as the present building.” . 

WILLIAM III, King of England, was born in 1650, and was 
the posthumous son of William II., prince of Orange, by Mary, 
daughter of Charles I., king of England. As William II. was the 
eldest son of the stadtholder, Frederic Henry, who was the youngest 
son of William the Silent, by Louisa, daughter of the famous Admiral 
Coligni, William ITI. was great-grandson of the founder of the Dutch 
republic, and was also lineally descended, in the female line, from the 
renowned leader of the Huguenots. Not only had a father’s care 
been denied to the birth and infancy of William IIL, but his youth 
was destined to suffer for the errors of his parents. The stadtholder 
Frederic Henry, unlike his brother Maurice, had administered his 
office without attempting to violate the liberties of the republic, or 
giving umbrage to the jealousy of the States: but his son William IL, 
eveii in the brief career which was cut short by death in his twenty- 
fourth year, contrived, by his violence and infringement of constitu- 
tional rights, to revive public suspicion of the designs of his house 
against the freedom of the commonwealth; and the party opposed 
to the Orange interest took advantage of the helplessness of his infant 
son to prevent his succeeding by election to the dignity of stadtholder, 
which had become, as it were, hereditary in the line of Nassau. The 
alliance of that family with the house of Stuart had also excited the 
jealousy of Cromwell, whose power was now in the ascendant; and, 
when peace was concluded between the two republics of England and 
the United Provinces, in 1654, the imperious demand of the protector, 
that all the States should solemnly engage to exclude the infant prince 
of Orange and his descendants prospectively from the stadtholdership, 
was only satisfied by a secret engagement to the same effect, to which 


% Holland, as the leading province of the Union, acceded. 


The restoration of the Stuarts to the British throne, in a few years, 
tended however at once to raige the hopes of the adherents of the 
house of Orange, and to increase the disquietude of their opponents ; 
and, in 1667, the republicans, headed by the two celebrated brothers, 
John and Cornelius de Witt, succeeded in inducing the States to pass 
the ‘Perpetual Edict, for ever abolishing the office of stadtholder. 
But the iniquitous aggression of the French king, Louis XIV., upon 
the republic in 1672; soon put an ‘end to the operation of this edict, 
However pure might have been the intentions of the De Witts, their 
measures had left the republic defenceless. Confiding in the friend- 
ship of France, and distrusting the best officers of the army, as 
devoted to the house of Orange, they had, by reductions and neglect, 
so weakened the land forces of the republic, that resistance ‘to the 
invaders seemed hopeless. The Orange party were loud in their 
clamours against the administration of their rivals; and the populace, 
who had always been favourable to the family of Nassau, were 
instigated to revolt. Their fury was directed against the De Witts, 
whom they murdered with horrid barbarity; and the young prince of 
ae was tumultuously raised to the proscribed dignity of stadt- 

older. 

William III. was only in the twenty-second year of his age when he 
was thus suddenly called to the government of a factious and distracted 


state, a lawless populace, and a dispirited and disorganised army. 
With such means was he required to arrest the progress of the victo- 
rious king of France at the head of a veteran army of 100,000 men, 
aided by the best generals of the age, and supported by the whole 
power both of his own crown and that of England, which the baseness 
of Charles If, had rendered subservient to his ambition. But, 
happily for his country and the world, William at once displayed the 
same characteristics of a firmness and sagacity far beyond his youthful 
years, which seem to have been the heir-looms of his race, and equally 
to have distinguished him with his great ancestors William the Silent 
and Maurice. He indignantly repelled all the efforts of the combined 
kings of England and France to seduce him from the cause of the 
republic; and when Buckingham, the favourite of Charles IL, asked 
him if he did not see that the destruction of the commonwealth was 
inevitable, he replied, “There is one means by which I at least shall 
be sure not to witness the ruin of my country: I will die in the last 
ditch.” His magnanimous spirit he knew how to infuse also into his 
despairing countrymen, who cut the dikes of their lands, and resigned 
the fertile fields, which their ancestors had rescued from the sea, to 
the ravages of that element, rather then yield them to their invaders, 
The example of their young leader taught them to spurn the insolent 
demands of their enemies; and in two short campaigns, the French 
armies, which had overrun the United Provinces, and penetrated 
almost to the gates of Amsterdam, were entirely driven out of the 
territory of the republic. In 1674, the young Prince of Orange 
ventured to bring the veteran Condé to a battle: and, though he 
suffered for his temerity at Seneffe, he so conducted himself in that 
defeat as to extort from his illustrious opponent the generous avowal 
that “he had acted in everything like an old captain, except in 
venturing his life too much like a young soldier.” 

During the remainder of the war, which, after a separate peace 
between England and the States, was protracted with France for four 
years, and concluded by the peace of Nimeguen in 1678, William con- 
tinued to give abundant proofs both of his political and military 
talents; and, shortly before the close of hostilities, he had effected a 
personal alliance, which largely influenced the fortunes of his sub- 
sequent life. This was his marriage with his cousin Mary, eldest 
daughter of James, duke of York, and heiress presumptive to the British 
crown. It is not easy to comprehend the readiness of Charles II. to 
adopt a measure so contrary to his usual policy and inclinations as 
this union of the princess with William, who, though his nephew, had 
thwarted his designs and offended his wishes by his maintenance of 
the republican cause. But dread of the growing discontents of his 
people, and a belief that the marriage would dispel the suspicions 
eXcited by his brother’s religion, are supposed to have been motives 
sufficient to obtain his consent; and he invited or permitted his 
nephew to pay him the visit in England during which the alliance was 
concluded. 

Neither the Prince of Orange nor Charles II. and his brother pro- 
bably foresaw all the consequences of this union to the politics of 
Europe. But no event of William’s fortune contributed so essentially 
to the furtherance of that great design which had become the master 
passion of his mind—the reduction of the tyrannical power of Louis 
XIV. and the security of the liberties of the Protestant world; and 
in whatever degree motives of personal ambition, whether uncon- 
sciously to himself or otherwise, were mingled in his plans, he never 
appears to have suffered any consideration for an instant to interfere 
with his pursuit of the great cause to which he had devoted himself. 
Many circumstances contributed to place him at the head of the 
general league, provoked by the aggressive power of Louis XIV., in 
resistance to which his first glory had been won. The revocation of 
the Edict of Nantes, in 1685, by that monarch, and his perse- 
cution of his Protestant subjects, had justly alarmed and outraged all 
their European brethren of the same faith; the insolent pretensions 
of Louis had given mortal offence to the emperor and king of Spain; 
the apprehensions which experience had taught the United Provinces 
to entertain of the projects of the French king naturally rendered the 
court of their stadtholder the centre of negociations against him; and 
various causes of hatred and fear enabled William to combine the 
States themselves and the Protestant princes of Germany, with the 
two Roman Catholic monarchs of the house of Austria and other 
powers, in the celebrated league which was concluded against Louis 
XIV. at Augsburg, in 1687. To the completeness of that great 
European confederacy nothing was wanting but the accession of 
England; and this was obtained, in the only manner which the 
alliance of her new king, James II., with France rendered practicable, 
by his insane attempt to overthrow the national faith. 

From his marriage, William had abstained from taking part in the 
struggle of parties in England; and though, through his activity in 
thwarting the schemes of the French king, he had not been able to 
escape the displeasure of his uncle Charles II., he had lived on decent 
terms with his father-in-law, and since his accession had proffered 
him aid in suppressing the rebellion of the Duke of Monmouth. But 
when he publicly refused to support the repeal of the Test Act, James 
began both to treat him as an enemy and to take injurious measures 
against the United Provinces; and, on the other hand, all the English 
Protestants turned their eyes to the Prince of Orange for the protec- 
tion of their liberties and faith. On the invitation of the principal 


719 WILLIAM III. (OF ENGLAND). 


WILLIAM IV. (OF ENGLAND). 


rsons both of the Whig and Tory parties, William was at length 
induced to undertake an expedition into England for the restoration 
of the national rights; and having arranged his preparations with 
consummate skill, he sailed from Holland with an army of about 
14,000 men, composed party of Dutch troops and partly of English 
regiments in the service of the States, and landed at Torbay, on the 
5th of November 1688. 

The landing of William in Torbay was followed, after a few days of 
hesitation, by an almost total defection of James’s English subjects 
from their allegiance; and with unparalleled ease and rapidity was 
that memorable and bloodless revolution effected which changed the 
royal line and firmly established the constitution of these realms. 
For once all parties and orders of men in the nation, except a very 
small minority of Roman Catholics, peaceably concurred in the neces- 
sity for a change of government; and when the betrayed and mis- 
guided king fled to France, the most opposite principles of passive 
obedience and popular rights were strained to the same practical con- 
clusion, that James II. had either deserted or forfeited the throne. 
The all-important question, in what manner the vacant regal seat 
should be occupied, terminated the short-lived concord of factions. 
But William, whether moved in part by a mere selfish ambition, or 
wholly by a better conviction of the public exigencies of the crisis, 
at once cut short all schemes of the high monarchical party for 
restricting his functions to a regency, either on behalf of his wife or 
her infant brother. He declared that, except as king, he would not 
remain in the country. This decisive language hastened the proceed- 
ings of the convention parliament, which William had composed of 
the peers, the surviving members of the three last Houses of Com- 
mons, and the corporation of London; and in the famous Act of 
Settlement passed by that body, the crown, with constitutional limi- 
tations to its power, was conferred jointly upon the Prince and 
Princess of Orange, with remainder successively to the issue of the 
latter, to the Princess Anne and her children, and to the heirs of 
William by any other wife. 

Notwithstanding the ease with which William III. thus acquired 
the British crown, he was soon compelled to contend in arms for its 
preservation. In Scotland the cause of James was upheld by the 
gallant Viscount Dundee, but perished with his fall in the brief 
moment of victory. In Ireland, the struggle maintained by James’s 
Roman Catholic adherents was more obstinate; but William in person 
inflicted on them a memorable defeat at the passage of the Boyne in 
1690; and the capitulation of Limerick in the following year com- 
pleted the submission of Ireland, Meauwhile William had the satis- 
faction of engaging England in the League of Augsburg. The war of 
that confederacy against Louis XIV., of which the principal conduct 
was intrusted to William, had indeed little success; for though 
possessed of considerable military talents, he wanted that good 
fortune which the ancients numbered among the most indispensable 
attributes of a great general; and he sustained in the course of this 
struggle two severe defeats from the French under the Duke of 
Luxemburg at Steenkirk and Neerwinden. By the peace of Ryswick, 
which terminated the war in 1697, little more was gained from the 
French monarch by the allies than the recognition of William III, as 
king of England. 

The possession of that throne had meanwhile given him little 
happiness. Though almost all the nation had at first concurred in 
the Revolution of 1688, the Tory and high church party were in 
general indisposed to the pretensions and person of the new king. 
The Whigs were still full of jealousy of the royal power; and the 
cold reserved temper and ungracious manner of William disgusted 
and alienated the minds of his subjects in general. His most favourite 
schemes were continually thwarted in parliament; his whole. reign 
was harassed with intrigues of faction and plans of insurrection at 
home; and his life and throne were assailed from abroad with base 
plots of assassination by the adherents of James II., and with pro- 
jects of invasion undertaken by Louis XIV. for the restoration of the 
dethroned king. To add to the distresses of William, he experienced 
in 1695 a severe domestic calamity in the loss of his queen-consort 
Mary, to whom he was deeply attached. Her decease, asshe left no 
issue, terminated all claim of her husband to the crown in the eyes 
of that part of the nation who had been reconciled to his government 
by the semblance of hereditary right in her participation of the 
throne. His measures now experienced systematic opposition from 
all parties : from the Jacobites, as the partisans of the exiled monarch 
were termed, who of course regarded him as an usurper; from the 
Tories in general, to whom he was personally obnoxious: and from 
the Whigs and republicans, who desired in various degrees to lower or 
annul the royal power. The first use therefore which was made in 
parliament of the peace of Ryswick was to compel him to reduce the 
army to an insignificant remnant of guards and garrisons, and to send 
out of the kingdom the regiments of French Protestant refugees, as 
well as his own favourite Dutch guards ; and these and other mortifi- 
cations had such an effect upon his mind as to extort from him a 
passionate expression of his regret that he had interfered in the affairs 
of a nation at once so ungrateful and so suspicious. 

From the annoyances of his position in England, he sought relief 
by renewing with more ardour than ever his attention to the affairs of 
Europe, and by pursuing his favourite project for humbling the power 


of the French king, which the precarious health of Charles IL. the 
childless monarch of Spain, and the pretensions of the house of 
Bourbon to the inheritance of his dominions, threatened to render 
more dangerous than ever. To avert these impending evils to the 
balance of power in Europe, William successively negociated two 
treaties of partition for the Spanish monarchy, to both of which 
Louis XIV. was an artful and faithless subscriber; for when the 
Spanish king, in indignation that other powers should dismember and 
distribute his dominions, bequeathed them at his death, in 1700, to 
Philip duke of Anjou, second son of the dauphin, Louis XIV., in 
spite of every obligation of treaties, accepted the testament for his 
grandson. ; 


William ITI.,; now in declining health, was sensibly affected by this 


defeat of all his labours: but he applied himself with his usual - 


energy to form a new league against France; and the insulting con- 
duct of Louis XIV. at this crisis, in giving the son of James II., on 
the death of that prince, the title of king of England, so exasperated 
the British nation, that they eagerly seconded William’s wishes for a 
war. But, in the midst of eager preparations for the commencement 
of hostilities, William’s life was suddenly brought to a close, His 
constitution, originally frail and sickly, had now been completely 
exhausted by a career of incessant and harassing anxieties, An 
accidental fall from his horse, by which he broke his collar-bone, gave 
a fatal shock to his worn-out frame; and he expired at Kensington 
palace, on the 8th of March 1702, in the fifty-second year of his age. 
WILLIAM (HENRY) IV., King of England, was the third son of 


King George III., and was born at Buckingham House, on the 21st of 


August 1765. He was placed, with his elder brothers, the Prince 
of Wales and Prince Frederick (afterwards Duke of York), under the 
care of Dr. Majendie, till the year 1771, when a separate establishment 
was formed for the two elder princes, and Prince William was left at 


Kew with his younger brother Edward (afterwards Duke of Kent), under 7 


the superintendence of Colonel Bude, a native of Switzerland, who 
afterwards became private secretary to the Duke of York. It having 
been determined that he should enter the navy, he was, on the 15th 
of June 1779, rated as a midshipman on board the Prince George, of 
98 guns, then bearing the flag of Rear-Admiral Digby at Spithead. 
The Prince George soon after joined the Channel fleet, under the 
command of Sir Charles Hardy, and in the end of the year sailed as 
one of the squadron sent out with Rodney to Gibraltar with supplies 
for the garrison. On the passage out they fell in, on the 8th of 
January 1780, with a Spanish fleet of store-ships, under the convoy 
of seven men-of-war, and took them all, twenty-two in number: the 
largest man-of-war, the Guipuscuano, of 84 guns, Rodney named the 
Prince William, “in respect to his royal highness, in whose presence 
she had the honour to be taken.” In this first affair however in which 
his royal highness met the enemy there was no fighting. But eight 
days after a Spanish squadron of fourteen ships of the line, com- 
manded by Don Juan de Langara, was encountered off Cadiz, and a 
sharp though short engagement ensued, which ended in the capture 
of several of the enemy’s ships, and the destruction or dispersion of 
the rest. Rodney having then proceeded to the Bay of Gibraltar and 
thrown in his supplies to the garrison, lay there for about three weeks, 
during which time his royal highness often visited the rock. The 
Prince George returned in the division under the command of Admiral 
Digby, who was despatched home with the prizes, and who on the 
passage fell in with a French convoy bound for the Mauritius, of 
which he captured three store-ships and a man-of-war; and his royal 
highness found himself again in England by the beginning of May. _ 

Having made two or three more short cruises in the Prince George, 
he then went out a second time to Gibraltar in that ship in the spring 
of 1781, in the fleet commanded by Admiral Darby. After this 
Admiral Digby, with the Prince George and three other ships, pro- 
ceeded to New York, which he reached on the 24th of August, 
While his royal highness remained here, which he did throughout 
the winter, lodging in the town, it appears that a plan was arranged 
by some of the revolutionary partisans, with the sanction of Washing- 
ton, for getting possession of his person; but the attempt was never 
actually made. In the autumn of 1782 he was, at his own request, 
transferred on board the Warwick, 50 guns, commanded by Captain 
Elphinstone, afterwards Lord Keith; from which however he was 
soon after, by the king's orders, removed to the Barfleur, commanded 
by Sir Samuel Hood. It was while he was in this ship, then lying 


off Staten Island, that he made his first acquaintance with Nelson, at 


the time commanding the Albemarle frigate, whose fast friend he 
ever afterwards continued. In the early part of 1783 Sir Samuel, now 
Lord Hood, arrived with his fleet at Port Royal, Jamaica; and the 
prince remained here and at the Havanna, to which he proceeded in the 
Fortunée frigate, on the sailing of Lord Hood for England, till mid- 
summer, when he returned home in the Fortunée, in which he reached 
Spithead on the 26th of June. The next two years were spent ina 
continental tour, on which he set out 31st July 1783, attended by. 
General Bude and Captain Merrick, and in the course of which, after 
being joined at Hanover by his brother Frederick, now styled Bishop 
of Osnaburg, he visited Berlin, where the two young English princes 
saw a great deal of Frederick the Great, Liineburg, where they spent 
a winter, Gottingen, Hesse-Cassel, &c., after which Prince William 
proceeded alone through Switzerland to Savoy and Piedmont, and 


721 WILLIAM IV. (OF ENGLAND). 


WILLIAM IV. (OF ENGLAND). 722 


after a visit to Prague, returned to Italy, where he spent the winter. 
Having come back to England in the spring of 1785, he was, after 
the usual examination, passed as a lieutenant on the 17th of June, 
and appointed third lieutenant of the Hebe frigate, in which he soon 
after made a voyage round the British Islands. In April 1786, 
having previously risen to be second lieutenant of the Hebe, he was 
removed to the Pegasus, and received his commission as captain. In 
this ship he soon after sailed to Newfoundland, thence to Halifax in 
Nova Scotia, and thence to Antigua, where he found his friend Nelson 
commanding on the Leeward Islands station. In June 1787, he was 
ordered to Jamaica, from which however he soon after took upon 
him to return without instructions to Halifax: for that irregularity 
he was ordered to Quebec, but, after staying there a short time, he 
ventured again to take his own course, and set sail for England. He 
arrived at Cork in December, but was’ immediately ordered to repair 
with his ship to Plymouth; and when he got there he was by another 
Admiralty order expressly forbidden to quit that port without per- 
mission. In the end it was directed that his punishment should be 
to remain at Plymouth for as long a time as he had absented himself 
from his station without orders, and then to return to Halifax and 
the West Indies, and to remain there till he should be ordered home, 
He went out accordingly in command of the Andromeda, and 
remained, principally at Jamaica, till the spring of 1789. 

- The disposition he had shown to break through the ordinary rules 
of discipline, and the impossibility that was found to exist of imposing 
an adequate punishment on a prince of the blood, probably led 
to the determination that his royal highness’s further professional 
career should be confined to a formal ascent through the successive 
honours or nominal distinctions of the service. In May 1789, imme- 
diately after his return home, he was raised to the peerage, with the 
titles of Duke of Clarence and St. Andrews and Earl of Munster; and 
an income of 12,0007. a year was settled upon him by parliament. 
The next year, after commanding for a short time the Valiant, of 74 
guns, on that ship being paid off he was promoted to the rank of rear- 
admiral of the blue; he was made rear-admiral of the red in 1793, 
vice-admiral of the blue in 1794, vice-admiral of the red in 1795, 
admiral of the blue in 1799, and admiral of the fleet in 1801. During 
all this time however his royal highness remained without employ- 
ment, living on shore as a private individual with Mrs. Jordan, with 
whom he had formed a connection in 1791, which lasted for twenty 
years, and produced a family of five sons and five daughters, of 
whom the eldest son was created Earl of Munster in 1831, and is 
since dead. The duke however frequently took part in the debates 
of the House of Lords, and was at least a tolerably fluent if not a 
very elegant or logical speaker. One of the subjects in reference to 
which he particularly distinguished himself was the abolition of the 
slave-trade, of which he was one of the most determined opponents, 
not a little to the injury of his popularity for some years. From 
1797, when he was appointed to the office of ranger, he usually 
resided at Bushy Park. 

In his general politics the Duke of Clarence attached himself, with 
his brother the Prince of Wales, from his first entrance upon public 
life, to the party of the Whig opposition; but he also followed the 
prince in giving his support to Pitt after the commencement of the 
war with France in 1793. On the return of Pitt to power however, 
after the ejection of the Addington administration, in 1804, he again 
joined the opposition with the prince and the Duke of Sussex ; and 
after Pitt’s death he gave a zealous support to the new ministry of 

' Fox and Grenville on all subjects except only the abolition of the 
slave-trade, which he opposed to the last, in common with all his 
brothers. The ministry of 1806 raised his parliamentary allowance, 
and that of each of the other male branches of the royal family, from 
12,0002. to 18,0007. per annum. 

Towards the close of the war his royal highness was permitted for 
a short time to hoist his flag in the Jason to view the military opera- 
tions going forward on the Dutch coast; and after the peace he per- 
formed the holiday services of bringing over the Duchess of Olden- 
burg to Sheerness, and accompanying Louis XVIII. to the French 
coast in that ship, and afterwards of bringing the Emperor of Russia 
and the King of Prussia to England in the Impregnable. 

On the 11th of July 1818, the duke was married at Kew to the 
Princess Adelaide Louisa Theresa Caroline Amelia, (the late Queen- 
Dowager Adelaide), eldest daughter of George Frederic Charles, duke 
of Saxe-Meiningen. Their union produced two daughters, one born in 
March 1819, the other in December 1820, both of whom died in infancy. 
Upon his marriage 6000/7. was added by parliament to the income of 
his royal highness. In 1827, when the death of the Duke of York 
had placed the Duke of Clarence in the situation of heir presumptive 
to the throne, a further increase of 30007. was made to his annual 
allowance, and the sum of 6000/. a year-was at the same time settled 
upon the duchess. On the elevation of Mr. Canning to the premier- 
ship in April of this year, he placed the duke at the head of the 
Admiralty, with the office of lord high admiral, but without a seat in 
the cabinet. This office however his royal highness only held till 
the following September; and he returned again to private life, till 
the death of George IV., on Saturday, the 26th of June 1830, raised 
him to the throne, 

The course of eyents during the reign of William IV. derived its 
BIOG, DIV. VOL, VI. 


direction and character from the memorable movements on the con- 
tinent of Europe with which the accession of a new king in England 
chanced to be coincident. The publication of the ordinances of 
Charles X. against the press in France. took place exactly a month 
after King William’s accession : then rapidly followed the revolution 
of the Three Days in Paris, the dethronement of Charles, the trans- 
ference of the French crown to the Duke of Orleans, and after the 
lapse of another month the commencement of the similar revolution 
in Brussels, which terminated in the separation of Holland and 
Belgium. In England the first symptom of wide-spread popular un- 
easiness, disaffection, and tendency to outbreak was given by the 
numerous incendiary fires which alarmed the country in the months 
of September and October. The new parliament, elected since the 
accession of the new king, met on the 26th of October. On the 7th 
of November immense excitement was occasioned in the metropolis 
and elsewhere by the announcement of the resolution come to by the 
responsible advisers of his majesty that he could not venture with 
safety to his person to dine on that evening with the lord mayor and 
corporation of the city of London in Guildhall. This was followed 
on that day week by the resignation of the Duke of Wellington, Sir 
Robert Peel, and the other ministers, on Sir Henry Parnell carrying 
his motion in the House of Commons for referring the settlement of 
the civil list to a select committee, by a majority of 233 against 204 ; 
and within another week the Grey administration was in office under 
the banner of parliamentary reform. Meanwhile commotion and con- 
fusion were spreading on the continent. Besides some minor erup- 
tions of the same kind, the insurrection in Poland broke out in the 
end of November—an unhappy attempt, which was entirely un- 
successful. 

On the 1st of March 1831, Lord John Russell, as the organ of the 
cabinet, and, as was universally believed, with the concurrence of his 
majesty, moved in the House of Commons the first reading of the first 
Reform Bill. On the 22nd of the same month the second reading was 
carried by a majority of one; or by 302 votes against 301. But on 
the 20th of April ministers were beaten by 299 against 291 on 
General Gascoigne’s motion for striking out the part of their reform 
scheme which diminished the number of members of the House of 
Commons; and two days after parliament was dissolved, with the 
avowed design of ascertaining by a new election the sense of the 
people on the measure which had been thus for the present defeated 
or abandoned. The new parliament assembled on the 14th of June, 
and the success of the ministerial appeal to the people was shown by 
the second reading of a second Reform Bill being carried in the 
House of Commons on the 4th of July by a majority of 367 to 251. 
It was not till the 19th of September that the House came to a vote 
on the third reading ; but that too was carried by a large majority, 
by 349 against 236. The measure however was defeated in the Upper 
House on the 3rd of October, by the second reading being nega- 
tived by a majority of 199 to 158. On the 20th parliament was 
prorogued. 

A new session commenced on the 6th of December; and on the 
12th Lord John Russell introduced the third Reform Bill, the second 
reading of which was carried on the 17th by a majority of 324 against 
162. Ifthe friends of the measure had not become more numerous, 
it was evident that its opponents were growing weary of the contest, 
and were hopeless of ultimately averting it. On the third reading 
nevertheless, the vote upon which did not take place till the 19th of 
March 1832, the opposition mustered again in their former force, and 
the motion was resisted by 239 against 355. This time the measure was 
also so far successful in the Lords that the second reading was carried 
in that House, on the 13th of April, by a majority of 184 against 175. 
But on the 7th of May ministers were defeated by a majority of 151 | 
to 115, on Lord Lyndhurst’s motion for postponing the considera- 
tion of the first (or disfranchising) clause of the bill; on which they 
immediately resigned. A ministerial interregnum of nearly a fort- 
night’s duration ensued; but by the. 17th Earl Grey and his friends 
were again in power: the most stringent methods are understood 
to have been employed, with the consent of the king, to keep 
back the refractory peers; and on the 4th of June the Lords 
passed the bill by a large majority, 106 voting for the motion, and 
only 22 against it. It received the royal assent, and became law, 
three days after. 

The bringing about of this change thus occupied, almost to the 
exclusion of all other measures or questions, the first two years of 
the reign of William. The action of the new machinery of represen- 
tation then commenced. The parliament which had passed the 
Reform Bill was dissolved on the 3rd of December; and the first par- 
liament elected under the new system assembled on the 29th of 
January 1833. The reform of the representation was now followed 
by the abolition of colonial slavery, the reform of the poor laws, and 
the reform of the Irish church, At the same time the Reform 
ministry underwent a succession of changes. First in March 1833, 
Lord Durham resigned the privy seal from illness; next followed, in 
the end of May 1834, the retirement of Mr. Stanley (now the Earl of 
Derby), Sir James Graham, Lord Ripon, and the Duke of Richmond, 
on an avowed difference with their colleagues: and finally, on the 9th 
of July, Lord Grey himself and Lord Althorp relinquished office in 
consequence of a misunderstanding with Mr. O’Connell “4 regard to 

A 


723 WILLIAM I. OF ORANGE. 


WILLIAM FREDERICK L (NETHERLANDS). 724 


the Irish Coercion Bill, Lord Althorp was induced to return after 
about a week; but the cabinet was understood by this time to have lost 
the confidence of the king; and on the 16th of November, shortly 
after Lord Althorp had been called to the Upper House by the death 
of his father, Earl Spencer, and it became necessary to make a new 
arrangement with regard to his office of the chancellorship of the 
exchequer, his majesty sent for the Duke of Wellington, and directed 
him to construct a new ministry. On the 8th of December Sir Robert 
Peel was gazetted as first lord of the treasury, the Duke of Welling- 
ton as foreign secretary, and the cabinet was completed by other 
names belonging to the Conservative or anti-reform party. On the 
30th parliament was dissolved. 

This arrangement however did not stand long. On the day on 
which the new House of Commons assembled, the 19th of February 
1835, ministers were beaten on the question of the speakership by a 
majority of ten votes, or by 316 against 306; and on the 24th they 
were again defeated on the address by 309 against 302. They main- 
tained the struggle for six weeks longer; but at last, upon Lord John 
Russell carrying a motion against them on the Irish tithe question 
(the famous appropriation clause) by a majority of 285 to 258, on the 
7th of April, they resigned the next day. The king, understood to be 
now thoroughly hostile to his old friends, in vain attempted a further 
resistance; by the 18th the Reform party were again in power, with 
Lord Melbourne as premier. But to Lori Durham, Lord Stanley, Sir 
James Graham, Lord Ripon, the Duke of Richmond, Earl Grey, and 
Earl Spencer, who, having all belonged to the original Reform cabinet, 
had since ceased to hold office, was now added Lord Brougham. Lord 
Melbourne’s administration lasted for the remainder of the reign. Its 
most important measures were the several municipal reform acts. 
William IV. died at Windsor, after a short illness, on the morning of 
the 20th of June 1837. He was succeeded by Queen Victoria. 

WILLIAM I. OF ORANGE. [Nassav, House or,] 

WILLIAM FREDERICK L., King of the Netherlands, Grand-Duke 
of Luxemburg, Prince of Orange Nassau, was born at the Hague on 
the 24th of August 1772. His father, William V., prince of Orange 
Nassau, hereditary stadtholder, was descended from John the youngest 


brother of the great William I. of Orange, and died at Brunswick, 


April 1806. His grandfather William IV., the first hereditary stadt- 
holder of the United Netherlands (from 1748, who died in 1751), had 
re-united the possessions of the four branches of the line of Nassau— 
Otho, Hadamar, Siegen, and Dillenberg, with his own branch, that 
of Dietz. His mother was Frederica Sophia Wilhelmina, daughter 
of Prince Augustus William of Prussia, In 1788 he made a journey 
to Germany, and passed some time at the court of his uncle Frederick 
William I, He afterwards studied for a time at Leyden. 

After his marriage, on the Ist of October 1791, to Frederica Louisa 
Wilhelmina, daughter of Frederick William of Prussia, he, in con- 
junction with his brother Frederick, subsequently distinguished as a 
general, effected considerable improvements in the Dutch army ; but 
many impediments were occasioned by internal dissensions—the 
patriots, who had been put down in 1787 by a Prussian force, secretly 
intriguing against the house of Orange. Some of them had taken 
refuge in France, and on the Ist of February 1793 the National Con- 
vention declared war against the stadtholder. Hoping, with the 
assistance of the patriots, to obtain possession of the rich provinces of 
Holland, Dumouriez conquered Dutch Brabant, which was however 
recovered by the hereditary prince, who was commander-in-chief of the 
Dutch army, which was joined by a body of the allies after the victory 
of Neerwinden. This victory had been gained over Dumouriez on the 
18th of March, by the Austrian field-marshal the Prince of Coburg. 
The hereditary prince then hindered the French army of the north 
from penetrating into West Flanders; but on the 13th of September 
he was attacked in his position between Menim and Werwick with 
overwhelming force, and obliged to retreat behind the Schelde. Soon 
after this the hereditary prince took Landrecies, and then, at the head 
of a Dutch and Austrian army, drove the enemy beyond the Sambre ; 
but in the great battle of the 16th of June 1794, the French having 
taken Charleroi by storm and defeated the prince’s left wing at Fleurus, 
he was again obliged by the directions of the Prince of Coburg to 
retreat. The Austrians retreated before Pichegru and Jourdan behind 
the Meuse; and the hereditary prince, with his weakened army, had 
no alternative but to cover the republic in connection with the army 

' of the Duke of York. But the fortresses fell, and the frost enabled the 
enemy to pass the Waal on the ice, so that Pichegru entered Utrecht 
on the 17th of January 1795. The party of the patriots favoured the 
enemy, and the stadtholder was unable to save the republic, forsaken 
by its allies. His sons had resigned their commands on the 16th of 
January, and William V., with his family and a few faithful friends, 
embarked at Scheveningen on the 18th and 19th for England, where 
the palace of Hampton Court was assigned him as his residence. His 
two sons returned to the Continent to arm a body of Dutch emi- 
grants, at the expense of England, which however was dispersed again 
after the peace of Basel. Prince Frederick then entered the Austrian 
service, and died at Padua on the 6th of January 1799. 

The hereditary prince then went with his family to Berlin, where he 
expected a favourable change in his position from the diplomatic 
influence of the Prussian court, then in alliance with France. He 
acquired some estates in the vicinity of Posen and in Silesia, and when 


his father made over to him, on the 29th of August 1802, the indem- 
nity in Germany allotted to him by the Recess of the Empire (Fulda, 
Corvei, Dortmund, Weingarten, and other places), he took up his 
residence in Fulda, where, in the place of the inefficient university, he 
established a lyceum, and appropriated the revenues of two suppressed 
convents to the foundation of a national hospital. After the death of 
his father he assumed the government of his Nassau hereditary domi- 
nions ; but as he declined joining the German Confederation of the 
Rhine he lost the sovereignty of the possessions of the house of Orange, _ 
which were obtained by his relations of Nassau-Usingen and Weilburg, : 
and Murat, grand-duke of Berg; while Weingarten fell to Wiirtem- 
burg. In August 1806 he went to Berlin, where, as commander of a 
Prussian regiment, he obtained in September the command-in-chief of 
a division of the Prussian army between Magdeburg and Erfurt. After 
the fatal battle of Jena he followed Field-Marshal Méllendorf to Erfurt, 
and became a prisoner of war in consequence of the capitulation con- 
cluded by Méllendorf; he was allowed however to reside with his con- 
sort in Prussia. Napoleon I. declared that he, as well as the Elector 
of Hesse and the Duke of Brunswick, had forfeited his dominions; 
and Fulda was forced already, on the 27th of October, to do hom 

to the French emperor. Corvei, Dortmund, and the county of Spiegel- 
berg were incorporated in 1807 with the kingdom of Westphalia and 
the grand-duchy of Berg. Even the domains reserved to him in the 
act of the Confederation were taken possession of by Berg and Wiir- 
temburg ; Bavaria did not do so, and the other princes of the Confede- 
ration promised at least to pay to him the net surplus of the revenue, 
William had gone in the mean time with his consort and family to 
Danzig. No mention was made of him in the treaty of Tilsit. He 
retained the possession of his estates in the grand-duchy of Warsaw, 
and again lived at Berlin with his family, and devoted himself to lite- 
rary pursuits. In the war between France and Austria in 1809, 
William, with the friend of his youth and constant companion, Fagel 


joined the army of the Archduke Charles as volunteers, and fought in 


the battle of Wagram. He then returned to Berlin, and in 1814 
obtained the rank of Austrian field-marshal. Meantime, especially 
after the battle of Leipzig in 1813, influential men such as Hogendorp, 
v. d, Duyn, Limburg-Stirum, Hoop, Driel, Jonge, and others, were 
exerting themselves at Amsterdam, the Hague, Rotterdam, Zwolle, 
and other places, to effect the restoration of the house of Meigs. 
William was at that time in England to concert measures with the 
British government for the support of the Netherlands. When the 
victors at Leipzig approached the frontiers of Holland the inhabitants 
of Amsterdam rose on the 15th and 16th of November, and on the 
17th the Hague declared for the prince. 

The insurrection of Holland created a sensation of alarm in Paris, 
while the allies hailed it with joy, as an earnest of further success, 
When Captain Wautier was sent from the Hague to the head-quarters 
of the allies at Frankfurt, he met at Miinich, on the 22nd of Novem- 
ber, the Prussian general Bulow, who being informed of what had 
passed in Holland, observed that this insurrection would be as adyan- 
tageous to the allies as a successful campaign. As soon as William 
learnt what had passed, he embarked on the 28th of November, and 
landed at Scheveningen on the 29th. He was received with acclama- 
tions by the people of the Hague on the 30th, and on the 2nd of 
December at Amsterdam, where Kemper and Scholten, the commis- 
sioners of the provisional government, had issued on the Ist of 
December a proclamation, announcing “ Holland is free,” and 
“ William I. the sovereign prince of this free country.” The prince 
gratefully assented, and declared that a constitution must guarantee 
the rights and liberties of the people, and secure them against all 
encroachments. Twenty-three fortresses were still in the hands of 
the French, who were encamped near Utrecht; but the army of the 
Allies, and the volunteers, who were called to arms, occupied the 
country. William hastened the arming of the people, and appointed — 
a commission to draw up a constitution, which was sare on the — 
29th of March 1814 by the deputies of the people, and then sworn to 
by the prince. He had already taken possession of his hereditary — 
dominions in Germany, before the end of 1813; hereupon the con 
at Vienna decided that Belgium and Liege, together with the Seven 
United Provinces, should be formed into one kingdom; and on the 
16th of March 1815 the prince was proclaimed at the Hague as King 
of the Netherlands and Duke of Luxemburg. But he was obliged to — 
cede to Prussia his hereditary possessions in Germany for Luxemburg, — 
which after the 22nd of May 1815 belonged to the German Confede- — 
ration, and which he now raised in May to the rank of a grand-duchy, 

The union of so many provinces—the inhabitants of which, though 
of the same origin, differed very much in manners, customs, and — 
religious doctrines—made a change in the constitution necessary. 
commission, consisting of an — number of Dutch and i 
was appointed to make such changes as were requisite. After the 
king had* approved of this draft of a constitution, it was laid before 
the States-general and deputies from the southern provinces, and 
finally proclaimed on the 26th of August. In 1814 the king founded 
the mili order of William, and in 1815, after the battle of Water- — 
loo, the civil order of the Belgian Lion, and on the 21st of June 1816he 
joined the Holy Alliance. He resided alternately at Brussels and the 
Hague. On the 17th of May 1816 a Dutch fleet, under Ad Van 
der Capellen, joined the British fleet, under Lord Exmouth, in the — 


WILLIAM FREDERICK I, (NETHERLANDS). 


725 


WILLIAM OF NEWBURY. 


726 


Bay of Algiers, and compelled the dey to conclude a treaty, by one 
article of which all Christian slaves were to be restored to liberty. 

In the interior of the kingdom a want of harmony between the 
inhabitants manifested itself on several occasions, which, but for the 
moderation and firmness of the king, might even then have led to 
serious dissensions. The unbounded influence of the Roman Catholic 
_ elergy, even over the higher classes in Belgium; the mutual aversion 

of the Belgians and the Dutch, and the dissatisfaction of the latter 
with the long residence of the court at Brussels; divisions in the 
northern provinces between the friends of the old republican system 
and those of the new or monarchical system—all tended to produce 
discontent, which was kept within bounds only by confidence in the 
character of the king, and the mild conciliatory principles of his 

vernment. In the foreign relations the government, in the main, 
ollowed the British system. The marriage of the Prince of Orange 
to the Grand-Duchess Anne of Russia improved the connection with 
that empire, but subsequently weakened the interest taken by England 
in the affairs of the Netherlands. Some differences had arisen with 
Prussia, with which kingdom a closer union was however caused by 
the marriage of Prince Frederick to the Princess Louisa, daughter of 
the King of Prussia, on the 21st of May 1825. 
_ The union with Holland and various commercial treaties with 
foreign powers had given an extraordinary impulse to the manu- 
factures and commerce of Belgium, especially of the cities of Antwerp 
and Ghent; but the government could not succeed in blending the 
Dutch and Belgians into one nation, Their mutual aversion was 
manifested with great acrimony in the church, in the army, and even 
in the assemblies of the States-general. The intolerance of the Roman 
Catholic clergy, encouraged by the pope, who even excommunicated 
the Jarisenist bishops of Utrecht, Haarlem, and Deventer, who had 
taken the oath of allegiance to the king, and the prohibition of the 
French language in all judicial proceedings, created great irritation in 
the southern provinces (so that it was found necessary to modify it in 
several points); and besides these important differences respecting 
religion and language, there were several financial points in which the 
interests of the northern and southern provinces clashed; and which, 
notwithstanding several very beneficial measures, could not hinder the 
final separation of the two parts of the kingdom. 

The union of Belgium and Holland had subsisted for fifteen years. 
The July revolution of 1830 in France revived the old mutinous pride 
of the Belgian cities, and a rising of the populace in Brussels, on the 
25th of August 1830, commenced the revolution which separated the 
northern and the southern provinces. In consequence of a second 
insurrection in Brussels, on the 20th and 26th of September, conflicts 
arose between the 6000 troops, commanded by Prince Frederick, and 
the armed insurgents, commanded by foreign officers, which ended in 
the retreat of the Dutch. Meantime the king, yielding to the desire 
of a Belgian deputation of the 30th of August, had assembled the 
States-general at.the Hague on the 13th of September to discuss with 
them the question of a separate administration, and an alteration of 
the fundamental law. The two chambers were in favour of it, but the 
insurgents contended for a total separation, which already existed in 
fact, when the five powers, Great Britain, France, Austria, Russia, 
and Prussia, imposed a cessation of arms on both nations, and by the 
protocol of the 4th of November 1830 recognised the independence 
of Belgium. King William protested, on the 12th of July 1831, 
against the eighteen articles presented by the great powers, particu- 
larly against that which proclaims the freedom of the Scheld. 
Holland, with enthusiasm, resolved to have recourse to arms. On 
the 2nd of August the Prince of Orange, at the head of 70,000 men, 
crossed the Belgian frontier; Turnhout and other places were taken ; 
one Belgian army was defeated near Hasselt on the 8th of August, and 
again near Louvain on the 10th; but a French army advanced by 
forced marches, and the English and French ambassadors at the court 
of Brussels negociated an armistice, according to which the Prince of 
Orange evacuated Louvain on the 14th, and his army retired to its 
position before the war. A treaty in twenty-four articles was then 
proposed by the London Conference, which was acceded to by Belgium, 
but rejected by King William. Russia, Prussia, and Austria likewise 
wished some articles unfavourable to Holland to be modified, but 
France and England had recourse to measures of coercion, England 
blockaded the coast of Holland, an embargo was laid on the Dutch 
ships, and the citadel of Antwerp was taken on the 24th of December 
1832, after a memorable siege by a French army of 70,000 men. This 
did not immediately lead to peace between Holland and Belgium, 
but a suspension of arms was effected on the 21st of May 1833. 

The London Conference resumed its difficult task; many important 
questions remained to be settled: a wearisome series of protocols 
ensued ; William did his utmost to delay the conclusion of these nego- 
ciations, in hopes of some turn in his favour, and hostilities between 
Holland and Belgium were on the eve of recommencing at the end of 
1838, and were prevented only by the remonstrances of the Conference. 
At length, induced chiefly by his financial embarrassments, William 
gave way, and, on the 4th of February 1839, signed the twenty-seven 
articles, modified to his disadvantage; and the definitive treaty was 
concluded on the 19th of April 1839, by the plenipotentiaries of the 
Netherlands and Belgium, and of the five great powers. 

But though Holland was now wholly separated from Belgium, there 


was great excitement in the Dutch Chambers in 1839. They hoped 
for favourable financial laws and judicious reforms; instead of which 
proposals were laid before them for a loan of fifty-six millions of 
florins. The loan was rejected on the 20th of December, and the 
budget on the 23rd; a loan of only six millions was granted, and the 
budget voted for six months only. At the next meeting of the States- 
General, in March 1840, the king caused several modified projects of 
law to be laid before them; in consequence of which the civil list was 
fixed at one million and a half of florins; and it was resolved to vote 
the budget for two years only instead of ten as hitherto. But not- 
withstanding this endeavour of the government to satisfy the people, 
the discontent with the king and the ministers increased. The king’s 
passion for the*Countess Henrietta d’Oultremont, a Roman Catholic 
lady, excited the general indignation of the people, so that he declared 
on the 25th of March 1840, that he renounced his projected union 
with her. This affair, and the discovery of an extensive conspiracy in 
Belgium, in which the Dutch appeared to be concerned, and finally 
the financial difficulties of the state, induced the king solemnly to 
resign the government on the 7th of October, 1840, into the hands of 
his son William II. Under the name of Count of Nassau, with an im- 
mense private fortune, he fixed his residence at Berlin, where, on the 
17th of February 1841, he married the Countess d’Oultremont, and 
died on the 7th of November 1843. His left his large property to 
his family, besides a gift of ten millions of florins to the Dutch 
treasury, 

WILLIAM II. (FREDERICK GEORGE LOUIS), King of the 
Netherlands and Grand Duke of Luxemburg, was born on December 6, 
1792, and under the care of his father was educated in the military 
academy at Berlin, completing his education in the university of 
Oxford, where he showed much talent. He entered the military 
service early, serving his first campaign with the English army in 
Spain, and in 1811 accepted the rank of lieutenant-colonel in the 
Spanish service. His courage and activity procured him the esteem of 
the Duke of Wellington, who made him his aide-de-camp. At the 
siege of Ciudad Rodrigo he was among the foremost in the storming 
party, and at that of Badajoz he entered at the head of an English 
column, whose retreat he had checked. He also distinguished himself 
at the battle of Salamanca, and on other occasions, for which he was 
promoted to be aide-de-camp to the king of Great Britain. When in 
1814 his father was restored to his kingdom, the Belgians received him 
gladly as their future sovereign. In 1815 he commanded the army 
of the Netherlands, and displayed bravery and military skill in the 
battle of Quatre Bras, and in that of Waterloo, at which he headed 
his troops, and was wounded in the shoulder. On his recovery he 
attended the Congress in Paris, and here was made the proposal of 
his union with the Princess Charlotte of England, which however failed, 
because, it is said, the prince was unwilling to become an English 
subject only, even if the first; and he shortly afterwards married 
Anna Paulowna, the sister of the emperor Alexander of Russia. On the 
breaking out of the revolution in Belgium in 1830, he repaired first to 
Antwerp and then to Brussels, where his appearance made a great 
impression. But his endeavours at a reconciliation failed, and at 
length, overstepping his commission, on October 16 he recognised the 
independence of Belgium, for which his father immediately cashiered 
him, and he withdrew to England, whither he brought his two eldest 
sons to be educated. In the following year however he was recalled to 
the command of the army of Holland in the short war against Belgium, 
in which he was at first victorious, but was at length compelled 
to retreat by the armed intervention of France. He was then appointed 
to the command of the army of observation on the Belgian frontier. 
On the resignation of his father, on October 7, 1840, he succeeded to 
the government, in which he showed great regard to economy, and a 
desire to promote financial improvements, but opposed all constitu- 
tional reforms. On the breaking out of the revolutionary storm, 
which spread so widely through Europe in 1848, he was forced to con- 
sent to extensive changes, which prébably might have been avoided 
by smaller concegsions made earlier. He did not however live long to 
witness the effect of the alterations, as he died on March 17, 1849. 

* WILLIAM III. (ALEXANDER PAUL FREDERICK LOUIS), 
the son of the preceding, the present king of the Netherlands, was 
born on February 19, 1817. On his accession to the throne he found 
himself involved in difficulties from the political party excitement 
then existing. He chose a ministry from what was called the liberal 
opposition, and as far as possible promoted economy in the finances. 
When the pretensions of the popish party had produced a great 
agitation in 1853, and became so strong as to compela liberal ministry 
to resign, because not sufficiently vigorous in their measures against 
Roman Catholicism, the «king wisely confined himself within the 
limits of the constitution. He changed his ministry in compliance 
with the desire of the representatives; and a short time brought 
calmer feelings and renewed peace. William married a daughter of 
the king of Wiirtemberg in 18389, and has several children. 

WILLIAM of MALMESBURY. [Matmespury, WitttaM oF.) _ 

WILLIAM of NEWBURY (in Latin, Gulielmus Neubrigensis) is 
said to have been born at Bridlington, in 1136, and to have been 
properly called William Little, whence he sometimes designates 
himself Parvus, or Petit, His common name he derived from the 
monastery of Newbury in Yorkshire, of which he was a member. 


727 WILLIAM OF WYKEHAM, 


WILLIAMS, DANIEL, D.D. 728 


Nothing more is known of his personal history, except that he is said 
to have been a disappointed candidate for the bishopric of St. Asaph 
on the death of Geoffrey of Monmouth in 1165, and that he appears to 
have been alive in 1220, He is known as the author of a Chronicle of 
England, which comes down to the year 1197, and is written in better 
Latin than was then common. It was first printed at Antwerp, in 
12mo, in 1597, under the title of ‘Gulielmi Neubrigensis Rerum 
Anglicarum Libri V.’ The subsequent editions are, ‘Gulielmus Neu- 
brigensis de Rebus Anglicis, cum notis J. Picardi,’ Paris, 8vo, 1610; 
and ‘ Gulielmi Neubrigensis Historia sive Chronica Rerum Anglicarum, 
Libris quinque, e codice MS. pervetusto in Bibliotheca Thome Se- 
bright, Bar. ; Studio atque Industria Th. Hearnii, qui ei preter Joan. 
Picardi annotationes, &c,. . . . suas adjecit,’ Oxon., 3 vols, 8vo., 1719. 
William of Newbury is a keen castigator of the British legends detailed 
by Geoffrey of Monmouth. 

WILLIAM of WYKEHAM. [WykeHam, WILLIAM oF.] 

WILLIAMS, SIR CHARLES HANBURY, was born in 1709, and 
was the third son of John Hanbury, Esq., a South Sea Director. The 
name of Williams was assumed in pursuance of the directions of the 
will of his godfather, Charles Williams, Esq., of Caerleon, He was 
educated at Eton; after leaving school, he went abroad for some time, 
and after his return from foreign travel married, in 1732, Lady 
Frances Coningsby, daughter of Thomas, earl of Coningsby. The 
year after his marriage he became member of parliament for the 
county of Monmouth. In parliament he steadily supported Sir Robert 
Walpole, but took no prominent part as a speaker. He gave the 
minister however a more effective assistance than that of speeches, by 
frequent political ballads, which he composed with much skill, and 
to which he owes a great part of his reputation. In 1739 he was 
appointed paymaster of the marines ; in 1746 he was made a knight of 
the Bath, and was sent as envoy to Dresden. In 1749 he succeeded 
Mr. Legge as minister plenipotentiary at Berlin, but in 1751 he 
returned again to Dresden. He acquitted himself in these diplomatic 
employments greatly to the satisfaction of his employers, and showed a 
diligence and regularity in business which surprised those who had 
known him only as a man of fashion and a wit of private circles. He 
was sent from Dresden on a very important mission to St. Petersburg, 
which had for its object to engage the empress of Russia in a triple 
alliance with Austria and England against France. His first efforts at 
St. Petersburg were attended with remarkable success, but the nego- 
ciation ultimately failed, and its failure operated severely on Sir 
C. H. Williams’ mindand health. He left St. Petersburg in 1757, in 
a bad state of health, and with his mind in some degree affected. 
When he arrived in England he was quite insane. He died on the 
2nd of November, 1759. He left two daughters, the elder of whom 
married William Anne, fourth earl of Essex, and the younger the Hon. 
Robert Boyle Walsingham, a younger son of the first Earl of Shannon. 

Sir Charles Hanbury Williams is known creditably as a poet by his 
Odes (12mo, 1775). His principal fame during his life was derived 
from his political squibs, which are of a superior order of excellence, 
and his talents for conversation. He was the intimate friend of Horace 
Walpole, Henry Fox, the fitst Lord Holland, and his brother Stephen 
Fox, the first Lord Ilchester. He is the author of a paper in the 
‘World,’ No. 37, which describes with much humour the miseries of a 
great lady’s dependent companion. 

WILLIAMS, DANIEL, D.D., a Protestant Dissenting minister of 
the Presbyterian denomination, was born at Wrexham, in Denbigh- 
shire, in the year 1644. The disadvantages of his early education were 
compensated by the natural energy of his mind, and by his diligence. 
He was one of the first of the new generation who entered the 
Christian ministry after the ejection of the Nonconformists in 1662; 
and at the age of nineteen he was regularly admitted as a preacher. 
His first years in the ministry were passed in preaching in several 
parts of England, though the times were so unsettled that there was 
little prospect of his continuing his labours without hazard. As, in 
those days, more religious liberty was granted by the government in 
Ireland than in England, Mr. Williams repaired to the sister-country, 
and unexpectedly received an invitation to become chaplain to the 
Countess of Meath, which he accepted. Some time afterwards he was 
settled over a respectable congregation in Wood-street, Dublin. Here 
he remained nearly twenty years, and filled his station with great 
credit, being at the same time much respected by the Irish Protestants 
in general. During his residence in Dublin, he married a lady of an 
honourable family, with a considerable fortune. 

Towards the close of the reign of James II., his warm opposition to 
Romanism exposed him to some danger; and he consequently came 
to England in 1687, and settled in London. On occasion of the pro- 
posal of an address upon the king’s dispensing with the penal laws, 
Mr. Williams firmly took his stand with the opposition ; and his views 
of the question prevailed in the conference of dissenting ministers, 
He now became the patron of those Irish Protestants who fled to 
England from the violence of Tyrconnel ; assisting them himself, and 
procuring for them the sympathy and aid of the public. He rejoiced 
greatly in the Revolution of 1688; and was often consulted on Irish 
affairs by King William. In 1700 he went to Ireland on his own 
private business, and to visit his friends, by whom he was warmly 
received. About the period of this visit he had settled as a pastor in 
Hand Alley, Bishopsgate-street. Here he continued tiventy-seven years. 


He was highly esteemed by Mr. Richard Baxter, on whose death, in 
1691, Mr. Williams was chosen to succeed him at the Merchants’ 
Lecture at Pinners’ Hall. The Antinomian controversy created parties 
among the Dissenters connected with this lecture, and Mr. Williams 
rendered himself obnoxious to those who advocated the tenets of Dr. 
Crisp, the avowed champion of the Antinomian doctrines. A secession 
took place, and another Tuesday lecture was established at Salters’ 
Hall. On this occasion, Dr. Bates, Mr. Howe, and Mr. Alsop, who 


had been among the lecturers at Pinners’ Hall, retired with Mr. - 


Williams, When Dr. Crisp’s works were reprinted, Mr. Williams, by 
request, wrote his ‘Gospel Truth Stated and Vindicated.”’ Mr. 
Stephen Lob having charged this work with Socinianism, an appeal 
was made on both sides to Dr. Stillingfleet, then Bishop of Worcester, 
and to Dr. Edwards of Oxford, both these learned persons being 
regarded as masters in that controversy; and they both acquitted 
Mr, Williams of the charge. In his ‘End of Discord; wherein is 
demonstrated that no doctrinal controversy remains between the 
Presbyterian and Congregational Ministers fit to justify longer divi- 
sions, he distinctly states the opinion of the ‘ Orthodox, the Socinian, 
and the Antinomian’ on the doctrine of the ‘satisfaction of Christ,’ 
and he adheres to the views of the first. So great was the heat occa- 
sioned by the Antinomian controversy, that we are informed that Mr, 
Williams's enemies, being foiled in impugning his opinions, endeavoured 
to misrepresent his character by arraigning his morals. So com- 
pletely however did he triumph over the charges brought against him, 
that, after spending eight weeks over the affair, the committee of 
dissenting ministers in and about the city, reported to sixty of their 


body, who met April 8th, 1695, “ That it is the unanimous opinion of 


the united ministers that Mr. Williams is entirely clear and innocent 
of all that was laid to his charge.” His whole conduct throughout 
this painful trial appears much to have increased the attachment of 
his congregation, as well as his general estimation by the public. 
Having been now for some time a widower, Mr. Williams married Mrs. 
Backstead, a widow lady of great excellence, and with a considerable 
estate. 

Diligent as was Mr. Williams in his attention to the pastoral office, 
he was a man of great public spirit. So long as opposition availed, he 
strenuously opposed the ‘ Occasional Conformity Bill,’ and the Irish 
Sacramental Test Act, in the reign of Anne. He was a great pro- 
moter of the union between England and Scotland, which took place 
in 1707. In 1709 he received a diploma of D.D. from the universities 
of Edinburgh and Glasgow, at the same time with Dr. Oldfield and 
Dr. Calamy. Anxious for the honour and usefulness of his order, he 
was very desirous that all the candidates for the dissenting ministry 
should have at least a part of their education at one or other of the 
Scottish universities, as they were excluded by the subscription from 
the English; but his scheme for this purpose did not meet with en- 
couragement. On the accession of George I. in 1714, Dr. Williams 
had the honour of presenting the address to his majesty, at the head 
of the London dissenting clergy of the three denominations; and 
from that time it has been usual for this body to go to court on similar 
occasions, it being one of the bodies who are received on the throne, 
and by their committees in the royal closet. Dr. Williams's health 
had by this time visibly declined for a year or two, though he still 


continued the exercise of his ministry. At length, after a short attack _ 


of asthma, he died on the 26th of January 1716, in the seventy-third 
year of his age, and was buried in Bunhill Fields. In his funeral 
sermon, Dr, Evans, who had been his co-pastor for eleven years, 
ascribes to him “a copious invention, a penetrating judgment, a faith- 
ful memory, and vigorous affections, which were cultivated by much 
application to study.” His moderation was shown by his desire for 
a comprehension at the Revolution, on condition of a free toleration 
to such Dissenters as would not be included. His great conscientious- 
ness and his unusual readiness to forgive injuries are also mentioned 
to his praise. He was accustomed to deliver a lecture to young people 
on Christmas-day, which was attended by vast audiences from all 
parts of the town. His discourses and treatises extend to six volumes 
8vo, and have been collected and published at different periods: the 
last volume consists:of Latin versions of several of his treatises, trans- 
lated for the benefit of foreigners, agreeably to the instructions of his 
will. He also directed that his treatise entitled ‘The Vanity of 
Childhood and Youth’ should be rendered into Welsh for the use of 
schools, and printed often for the benefit of the poor. 

Dr. Williams bequeathed the bulk of his estate to benevolent and 
useful objects. Having provided for his widow, he left donations to 
the Society for the Reformation of Manners; for the education of 
youth in Dublin; for an itinerant preacher to the native Irish ; to. the 
poor of the Wood-street congregation in Dublin, and of that in Hand 
Alley in London; to the French refugees; to the poor of Shoreditch 
parish ; to assist poor ministers and students; to several ministers’ 
widows; to St. Thomas’s Hospital; to the London workhouse; to the 
Society for promoting Christian Knowledge in Scotland; for the sup- 
port of two preachers to the Indians; and for the maintenance of 
charity schools in Wales. He also left estates to the University of 
Glasgow, which at present furnish six handsome exhibitions to students 
for the ministry among Protestant dissenters in England, who are to 
be nominated by his trustees. The last grand bequest in his will was 
for the establishment of a public library in London, For this purpose 


ee 


729 WILLIAMS, EDWARD. 


WILLIAMS, REV. JOHN. 730 


he had bought Dr. Bates’s collection of books for between 500/. and 
6001. to add to his own. He directed his trustees to erect a suitable 
‘building, the site for which was purchased by them in 1727, in Red- 
cross-street; and the library was opened in 1729. All persons may 
obtain admission on application to one of the trustees, Since the 
library was established, very considerable additions have been made 
to it by legacies, as well as by contributions in money and books. It 
contains nearly 20,000 volumes. 

WILLIAMS, EDWARD, known by the Bardic name of Iolo Mor- 
ganwg, was a poet of merit both in Welsh and English, He was born in 
the parish of Llancarvan in Glamorganshire, about the year 1747. His 
English poems, lyric and pastoral, in two volumes, published in 1794, 
present perhaps the most curious list of subscribers that ever was 
attached to any publication. It begins with the name of the Prince of 
Wales; it contains those of Mrs, Barbauld, of William Bowles, gene- 
ralissimo of the Creek nation, Sir William Jones, Miss Hannah More, 
Lord Orford, Thomas Paine, Samuel Rogers, Miss Anna Seward, John 
Horne Tooke, Wilberforce, and General Washington. He afterwards 
published two volumes of Welsh hymns, ‘Salmau yr Eglwys yn yr 
Anialwch. Williams worked through life at his trade as a stone- 


mason. He lived for some time in London, and was anxious to- 


emigrate to America, but returned to Wales, and lived and died there. 
He was intimately acquainted with the literature of his country: he 
was one of the editors of the ‘ Myvyrian Archaiology,’ and he was, in 
‘1820, about to publish a collection of documents illustrative of Welsh 
history, but seems to have been prevented for want of sufficient support. 
These documents were announced for publication by the Welsh 
Manuscript Society, under the editorship of his son, Mr. Taliesin 
Williams, who published, in 1829, his father’s ‘ Cyfrinach Beirdd Ynys 
Prydain’ (or Secret of the Bards of the Isle of Britain), but we are not 
aware that they have been published. Iolo died at Flemingstone in 
Glamorganshire, on the 17th of December 1826; and Southey says, in 
his Life of Cowper, “It grieves me to think what curious knowledge, 
and. how much of it, has probably perished with poor old Edward 
Williams,” From some letters by him, which were printed during his 
lifetime in the third volume of the ‘Cambrian Register,’ it seems that 
he had written his autobiography, in which he had introduced an 
account of Welsh literature during his own time, as well as his 
opinions of Welsh literature in general. 

WILLIAMS, JOHN, lord keeper of the great seal of England, and 
afterwards archbishop of York, was the son of Edward Williams of 
Aber-Conway, in Caernarvonshire in Wales, where he was born on the 
25th of March 1582. He received his earliest education at the public 
school at Ruthin, and entered a student of St. John’s, Cambridge, on 
the 5th of November 1599. Connected with a great Welsh family, he 
was early looked upon as one likely to bring distinction on the 
principality. Being largely supplied with money, he distinguished 
himself at college by a gay life and profuse ‘expenditure. “From a 
youth and so upward,” says his entertaining biographer, Hacket, “‘ he 
had not a fist to hold money, for he did not only lay out, but scatter, 
spending all that he had, and somewhat for which he could be 
trusted.” Yet he was a diligent and ardent student. He had a 
powerful memory, and great facility in learning languages and apply- 
ing terms of art. When he afterwards sat on the bench of the Court 
of Chancery, and lawyers who professed a contempt for his legal 
acquirements endeavoured to puzzle him with pedantic technicalities, 
it is recorded that he used to retort, to the mirth of the whole court, 
by drawing upon his old studies in scholastic logic. He required 
_ little rest, and three hours of sleep contented him. ‘He surrendered 
up his whole time to dive into the immense well of knowledge that 
hath no bottom. He read the best, he heard the best, he conferred 
with the best, exscribed, committed to memory, disputed : he had some 
work continually upon the loom. And though he never did so much 
in this unwearied industry as himself desired, he did far more than 
all that did highly value him could expect. .... . All perceived that 
a Fellowship was a garland too little for his head, and that he that 
went his pace would quickly go farther than St, John’s walks.” In 
1605 he took the degree of Master of Arts. He entered into holy 
orders in 1609, accepting a small living in Norfolk, and in 1611 he 
was instituted to the rectory of Grafton Regis in Northamptonshire. 
In the same year the foundation of his subsequent greatness was laid 
by his being chosen chaplain to the Lord Chancellor Egerton. He 
had been able to secure the favourable notice of King James by his 
conduct in relation to a slight dispute between his majesty and the 
University of Cambridge; and his new office, “a nest for an eagle,” as 
Hacket ealls it, gave him such access to the royal person as enabled 
him to profit by the favourable impression. Fortunately for himself, 
he refused the. offer of remaining in his chaplaincy under Bacon— 
perhaps his worldly shrewdness taught him that the soil was under- 
mined beneath. 

Having been made one of the chaplains in ordinary to the king, in 
1619, he preached before James at Theobalds, and the sermon was 
printed by command of his majesty, who soon afterwards gave him the 
rich deanery of Salisbury. But James could only issue his favours 
through one channel; and desiring to befriend Williams, recom- 
mended him to seek the. patronage of Buckingham. He adopted the 
friendly hint, and acted his part in reconciling the conscience of the 
favourite’s Roman Catholic bride to the Church of England, Of a 


paper, containing the elements of the doctrinal belief of the Church of 
England, which he drew up on this occasion, twenty copies were 
printed by order of the king. It was by the advice of Williams that 
Buckingham adopted the bold project of sacrificing Bacon to save 
himself from public indignation. The project was more successful 
than ordinary human foresight could have anticipated, and though it 
was an unpopular measure to renew the practice of committing the 
great seal to the hands of an ecclesiastic, the favourite’s gratitude 
overcame his caution. Williams was sworn in as lord keeper on the 
10th of July 1621. In the same month he was made bishop of 
Lincoln, and he was allowed to hold the deanery of Westminster (in 
which he had been installed in 1620) and the rectory of Walgrave in 
commendam. He managed to preserve possession of so many ecclesi- 
astical preferments, that, according to Dr. Heylyn’s remark, “ he was 
a perfect diocese within himself, as being bishop, dean, prebend, re- 
sidentiary, and parson, all at once.” Bacon was not the only person 
on whose ruin Williams desired to rise; he was indefatigable in his 
endeavours to have Archbishop Abbot deprived of his office, on account 
of his having accidentally shot Lord Zouch’s deer-keeper. [Aszor, 
Gora] It was part of Williams’s policy to employ, with the vast funds 
which were at his command, a crowd of court spies, whose information 
he turned to his own advantage. When the Marquis Inoiosa, the 
Spanish ambassador, had succeeded in terrifying James into the belief 
that he was a prisoner in the hands of Buckingham, Williams was 
able to inform the favourite of the cause of the king’s altered conduct, 
and to suggest a remedy. Buckingham however appears to have soon 
entertained a fear that the lord keeper was acquiring too great a share 
of independent power, and his ruin was resolved on. Laud, whom he 
was the first to patronise, had also become his deadly enemy, and 
when he perceived that the keeper was sinking, “he shunned him,” 
says Hacket, “as the old Romans, in their superstition, walked aloof 
from that soil which was blasted with thunder.” Laud’s tell-tale 
diary is full of ominous dreams about Williams, in which the wish is 
father to the thought. In the meantime Buckingham himself sunk in 
the favour of James, and Williams remained lord keeper till the 
accession of Charles, when, in October 1626, he was deprived of his 
office. Williams was ordered not to continue in his seat in the House 
of Lords, but he was not a man to be intimidated. He retained his 
place on the bench of bishops, and,—incited apparently by personal 
feelings,—supported, as far as his High Church principles would permit, 
the popular cause, and exerted himself in promoting the Petition of 
Right. His relentless rival Laud raised against him, in the Star 
Chamber, a charge of betraying the king’s secrets, contrary to his oath 
as a privy councillor. He was convicted of subornation of perjury in 
defending himself from this charge,—fined 10,000/., suspended from 
his offices, and condemned to imprisonment during the royal pleasure. 
At the meeting of the Long Parliament in 1640, he was released, and 
resumed his seat in the House of Lords. A revolution had now taken 
place in the court; he was received into favour, and in the following 
year translated to the archiepiscopal see of York. He retired during 
the civil war to Aber-Conway in Wales, and held out Conway Castle 
for the king. He died on the 25th of March 1650, Clarendon with 
some reason charges Williams with being vain, perfidious, and re- 
vengeful. Weldon and others accuse him of having been a corrupt 
judge—a charge receiving support from the lavish scale of his expen- 
diture. The same writer charges him with profligacy : but according 
to Hacket, who would not be likely to mention such a circumstance if 
it were not true, he accidentally suffered a mutilation in youth, which 
made continence in his case no virtue. In Collier's ‘Annals of the 
Stage’ (ii. 27) the curious circumstance is stated of his having been 
charged with having the ‘Midsummer Night's Dream’ exhibited in 
his house on Sunday, 27th September 1631. In 1637 he published, in 
quarto, ‘The Holy Table, name and thing, more antiently, properly, 
and literally used under the New Testament than that of Altar.’ 

(Hacket, Memorial offered to the great deservings of John Williams, 
D.D. &e.; Phillips, Life of John Williams, &c.) 

WILLIAMS, REY. JOHN, ‘the Apostle of Polynesia,’ was born 
June 29, 1796, at Tottenham, near London. In 1810 he was appren- 
ticed to a furnishing ironmonger in the City Road; and though his 
indentures exempted him from the more laborious part of the busi- 
ness, young Williams soon displayed an inclination for the workshop 
rather than the counter, and became so skilful a workman that his 
master, Mr. Tonkin, found it to his interest to employ him in executing 
orders which required peculiar delicacy and skill. While thus em- 
ployed he became connected with companions whose irreligious habits 
threatened to exert a fatal influence upon his character; but on a 
Sabbath evening early in 1814 he was persuaded by Mrs. Tonkin, the 
wife of his employer, to accompany her to the Tabernacle, Moorfields. 
He there heard a sermon by the Rev. Timothy East, of Birmingham, 
which so deeply impressed his mind as to lead to an entire change 
of life. Before long he united himself with the religious community 
assembling at the Tabernacle, joined a class of young men formed for 
the purpose of mutual improvement, and became an active Sunday- 
school teacher. Missionary operations were then exciting a very lively 
interest at the Tabernacle, and after much deliberation Williams offered 
his services to the London Missionary Society, in July 1816, and being 
accepted, he was allowed to leave Mr. Tonkin before the expiration of 
his apprenticeship. 


731 WILLIAMS, REY. JOHN. 


WILLIAMS, REY. JOHN. 732 


The islands of the Pacific Ocean, the inhabitants of which had been 
made known to the British public by the voyages of Captain Cook and 
others, were selected by the founders of the London Missionary Society 
as the scene of their earliest labours, For many years the pioneers of 
the benevolent enterprise laboured with very little success ; but before 
the time when Williams offered himself to the Society, many of the 
natives had embraced Christianity, and in some islands the cruel rites 
of idolatry had been entirely abandoned. The most urgent demands 
for more missionaries were sent to the Society in England, and the 
directors, recognising the necessity of immediately meeting the require- 
ment, despatched Williams and several other young men with only a 
few months’ preparation for labours which rather called for years of 
preliminary study. During the short period allowed for the purpose, 
Williams did not confine himself to literary and theological studies, 
but also visited manufactories, and made himself acquainted with such 
processes as he might have to teach in accordance not only with his 
own views of the missionary work, but also with the instructions 
received from the Society with which he had connected himself, whose 
aim it has always been, in subordination to the great design of teaching 
the gospel, to introduce among the heathen the arts of civilised 
society. 

In October 1816, Williams married Miss Mary Chauner, who proved 
an invaluable coadjutor in his future labours; and on the 16th of 
November following, Mr. and Mrs. Williams, in company with several 
other missionaries, embarked for Sydney, whence after a short stay 
they proceeded, after calling at New Zealand, to Eimeo, one of the 
Society Islands, which they reached exactly twelve months after 
leaving London. Here they remained for some months, Mr. Williams 
assisting the missionaries previously stationed there, and perfecting 
himself in the Tahitian language. During this time he also made the 
iron-work for a small vessel which the missionaries were building for 
Pomare, king of Tahiti. After a time a party of the missionaries, 
including Mr. and Mrs. Williams, removed to Huahine, another island 
of the same group, where they were very gladly received by the natives, 
The fame of their arrival brought visitors from the surrounding islands, 
and the urgent solicitations of Tamatoa, king of Raiatea (the Ulitea of 
Captain Cook), induced Messrs. Williams and Threlkeld to remove to 
that island, which is the largest and most central of the Society group. 
Its population was at that time about 1300, but its political influence 
was far greater than might be expected from its population; it was 
the centre of the idolatrous system prevalent in these islands; it con- 
tained “the archives of their religious legends; the temple and altar 
of Oro, the Mars and Moloch of the South Seas;” and its principal 
chiefs received divine honours, as well as civil allegiance and tribute 
from the neighbouring isles. Upon this interesting island the truths 
of Christianity had been first proclaimed by the Rev. Mr. Wilson, who, 
with Pomare and nineteen other Tahitians, had been accidentally 
driven thither in a storm; and the inhabitants had received their 
instruction so well as to be exceedingly desirous of obtaining mission- 
aries for themselves, While however the people were willing to adopt 
Christianity as a national religion, and to give a cordial welcome to its 
teachers, Mr. Williams found their moral condition to be extremely 
debased, and their idleness apparently inveterate. They were also so 
scattered over the island as to render collective instruction almost 
impossible. It was indeed evident that their habits must be entirely 
remodelled before-the missionaries could hope to prosecute their 
labours with success, Without neglecting the primary object of his 
mission, Williams induced the Raiateans to collect themselves te one 
spot, and to build habitations for themselves, as well as a chapel and 
school-house. For his own use he erected a comfortable house in the 
English style, presenting a model to which the natives were encouraged 
to look both in its structure and conveniences, and in the furniture 
with which it was adorned ; almost everything being done by his own 
hands. The natives were thus taught not only to appreciate the com- 
forts of civilised life, but to obtain them for themselves, by constiruct- 
ing houses with two or more apartments, with wooden floors, framed 
walls plastered with coral lime, thatched roofs, well-stocked gardens, 
tables, chairs, sofas, and bedsteads with turned legs, carpets, and 
hangings. They were also instructed in boat-building, and their dili- 
gence and ingenuity were excited by judicious rewards in the form of 
nails, hinges, and other useful articles which the missionaries procured 
from England. Proceeding cautiously, first to make the natives feel 
their necessities, and then to put them in the right way for supplying 
them, the missionaries were at length gratified by a request to attend 
a meeting convened by the natives for the purpose of improving their 
social condition by the establishment of legal marriage. In May 1820, 
upon the occasion of the opening of a new chapel at Raiatea, at which 
more than 2400 persons were present, a complete code of laws was 
established by the votes of the people, and it differed from those pre- 
viously introduced in other islands of the South Seas in the important 
point of the introduction of trial by jury. An efficient executive 
government was also organised, everything being done by the natives, 
though under the immediate superintendence of their instructors. 
Being desirous of extending to others the benefits which they enjoyed 
themselves, the Raiateans formed an auxiliary missionary society, 
which was supported by liberal donations of such articles as they had 
learned to prepare for sale; and Mr. Williams laid the foundation of 
future commercial wealth by teaching the people to cultivate tobacco 


and the sugar-cane, and to prepare sugar for the market. With this 
view he constructed a sugar-mill, the rollers of which were turned in 
a lathe formed by his own hand. 

The benevolence which prompted Williams to such exertions could 
not rest content within the narrow limits of Raiatea and such places as 
might be reached from it by occasional boat-voyages. The intelligence 
received from time to time from other islands gave him a strong desire 
to extend the peaceful conquest in which he had borne so distinguish 
a part, and he perceived that nothing was so much wanted for the 
political advantage of the civilised communities at the mission stations 
as a market for their produce and a ready means of communication 
with it. He therefore conceived that if a small ship were permanently 
engaged in the service of the missionaries, it would tend greatly to 
facilitate their labours for the civil and religious elevation of the 
islanders, Although not seconded in these views by the directors of 
the Society, he was so fully convinced of the importance of the scheme 
that he determined to undertake a very heavy pecuniary responsibility 
rather than abandon his project. He therefore visited Sydney about 
the commencement of 1822, and purchased a schooner of from 


to ninety tons, called the Endeavour, in the hope that the — 


would, upon full explanation of the circumstances, share the respo: 
bility of the purchase. He also made arrangements for promoting the 
rising commerce of the islands, and returned with several cows, calves, 
aud sheep, presented by Sir Thomas Brisbane, governor of New South 
Wales, for the use of the chiefs and missionaries. In July 1823, 
Williams sailed from Raiatea in the Endeavour, for the Hervey Islands, 
calling at the mission-station of Aitutaki, after which he endeavouved 
to carry into effect a long-cherished scheme for the discovery of the 
island of Rarotonga, which was then only known to the missionaries 
by the report of a few of its natives upon other islands. Failing in his 
first attempt, he visited Mangaia and some other islands, but at length, 
as is described in the sixth chapter of his ‘ Missionary Enterprises,’ he 
discovered the desired island, which is the finest and most populous of 
the Hervey group. Leaving a native teacher there, with a promise of 
sending further assistance, the Endeavour shortly returned to Raiatea, 
whence she soon sailed upon another expedition to Rurutu and Rima- 
tara. Small as the vessel was for such a purpose, the indefatigable 
missionary was preparing for a more distant expedition to the Navi- 
gators’ and other islands, when his projects were suddenly checked 
and he himself was involved in most painful embarrassments by the 
intelligence that certain interested merchants had procured the enact- 
ment of fiscal regulations by the governor of New South Wales, which 
greatly impeded the development of trade from the South Sea Islands, 
and rendéred the retention of the Endeavour hopeless. At the same 
time he received intelligence from England that the directors of the 
Society disapproved of the steps he had taken with regard to the ship, 
they having a very commendable jealousy of anything that could, even 
in appearance, impart a worldly character to their proceedings. He 
was thus compelled to send the ship, laden with the most marketable 
produce that he could collect, to Sydney, with orders for the sale of 
both ship and cargo. Grievously as he felt this disappointment, he 
did not abandon his favourite design, but only allowed it to remain in 
abeyance for a time, while he devoted his energies to Raiatea, where 
it was found necessary, from the frequency of destructive storms, to 
remove the settlement to the opposite side of the island. 

In the autumn of 1825 Rarotonga and other of the Hervey Islands 
were revisited by the Rev. Mr. Bourne, one of Williams's fellow- 
labourers, in the Haweis, a vessel chartered for the purpose by the 
Society. In December of the same year Williams was joined by Mr. 
and Mrs. Pitman, who were appointed to occupy the new station at 
Rarotonga, but remained with him for some months at Raiatea before 
proceeding to their destination. In April 1827 they obtained a 
to Rarotonga, accompanied by Mr. and Mrs. Williams, who contem- 
plated staying a few months to assist their less experienced friends, 
What has been stated in reference to Raiatea will indicate the nature 
of the labours to be performed in other islands; but here was a new 
difficulty occasioned by the difference of the Rarotongan dialect from 
that with which the missionaries were acquainted under the name of 
the Tahitian, and in which all their books were printed. Ha con- 
quered the difficulties of the language so far as to be able to and 
preach to the Rarotongans, Williams next engaged himself in preparing 
books and translating portions of the Bible into the language, which 
of course he had to reduce to a written form and a grammatical 
system. When at length prepared to return to Raiatea, he waited 
month after month for an opportunity of doing so, and, when there 
seemed to be no hope of a vessel passing within sight, he determined 
upon building a ship, notwithstanding his limited knowledge of naval 
architecture, the total absence of assistance beyond what the natives 
could render, and the lack of iron and tools, of which he had a very 
insufficient supply. One of the first steps in this undertaking was the 
construction of a pair of smith’s bellows, to obtain leather for which 
three of the four goats on the island were killed. It must have proved 
extremely mortifying to find that when the machine was completed it 
did not act properly, owing to a little oversight in the construction ; 
but the perplexity was cots gd terminated by the entire destruction 
of everything but the boards by rats, which swarmed at Rarotonga, 
Undismayed by this mishap, Williams contrived a blowing-machine, 
which is fully deseribed in his ‘ Missionary Enterprises,’ in which no 


a: 


fa i 


i a ee 


ae ee a 


> 


a 


733 WILLIAMS, REV. JOHN. 


WILLIAMS, ROGER. 734 


leather was required. Having no saw, the trees used were split by 
wedges, and having no steaming apparatus, bent planks were procured 
by splitting curved trunks. Cordage was manufactured of the bark 
of the hibiscus ; sails were made of native matting; and for oakum 
were substituted cocoa-nut husk, banana stumps, native cloth, &c. 
Sheaves were formed of the ‘aito,’ or iron-wood, by means of a lathe 
constructed for the purpose, and the pintles of the rudder were made 
from a piece of a pickaxe, a cooper’s adze, and a large hoe. By such 
contrivances, in the short space of fifteen weeks, was completed a sea- 
worthy vessel about sixty feet long and eighteen feet wide. Supplied 
with anchors of wood and stone, and with a crew consisting only of 
natives, Williams first tried his vessel, which he styled the * Messenger 
of Peace,’ in a voyage of about 170 miles, to Aitutaki, which was 
accomplished without any more serious casualty than the breaking of 
the foremast through the inexperience of the native crew; and after a 
few days the vessel returned to Rarotonga with a valuable cargo of 
pigs, cocoa-puts, and cats, Shortly afterwards Mr. and Mrs. Buzacott 
arrived at Rarotonga, having among their stores a supply of iron, 
which enabled Mr. Williams to strengthen his ship before sailing for 
Tahiti, a distance of 800 miles, which he accomplished in safety. 
. Being now fully determined to undertake his long-contemplated voyage 
to the more westerly islands, Williams immediately set about prepara- 
_ tions for it. He however returned to Raiatea, and was actively engaged 
in that and neighbouring islands for a considerable time before the 
great expedition could be commenced. On the 24th of May 1830 the 
Messenger of Peace left Raiatea on this important voyage, for the cir- 
cumstances of which we must refer to the interesting narrative of the 
missionary voyager himself, merely stating that after calling at Man- 
gaia, Rarotonga, and other out-stations, the vessel proceeded westward 
to Savage Island, Tongatabu, Savaii, and many other islands of the 
Hapai and Samoan or Navigators’ groups, after which she returned to 
Raiatea. Towards the iatter end of 1832, after conveying a supply of 
provisions, horses, asses, and cattle to Rarotonga, Williams again sailed 
in the Messenger of Peace to the Samoas, after which he returned to 
Rarotonga, where, with Messrs. Pitman and Buzacott, he completed 
the Rarotongan version of the New Testament, Having now deter- 
mined to visit England, he sent the Messenger of Peace to Tahiti, with 
directions that she should be sold, if a purchaser should offer, and that 
another vessel should be chartered and sent for him. Not hearing 
again from Tahiti, he eventually completed a small vessel which had 
been commenced by an American then at Rarotonga, and in July 1833 
sailed in it for Tahiti. The business of the mission required another 
visit to Rarotonga before he finally embarked for England, but at 
length, having once more visited Raiatea, he took passage in a home- 
ward bound whaler, and reached London in June 1834. The interest 
of his adventures rendered him immediately an object of attraction at 
the numerous missionary meetings at which he took a part; and so 
goed was the desire to hear him in all parts of the kingdom, that his 
abours at home were little less arduous than they had been in the 
South Seas. 

While however his labours in speaking, preaching, and lecturing 
were almost incessant, Williams never lost sight of engagements more 
immediately connected with the welfare of Polynesia. He submitted 
to the directors of the London Missionary Society, and subsequently 
to the Christian public, plans for a theological college at Rarotonga, 
for the education of native missionaries, and of a school at Tahiti, 
which might both afford superior education to the sons of chiefs, and 
serve the purpose of a normal school for training native schoolmasters. 
He laid his manuscript of the Rarotongan New Testament before the 
British and Foreign Bible Society, and subsequently superintended the 
printing of that and several other works for the use of the islanders; 
and he wrote an account of some of the most important circumstances 
of his extraordinary career, which appeared in April 1837, under the 
title of ‘A Narrative of Missionary Enterprises in the South Sea 
Islands, with Remarks upon the Natural History of the Islands, Origin, 
Languages, Traditions, and Usages of the Inhabitants.’ This volume 
immediately excited the deepest interest, not only among those who 
had heard the statements of the author, or whose habits and connec- 
tions would naturally lead to its perusal, but also among the dignitaries 
of the Established Church, men eminent for their scientific attainments, 
and some of the nobility. The society of the humble-minded dissent- 
ing missionary was sought by many who had been accustomed to view 
such proceedings as those which he had narrated as Utopian and fanati- 
cal, and many noble donations were made through him to aid the 
general objects of the mission, as well as those special objects which 
the Society preferred leaving under his individual management, such 
as his cherished project of procuring a missionary ship. Referring to 
Prout’s ‘Memoirs’ for many pleasing illustrations of the effect produced 
by this volume, as well as by Williams’s personal appeals, it may be 
stated that, having submitted to the common council of the city of 
London his ideas of the importance of the expedition he was about to 
undertake, in a commercial point of view, that body unanimously 
voted a sum of 500/. towards its support. For this purpose alone 
about 4000/. were subscribed, with which the Camden was purchased, 
repaired, and fitted out, and on the 11th of April 1838 she sailed from 
Gravesend, with Mr, and Mrs. Williams and sixteen other missionaries 
ae missionaries’ wives, who were to be left at their respective 
stations. 


After a short stay at the Cape of Good Hope, and another at Sydney, 
the Camden made for the Samoas. Williams visited many of the sur- 
rounding islands, then sailed to Rarotonga, and subsequently to Tahiti, 
Raiatea, and others of the Society group, whence the Camden again 
sailed for Samoa, the devoted missionary hoping at last to carry out 
his long-cherished design of visiting the islands yet farther westward, 
where as yet nothing had been done for the instruction of the savager. 
The expedition was proceeding successfully, and had reached the New 
Hebrides, when, on the 20th of November 1839, a party from the ship 
landed at Dillon’s Bay, in the island of Erromanga, where the natives, 
irritated, there is reason to believe, by the barbarities perpetrated by 
the crew of a vessel that had previously visited the island, attacked 
them, and murdered Mr. Williams, then in the forty-fourth year of his 
age, and Mr. Harris, who was intending to become a missionary to the 
Marquesas. The intelligence of the melancholy event produced the 
most intense excitement both in the numerous islands where the apos- 
tolic labours of Williams had been performed, and in his native country, 
and the universal esteem which his character had obtained called forth 
the warmest expressions of respect and regret. Such remains of the 
body of Williams as could be subsequently procured (the greater por- 
tion having been devoured by the cannibals of Erromanga) were interred 
at Apia, in the island of Upolu. It is most gratifying to know that 
the benevolent work to which Williams devoted his life has not been 
checked by his untimely end, but that even upon the very island on 
which he fell the truths of Christianity have since been received with 
gladness. 

Of the character of Williams it is unnecessary to attempt to form an 
estimate in this brief notice. To comprehend his self-denying zeal, his 
unconquerable perseverance in the pursuit of the philanthropic objects 
of his mission, the universality of his talents as an agent of civilisation, 
and the benevolence which marked his public and private actions, it is 
necessary to peruse the circumstantial narrative of his ‘ Missionary 
Enterprises,’ a book replete with interest even to those who do not 
duly appreciate the motives which actuated him and his coadjutors. 
Much additional information upon these, as well as more purely per- 
sonal history, is to be found in the volume of ‘Memoirs’ published by 
his friend the Rev. Ebenezer Prout, of Halstead. 

WILLIAMS, ROGER, the founder of the state of Rhode Island, 
was born in Wales in 1599. Educated at Oxford, he was in due time 
ordained; but having adopted the principles of the Puritans, he deter- 
mined on separating from the Church of England. To avoid the 
persecution at that time rife in this country, Williams emigrated, with 
many others of similar religious views, to New England—then the 
Puritans’ land of promise, He landed at Nantasket, Massachusetts, in 
February 1631. His fervent zeal, his piety, and his ‘ godly gifts’ in 
preaching and exhortation, secured him much consideration. He was 
soon invited by the people of Salem to become assistant to their minis- 
ter. But he had already promulgated doctrines which the ‘court’ 
of magistrates at Boston regarded as dangerous, and they warned 
the people of Salem that they had been too precipitate in their 
choice, and bade them proceed no further. Williams had already dis- 
tinctly enunciated the principle—which Bancroft (‘ Hist. of America,’ 
chap. ix.) declares “he was the first person in modern Christendom to 
assert in its plenitude ”—of entire liberty of conscience, the right of 
every person to worship in what manner he pleased, or to refrain from 
public worship altogether without interference on the part of the 
civil magistrate. He had besides written a defence of the right of the 
natives to the soil, which the magistrates also condemned; though on 
his putting in an explanation and consenting to burn the manuscript, 
they declared that the matters were not so evil as at first they seemed. 
To avoid strife, he now retired to Plymouth, where he remained for 
two years, when, on the death of their minister, the church at Salem 
chose Williams as his successor. Again the court interposed. Wil- 
liams reiterated and amplified his views of liberty of conscience, 
frankly declaring when pressed by his opponents, that he held that the 
magistrate ought not to interfere “even to stop a church from apos- 
tacy and heresy,” and that the office of the civil magistrate “extends 
only to the bodies and goods and outward estates of man ”—doctrines 
which the court declared to be opposed to the fundamental laws of 
the state, and subversive of all good government. The church of 
Salem was again warned: but Williams, on behalf of the church, 
issued ‘ Letters of Admonition,’ which were adjudged to be a defiance 
of the authorities. Salem was disfranchised; and as, on being sum- 
moned before the court, he refused to withdraw any of his opinions, 
Williams was sentenced to banishment as a reviler of magistrates. He 
obtained permission however, winter being at hand, to remain till the 
spring ; but as he persisted in preaching, and hi3 people flocked to 
hear him, and it was understood that many had decided on going with 
him to found a new colony somewhere not very distant, the authorities 
decided to remove him at once as a dangerous person to England. 
Hearing of this, he fled into the woods, where, as he says in a passage 
quoted by Bancroft, “for fourteen weeks he was sorely tost in a bitter 
season, not knowing what bread or bed did mean.” But he had 
acquired a mastery over tle language of the Indians, was sheltered by 
them, and kindly treated. ; 3 

As soon as the season allowed, Williams began the foundation of his 
new colony. At first he pitched on Seekonk, but that was within the 
patent of Plymouth, and when Governor Winthrop directed him to 


735 WILLIAMS, SAMUEL. 


WILLIAMSON, SIR JOSEPH. 736 


Narragansett Bay as a spot outside the limits of any English patents 
Williams regarded his suggestion as a “voice from God.” He landed 
on Rhode Island with his companions in June 1636, on a spot still 
marked by tradition, and having purchased the land of the Indians, 
commenced to plant and build a town, which he called ‘ Providence, 
because, he said, “I desired it might be for a shelter for persons dis- 
tressed for conscience.” Here he was soon joined by others who 
sympathised with his opinions, and in a year or two ‘good people 

from England flocked thither in considerable numbers—the fame of 
the earnestness, self-denial, and piety of the first settlers having 
quickly spread through the Puritan churches. Williams was the 
founder, the pastor, and the law-giver of the infant state; but he did 
not aim to be its ruler. He here carried out to the fullest extent the 
principles he had so boldly asserted. “ He chose,” to use the words 
of Bancroft, ‘to found a commonwealth in the unmixed form of a 
pure democracy ; where the will of the majority should govern the 
state—yet only in civil things; God alone was respected as the ruler 
of conscience.” It was the first purely democratic commonwealth in 
modern times, and, according to Bancroft, “ this first system has had 
its influence on the whole political history of Rhode Island ; in no state 
in the world, not even in the agricultural state of Vermont, has the magis- 
tracy so little power, or the representatives of the freemen so much.” 

With exemplary self-denial, Williams laboured on with his people. 
New settlements had been formed on the island, and the people, in 
order to secure themselves from becoming absorbed in the government 
of Massachusetts, resolved to seek a charter of incorporation from the 
English parliament. Williams was chosen (1643) to negociate the 
grant. He was treated with marked respect by the Parliament, and a 
charter incorporating the settlers on Narragansett Bay, with “ full 
power and authority to rule themselves,” was readily accorded. 
Williams was received in triumph on his return to Rhode Island, and 
when some nine years later an infringement of the charter seemed 
imminent, he was again despatched to the mother-country to obtain a 
confirmation of the rights of the colony, in which mission he was 
entirely successful. He returned to Providence in 1654, where he 
was elected president of the colony, an office he held for three years. 

While maintaining perfect liberty of conscience, Williams was an 
earnest maintainer of his own religious views. He had himself 
adopted the tenets of the Baptists; and in his later years he en- 
tered into a strenuous controversy with the Quakers. His work— 
‘George Fox digged out of his Burrowes, or an Offer of Disputation 
on Fourteen Proposals made this last summer, 1672 (so called), unto 
G. Fox, then present on Rode Island in New England, by R(oger). 
W(illiams), As also how G. Fox slily departing, the Disputation went 
» on, being managed three days at Newport on Rode Island, and one 
day at Providence, between John Stubs, John Burnet (Burnyeat), and 
William Edmundson, on the one part, and R. W. on the other. In 
which many quotations out of G. Fox and Ed. Burrowes’ Book in folio 
are alleged, with an appendix of some scores of G. F., his simple lame 
answers to his opposites in that Book, quoted and replied to. By 
R. W. of Providence in N. E. Boston, printed by John Foster,’ small 
4to, 1676—and Fox’s answer—‘ A New England Fire-Brand quenched, 
being an Answer unto a Slanderous Book entitled George Fox digged 
out of his Burrowes, &c., printed at Boston in the year 1676 by Roger 
Williams of Providence in New England. Which he dedicateth to the 
King, with desires that, if the Most High please, Old and New 
England may flourish when the Pope and Mahomet, Rome and Con- 
stantinople, are in their ashes. Of a Dispute upon 14 of his Proposals 
held and debated betwixt him, the said Roger Williams, on the one 
part, and John Stubs, William Edmundson, and John Burnyeat on 
the other, at Providence and Newport in Rode Island, in the year 
1672. In which his cavils are refuted, and his reflections reproved. 
Tn two parts. As also an answer to R. W.’s Appendix, &c.; witha 
Postscript confuting its blasphemous assertions, viz., of the Blood of 
Christ that was shed, its being corruptible and corrupted; and that 
Salvation was by a man that was corruptible, &c. Whereunto is added 
a Catalogue of his Railery, Lies, scorn, and blasphemies; and his 
Temporising Spirit made manifest. By George Fox and John Burn- 
yeat. Printed in the year 1679’—are works curious in themselves 
and of interest in the early history of Quakerism. Roger Williams 
died at Providence in April 1683. 

WILLIAMS, SAMUEL, a skilful designer and engraver on wood, 
was born at Colchester, Essex, on the 23rd of February 1788. The 
son of parents in humble circumstances, his early desire to become an 
artist met with little encouragement, and though he taught himself 
drawing and painting, he was at the usual age apprenticed to a printer 
in his native town. While serving his apprenticeship however he 
taught himself etching, and subsequently wood-engraving. So 
attached had he become to the latter art, that on the expiration of 
his term of service he determined to adopt it as his calling, and, 
possessing some skill in design, he found on proceeding to London 
little difficulty in procuring employment among the publishers of 
low-priced works. His earlicst patron is said by his son (‘ Athen., 
1853, p. 1261) to have been Mr. Crosby, by whom “a series of 300 
cuts was given into the hands of the then untried country artist.” 
Gradually working his way upwards, he eventually took his place 
among the best designers and wood-engravers of his time. His earlier 
engravings executed for Whittingham’s Novelists and Poets, for Wiffen's 


‘Tasso,’ and the architectural publications of Mr. J. Britton, displayed 
great freedom and ability—qualities strikingly apparent in his vigorous, 
characteristic, and original, though occasionally somewhat rude designs 
made for Hone’s ‘Every Day Book.’ In his later engravings and 
designs—as those in Howitt's ‘Rural Life,’ Scrope’s ‘Days of Salmon- 
Fishing’ and ‘ Deer-Stalking,’ Thomson’s ‘Seasons,’ &c.—he shows 
much more elaboration and neatness, lg Gy equal evidence of the 
devoted study of rural life and scenery, but perhaps some loss of 
power. Throughout life he retained his early ambition of painting in 
oil, but we are not aware that he executed any works of consequence 
in that branch of art. He died on the 19th of September 1853. Two 
of his sons still sustain the reputation of the name of Williams as 
wood-engravers, 

*WILLIAMS, OF KARS, MAJOR-GENERAL SIR WILLIAM 
FENWICK, K.C.B,, and M.P. for Calne, is a son of the late Mr. Thomas 
Williams, Commissary-General and Barrack-Master at Halifax, Nova 
Scotia, in which country he was born, December 10, 1800. He came 
to England at an early age, and his family for some generations 
having been connected with the artillery, hej was sent to Woolwich 
Academy by the late Duke of Kent. He obtained his commission as 
second lieutenant in the Artillery in 1825, and became first lieutenant 
in 1827, and captain in 1840. Having served for nine yearsin Ceylon, 
he was sent to Turkey, where he received the brevet-rank of Major 
for his military services. In 1843 he was appointed by the Earl of 
Aberdeen Commissioner for settling the Turkish and Persian frontiers, 
a work of much delicacy and difficulty, and which he brought to a 
conclusion in 1852, During this time he had been selected by General 


- 


Sir Hussey (afterwards Lord) Vivian as instructor of the Turks in 


artillery practice, and having taken an active part in the Conferences 
preceding the treaty of Erzeroum in May 1847, was advanced to the 
rank of lieutenant-colonel and the companionship of the Bath. 

Upon the breaking out of hostilities with Russia in 1854, Lieu- 
tenant-Colonel Williams was apppointed by the Earl of Clarendon her 
majesty’s Commissioner with the Turkish forces in the East, at the 
same time he was advanced to the rank of Colonel, and shortly after- 
wards to that of Brigadier-General. In this trying post, ia which he 
was far from being adequately supported by the British ambassador at 
Constantinople, he won the approbation of the army abroad and the 
government at home, The head-quarters which he held were at 
Kars near Erzeroum, and though labouring under considerable diffi- 
culties, he repulsed with severe slaughter an attack of the Russians 
under General Mouravieff, September 29, 1855, but not receiving 
reinforcements in answer. to his repeated but fruitless applications to 
the British ambassador, he was obliged to remain upon the defensive. 
Accordingly, in conjunction with Colonel Lake and General Kmety, 
he fortified the city of Kars, whilst Mouravieff besieged it closely on 
all sides, and it was only after enduring the extremity of suffering and 
hunger, that he agreed to capitulate. Together with his able assist- 
ant, Colonel Lake, General Williams was sent as a prisoner of war to 
St. Petersburg, where he was treated however with all honour and 
respect. As soon as the Treaty of Peace had been signed at Paris in 
March 1856, General Williams returned to England. For his victory 
at Kars he had already been made a K.C.B.; he was now presented 
with the freedom of the City of London, and rewarded with a baro- 
netcy, bearing the addition ‘of Kars,’ and a pension of 1000. a year. 
He was shortly afterwards elected M.P. for Calne, and appointed to 
the command of the garrison at Woolwich. 

WILLIAMSON, SIR JOSEPH, a statesman of the reign of Charles II. 
was the son of the Rey. Joseph Williamson, rector of Bridekirk in 
Cumberland. He came up to London, while yet a boy, in the capacity 
of clerk or secretary to Mr. Richard Tolson, member of parliament 
for Cockermouth, and, on the recommendation of his patron to Dr, 
Busby, the head master of Westminster School, he went from his 
service to that school. His assiduity and talent gained for him a 
recommendation from Dr. Busby to Dr. Langbaine, the provost of 
Queen’s College, Oxford, by whom he was admitted on the foundation 
of that college. He took his degree of B.A. in 1653, and immediately 
after went to France as tutor to a nobleman to whom he was recom- 
mended by Dr. Langbaine. He was afterwards elected a fellow of 
Queen’s College, and in 1757 he took his Master of Arts degree. 

After the Restoration he was appointed secretary to Sir Edward 
Nicholas, secretary of state, and on Sir Edward Nicholas being 
succeeded by Lord Arlington, he became secretary to the latter. 
He was appointed by Lord Arlington keeper of the State Paper 
Office in Whitehall. In 1667 he was appointed one of the clerks 
of the council in ordinary, and received the honour of knighthood. 
He was one of the plenipotentiaries, together with the Earl of Sun- 
derland and Sir Leoline Jenkins, at the treaty of Cologne. On 
the 27th of June 1674, he was appointed secretary of state in the 
room of Lord Arlington, to whom, according to the custom of the 
time, he paid 6000/. in order to succeed him. He was at the same 
time introduced into the privy council. The period during which 
Sir Joseph Williamson was secretary of state was one of subservience 
by Charles II. to the interests of France, with which power he entered 
into secret alliances, and of fears in the nation of the introduction of 
popery into England. Sir Joseph Williamson was one of the first 


victims of the excitement caused by the celebrated Popish plot. He 


was committed to the Tower by the order of the House of Commons, 


Ss ell 


Ye 


{oc eo eee 


737 WILLIBROD. 


WILLIS, REV. ROBERT, 733 


on the 18th of November 1678, on a charge of granting commissions 
to Popish officers, but he was released by the king on the same day. 
On the 9th of February following he resigned the secretaryship of 
state, and was succeeded by the Earl of Sunderland, In December 
1679, he married the baroness Clifton, widow of Henry, Lord O’Brien, 
and sister and sole heiress to Charles Stuart, duke of Richmond, by 
whom he acquired large property and the hereditary office of high 
steward of Greenwich. Sir Joseph Williamson died in 1701, and his 
wife in the year following. He left 6000/. and a valuable collection 
of heraldic manuscripts and of memoirs relating to his foreign nego- 
ciations to Queen’s.College, Oxford: and he left 5000/. for the purpose 
of founding a mathematical school at Rochester, by which town he had 
been frequently returned to parliament. He had sat also several times 
for Thetford. In the year 1678 hg was elected president of the Royal 
Society. Sir Joseph Williamson appears to have been a diligent public 
servant, who, in those times, could not have risen from so humble a 
beginning to the important situation of secretary of state, without pos- 
sessing some talents for business or perhaps more for courtiership. 

WILLIBROD, [Witprorp.] 

WILLIS, BROWNE, an English antiquary of note, grandson of the 
still more celebrated Dr. Thomas Willis [WaLis, THomas], and by 
his mother’s side of Robert Browne, of Frampton in Dorsetshire, was 
born at Blandford in that county, September 14th 1682. After 
passing through Westminster School, at which time he is said to have 
first imbibed a taste for the study of architectural and ecclesiastical 
antiquities, the neighbouring abbey being his favourite haunt, he 
entered Christchurch, Oxford, as gentleman-commoner. In 1707 he 
married Catherine, daughter of Daniel Elliott, of an ancient family, 
who bore him ten children, This lady, who died in 1724, was herself 
a person of some literary pretension, and was author of a work entitled 
‘The Established Church of England the Catholick Church,’ London, 
1718, a performance which her husband appears to have thought very 
meanly of. On the Society of Antiquaries being revived, 1717-18, he 
became a member of it, and in 1640 the degree of LL.D. was con- 
ferred upon him by the University of Oxford. In the following year 
he testified his sense of the compliment by presenting to that body 
his valuable cabinet of English coins; he was also a considerable 
benefactor to the Bodleian Library, by his donations of manuscripts. 
Nor did his liberality confine itself to munificence of that kind; for, 
in 1746, he contributed towards rebuilding Stony Stratford church, 
and in 1752 gave 200/. towards repairing the fine tower of that at 
Buckingham, for which place he had been returned to parliament 
nearly half a century before, in 1705. He died at his seat, Whaddon 
Hall, February 5,1760. Though Willis had rather a passion for anti- 
quarian researches than the skill and judgment, or even the informa- 
tion, required to attain eminence as an archeologist, there can be 
little doubt that his publications promoted a taste for antiquarian 
studies. His greatest and most important work is his ‘Survey of the 
Cathedrals of England,’ 3 vols. 4to, with plates, which appeared in 
1727, 1730, and 1733. Of his ‘ Notitia Parliamentaria,’ the conclusion 
was not published till 1750, although the first part had been printed 
in 1715. His last production was a ‘ History of the Town of Bucking- 
ham,’ 4to, 1755. 

WILLIS, FRANCIS, was a student of Brazennose College, Oxford, 
and took holy orders in the year 1740, He was soon after appointed 
to the living of St. John’s, Wapping, and afterwards to Greatford in 
Lincolnshire. Having a taste for the practice of medicine, he used to 
prescribe for his poor parishioners, which incensed the medical men 
in the neighbourhood so much, that in his own defence he obtained 
the degree of doctor of medicine from Oxford in 1759. : His medical 
and theological studies induced him to take up the subject of insanity, 
and he was very successful in its treatment. It was on this account 
that he was called in to take charge of George III., when the king 
was for the first time deprived of the use of his mental faculties. His 
treatment was successful in this case, and gained for him a great 
reputation, in addition to a pension of 15007. per annum for twenty- 
one years. After curing the king, he was sent for to attend the 
Queen of Portugal, who was labouring under aberration of mind. He 
succeeded in restoring her majesty to perfect health, and received 
for his services 20,0007. He kept an establishment for the treatment 
of the insane at Greatford, in Lincolnshire, where he died on the 5th 
of December 1807, in the ninetieth year of his age. 

Willis has left behind him no work on the subject of insanity, and 
he would perhaps have found it difficult to explain his own success 
in the treatment of this disease. He was a man of acute mind, and 
his treatment seemed rather the result of an instinctive perception 
of what each individual case required, than of the application of any 
known principles. His personal influence over his patients was im- 
mense, and it is said that-his mode of looking at a maniac “ would 
make him quail more effectually than chains or manacles.” 

* WILLIS, NATHANIEL PARKER, was born January 20, 1807, at 
Portland, in the State of Maine, North America, His parents removed 
to Boston during his childhood, and he was educated at Boston, 
Andover, and at Yale College, which he entered in 1824. He gra- 
duated in 1827, and was soon afterwards engaged to edit ‘The 
Legendary ’ and‘ The Token.’ In 1828 he established ‘ The American 
Monthly Magazine,’ which he conducted for two years and a half, 
when it was merged in ‘ The New York Mirror,” Mr, Willis then went 

BLOG. DIV. VOL. VI. 


to Paris, where he was attached to the American legation, and in con- 
nection with it travelled in France, Italy, and Greece, and in parts of 
European Turkey and Asia Minor. He afterwards came to England, 
where he married, and remained two years, While travelling on the 
continent and residing in England he had published his ‘ Pencillings 
by the Way,’ in ‘The New York Mirror,’ in the form of a series of 
successive letters, in which, in a light and sketchy style, he described 
the most interesting of the places which he had visited, and related 
what he had witnessed and heard in societies to which he had been 
introduced. Many extracts from these letters were published in the 
English newspapers, and a severe criticism appeared in the ‘ Quarterly 
Review.’ He was soon afterwards, as he states, offered 300. for the 
copyright of the whole, and the ‘Pencillings by the Way’ were 
published in London in 1835, in 3 vols. cr. 8vo. In the same year he 
published ‘Inklings of Adventure, a series of tales and sketches 
which had originally appeared in the ‘ London Magazine’ under the 
signature of Philip Slingsby. In 1837 he returned to the United 
States, and retired to a pleasant spot on the banks of the Susquehanna, 
where he resided two years, and wrote ‘ Letters from under a Bridge.’ 
In 1839 he became one of the editors of ‘The Corsair, a literary 
periodical published in New York. In the autumn of that year he 
revisited England, and in 1840 published ‘ Loiterings of Travel,’ 3 vols. 
er. 8vo, and ‘T'wo Ways of Dying for a Husband,’ containing the two 
plays of ‘ Tortesa the Usurer,’ and ‘ Bianca Visconti.’ In the same 
year appeared an illustrated edition of his ‘ Poems,’ 

In 1843, having returned to New York, Mr. N. P. Willis, in con- 
junction with Mr. George P. Morris, revived ‘The New York Mirror,’ 
which had been discontinued for several years. Mr. Willis withdrew 
from it in 1844, after the death of his wife, when he again visited 
England, and in 1845 published ‘Dashes at Life with a Free Pencil,’ 
3 vols. cr. 8vo, consisting of sketches and stories, On his return to 
New York he published in 1846 his ‘ Complete Works,’ in one vol. 
imp. 8vo, of 900 pages. In October 1846 he married a second time, 
and settled in New York, where he became again associated with Mr. 
Morris in conducting ‘The Home Journal,’ a weekly periodical, chiefly 
devoted to literature. In 1849 he published ‘ Rural Letters and other 
Records of Thought at Leisure, most of which are re-publications, as 
are also the series of articles which he published in 1850, under the 
title of ‘ People I have met, or Pictures of Society.’ In 1851 appeared 
in London, ‘ Hurry-Graphs, or Sketches of Scenery, Celebrities, and 
Society, taken from Life,’ cr. 8vo., a series of letters and papers which 
had been published in ‘ The Home Journal.’ 

In the spring of 1852 Mr. Willis, suffering from a pulmonary com- 
plaint, made a voyage to the West Indies, for the benefit of his health. 
On his return to America, he passed through some of the Southern 
States, and in 1853 published ‘A Health-Trip to the Tropics,’ 8vo. He 
visited Bermuda and sojourned some time in the islands of St. Thomas 
and Martinique. He afterwards travelled in Kentucky and other 
Southern States, and he works up portions of his memoranda some- 
what abruptly to form the latter half of his book, describing his visit 
to the Mammoth Cave of Kentucky, which extends nine miles under 
ground, also short visits to the island of Haiti and the city of Havaiia, 
and his sojourn in the cities of Savannah and New Orleans. The book 
is written mostly in the form of letters, which were first published in 
‘The Home Journal.’ It is one of the most carefully written as well 
as the most entertaining of Mr. Willis’s productions, presenting accu- 
rate as well as picturesque descriptions of scenes and incidents. He 
has since resided at Idlewild, on the banks of the Hudson, and in 
1855 published ‘Out-Doors at Idlewild, consisting of sketches of 
scenes, manners, and characters, in his usual lively style. In the same 
year he published ‘ The Rag-Bag, a collection of Ephemera,’ which are 
reprints from ‘ The Home Journal.’ 

Mr. Willis’s liveliness of style, especially in his later works, lends a 
charm to the most trifling matters, and when the scenes and incidents 
are of more value renders his descriptions and narratives very attrac- 
tive. He has been blamed, and no doubt justly, for disclosing too 
much of the private habits and conversation of persons into whose 
society he has been admitted; but this fault, though perhaps not 
entirely removed from his later writings, has been certainly much 
lessened. His works have had a large circulation in Great Britain 
as well as in the United States, but their general character may be 
said to be ephemeral. 

*WILLIS, REV. ROBERT, M.A,, F.R.S., F.G.S., one of the founders 
and ornaments of the present school of science in the University of 
Cambridge, was born in London in the year 1800, and received his 
superior education in Caius College, where he graduated as B.A. in 
1826, and gained a fellowship, which he subsequently vacated. He 
early became a fellow of the Cambridge Philosophical Society (in the 
business and offices of which he has always taken a principal share), 
and was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society on the 22nd of April 
1830. On the decease of Professor the Rev. W. Farish in 1837 Mr. 
Willis was appointed Jacksonian Professor of Natural and Experi- 
mental Philosophy in his university. 

Professor Willis has devoted himself to a remarkable combination 
of select departments in applied natural philosophy mathematically 
treated :—acoustics and the physics of oral language; the philosophy 
of mechanism and machinery; and the mathematical and mechanical 


philosophy of ancient architecture, together with its ae both as 
B 


739 WILLIS, REV. ROBERT. 


WILLIS, THOMAS. 740 


to construction and decoration, especially of the peculiar style (from 
which it seems impossible now 'to disappropriate the in every way 
incorrect appellation of Gothic) that was brought to so high a degree 
of perfection in the ecclesiastical edifices of this country. On account 
of his eminence in the science of construction, he has been made an 
honorary member of the Institution of Civil Engineers and of the 
Royal Institute of British Architects. 

He communicated papers to the Cambridge Philosophical Socicby 
in 1828 and 1829 on the vowel sounds, and on reed organ-pipes, 
extending and greatly improving the experimental researches of 
Kratgenstein and Kempelen; and on the mechanism of the Jarynx. 
These were inserted in vols. iii. and iv. of the society's ‘ Transactions,’ 
and one of the subjects treated in the former paper was afterwards 
analytically investigated by Mr. Hopkins in a paper in vol. v. 

In 1831 he produced an acoustic machine called a Lyophone, by 
which he showed that the sound given by such instruments as the syren 
of Cagniard de la Tour and the earlier similar instrument of Robison 
is caused, not by the periodical interruption of the current of air, but 
by the close recurrence of small noises. Being an original member of 
the British Association for the Advancement of Science, he was 
requested by the Committee of Mathematical and Physical Science, of 
which also he was a member, to prepare a Report on the state of our 
knowledge concerning the phenomena of sound, and the additions 


which had been recently made toit. Of this subject he accordingly. 


delivered an oral account, illustrated by diagrams and experiments, at 
the second meeting of the Association (Oxford 1832), but the printed 
report has not appeared, much to the regret of all who are interested 
in the science of sound. ; 

Having directed his mind to the philosophy of architecture, in 
1832-33 Mr. Willis made a rapid tour through France, Italy, and part 
of Germany, during which two things particularly attracted his atten- 
tion—the undeserved neglect with which the Italian Gothic had been 
treated, and the influence of locality upon each style of the middle 
age architecture. It also appeared to him, from an examination of 
buildings belonging to the period of the introduction of the pointed 
arch, that it was only one of a great number of new forms then intro- 
duced into architecture; and further, that the balance of evidence 
was in favour of the Saracenic origin of these forms, all of which 
were used by the Saracens, and some of which, on their first employ- 
ment by European architects, were worked in the Arabian manner, 
But he found reason to agree with Professor Whewell, that the 
pointed arch is but one among a vast number of peculiarities which, 
taken altogether, make up the pointed style; and he endeavours, in 
the work embodying these observations (‘Remarks on the Architecture 
of the Middle Ages, especially of Italy,’ Cambr., 1835), to push this 
argument still further, by showing that the peculiarities alluded to 
were in all probability the invention of different countries and ages, 
and that they were combined in various ways together before they 
finally arranged themselves (by the insensible operation of these suc- 
cessive combinations upon the minds of the architects, we presume) 
ni ary happy order which produced what he terms ‘the Complete 

othie.’ 

In 1836 Mr. Willis explained to the Cambridge Philosophical Society 
his views respecting the composition of the entablature of Grecian 
buildings as distinguished from that feature in the architecture of 

Egypt. . 

' The lectures on mechanism which he delivered for the first time 
to the University of Cambridge on succeeding to the Jacksonian chair 
in 1837 were based upon a separation of the principles of motion and 
force new to British science, but which, after having been indicated by 
Leupold and Monge in distant succession, had been philosophically 
developed by Ampére in 1834, and was subsequently adopted in this 
country by Professor Whewell. Professor Willis, in his ‘ Principles of 
Mechanism,’ designed for the use of students in the universities, and 
for engineering students generally, published in 1841, pursues this 
separation into its practical consequences. By a further refinement in 
discrimination however in this work, instead of considering a machine 
to be an instrument by means of which we may change the direction 
and velocity of a given motion, as had hitherto been done, he has 
treated it as an instrument by means of which we may produce any 
relations of motion between two pieces of mechanism. In the preface 
he intimates the intention of completing his plan of a general work 
on the science of machinery by applying the considerations of force 
(in the present volume separated from those of motion), to the combi- 
nations of which machinery consists, as well as by describing and 
investigating those parts of machinery in the action of which forces 
are essential. This design has not yet been accomplished, partly in 
consequence, very probably, of the publication of Professor Whewell’s 
‘Mechanics of Engineering,’ in which he has adopted Professor 
Willis’s views upon the classification of the modes in which motion is 
communicated from one piece to another of a machine, adding to 
them the investigation of the effects of foree and resistance; thus 
carrying out a portion of the plan necessary to complete this arrange- 
ment of the science of machinery. In the year 1887 also he exhibited 
and explained his Tabuloscriptive engine, the object of which is to 
transfer to paper any numerical series of magnitudes, so aa to exhibit 
the curve obtained by making those magnitudes a series of ordinates, 
agreeably to the method which has proved so fruitful in the applica- 


tion of analysis to physics, and led to so wide an extension of graphical 
methods of exhibiting the results. In the same year Professor 

read a paper on the important subject of the Teeth of Wheels, to the 
appropriate sectional meeting of the British Association ; and to the 
corresponding section at the meeting of the following year he 
explained the Odontograph, an instrument he designed for enabling 


workmen to find at once the centres from which the two portions of 


the tooth are to be struck, so that the teeth may work truly together. 
The investigation of the proper curves to be given to the teeth of 
wheels had been a favourite occupation with mathematicians of the 
highest eminence. The geometry of the subject might in fact be con- 


sidered to be very nearly complete; but its application to the require- 


ments of modern construction appeared to Professor Willis to be 
susceptible of improvement. In these communications accordingly, 
and in a paper published, also in 1838, in the ‘ Transactions of the 
Institution of Civil Engineers,’ vol. ii, in which the contents of both 
were embodied, he points out forms possessing properties more general 
than those which had hitherto been adopted for teeth, as well as some 
practical methods of tracing readily their outlines, deseri and 
figuring the Odontograph. He incorporated the entire contents of 
this paper into his subsequent work on the ‘ Principles of Mechanism,” 
already noticed, adding to them several original investigations relating 
to the proportions of the teeth and their least number. 

Professor Willis is also the author of the following works and 
memoirs :—‘ On the pressure produced on a flat plate when opposed 
to a stream of air issuing from an orifice in a plane surface, Trans. 
Cambr. Phil. Soe., vol. iii.; ‘On the construction of the Vaults of the 
Middle Ages,’ and ‘On the characteristic interpenetrations of the Flam- 
boyant Style,’ Trans. of the Royal Institute of British Architects, 
vol, i., part 2, 1842; ‘A Description of the Sextry-Barn at Ely, lately 


demolished,’ 1843, in the publications of the Cambridge Antiquarian — 


Society; ‘Architectural Nomenclature of the Middle Ages, publi- 


cations of the Cambridge Antiquarian Society, No. ix., 1844; ‘The 


Architectural History of Canterbury Cathedral,’ Lond., 1845, on which 
a ‘Critical Dissertation’ was published by Mr. Charles Sandys in the 
following year; ‘ The Architectural History of Winchester Cathedral,’ 
1845, and that of ‘ York Cathedral,’ 1846, in the Proceedings of the 
Achzeological Institute for those years respectively. All these had 
been orally delivered at the meetings of the Institute, and illustrated 
in the edifices themselves. ‘On the Conventual Buildings attached 
to the Cathedral at Canterbury,’ and ‘ Description of the Ancient Plan 
{preserved in the library] of the Monastery of St. Gall, in the Ninth 


Century, both in the ‘Archeological Journal,’ vols. iv. and y., in the at 


latter of which appears a paper by Mr. Edward Smirke, F.S.A., on a 
passage relating to an important part of the history of St. Stephen's 
church, Bristol, in Professor Willis’s ‘ Architectural Nomenclature ;” 
‘An Architectural History of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, 
added to the second edition of Williams's ‘ Holy City,’ Lond., 1849. 
The oral expositions of special subjects in the branches of science 
to which he has devoted himself, given by Professor Willis to the 
Cambridge Philosophical Society, to the members of the Royal Insti- 


tution at their Friday evening meetings, to those of the Royal Institute 


of British Architects, and at the meetings of the Archeological Insti- 
tute, uniting theoretical science of a high order with accurate technical 
and historical knowledge, have always proved most acceptable to his 
audiences, especially perhaps those relating to portions of the progress 
of architecture and to the architectural history of particular edifices, 
which he has illustrated by pictorial dissected models showing the 
successive stages of construction of the buildings described. Many of 
the plates illustrating his works have been engraved from his own 


drawings, and those accompanying his memoir on vaults exemplifya 


method he has proposed of indicating to the eye the relative positions 


as to relief of the elements of their structure applicable to other 


architectural and engineering subjects. We may trace in his methods 
of investigation and illustration the influence of those adopted by his 
predecessor Professor Farish in his lectures, especially of his system 


of the first principles of machinery, and of the isometrical perspective — 


which he adapted to its graphical representation. 

At Cambridge Professor Willis lectures on mechanics, statics, and 
dynamics, with their practical application to manufactures and the 
steam-engine, and similar subjects. When the late Sir Henry T. 
De La Beche constituted the Metropolitan School of Science applied to 
Mining and the Arts, in its present form, he induced Professor Willis 


to accept the lectureship on Applied Mechanics. In this capacity he — 


gives an extended course of lectures annually, with examinations, 
imparting to the students those principles of mechanical science which 
it has formed the business of his life to mature. 


WILLIS, THOMAS, was born at Great Bedwia in Wiltshire, on the — 


27th of January, 1621. He received his early education at the school 


of Mr, Sylvester, in the parish of All Saints, Oxford, and in 1636 he — 
was admitted a member of Christ Church. He took his degree of — 


B.A, in 1639, and that of M.A. in 1642. The civil war having broken 
out, Willis took up arms in defence of Charles. He does not appear 


however to have been actively engaged, and he turned his attention to 


medicine, and took his degree of B.M. in 1646. He then commenced 


practice in Oxford, and, as was the custom of medical men in his day, — 


regularly attended at Abingdon market. He lived in a house opposite 
Merton College, and being attached to the worship of the episcopal 


Eee a a 


EE ee re dO Ee ee) ee ee 


fi Se ae 


“jn the cineritious matter of the brain. 


741 WILLMORE, JAMES TIBBITS. 


WILLOUGHBY, SIR HUGH. 742 


church of England, he opened a room in his house for the performance 
of divine service according to the ritual of that church, His loyalty 
and attachment to episcopacy were not unrewarded at the Restoration : 
he was appointed Sedleian professor of natural philosophy in the 
university in 1660. He soon after received the degree of M.D, In 
1659 he published his first work, entitled ‘ Diatribe Dus; prior agit 
de Fermentatione, de Febribus altera; his accessit Dissertatio Epis- 
tolica de Urinis,’ the Hague, 12mo, 1659. In this work he shows 
himself to be one of the chemical physicians of his day, and a follower 
of the doctrines of Sylvius de la Boe, Mixed up with a good deal of 
sound observation, the most absurd views with regard to the action of 
medicine and the causes of the phenomena of disease are to be found 
in this volume. He was much more successful as an anatomist, and 
in 1664 published his great work on the anatomy of the brain, ‘ Cerebri 
Anatome; cui accessit nervorum descriptio et usus,’ London, 4to. In 
this work he gave a new method of dissecting the brain, and a much 
more accurate account of its anatomy than had been previously done. 
This book contains the germs of those modern views of the physiology 
of the brain which are adopted by phrenologists. Willis referred the 
faculty of common sense to the corpus striatum; the imagination he 
supposed had a locality in the corpus callosum, and memory its seat 
The cerebellum he believed 


controlled involuntary motion. However much these views may differ 


- from those of modern physiologists, the idea of the brain being a con- 


geries of organs is distinctly recognised. Whilst at Oxford Willis was 
a member of a philosophical society which is said to have led to the 
foundation of the Royal Society of London, of which bedy he was 
elected one of the earliest fellows. Atthe solicitation of Sheldon, who 
was then bishop of London, Willis determined to commence practice 
in London, and came here in 1666, shortly after the great fire, and was 
immediately appointed physician in ordinary to the king. In 1667 he 
publisbed a work on the pathology of the brain and nervous system, 
* Pathologize Cerebri et Nervosi:Generis Specimina,’ Oxford, 4to, This 
work, in which he gave an explanation of the phenomena presented 
in conyulsive diseases, hysteria, and hypochondriasis, was bitterly 
attacked by Highmore, who maintained that the seat of those diseases 
was in the heart, stomach, lungs, and liver, and not in the nervous 
system. ‘To the attack of Highmore, Willis replied in a work entitled 
‘ Adfectionum que dicuntur Hysteric et Hypochondriace, Patholo- 
gia Spasmodica vindicata,’ &c., London, 8vo, 1670. 

About the time of the publication of this last work, he lost his first 
wife, who was a daughter of Dean Fell. This event afflicted him 
much, and as a relief to his mind he composed his work on the souls 
of brutes, entitled ‘De Anima Brutorum, que Hominis vitalis ac 
sensitiva est,’ Oxford, 4t0, 1672. In this work he maintains that the 
soul of brutes is like the vital principle in man, that it is corporeal in 
its nature, and perishes with the body, This work, though written 
for consolation, brought him much trouble. Although it was dedi- 
cated to the Archbishop of Canterbury, his orthodoxy, a matter that 
Willis regarded much, was called in question. These disputes greatly 
affected him, and he sought relief for his anxiety in a second marriage. 


_ He began to publish another work, which he never finished, entitled 


‘ Pharmaceutica Rationalis,’ of which the first part was published at 
Oxford in 1673, and the second in 1675. This work, like his first, was 


_ an attempt to explain all the phenomena of disease on the principles 


of the chemical philosophy. His Latin style is neat and elegant, All 
his works abound in hypothesis, but they contain a great amount of 
sound observation, which renders them well worth perusal. Most of 
his works have gone through numerous editions, and the whole of 
them, with the title‘ Opera Omnia Willisii,’ haye been published 
several times in this country and on the continent, but they have long 
fallen into comparative neglect. 

Willis died of pleuritis, on the 11th of November 1675. He was 
remarkable for his piety, and procured a service to be performed in 
the church in St. Martin’s-lane, every morning early, in order that he 
might attend before he visited his patients. At his death he left a 
bequest of 20/.a year for the continuation of this service. He also 
appropriated all his Sunday fees to charitable purposes. He dis- 
covered the mineral-spring at Astrop near Berkeley in Northampton- 
shire, and made it very famous, till the people of the place offending 
the well-known Dr. Ratcliffe, made him declare that he would put ‘a toad 
in their well,’ which he did by decrying its virtues wherever he went, 
There are two English works said to be written by Willis, which were 
published after his death : the one ‘A plain and Easie Method for pre- 
serving (by God’s Blessing) those that are well from the Infection of 
the Plague, written in 1666; and another, a collection of receipts 
selected from Dr, Willis’s medical works. 

* WILLMORKH, JAMES TIBBITS, Associate Engraver in the Royal 
Academy, was born in London, in September 1800. His teacher in 
engraving is said to have been a Mr. Burke, but he has formed a style 
for himself, which very happily renders the peculiarities of our English 
landscape painters, He has a fine feeling for colour and chiaroscuro, 
and renders the nicer gradations of atmospheric effect in a very 
admirable manner. Hence he is particularly successful in engraving 
from the paintings and drawings of Turner, from whose works his best 
plates have been produced. His chief prints after Turner are, ‘The 
Old Temeraire,’ ‘Mercury and Argus,’ ‘Ancient Italy,’ ‘The Golden 
Bough,’ ‘The Dogana,’ and ‘ Bellini’s picture conveyed to the Church 


of the Redentore, Venice,’ for the Art Union 1858: he has besides 
engraved many of the plates in the ‘ Rivers of France,’ &c. His other 
more important engravings are ‘Byron’s Dream,’ after Eastlake; 
‘Tilbury Fort, ‘The Rhine,’ and ‘Powis Castle,’ after Calcott; ‘ Wind 
against Tide,’ and an ‘Italian Town,’ after Stanfield; and ‘ Crossing 
the Bridge,’ and‘ A Harvest Party,’ after Landseer; besides others 
after Chalon, Leitch, &c, Mr. Willmore was elected into the Royal 
Academy as associate engraver in 1843. 

WILLOCK, WILLOCKS, or WILLOX, JOHN, one of the earliest 
champions of the Reformation in Scotland, is supposed to have been 
born in Ayrshire, about the beginning of the 16th century, and to 
have studied at the University of Glasgow. In his earlier years he 
was a friar, but whether Franciscan or Dominican is not clearly ascer- 
tained, Hevisited England in 1541, having before that time become 
a convert to the opinions of the Reformers, and he was there subjected 
to imprisonment, as a mitigation apparently of a severer punishment 
attending a breach of the six articles of Henry VIII. He became 
afterwards chaplain to the Duke of Suffolk, and on the accession of 
Mary he fled to Friesland. He was there patronised by the Duchess 
Anne, who employed him in several missions to Scotland. About the 
year 1558 he returned to reside in his native country, and preached 
the doctrines of the Reformation in the town of Ayr. He dis- 
tinguished himself as a controversialist, and carried on a debate with 
the principal champions of Catholicism in Scotland. In 1559 he was 
cited, along with other reformers, to answer for the opinions promul- 
gated by him, and was outlawed for not appearing, a circumstance 
attributed with apparent justice to breach of faith on the part of 
Mary, the Queen Regent. . He now rose in popularity ; large masses 
of people flocked to his ministrations; and as the head of a party he 
became sufficiently powerful to cause the rejection of a proposal by 
the humbled Regent, that the Romish as well as the Protestant service 
might be placed at the option of the people, He was one of the four 
ministers appointed to assist the council of government on the depo- 
sition of the Regent. In 1561 he was appointed one of the ‘super- 
intendants’ who succeeded to some of the duties of the Catholic 
bishops. He spent a great part of the remainder of his life in Eng- 
land, but was moderator of several General Assemblies in Scotland 
from 1563 to 1568. The time of his death is not known. (Wodrow, 
ge Collections printed for the Maitland Club, pp. 99-116, 

53, ; 

WILLOUGHBY, SIR HUGH. The history of this unfortunate 
voyager is very obscure. A portrait is shown at Wollaton Hall in 
Nottinghamshire (an ancient seat of the Willoughbys of Risby in 
Derbyshire) as that of Sir Hugh. Collins conjectures that “Sir 
Hugh Willoughby, Knt., of Risby in Derbyshire, grandson of Sir 
Henry Willoughby, who died in 1528, by his son William, who died 
before his father, was the voyager.” If this conjecture be correct, 
Sir Hugh was the son of William, by his wife Helena, daughter and 
co-heiress of Sir John Egerton, of Wrine Hall in the county of 
Chester, and had himself a son Henry (created a baronet by James I. 
in June 1611), by his wife Johanna, daughter of Sir Nicholas 
Strelly, Knt, 

Clement Adams, in his narrative of Chancellor’s yoyage, mentions 
Sir Hugh in these terms:—“ To which office and place [commander 
of the expedition fitted out by the merchants adventurers in 1553], 
although many men (and some of them void of experience) offered 
themselves, yet one Sir Hugh Willoughbie, a most valiant gentleman 
and well born, very earnestly requested to have that care and com- 
mand committed unto him; of whom before all others, both by 
reason of his goodly personage (for he was of a tall stature) as also 
for his singular skill in the services of war, the company of merchants 
made greatest account; so that at the last they concluded, and made 
choice of him for the governor of this voyage, and appointed to him 
the admira], with authority and command over 4ll the rest.” This 
appointment was confirmed in a licence to discover strange countries 
from the King Edward VI., of which a manuscript copy is contained 
in a volume (Faustina, C., ii.) of the Cotton collection in the British 
Museum. 

The only narrative of this voyage that we have been able to discover 
is that contained in the first volume of Hakluyt, purporting to be the 
journal of Sir Hugh Willoughby himself, and incidental notices in 
Clement Adams’s account of Chancellor’s adventures, and in the 
voyages of Burrough and Jenkinson in 1756, in the same collection. 
Among the Cotton manuscripts already alluded to (Otho, E., viii.) 
there is a list of the three ships fitted out for the expedition, and of 
the names and offices of all persons embarked in them; and a journal 
of the voyage from the 10th of May to the end of September 1553. 
It has been much injured by fire, but enough remains to show that it 
corresponds exactly with what is printed in Hakluyt’s work. It 
appears to bein the hand-writing of Michael Lok. Purchas (vol. iii., p. 
463) mentions “a will of Gabriel Willoughby, his kinsman, subscribed 
by Sir Hugh, which will I now have, and keep asa relic of that worthy 
discoverer.” 

The expedition of which Sir Hugh Willoughby was appointed com- 
mander was fitted out by “the mystery and company of merchants 
adventurers for the discovery of regions, dominions, islands, and 
places unknown,” whose governor was Sebastian Cabot. It consisted 
of three vessels :—the Bona Speranza, of 120 tons, commanded by Sir 


WILLOUGHBY, SIR HUGH. 


743 


WILLUGHBY, FRANCIS, 744 


Hugh Willoughby, ‘admiral of the fleet, captain, with a master and 
mate, and 36 seamen; the Edward Bonaventura, Richard Chancellor, 
pilot-major of the fleet, captain, of 160 tons, with a master and mate, 
minister, surgeon, and 50 seamen; and the Bona Confidentia, of 90 
tons, under a master and mate, with 22 seamen, The vessels were 
victualled for fifteen months. Six merchants embarked in the admiral’s 
ship, nine in the pilot-major’s, and three in the third vessel. The 
entire direction of the adventure was vested in a council of twelve. 
The council consisted of the admiral and pilot-major, the master of 
the three vessels, the minister, three merchants, and the three masters’ 
mates, 

The expedition sailed from Deptford on the 10th of May 1553, but 
was detained in the river and off the coast by baffling winds till the 
23rd June. It fell in with the Norwegian coast some way south of 
the Rost Islands, on the 14th of July. On the 30th of July, while 
bearing up for Wardhus, east of the North Cape, and the most easterly 
station of the Danes in Finmark, the vessels were separated by a 
storm. Next day the Bona Speranza and the Bona Confidentia once 
more joined company, but Chancellor’s vessel did not again fall in 
with them. Clement Adams’s account of their separation, derived 
from some mariners of the Edward Bonaventura, is as follows :— 
“The very same day in the afternoon, about four of the clock, so great 
a tempest suddenly arose, and the seas were so outrageous, that the 
ships could not keep their intended course, but some were perforce 
driven one way and some another, to their great peril and hazard. 
The general with his loudest voice cried out to Richard Chancellor, 
and earnestly requested him, not to go farfrom him; but he neither 
could nor would keep company with him if he sailed still so fast, 
for the admiral was of better sail than his ship. But the said admiral 
(I know not by what means) bearing all his sails, was carried away 
with so great force and swiftness, that not long after he was quite out 
of sight; and the third ship also, with the same storm and like rage, 
was dispersed and lost us. The ship-boat of the admiral (striking 
against the ship) was overwhelmed in the sight and view of the 
mariners of the Bonaventura; and as for them that are already 
returned and arrived, they know nothing of the rest of the ships 
what has become of them.” The narrative in the diary attributed 
to Sir Hugh Willoughby corresponds with this account in all 
essentials. 

It appears from the journal just referred to, that the Bona Speranza 
and Bona Confidentia were tossed about in the North Sea from the 
30th of July to the 18th of September, vainly attempting to make 
Wardhus. On that day they entered a harbour which we learn from 
Jenkinson was the mouth of the river Arzina, six days’ sail east of 
Wardhus, and one day’s sail west of the Swiatoi Nos, the western 
headland of the White Sea. ‘This haven,” says the journal, “runneth 
into the main about two leagues, and is in breadth half a league, 
wherein are very many séal-fishes and other great fishes ; and upon 
the main we saw bears, great deer, foxes, with divers strange beasts, as 
ellans and such others, which were to us unknown and also wonderful. 
There remaining in this haven the space of a sevennight, seeing the 
year far spent, and also very evil weather, as frost, snow, and hail, as 
though it had been in the depth of winter, we thought it best to 
winter there. Wherefore we sent out three men south-south-west to 
search if they could find people, who went three days’ journey, but 
could find none, After that we sent other three westward four days’ 
journey, which also returned without finding any people. Then sent 
we three men south-east three days’ journey, who in like sort returned 
' without finding of people or any similitude of habitation.” ‘They 
entered ‘the harbour of death’ (as it is called in the margin of the 

Cotton manuscript, Otho, E., viii., p. 15) on the 18th of September: 
they remained a week before resolving to winter there; and they sent 
out three exploring parties, two of which appear to have been at least 
six and one eight days absent. This brings us to the latter part of 
October. The date of Gabriel Willoughby’s will, which Purchas says 
was in his possession, shows that some of the party must have been 
alive in January 1554. Nothing more is known of their fate. In 
1557 Stephen Burrough was despatched from Colmogro to search for 
the Bona Speranza, the Bona Confidentia, and the Philip and Mary, 
another vessel belonging to the merchants adventurers, which was also 
missing. At Kegor he learned from a Drontheim skipper that the 
Philip and Mary had returned to England, and that the Bona Confi- 
dentia was lost, and that he had bought her sails for his ship. Of 
the fate of the Bona Speranza he does not appear to have obtained 
any intelligence. Anthony Jenkinson, in his account of his voyage to 
Russia, written apparently between January and April 1558, speaks 
with certainty of Sir Hugh Willoughby having perished with all his 
company. Purchas mentions that the Bona Speranza was discovered 
in the spring of 1554 by Russians, who found all the crew dead. We 
are left to infer from these vague statements that the journal of the 
_ Voyage published by Hakluyt, and the will which came into Purchas’s 
possession, were obtained from the Russians, The pilot-major, Richard 

Chancellor, to whom we owe the earliest English accounts of Russia, 

reached Colmogro on the Dwina in safety ; but his ship was wrecked on 

his return in Pitsligo Bay (Scotland), on the 10th of November 1556, 

and himself, along with several of his seamen, drowned. Of the three 
vessels which composed the expedition to which England owed the 
commencement of its trade to Archangel, not one returned to this 


country, and of their crews only a few of the common seamen of the 
Edward Bonaventura. 

(Hakluyt, vol. i. (edition of 1599); Purchas, Pilgrimage, vol. iii. ; 
MSS. in the Cottonian Collection, British Museum, Otho, E., viii., 23, 
c.; Faustina, C., ii., 27, £.) 


* WILLS, WILLIAM HENRY. There is a rule of a well-known — 


society that no one shall be considered as a man of letters who has 
not written a book. The limitation of authorship belongs to another 
period; for a great deal of the best writing of the present day appears 
in newspapers and other periodical works, and is, for the most 

anonymous. Mr, Wills, though one of the most industrious and in- 
fluential of journalists, has not written a book; and yet he is entitled 
to an honourable mention here as the representative of a most im- 
portant class. He was for several years the chief editorial labourer in 
‘Chambers’ Journal ;’ and is now in the same position in connection 
with ‘Household Words,’ Such works especially belong to our age; 
and upon their judicious conduct depend some of the best results of 
the general diffusion of a desire for amusing reading. We may 
mention as an exception to Mr. Wills’ anonymous labours, his very 
beautiful edition of ‘Sir Roger de Coverley, by the Spectator;’ the 
notes and illustrations of which favourably exhibit his taste and 
knowledge. Mr. Wills was born at Plymouth, January 13, 1810. 

WILLUGHBY, FRANCIS, was the only son of Sir Francis Wil- 
lughby, Knight, and was born in 1635. His father, who was in easy 
circumstances, paid great attention to the education of his son, who 
was so diligent in his studies that it was feared he would injure his 
health. He early acquired great knowledge both of the classics and 
mathematics, and ‘in the various branches of natural science. He was 
admitted at Trinity College, Cambridge, and took his degree of 
Bachelor of Arts in 1656, and of Master of Arts in 1659. It was here 
that he became a pupil of John Ray, and a lasting friendship was soon 
formed between the master and pupil. Willughby had a mind con- 
stituted very similarly to that of Ray, and both of them took great 
interest in the progress of natural science. Ray had at this time 
made great progress in the study of botany, and had already to 
reduce to harmony the confused facts which had been heaped together 
in that department of science, and this seems to have inspired Wil- 
lughby to do the same for zoology. The Pandects of Gessner and 
Aldrovandus had been published, but the question that occurred to 
his mind was, How much of all this is true, and how much is false ? 
To answer this question for the science of zoology as it then existed, 
he set to work. For this purpose he went to Oxford in 1660, in order 
that he might consult-the works on natural history in the libraries 
there. Shortly after the return of Willughby from Oxford, Ray 
refused to sign the Act of Uniformity, and was obliged to resign his 
Fellowship and leave Cambridge. ‘The consequence was that the two 
friends made a tour on the continent, visiting France, Spain, Italy, 
Germany, and the Low Countries, with the object of gaining all 
possible information on natural history: Ray examined plants, whilst 
Willughby attended to the animals. They returned laden with trea- 
sures, which Willughby immediately commenced working at, for the 
purpose of publishing a large work on the animal kingdom. Before 
doing this he contemplated a voyage to America, in order to add to 
his knowledge. But he died in the midst of all his labours and in the 
prime of life, on the 3rd of July 1672. He had published little, and 
thought his labours too imperfect to justify their publication, Ray 
however urged upon him, as he says in one of his works, for three 
reasons, that he should allow him to publish his works: first, the glory 
of God; secondly, the assistance of others in the same studies; and 
thirdly, the honour of their native land. Upon these grounds he per- 
mitted his works to be published, and Ray became their editor. He 
also left Ray one of his executors, and committed to him the charge of 
educating his two sons Francis and Thomas, Francis, the elder, who 
was then only four years old, died young; and Thomas subsequently 
became Lord Middleton. For this office, which Ray sacredly fulfilled, 
Willughby left him 60/. a year, which constituted the chief part of 
this great man’s income throughout his life. 

The first work edited by Ray after Willughby’s death was his 
Ornithology, with the title ‘Ornithologiz Libri Tres: in quibus Aves 
omnes hactenus cognite, in methodum naturis suis convenientem 
redacts, accurate describuntur. Descriptiones iconibus elegantissi- 
mis et vivarum avium simillimis eri incisis illustrantur. Totum 
opus recognovit, digessit, supplevit Johannes Raius,’ folio, London, 
1676. This work was translated into English by Ray, and the plates 
republished, in 1678. It contains a vast amount of original observa- 
tion, and gives a very full and exact account of the habits of the birds 
described, as well as of their diseases, and the mode of keeping them. 
There are frequently also good accounts of dissections of various birds. 
Cuvier says that all subsequent writers have followed Willughby, and 
that his observations are wonderfully correct. The English work con- 
cludes with a treatiseon Falconry. Although Ray seems to have taken 
great trouble with the plates, they are too inaccurate to be of use at 
present. But the letterpress is a perennial source of correct observa- 
tion on the habits and structure of birds. In 1686 Ray edited a 
second work on the same plan, embracing the fishes. This was pub- 
lished at London, in folio, with the title ‘Historie Piscium Libri 
Quatuor.’ The descriptions in this work are good, and Cuvier states 
that it contained many observations on the Mediterranean fishes that 


= tpn A 
Ss in 


sciences was laid at the same period in Great Britain. 


745 WILMOT, JOHN, EARL OF ROCHESTER. 


WILSON, ALEXANDER. 746 


could not be found elsewhere. In all his descriptions Willughby was 
very careful in distinguishing specific characters, and in this way he 
corrected many of the errors of preceding writers. 

Willughby and Ray were early Fellows of the Royal Society of 
London, and Willughby contributed some papers to the ‘ Philosophical 
Transactions’ before his death. T'wo of these were published in the 
‘Transactions’ for 1671; one of them ‘On a kind of Wasp called 
Icheumons,’ and another ‘On the Hatching of a kind of Bee lodged 
in old willows.’ Ray afterwards contributed many papers on insects, 
of which the substance had been prepared from Willughby’s manu- 
scripts. 

Ray, in the preface to the ‘Ornithologia,’ has left behind him a 
beautiful memorial of the estimation in which he held his friend 
in the summary he there gives of his character. He seems to 
have added to habits of excessive industry and a rare philosophical 
genius, every virtue. The infiuence of Willughby undoubtedly, under 
the direction of Ray, has been very great in every department of 
zoology, and had he lived to have laboured more, and to have 
developed the great principles of classification in zoology, which Ray 
did in botany, then might it have been said that the car oes of both 
Ray. 

WILMOT, JOHN, EARL OF ROCHESTER, was born at Dichley 
(Oxfordshire), 10th of April 1647, or, according to Burnet and Wood, 


“in 1648. He was the son of Henry, earl of Rochester, a brave royalist 


in the civil wars and a faithful adherent of Charles II. in his exile. 
He was educated in the free-school of Burford, and at Wadham College, 
Oxford, where he showed remarkable talents. At school he acquired 
an exact knowledge of Latin, and became familiar with the best 
authors of the Augustan age, in whose writings he ever afterwards 
delighted. At college he was placed under the charge of Dr. Bland- 
ford, afterwards bishop of Oxford and Worcester, but he abandoned 
himself to pleasure rather than to study, and, breaking off his course of 
reading at an early age, set off upon his travels in France and Italy. 
He returned to England in the eighteenth year of his age, and pre- 
sented himself at the gay court of Charles II., where the graces of his 
person and the liveliness of his wit and fancy made him an acceptable 
companion. He also sought opportunities of distinction in war. In 
the winter of 1665 he went to sea with the Earl of Sandwich, in the 
Revenge, commanded by Sir T. Tiddiman, and displayed great courage 
in the attack made on the Dutch fleet in the port of Bergen. In the 
following summer he again went to sea, under Sir Edward Spragge, and 
in the midst of an engagement volunteered to carry a despatch in an 
open boat, a service of great peril, which he executed with daring and 
judgment. These warlike deeds gave him a reputation for courage, 
which however he did not sustain at court. He was accused of 
sneaking away in street quarrels, and of evading duels which he had 
provoked. : 

He is said to have entered upon a court life free from habits of 
intemperance, but his convivial disposition, his extreme youth, and 
the contagious example of a profligate court soon led him into such 
excesses that, as he assured Dr. Burnet, for five years together he was 
continually drunk. His fancy was more luxuriant when inflamed by 
wine, and his companions encouraged his excesses the better to enjoy 
his wit. In the midst of drunkenness and debauchery, extravagant 
frolics and buffoonery, he occasionally found time for poetry. Its 
character naturally took the cast of his life and talents: personal 
satires, or drinking and amatory songs were the least ignoble fruits of 
his genius; licentious and obscene verse, the mere reflection of his life, 
was his ordinary recreation; and his liveliness and wit, and the grace 
and spirit of his versification, only cause us to regret the misapplication 
of his abilities. 

The services of his father and his own favour at court obtained for 
him the offices of gentleman of the bedchamber and comptroller of 
Woodstock Park. But although his convivial talents rendered him 
agreeable to the king, his satires often gave offence. On one occasion, 
while drunk, he put into the king’s hand a paper which he supposed 
to be a libel he had written upon some ladies, but which happened to 
be a satire upon King Charles himself. At another time he ventured 
so far as to scribble upon the door of the king’s bedroom the well- 
known mock epitaph— 

‘¢ Here lies our sovereign lord the king, 
Whose word no man relies on ; 
He never says a foolish thing, 

Nor ever does a wise one.” 
Among the various accomplishments of Rochester, that of mimicry 
was conspicuous. At one time he disguised himself as an Italian 
mountebank, and practised the art of medicine in Tower-street: at 
other times he dressed himself as a porter or a beggar, and in such 
characters diverted himself with low amours. 

The incessant debauchery in which his youth was spent brought on 
painful diseases and a broken constitution. And although his habits 
and the depraved society in which he lived, together with the love of 
displaying his wit on all occasions, had poisoned his mind with 
infidelity, he began to feel remorse, and to treat religion with respect. 
This change in his opinions was mainly caused by the society of 
Dr. Burnet, who had attended at the death-bed of one of Rochester's 
friends, and was otherwise slightly known to him, when he received 
an invitation to visit the earl, at that time recovering from a severe 


illness. Burnet listened to his infidel arguments, and answered them 
with earnest kindness. He explained the Scriptures in a tone of philo- 
sophy that suited the intellectual pride of Rochester, and at length 
convinced him of the truth of religion and of the necessity of repent- 
ance. Their interviews are touchingly described by Bishop Burnet 
himself, in his ‘Life and Death of John, Earl of Rochester,’ a book 
which, as Dr. Johnson truly says, “the critic ought to read for its 
Pe ea the philosopher for its arguments, and the saint for its 
piety.” 

Early in the summer of 1680 he was seized with his last sickness, 
which he felt convinced would be fatal. In the midst of the severest 
agonies of mind and body, he again sent for his fiiend Dr. Burnet, to 
whom he expressed his sincere repentance. His last days are affect- 
ingly described by the same admirable biographer, and were such as 
became a Christian. “I do verily believe,” says Dr. Burnet, “he was 
so entirely changed, that if he had recovered he would have made 
good all his resolutions.” He felt deeply the mischief he had done by 
his example and by his perverted talents; and besought Dr. Burnet to 
publish, for the good of the world, a history of his sins, his sufferings, 
and repentance. He died on the 26th of July 1680, in the thirty- 
fourth year of his age, and was buried beside his father in Spelsbury 
Church, Oxfordshire. He left behind him a son, who died in the 
following year, and three daughters. 

On his death-bed he had given strict charge that all his licentious 
and profane writings should be destroyed ; but he was scarcely dead 
before a volume of poems bearing his name was published. Many of 
the poems are said not to have been written by him; and that the 
composition as well as the frolics of others should have been attributed 
to so notorious a man, is not improbable. Among the best of the 
pieces known to be genuine may be mentioned the ‘Satire against 
Man,’ ‘An Allusion to the 10th Satire of the First Book of Horace,’ 
and ‘ Verses upon Nothing.’ 

“(Some Passages of the Life and Death of John, Earl of Rochester, by 
Gilbert Burnet, D.D., late Lord Bishop of Sarum; Burnet’s Own 
Time ; Wood's Athene Oxonienses ; Dr. Johnson’s Life of Rochester, in 
Lives of the Poets.) 

WILSON, ALEXANDER, was born at Paisley, in Scotland, July 6, 
1766. His mother died when he was ten years of age, and his father, 
embarrassed with the charge of a young family, soon married again, 
In 1779 Alexander was bound apprentice to a weaver for three years, 
on the expiration of which he worked about four years as a journeyman 
weaver, and then abandoned the loom, and spent nearly three years as 
a pedlar. From an early age he had been cultivating a talent for 
poetry which he imagined himself to possess, and in his excursions for 
the sale of his wares endeavoured to procure subscriptions for a volume 
of his poems, but without success. The volume was never published, 
but verses and single poems were published in newspapers, and sepa- 
rately. ‘The Laurel disputed,’ a poem on the respective merits of 
Ferguson and Ramsay, he recited before a literary society in Edinburgh, 
and published there in 1791. In 1792 he published anonymously his 
‘ Watty and Meg,’ which some at first ascribed to Burns, to the no 
small gratification of Wilson. His poetry however made no impression 
on his countrymen in general, and he resolved to emigrate to the 
United States of North America. 

On the 14th of July 1794, Alexander Wilson landed at Newcastle, 
in the State of Delaware, with only a few shillings in his pocket, and 
immediately proceeded to Philadelphia. He was employed for a few 
weeks by a copper-plate printer; he then resumed successively his 
former occupations of weaver and pedlar, but afterwards became a 
land-measurer, and ultimately turned schoolmaster, and pursued his 
new avocation at different places in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. 
At length, in 1802, he made a contract with the trustees of a school at 
Gray’s Ferry, on the river Schuylkill, in the township of Kingsess, 
about four miles from Philadelphia, and here he became acquainted 
with Mr. Bartram, the botanist and naturalist, whose gardens were 
always open to him, and whose conversation stimulated and improved 
the taste for natural history which his turn for observation and his 
rambling life had developed. Here too he became acquainted with 
Mr. Lawson, the engraver, who gave him instruction in drawing, pro- 
viding him with landscapes and sketches of the human figure, but with 
little promise of his becoming a draftsman, till Mr. Bartram proposed 
a trial of birds, in which he succeeded beyond the expectation of his 
friends; and from that time the ruling passion of his after-life was 
brought into play. Writing to a friend in Paisley, in June 1803, he 
says, “ Close application to the duties of my profession, which I have 
followed since November 1795, has deeply injured my constitution ; 
the more’so, that my rambling disposition was the worst calculated of 
any one’s in this world for the austere regularity of a teacher's life. I 
have had many pursuits since I left Scotland— mathematics, the 
German language, music, drawing, &c.—and I am now about to make 
a collection of our finest birds.” In October 1804, Wilson, accompa- 
nied by two friends, set out on a pedestrian journey to the Falls of 
Niagara. They reached the Falls, and satisfied their curiosity, but 
were overtaken by the snows of winter on their return. One of his 
companions remained with his friends near the Cayuga lake, the other 
availed himself of a conveyance; but Wilson walked on with his gun 
and bundle, through trackless snows and uninhabited forests, over 
mountains and along dangerous rivers, and reached home at the begin- 


747 WILSON, FLORENCE. 


WILSON, HORACE HAYMAN. 748 


ning of December, after a journey of 1257 miles, of which he walked 
47 the last day. All the time he'could spare was now devoted to the 
examination of birds, and making drawings of them in colours. In 
1806, Mr. Bradford, bookseller, of Philadelphia, being about to publish 
a new edition of Rees’s ‘Cyclopmdia,’ engaged Wilson as assistant- 
editor, Soon afterwards he explained to Bradford his views of a large 
work on American ornithology, and the bookseller undertook the 
publication, ; . ‘ 
Wilson was assiduous in attention to his duties as assistant-editor, 
while at the same time he prosecuted the great undertaking which had 
become the favourite object of his ambition with an enthusiasm which 
was characteristic of him. At length, in September 1808, the first 
yolume of the ‘ American Ornithology’ was published, From the date 
of the first arrangement a prospectus had been put in circulation, in 
which the nature and intended execution of the work were specified, 
but no adequate idea had been formed of the book which.was in pre- 
paration, and when the superb volume made its appearance, the 
American public were alike astonished and delighted. It was in folio, 
with plates carefully engraved from Wilson’s own drawings, coloured 
after nature, and with admirable Jetter-press descriptions; the price 
was 120 dollars. In the course of September 1808, Wilson journeyed 
eastward and northward, and during the winter went through the 
southern states, exhibiting his book and endeavouring to obtain sub- 


seribers. He visited in fact every town within 150 miles of the Atlan- |. 


tic coast, from the river St. Lawrence to St. Augustine in Florida, He 
received much praise, but got few subscribers. Wilson however was 
not depressed. : 

The second volume was published in 1810, and soon afterwards he 
set out for Pittsburg on a journey to New Orleans. From Pittsburg 
he descended the Ohio by himself in a skiff. He started on the 24th 
of February, and on the 17th of March moored his boat safely in Bear 
Grass Creek, at the rapids of the Ohio, after a voyage of 720 miles. 
His hands had suffered a good deal in rowing. He had made excur- 
sions from the banks of the river, as he proceeded, with his gun and 
drawing materials, in search of new species of birds, of which he made 
drawings and wrote descriptions on the spot where he shot them. He 
afterwards walked from Louisville to Lexington (73 miles), and on the 
4th of May set out from Nashville for St. Louis through the wilder- 
ness on horseback, with a loaded pistol in each pocket, a loaded fowling- 
piece belted across his shoulders, a pound of powder in his flask, and 
five pounds of shot in his belt, and some biscuits and dried beef. On 
the fourteenth day he arrived at Natchez, in Mississippi, after a journey 
through swamps and across rivers, which had nearly killed both his 
horse and himself. The other volumes of his work were brought out 
in succession, with astonishing rapidity and regularity; the number of 
his subscribers increased, and before his death included perhaps every 
royal personage in Europe. In 1812 he was elected a member of the 
American Philosophical Society. In 1813 he published the seventh 
volume. He had completed the pictorial material for the eighth and 
ninth when he was carried off by an attack of dysentery in his forty- 
eighth year. He died August 23, 1813, at Philadelphia, The eighth 
and ninth volumes were completed and published in 1814 by Mr. 
George Ord, who had been his companion in many of his exploring 
expeditions. Mr. Ord supplied the letter-press descriptions for these 
two volumes, as well as a biography of Wilson in the ninth. Three 
supplemental volumes were afterwards supplied by Charles Lucian 
Bonaparte, folio, 1825-28, 

Wilson’s pictorial representations of the birds are of great excellence. 

_ His descriptions are not only technically accurate, but exceedingly 
clear and graphic in whatever relates to their motions and characteris- 
tic habits, It is a delightful book. The mind is so much absorbed 
with the images and scenes as to be hardly conscious of the act of 
reading. Wilson was about five feet ten or eleven inches in height, 
handsome and vigorous, but rather slender. He was always distin- 
guished by the neatness of his dress and appearance. He was a man 
of the strictest honesty and the most scrupulous regard for truth; 
social, affectionate, and benevolent, but somewhat irritable under con- 
tradiction and critical objection. He was never married. : 

(Memoir of Wilson, annexed to the American Ornithology, by Alex- 
ander Wilson and-Charles Lucian Bonaparte, in Constable's Miscellany.) 

WILSON, FLORENCE, is the name generally given to an author 
who is spoken of by his contemporaries only by his Latinised desig- 
nation, Florentius Volusenus or Voluzenus. The vernacular name 
Wilson has been attributed to him solely because, being a Scotchman, 
no other common to Scotland approaches so near to that which he 
assumed, It has been supposed that he was called Wolsey, because 
he was patronised by the great cardinal, and in a vernacular letter 
which has been preserved he signs himself Voluzene. He is supposed 
to have been born near Elgin, in the county of Moray, about the 
beginning of the 16th century, and to have studied at the University 
(now King’s College) of Aberdeen. He afterwards studied at the 
University of Paris, where he became tutor to a son of Cardinal 
Wolsey’s brother. Losing this employment at the death of the 
cardinal in 1530, he was patronised by the Cardinal of Lorraine, and 
by Du Bellay, bishop of Paris. In 1534 the bishop went on an 
embassy to Rome, but Wilson, who was to accompany him, was kept 
by sickness at Avignon. Understanding that Cardinal Sadoleto 
desired a Latin scholar to teach a grammar-school at Carpentras, the 


metropolis of his diocese, he proffered his services in that capaci 
Sadoleto has left an interesting account of his interview with tl 
wandering student, and of his surprise in finding one so well versed in 
polite learning coming from so distant and obscure a country as Scot- 
land. Wilson received the appointment with an annual salary He 
seventy crowns, and entered on his duties in the year 1535. H 
earliest work, the publication of which is only known from its being — 
entered in the ‘ Bibliotheca Thuana,’ and mentioned by Gesner, was 
published at Lyon in 1535. It is called ‘Commentatio quedam 
Theologica que eadem precatio est, in Aphorismos dissecta.’ < 1543 
he published the work by which he is best known, ‘De Animi Tran- 
quillitate Dialogus.’ The scene is ]aid in a garden near Lyon, and 
three interlocutors gently debate on the subject of tranquillity of mind, 
in the manner of the dialogues of Cicero. It was republished at 
Lyon in 1637. A third edition was published at Edinburgh in 1707, 
under the superintendence of Ruddiman, and a fourth at Edint 
in 1751, edited by Principal Wishart, In 1546 Wilson formed the 
design of returning to Scotland, but he only reached Vienne in Dau- 
phiny, where he died, “quam procul & patria,” as Buchanan laments 
in some laudatory lines addressed to his memory. Dempster mentions 
among Wilson's works, ‘Philosophie <Aristotelice Synopsis,’ but, — 
unsupported, he is insufficient authority for such a work haying 
existed. w 
*WILSON, HORACE HAYMAN, Professor of Sanskrit at Oxford 
University, was born in London in the year 1786, and after receiving 
a professional education, was appointed an assistant-surgeon on the 
Bengal establishment of the East India Company. He arrived in 
India in the year 1808, and his general knowledge and versatility of — 
talent soon made him known in Calcutta Society, where his powers : 
an amateur actor, and musician, were highly appreciated. Stimul > 
by the splendid example of Sir W. Jones, he entered zealously upon 
the study of the Sanskrit language, and in 1813 he gaye to the 
world the first fruits of his studies in a translation into English — 
verse of the ‘ Megha-diita,’ or ‘Cloud-messenger,’ a short standard 
Sanskrit poem, highly esteemed by Hindu scholars. He next pub- 
lished, in 1819, a ‘ Dictionary Sanskrit and English,’ compiled with 
the help of Pundits from a great variety of Sanskrit authorities, 
These two works established his reputation as a Sanskrit scholar; 
the former was admired for its faithfulness and elegance, and the 
latter was hailed as an invaluable boon to scholars, which in due 
time greatly promoted Sanskrit learning in Europe. In 1816 he was 
elected secretary of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, and in 1819 he was 
appointed member of a commission instituted to reform and remodel 
the Sanskrit College at Benares, From this time his contributions to 
Oriental learning were constant, numerous, and diversified, In the 
* Asiatic Researches’ appeared a History of Cashmere, compiled from 
Sanskrit authorities; also an Account of the Religious Sects of the 
Hindus, which was justly deemed one of the most valuable papers 
ever published in the Researches, and which has remained to the 
present time the chief authority on the subject of which it treats. 
He now directed his attention to the Sanskrit drama, a specimen of 
which Sir W. Jones. had made known to Europe in his translation of 
‘ Sakoontalé,’ and in the years 1826-27 he published a translation in 
prose and verse of six entire dramas, with analytical descriptions and 
specimens of twenty-three other dramatic compositions, This work 
was everywhere received with the highest favour, and has been trans- 
lated into French and German. His next work was a ‘ Descriptive 
Catalogue of the Oriental MSS. collected by Colonel Mackenzie,’ to 
which he prefixed some learned dissertations on the languages and 
history of India. In 1827 he published also an ‘ Historical Account 
of the Burmese War.’ While thus laboriously engaged in literary 
pursuits, his official position as assay-master and secretary of the mint. 
at Calcutta entailed upon him highly responsible duties, and from the 
records of his office he published in 1830 a statistical work upon the 
external commerce of Bengal. After the publication of the ‘ Asiatic 


Researches’ was closed, he continued his aid to their successor, the 


‘Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal,’ in the early volumes of - 
which are some valuable contributions from his pen, To the ‘ Trans- 
actions of the Royal Asiatic Society’ he supplied an ‘ Analysis of the 
Pancha Tantra, and in Calcutta, as secretary of the Committee of 
Public Instruction, he superintended and revised the publication of 
many standard Sanskrit texts, The ‘Caleutta Quarterly Oriental 
Magazine’ also benefited largely by his constant supply of articles. 
In the year 1831, while yet in India, he became a candidate for the 
Boden Professorship of Sanskrit at Oxford, an office which had been 
lately founded by Colonel Boden, with the view of extending a know- 
ledge of the Sanskrit language in Europe, Three other candidates 
appeared, but two eventually withdrew, leaving Mr. Wilson and Dr. 
Mill, then principal of Bishop’s College, Calcutta, the only candidates, 
After a sharp contest, the former was elected by a majority of 207 
over 200, the choice undoubtedly falling upon the man who, in the 
words of the founder, possessed the most “ general and critical know- 
ledge of the Sanskrit language.” Soon after his arrival in England 
Professor Wilson succeeded the late Sir C. Wilkins as librarian at the 
India House, and Sir E. T. Colebrooke as Director of the Royal Asiatic 
Society. In 1840 he published a translation of the ‘ Vishnu Purdna,’ 
with copious notes and illustrations, which make it quite a mine of 
Hindu learning. The results deducible from the great discoveries of 


749 WILSON, JAMES. 


WILSON, PROFESSOR JOHN. 750 


ancient coins and monuments in Afghdnistdén and the Punjdb, he 
made known to the world in a quarto entitled ‘Ariana Antiqua.’ He 
next published a valuable grammar of the Sanskrit language, and 
soon after he brought out a new edition of Mill’s ‘ History of British 
India.” in which he has endeavoured, by means of notes, to correct 
many of the errors into which Mill had fallen from his prejudices 
against the Hindus, and his ignorance of their language and literature. 
Yo Mill’s work he added 3 vols., continuing the history from 1805 to 
1835. He has since compiled an extensive ‘ Polyglott Glossary of the 
Technical, Judicial, and Revenue Terms used in different parts of 


India, and is now engaged upon a translation of the ‘ Rig Veda,’ three 
_ volumes of which have already appeared. In addition to these inde- 


pendent labours he has edited several works, including a translation 
of Bopp’s ‘Comparative Grammar,’ and he has contributed a great 
variety of articles on the religion, literature, coins, inscriptions and 
antiquities of India to the journals of various learned societies, more 
especially to that of the Royal Asiatic Society. In 1834 he was elected 
F.R.S., and is now president of the Royal Asiatic Society. He has 
also been president of the Numismatic and Philological Societies, and 
has been chosen an honorary member of the chief learned societies of 


Europe. Professor Wilson married a daughter of G. I. Siddons, Esq., 


of the Bengal Civil Service, and grand-daughter of the celebrated Mrs. 


Siddons, by whom he has several children. 


* WILSON, JAMES, was born in 1805, at Hawick, in Roxburgh- 
shire, where his father was a tradesman. He was started in business 
by his father as a hatter, but was not successful; nor was he more 
successful in other attempts as a tradesman. At length, in 1839, he 
published in London a treatise on the ‘ Influences of the Corn-Laws as 
affecting all Classes of the Community, and especially the Landed 
Interests,’ 8vo.; and in 1840, ‘ Fluctuations of Currency, Commerce, 
and Manufactures, referable to the Corn-Laws, 8vo. The agitation for 
the repeal of the corn-laws commenced about this time, and in 1843 
the ‘Economist’ newspaper was established, and became a leading 
vehicle for disseminating the views and reporting the proceedings of 
the Anti-Corn-Law League. Mr. Wilson was chief editor. In 1847 
he was returned to the House of Commons as member for Westbury, 
and in 1848 was appointed Secretary to the Board of Control, a situa- 
tion which he held till the breaking up of Lord John Russell’s minis- 
try. In 1852 he was again returned for Westbury, and was appointed 
Financial Secretary to the Treasury, an office which he still continues 
to hold. In 1857 he was returned as a member of the House of 
Commons for the borough of Devonport. He advocates a reform of 
the representation, but is opposed to the ballot. He married 
in 1832. 

WILSON, JOHN, Doctor in Music, was born at Faversham in Kent, 
in the year 1594. He was first a gentleman of the Chapel-Royal to 
Charles I., and afterwards Servant in Ordinary to the same king, He 
was esteemed the best lute-player in England, and “ being a constant 
attendant on the king,” Sir John Hawkins says, “he frequently 
played to him, when the king would usually lean on his shoulder.” He 
was created doctor in music at Oxford in 1644, and in 1656 was 
elected professor of the same faculty to that university, with the 
advantage of having apartments in Balliol College, where, assisted by 
the royalists, he excited “such a love of music as in great measure 
accounts for that flourishing state in which it has long subsisted 
there,” and of which Antony Wood has, in his life of himself, given an 
interesting account. After the Restoration he entered into the service 
of Charles II., succeeding the famous Henry Laws, and died in 1673. 
He composed much sacred music, and set many of the Odes of Horace, 
as well as select passages from Ausonius, Claudian, and Petronius 
Arbiter; though few of his works are now to be met with, and of 
these the most pleasing are published in Playford’s ‘Musical Com- 
panion,’ 1667, an interesting and excellent collection of vocal part- 
music, which is become very scarce. 

WILSON, PROFESSOR JOHN, was born on the 19th of May 1785, 
at Paisley in Scotland, where his father was a wealthy manufacturer. 
He was the eldest son: one of his brothers, James, became distin- 
guished as a naturalist; one of his sisters became Mrs. Ferrier, and 
the mother of Professor Ferrier of St. Andrews; and another of his 
sisters married Sir John Macneil. At an early age, the future poet 
and essayist was sent to a school at Glenorchy in the Highlands kept 
by the Rey. Dr. Joseph McIntyre; and here he acquired his first en- 
thusiasm for Highland scenery and his love of open air exercises. At 
the age of thirteen he went to the University of Glasgow, whence, after 
five years of study, he removed in 1805 to Magdalen College, Oxford. 
At Oxford he was distinguished no less for his literary genius and 
attainments—as shown in his carrying off, among other honours, 
the Newdegate prize in 1806, for an English poem ‘On the Study of 
Greek and Roman Architecture,—than for the exuberance of his 
animal spirits, his great physical strength and beauty, and his fondness 
for athletic sports. He was the best boxer, leaper, and runner about 
the University. He graduated B.A, in 1807, and in 1810 he took the 
degree of M.A. “A fair-haired Hercules-Apollo,” says a writer, 
sketching his life at this time, “and with plenty of money enabling 
him to gratify his tastes whatever they might be, he had scarcely left 
Oxford, when he signalized his double character by purchasing, or 
having purchased for him by his father, the small, but beautiful 
estate of Elleray on Lake Windermere, where as Hercules, he might 


yacht about at his pleasure, beat the best boatman at the oar, and 
wrestle or box with the strongest dalesman, and, as Apollo, he might 
revel in the quiet beauties of the finest of English scenery, indulge 
undisturbed in poetic dreams of his own, and cultivate with due re- 
verence the society of Wordsworth.” Here, besides Wordsworth, he 
became acquainted with Coleridge, Southey, and De Quincey, the 
last of whom describes the extraordinary manliness of his character at 
this time, dashed with an eccentricity which showed itself in all kinds 
of freaks and projects—and among them that of becoming a traveller 
in Africa. It was at this time (1810) that he married an English 
lady of wealth whom he met when she was on a visit to the Lakes 
with her family, and, falling in love with her at first sight, wooed and 
won with romantic rapidity. He had by this time published some 
anonymous writings in Coleridge’s ‘Friend,’ and elsewhere; and in 
1811 he published anonymously in Edinburgh, ‘Lines sacred to the 
memory of the Rev. James Grahame,’—ie, the poet Grahame, the 
author of ‘The Sabbath.’ Though his summer head-quarters were at 
Elleray, Wilson spent part of every year in Edinburgh, and the follow- 
ing extract from a letter of Scott to Miss Joanna Baillie will show the 
impression which he had begun to make in Edinburgh: “ The author 
of the Elegy upon poor Grahame is John Wilson, a young man of 
very considerable poetical powers. He is now engaged on a poem 
called ‘The Isle of Palms,’ something in the style of Southey. He is 
an eccentric genius and has fixed himself on the banks of Windermere, 
but occasionally resides in Edinburgh, where he now is,.... He 
seems an excellent, warmhearted, and enthusiastic young man; some- 
thing too much perhaps of the latter quality places him among the list 
of originals.” The ‘Isle of Palms’ here alluded to, was published in 
1812, and gave Wilson a place among the Lake Poets. In 1815 he was 
called to the Scottish bar, at which however he never practised; and 
from that time forward Edinburgh was his accustomed place of resi- 
dence, He wrote for the ‘Edinburgh Review’ a criticism on the 4th 
canto of ‘Childe Harold’—his only contribution to that periodical, 
“His prepossessions, both political and literary, led him to attach 
himself to the little band of young Tories, with Scott as a cautious 
veteran to advise them, who were disposed to break out in rebellion 
against Jeffrey’s Whig supremacy in the northern world of letters; 
and, accordingly, when Blackwood (1817) started his magazine to 
afford an outlet for native Scottish Toryism similar to that which had 
been already provided in the ‘ Quarterly Review’ for British Toryism 
in general, Wilson was one of the first to join him. He had just then 
added to his laurels, as one of the Lakists, by the publication (1816) of 
a poem of some length, entitled ‘The City of the Plague ;’ his magni- 
ficent physique was the admiration of Edinburgh, so that, as he 
walked hurriedly along Princes-street in somewhat wild costume, and 
with his fair hair streaming from under his broad white hat, heads 
were turned to look at him; and his reputation in social circles was 
that of a young Goth of genius with powers undeveloped, which 
would one day astonish Britain.” At first Wilson was associated with 
Lockhart and others in writing for ‘ Blackwood,’ so that it was not till 
1824 or 1825, that that publication was identified with him to the full 
extent. 

The connection with Blackwood was an important event in the life 
of Wilson; and it was speedily followed (1820) by his appointment 
to the chair of Moral Philosophy in the University of Edinburgh, 
then vacant by the death of Dr. Thomas Brown. The appointment 
was made rather on the grounds of Wilson’s political opinions and his 
promising genius than on the evidence of any special works already 
produced on metaphysics or philosophy, and Sir William Hamilton, 
afterwards Wilson’s colleague, was a defeated candidate on the occa- 
sion. Scott, who used all his influence in behalf of Wilson, wrote to 
Lockhart expressing his hope that if he obtained the appointment, it 
would give him “the consistence and steadiness of character which 
are all he wants to make him the first man of the age.” The appoint- 
ment, together with his connection with Blackwood (both of which 
came at a time when some pecuniary reverses had obliged him to 
break up his little establishment at Elleray) had, at all events, the 
good effect of determining Wilson’s genius permanently to prose 
rather than to verse. He still, indeed, wrote verse in the Lakist style 
in quantity sufficient, when added to what he had already written, to 
make two octavo volumes of poetry in all in 1825; but this is no proof 
that in verse he would ever have been more than one of the minor 
Lake poets. It was in prose, and more especially as a poet in prose, 
that his genius was to display itself in its full capacity; and both the 
magazine and the lecture room gave him the necessary opportunities. 
“ He wrote,” says the author of the sketch already quoted, “tales for 
the magazine, in which, while his imagination had as free scope as it 
had in verse, his constitutional Scotticism, his shrewd observation of 
Scottish humours, his sensibility to the woes of real life, and his 
powers of eloquent description and delineation of character, had a 
still fréer and more minute range. Some of these tales, with others 
written independently, formed collectively his first professed prose- 
work, published, in 1822, under the title of ‘Lights and Shadows of 
Scottish Life’ and followed in 1823 by a one-volume novel called ‘The 
Trials of Margaret Lyndsay.’ He wrote also political articles on the 
questions of the day in which he blazed out as a Tory in a manner 
heartily satisfying to his instincts, and yet not possible had he kept 
to metre, He wrote literary criticisms, in which he advanced and 


751 WILSON, RICHARD, R.A. 


WILSON, RICHARD, R.A, 752 


expounded canons of taste, especially in poetry, deeper than those of 
Jeffrey, and vindicated against that critic and his disciples the poetic 
claims of Wordsworth and the writers associated with him. He wrote, 
either as lectures or as articles, subtle philosophical disquisitions, not 
very connected or systematic perhaps, but gleaming with brilliant 
ideas, and tinged throughout with that rich and highly-coloured mode 
of metaphysics which Coleridge was diffusing through England. 
Lastly, careless of the formality conventionally identified with the 
gown of a Scotch professor, and that the gown of a professor of 
moral philosophy, he wrote papers for the magazine in which he was 
seen relapsing ideally into his character as an untrammelled human 
being, a bruiser at country-fairs, a sportsman on Scottish hills and 
rivers, a boon-companion among bacchanalians, commenting on men 
and manners, on life and literature, from the point of view of an 
inspired king of the gypsies or from amid the uproarious conditions of 
a city orgy.’ Among these papers of riotous phantasy, the most 
famous were the series called the ‘ Noctes Ambrosianz,’ which had 
been begun in 1822 when Lockhart, as well as Wilson, was a contri- 
butor to Blackwood, but which, taken up in 1825 by Wilson for him- 
self, after Lockhart’s departure for London, were continued by him 
till 1836, when the death of the Ettrick Shepherd, their principal sup- 
posed character, naturally put an end to them. It was these § Noctes’ 
that carried the name of “ Christopher North” over the world as the 
pseudonym of Wilson. They were followed by a series called ‘ Dies 
Boreales,’ which extended from 1836 to 1846, but were less popular. 

After the death of his wife, which took place about 1840 and left 
a profound sorrow in his heart, Wilson was much less active than he 
had till then been. He still figured as Christopher, North in stray 
papers in ‘ Blackwood ;’ in 1842 he even published separately, under 
the title of ‘ Recreations of Christopher North,’ a selection of his con- 
tributions to the magazine; and still as ‘The Professor” he was one 
of the lions of Edinburgh society and the idol of successive classes of 
students “to whom he lectured his moral philosophy from the backs 
of old letters, and who cheered him till the roof rang at the end of 
every eloquent period ;” but on the whole, the best of his career was 
over. Latterly, too, ill-health reduced his once abundant vigour. He 
continued in the discharge of his professional duties till 1852-53, when 
paralysis and decay incapacitated him. A pension of 200/. a year had 
been granted to him by government. He lived fora timein retirement 
at Lasswade, near Edinburgh; and died at Edinburgh on the 8rd of 
April 1854, In the following year his nephew, Professor Ferrier, who 
is also his son-in-law, began the publication of a collected edition of 
his works. Several volumes have already appeared, including the 
‘Noctes Ambrosianz,’ and the famous ‘Essay on Burns,’ which was 
published separately long ago; and when the series of volumes is 
complete, the world will for the first time have the materials before 
them for an estimate of the genius of Wilson, both as to quantity and 
variety of production, and as to quality. It is understood that either 
Professor Ferrier, or Professor Aytoun, who is also a son-in-law of 
Wilson, will write a biography of their distinguished relative. 

WILSON, RICHARD, R.A. This great landscape-painter was born 
of a respectable family at Pinegas in Montgomeryshire, in 1718. He 
was the third son of seven children, six sons and one daughter. His 
father was a clergyman, at the time of Richard’s birth, in Mont- 
gomeryshire, but he was shortly afterwards collated to the living of 
Mold in Flintshire. Young Wilson showed very early a taste for 
drawing, and gave such promise, that his relation Sir George Wynne 
took him to London and placed him with an obscure portrait-painter 
of the name of Thomas Wright, who lived in Covent Garden. With 
this master he made great progress, but nothing is known of his 
earliest studies. He must however have attained some rank as a por- 
trait-painter, for in the year 1748 he painted a large picture of the 
Prince of Wales and his brother the Duke of York, for their tutor 
Dr. Hayter, bishop of Norwich. 

After practising some time with success as a portrait-painter in 
London, he went, in 1749, to Italy to study the great works of the 
Italian masters. He had as yet tried little if anything in landscape- 
painting; but while at Venice he paid a visit to Zuccarelli the 
landscape-painter, who happened to be from home, and Wilson, to 
pass the time until he came, made a sketch in oils of the view from 
the painter’s window. Zuccarelli thought so highly of this sketch, 
that he recommended Wilson to give up portrait and to take to land- 
scape. Another occurrence which happened to him in Rome induced 
him to follow this advice. Vernet, the celebrated French landscape- 
painter, visited him in his studio at Rome, and was so much struck 
with a landscape of Wilson’s which he saw there, that he offered to 
make an exchange with him of one of his own landscapes for it, which 
was readily assented to by Wilson. From this time he devoted him- 
self to landscape, and soon acquired so great a reputation, that he had 
many scholars even while in Rome, and Mengs offered to paint his 
portrait for a landscape. Wilson did not do as many painters have 
done, that is, copy the works of celebrated masters, but he went imme- 
diately to the source of all art, and confined his studies to nature. 
By this course he attained that bold natural yet classical style for 
which he is distinguished, avoided the acquisition of adventitious 
beauties, and escaped the mannerism which generally arises from the 
too partial study of favourite masters. 

He returned to London in 1755, after an absence of six years. In 


1760 he exhibited, in the great room at Spring Gardens, his celebrated 
picture of Niobe, which was purchased by William, duke of Cumber- 
land. This work established his reputation in England as one of the 
first landscape-painters of his time. In 1765 he exhibited in the same 
place a ‘ View of Rome from the Villa Madama,’ which was purchased 
by the then Marquis of Tavistock. He was one of the first members 
of the Royal Academy, which was founded in 1678; and at the death 
of Hayman, in 1770, he was appointed librarian in his place: this 
appointment brings a very small emolument with it, yet, small as it 
is, Wilson solicited the place; for although a few discriminating con- 
noisseurs purchased some of his best pictures, he was neglected by the 
body of picture buyers, and was in a state of comparative indigence. 
He was also, probably in part from his uncouthness of manners and 
unpliant temper, unpopular with his fellow-academicians. Reynolds 
and Wilson are said to have regarded each other with mutual dislike. 
As landscape-painters Barrett and Smith of Chichester were in much 
greater request than Wilson. The following anecdote gives a deplo- 
rable picture, if true, of Wilson’s prospects. He was, it is told, in 


the habit of taking his works round to the various brokers and selling 


his pictures for whateyer they would give him. Upon one occasion, 
when he took a painting to a picture-dealer in St. James’s parish, he 
was led up to the attic by the dealer, who, opening a door, pointed 
to a pile of landscapes against the wall, and said, “ Look ye, Dick, you 
know I wish to oblige you; but see, there’s all the stock I’ve paid you 
for these three years.” _ And it is a fact that some of these landscapes, 
for which Wilson received only a few pounds, have been since sold for 
nearly as many hundreds. . 

Wilson was generally so unfortunate in the sale of his works, tha’ 
when one met with a ready sale and more than usual attention, he 
repeated it; and he painted some subjects as many as four or even 
five times, making only very slight alterations: he painted five 
pictures of Mecenas’s Villa at Tivoli. The following are among 
his principal works :—‘ Niobe;’ ‘Phaeton;’ large view of Rome; 
‘Villa of Meecenas at Tivoli;’ large view on the river Po in Italy; 


a companion to it, called ‘Solitude;’ ‘ View on the coast of Baiw;” 


‘View on the Strada Nomentana;’ ‘Hadrian's Villa;’ several views 
near Rome; ‘Temple of Bacchus near Rome;’ ‘ View on the 
Tiber;’ ‘View of the Bridge of Rimini;’ the ‘Lake of. Nemi;’ 
‘Cicero at his Villa;’ ‘ View of Ancona;’ ‘Broken Bridge of Narni;’ 
‘Ruins on the coast of Baiz;’ ‘Temple of Venus at Baiw;’ ‘Island 
in the Gulf of Venice ;’ ‘Tomb of the Horatii and Curiatii ;’ ‘ Apollo 
and the Seasons;’ ‘Celadon and Amelia;’ ‘Meleager and Atalante ;” 
‘Ceyx and Aleyone;’ ‘Sion House from Kew Gardens;’ ‘ Tabley 
House, Cheshire ;’ ‘ View on the river Dee;’ -* Wilton House;’” ‘ View 
on the Thames;’ ‘ View at Milbank;’ ‘View of Rosamond’s Pond, 
St. James’s Park ;’ ‘View of Croome, Worcestershire ;’ ‘ View of 
Moor Park, Herts ;’ ‘the Hermitage;’ ‘ View of Dover;’ ‘ Llangollen 
Bridge, with Castle Dinas Bran ;’ ‘View near Llangollen Bridge ;’ 
‘View of Oakhampton Castle;’ ‘Carnarvon Castle ;’ ‘ Kilgarron 
Castle;’ ‘Pembroke Town and Castle ;’ ‘Snowdon ;’ ‘Cader Idris ;’ 
and the great bridge over the Taffe; besides a great many landscapes 
which have no particular designation. The figures in his landscapes 
are not all painted by himself; he occasionally availed himself of the 
assistance of Mortimer and Hayman. Many of Wilson’s works have been 
engraved ; the following engravers have executed plates after him:— 
Woollet, who has engraved nine; W.Sharpe, who executed the figures 
in the ‘ Niobe’ engraved by Samuel Smith; Pouncey; Ellis; W. Byrne; 
W. Elliott; J. Mason; P. C. Canot; E. and M. Rooker; J. Wood; J. 
Roberts; J.Gandon; J. Farringdon; W. Hodges; Middiman; Earlom; 
Cockburn; C. Turner; T. Morris; Reynolds, &c. 

Wilson changed his residence very often. He first lived in the 
Piazza, Covent Garden; then in Charlotte-street, Fitzroy-square; in 
Great Queen-street; in Lincoln’s Inn-Fields; in Foley-place, and in 
other places; but his last residence in London was a mean house 


in Tottenham-street, Tottenham-court-road, of which he had the first - 


and second floors, where he lived almost without furniture. The last 
two or three years of his life however were spent in affluence, owing 
to some property which he inherited from a brother. He retired to 
the house of his relation Mrs. C. Jones, called Colomondie: it is near 
the village of Llanverris in Denbighshire, now called Loggerheads. He 
died at the last-named place in 1782, aged sixty-nine, and was buried 
in the churchyard of Mold. The village of Llanverris is now generally 
called Loggerheads, on account of the sign of the Loggerheads which 
Wilson painted for the public-house of the village. 

There is a common report that Wilson composed his picture of 
‘ Ceyx and Alcyone’ for a pot of beer set on the remains of a Stilton 
cheese ; whereas the correct version of the story is, that it was partly 
composed from a pot of beer set on the remains of a Stilton cheese, 
which any one may perceive to be the correct version by looking at 
the composition. Wilson, like many other men of genius, has had 
many stories told of him which are not true, and are not worth con- 
tradiction. Three of Wilson’s landscapes—‘The Ruins of the Villa 
of Meecenas at Tivoli,’ a work of great force ; ‘ Landscape with figures 
representing the Destruction of Niobe’s children,’ one of his classical 
works, well known by Sir Joshua Reynolds’s criticism on it; and a 
‘Landscape with Fi form a part of the National Gallery ; and 
there are four small pictures by Wilson in the Vernon Collection : 
they are now all exhibited together at Marlborough House. 


i) 


ll eee on tte tl oi 


; 
' 
7 
; 
. 
' 
} 


—-_ -— 


— ee a 


ae 


753 WILSON, SIR ROBERT THOMAS. 


WINCKELMANN, JOHANN JOACHIM. 764 


WILSON, GENERAL, SIR ROBERT THOMAS, the son_ of 
Mr, Benjamin Wilson, a painter in Bloomsbury, was born in 1777. 
Having been educated at Westminster and Winchester, he went to 
Flanders as a volunteer in 1793, and in the following year obtained a 
commission in the 15th Dragoons; by a daring act he saved the 
Emperor of Germany from being taken prisoner at Villers en Couche. 
He subsequently served in Ireland during the rebellion of 1798, and 
also in Holland, and in 1800 succeeded to a majority in Hompesch’s 
Mounted Rifles. He also for a time held a military command in the 
South West District. Having served for a short time in the Brazils 
and at the Cape of Good Hope, he was sent on a secret mission to the 
Continent under Lord Hutchinson. In 1808 he superintended the 


-- embodiment of a regiment of Portuguese refugees, and raised and 


formed the Lusitanian Legion, He afterwards commanded a Spanish 
Brigade under Sir Arthur Wellesley, and took an active part in the 
battle of Talavera. From 1812 till 1814 he was British military cor- 


_ respondent at the head-quarters of the allied armies, and for some 


time held command of the Prussian reserve; at the head of this force 
he drove back the French to Liitzen. He incurred the displeasure of 
the military authorities by assisting in effecting the escape of Count 
Lavalette, who had been condemned to death as an accomplice of 
Napoleon. A narrative of this adventure may be found in the 
*Gentleman’s Magazine,’ vol. 86, part i. p. 625. On the funeral of 
Queen Caroline he expressed his disapproval of the course pursued by 
the government with respect to that unfortunate lady, and in con- 
sequence was dismissed from the army and deprived of the many 
foreign orders which he had won by his gallantry. He sat as member 
for Southwark, in the Liberal interest from 1818 till 1831, when he 
retired in favour of Mr. W. Brougham. Having been restored to his 
rank in the army, he became a general in 1841, and held the post of 
governor and commander-in-chief of Gibraltar from 1842 till 1849. 
He died suddenly in London, soon after his return to England, May 
the 9th, 1849. He was the author of a translation of General Reg- 
nier’s ‘Campaign in 1801 in the East and in Egypt,’ and afterwards 
of a more correct original narrative of those events, printed in 4to, 
under the title of an ‘ Historical account of the British Expedition to 
Egypt.’ His other publications were ‘An Enquiry into the Military 
Force of the British Empire’ (1804), ‘Campaigns in Poland with 
Remarks on the Russian Army’ (1811), and a ‘Sketch of the Mili- 
tary Power of Russia’ (1817), which was severely criticised at the 
time of its appearance in the ‘ Quarterly Review:’ Sir R. Wilson 
replied in an animated pamphlet; but the controversy is long since 
forgotten. 

WILSON, DR. THOMAS, a noted statesman and scholar of Queen 
Elizabeth’s time, was the son of Thomas Wilson of Stroby, in Lincoln- 
shire. He was educated at Eton and at King’s College, Cambridge, 
and afterwards became tutor to the two sons of the Duke of Suffolk. 
In 1551 he published ‘The Rule of Reason containing the Art of 
Logic ;’ and in 1553,‘ The Art of Rhetoric.’ Both works were fre- 
quently reprinted in the course of the century, and both have received 
much commendation from modern critics; the latter in particular 
being held to give the author a title to be considered as the earliest 
critical writer in the English language. Full specimens of it are given 
by Warton. On the accession of Queen Mary, Wilson found it con- 
venient to retire to the Continent. He took the degree of Doctor of 
Laws at Ferrara; but, on proceeding to Rome, was apprehended by 
the Inquisition, and is said to have been put to the torture; the 
grounds of charge being said to have been found in the works he had 
published. On the death of Pope Paul IV, (1555), the discontented 
populace of Rome broke open the prison of the Inquisition ; and 
‘Wilson was one of the prisoners who then escaped. On Elizabeth’s 
accession he returned to England, was immediately taken into the 
public service, and rose rapidly from place to place. He was at first 
master of requests, and master of St. Catherine’s Hospital, and private 
secretary to the queen: in 1576 he was sent as an envoy to the Low 
Countries; and in 1577 he was appointed one of the secretaries of 
state, and afterwards became a dean of Durham. He died in 1581. 

WILTON, JOSEPH, R.A., a successful sculptor in his day, and the 
fashionable precursor of Nollekens in English bust-making. He was 
born in London in 1722; his father was a wealthy plasterer, and when 
his son was of a sufficient age, he sent him abroad to study sculpture. 
Wilton studied at the various towns in Brabant, at Paris, and at 
Rome, where in 1750 he was presented with the Jubilee gold medal 
by Benedict XIV. He spent eight years in Italy, chiefly occupied in 
copying ancient statues. He returned to England in company with 
Cipriani, Chambers, the architect, and a clever modeller of the name 
of Capizzoldi, who assisted him in some of his works. When the Duke 
of Richmond opened a gallery for students in art, in Spring Gardens, 
he appointed Cipriani and Wilton the directors of it. Wilton was 
afterwards appointed coach-carver to the king, and he modelled the 
coronation coach of George III. Of his public works the principal 
are—the monument to General Wolfe in Westminster Abbey, of 
Admiral Holmes, of the Earl and Countess of Montrath, and of 
Stephen Hales. He made busts of Bacon, Cromwell, Newton, Swift, 
Wolfe, Chatham, and Chesterfield, besides many others, All his 
works were, like those of Roubiliac, admirably worked in the marble, 
but he showed little taste in his compositions; they were too crowded 
and too minute in accessories; and evince a total misconception of 

BOG, DIV, VOL, VL 


what constitutes a well-adapted design for sculpture. Wilton however 
made a large fortune and lived in great style. He kept almost an 
open board, and among others, Wilson, the landscape painter, and 
Baretti, the lexicographer, were often seen making their way to 
Wilton’s at dioner-time. He had a very beautiful daughter, who was 
married to Sir Robert Chambers. In the Royal Academy there is a 
bust of Wilton by Roubiliac, the present of his daughter Lady Cham- 
bers. Wilton was one of the founders of the Royal Academy. He 
died in 1803, in his eighty-first year. 

WINCKELMANN, JOHANN JOACHIM, was born at Stendal in 
Prussia, in 1717. His parents were extremely poor, and could not 
assist him in his desire to study, for which he displayed an extra- 
ordinary disposition when very young. He however laboured so 
assiduously in the free-school of his native place, that he soon rose to 
the top of it, and attracted the notice of the rector Tappert, who took 
him into his house as a companion, and when the old man grew blind 
Winckelmann was of the greatest service to him in reading to him and 
leading him. 

In 1735, in his eighteenth year, he went to Berlin and studied at 
the Kélinische Gymnasium. Daring this year he walked to Hamburg 
to attend the sale of the books of the celebrated Fabricius, and to buy 
some good editions of the ancient classics. The money for the journey 
and the purchase of the books he begged of the clergy, gentry, and 
noblemen on the road. In 1737 he returned to his native place; and 
in 1738 he entered the University of Halle, with the intention of 
studying theology. He remained two years at Halle, and found that 
the study of theology did not suit him. In 1741 he procured a 
situation as tutor in a private family at Osterburg. In 1742 he pro« 
cured a similar situation at Heimersleben, near Halberstadt, where ha 
commenced the study of general history, and is said to have read 
Bayle’s ‘ Historical Dictionary’ twice through. In 1743 he was ap- 
pointed Conrector of the school of Seehausen, a miserable situation, 
but it did not damp the courage of Winckelmann. He seldom went 
to bed; he used to sleep on a bench wrapped in a fur cloak ; devoting 
what time he could spare from four in the morning until twelve at 
night to the study of ancient literature and of history. In 1748, sick 
of this life of drudgery, he petitioned the Graf von Biinau for a 
situation in his library at Nothenitz, near Dresden. The place of 
librarian was engaged, but the count offered Winckelmann that of 
secretary of the library, with a salary of eighty dollars per annum 
(127. sterling), Winckelmann accepted this situation with pleasure, 
and remained at Nothenitz for a few years, enjoying a kind of content- 
ment, but he constantly felt that he was fitted for better things than 
making extracts from other men’s writings and for other men. His 
vicinity to Dresden, and the attractions of the great gallery there, 
induced him often to perform the journey from Néthenitz to the 
Saxon capital, where he became acquainted with artists, and he 
endeavoured to become one himself; but to apply himself practically 
to any of the arts he found it was too late, and he resolved therefore 
to devote himself to their history and theory. In his ramblings in 
the gallery he formed three valuable acquaintances—those of Ueser, 
the painter, and of the dilettanti Lippert and Hagedorn. Winckel- 
mann formed also, at Néthenitz, the acquaintance of the pope's nuncio, 
Monsignor Archinto, who, struck with the extensive learning and 
acquirements of Winckelmann, told him that if he would ¢hange his 
religion (from Protestant to Catholic) he would procure him a situation 
in the Vatican library, or at least a pension sufficient to enable him to 
prosecute his studies in Rome. This offer came upon Winckelmann 
like a dream. In 1754 however, after much hesitation, he formally 
embraced the Roman Catholic religion, and gave up his situation with 
Count Biinau. Some difficulties about the pension delayed his journey 
to Rome, but in the meantime he lodged with Oeser in Dresden, and 
prosecuted his new studies with redoubled ardour. The first fruit of 
these labours was his little work entitled ‘ Reflections upon the Imita- 
tion of the Antique’ (Gedanken ueber die Nachahmung der griechis- 
chen Kunstwerke), published in Dresden, in 1755. Of this treatise 
only fifty copies were printed, and it is nowa literary curiosity. At the 
end of 1755 the difficulties about the pension were surmounted, 
and Winckelmann left Dresden for Rome, with a pension of two 
hundred rix-dollars (45/.) granted him by the elector of Saxony for 
two years. 

He took letters with him to Mengs and to the pope’s physician 
Laurenti, through whose interest he was presented to the pope, 
Benedict XIV., and found easy access to all the literati and virtuosi of 
Rome. Mengs was his oracle in all matters of virti: he wrote in his 
house, and formed his notions of the ideal and beautiful entirely from 
the conversation of Mengs. In 1756 he published a new edition of his 
treatise upon the imitation of the antique, with two other treatises. 
In 1758 Winckelmann made a journey to Naples to examine the 
interesting remains of Herculaneum, Pompeii, and Pestum. His 
intention of writing a history of ancient art was now generally known, 
and his poverty was also known, and he received two presents of 
money after his return from Naples—one from the engraver, Wille, of 
Paris, and the other from Caspar Fiissli, a painter and bookseller at 
Ziirich, In this year he arranged the library of Cardinal Archinto, 
who gave him free apartments, but no salary. He went also in the 
same year to Florence, to make a catalogue of the cabinet of cameos, 
&c. of Baron Stosch, which detained him nine months (Seen 

c 


WINCKELMANN, JOHANN JOACHIM. 


> 
765 


WINDHAM, WILLIAM. 7568 


des Pierres gravées du feu Baron de Stosch’). Upon his return to 
Rome, the Cardinal Albani offered him the place of .his librarian and 
custos of his gallery of antiquities, with apartments free, and a 
monthly salary of ten scudi: a situation exactly suited to the taste of 
Winckelmann, and which, with his salary from Dresden, which was 
still continued, enabled him to live at ease and in comfort; for about 
thirty shillings a week and a free lodging was, in Winckelmann’s time, 
a good bachelor’s allowance at Rome. We 

In 1762 his ‘Remarks upon the Architecture of the Ancients 
(Anmerkungen tiber die Baukunst der Alten)jwas printed in Germany. 
In 1763 he received the appointment of Antiquario della Camera 
Apostolica, with a salary of about 15 scudi per month; he had also 
from the Cardinal Albani, who succeeded in 1761, after the death of 
Cardinal Passionei, to the post of librarian of the Vatican, a retaining 
salary of 50 scudi per annum, for the first vacancy in the Vatican 
library. In 1764 appeared at length, at Dresden, his ‘History of 
Ancient Art’ (Geschichte der Kunst des Alterthums). About the 
same period appeared his ‘Sendschreiben ueber die Herculanischen 
Alterthiimer, and ‘ Nachrichten von den neuesten Herculanischen 
Entdeckungen. He now became known throughout Europe, was 
elected a member of several foreign scientific and literary societies, 
and acquired many friends and some enemies, especially among dilet- 
tanti, who found some of the critical opinions and theories of Winckel- 
mann particularly obnoxious, In 1765 the King of Prussia offered 
Winckelmann, through Colonel Guichard, the superintendence of the 
library and museum of antiquities of Berlin, but as Winckelmann 
demanded a salary of 2000 dollars (300/.), double what the king offered, 
the negociations ceased. In 1766 appeared his ‘Monumenti Antichi 
Inediti,’ with 227 plates; in 1767, ‘ Anmerkungen zur Geschichte der 
Kunst,’ as a sort of supplement to his History. ' 

In 1768 he revisited Germany with the sculptor Cavaceppi, after an 
absence of twelve years, but he had no sooner passed the Alps than 
he complained of the chilling appearance of everything around him, 
and wished to return to Italy. Cavaceppi however with much diffi- 
culty persuaded him to go to Munich, where he was well received, 
and even as far as Regensburg; but Winckelmann would not go one 
step farther, and he changed his course for the road to Vienna, on his 
way back to Italy. His friend accompanied him, and they arrived on 
the 12th of May at Vienna. In Vienna the greatest attentions were 
paid to him, and several persons of distinction endeavoured to per- 
suade him to prosecute his journey to Berlin, his original destination, 
but all failed. - Winckelmann left Vienna for Trieste in the beginning 
of June: the last portion of his journey he made in company with an 
Italian scoundrel of the name of Francesco Arcangeli. This man had 
been cook to the Count Cataldo in Vienna; he perceived the simplicity 
of Winckelmann’s character; he gained his confidence, and Winckel- 
mann showed him a gold medal and other presents of value which he 
had received at the court of Vienna. At Trieste he was obliged to 
wait for a vessel to Ancona, and as he was sitting in his room at his 
inn, on the 8th of June, his travelling companion came to take leave 
of him, telling him that he was obliged to go into the Venetian state 
on business, and he requested him before he went to let him again look 
at the medal which he had received at Vienna. Winckelmann, as 
unsuspicious as a child, immediately complied, when the villain sud- 
denly attacked him with a knife; a struggle ensued, and Winckelmann 
fell pierced with-five stabs in the stomach. At this moment a child 
with whom Winckelmann had been playing knocked at the door; the 
murderer fled without his booty, but he was afterwards caught and 
executed. Winckelmann died seven hours after he had received the 
' wounds, in the fifty-first year of his age, He bequeathed his property, 
with the exception of a small sum of money, to the Cardinal Albani. 
The manuscript additions and notes he had prepared for the new 
edition of his ‘ History of the Arts of Antiquity’ were deposited in 
the Imperial Academy of the Arts at Vienna, and in 1676 a new 
. edition of the work was published there by the Academy, but it was 
so carelessly done that it created general disappointment. 

Winckelmann’s chief work is his ‘ History of Ancient Art,’ but it is 
very incomplete, as he himself was well aware; nor can it be looked 
upon as any more than what the Germans call ‘ Ideen zur Geschichte,’ 
and had he lived he would most probably have left a very different 
work, As it is however, when we consider that he had to pioneer his 
own way through an untrodden path, it is a work of great merit, 
although to him, owing to the vast store of classical learning which he 
brought to the task, it may have been a labour of comparatively easy 
accomplishment, A history of ancient art it is not; it is rather a 
critical account of the remains of ancient art, and in some parts cer- 
tainly hypercritical, and in others a mere elaboration of theories. 
Painting is little more than touched upon. The reputation of Winck- 
elmann was limited to the learned before Géthe wrote his eloquent 
dissertation upon the character of his genius and writings, which was 
published in 1805 at Tiibingen, together with his letters to Berendis, 
twenty-seven in number, and a sketch of the history of the arts of 
the 18th century, under the title of ‘Winkelmann und sein Jahr- 
hundert.’ Five collections of Winckelmann’s letters have been 
published at different periods, amounting in all to 425. 

One consequence of the writings of Winckelmann, and that a 
productive one, is, that they have led many scholars and artists to 
turn their attention to a subject before—at least for a period—com- 


paratively neglected; and the result has been several learned and 
valuable works, both French and German, upon the history and 
archeology of art, Some of Winckelmann’s views have very properly 
met with strong opponents, and may now perhaps be considered as 
exploded. In 1808 a complete edition of his works, with the exception 
of the ‘Monumenti Antichi Inediti’ and the catalogue of Baron 
Stosch’s cabinet of gems, was commenced to be published at Dresden, — 
edited by Fernow, Meyer, Schulze, and Siebelis ; it was completed in 
1820, in 8 vols. 8vo, including indexes. This edition contains a few 
short treatises which have not been mentioned in this notice, the 
biography of which has been taken from the short Life of Winckel- — 
mann prefixed to the Dresden edition of his works. 

*WINDHAM, MAJOR-GENERAL CHARLES ASH, is a native 
of the county of Norfolk, and belongs to a family of great — 
and respectability. He is son of Colonel Windham, and entered the 
army on the 30th of December 1826 as lieutenant. He became 
captain May 31, 1833; major, November 9, 1846; lieutenant-colonel, 
December 29, 1846; and colonel, June 20, 1854. He was attached 
during many years to the Coldstream Guards. During the campaign 
in the Crimea, Colonel Windham served as assistant quarter-master- 
general of the Fourth Division. When Sir George Cathcart was slain 
at the battle of Inkermann Colonel Windham was near him, and after- 
wards, being the only mounted officer unwounded, succeeded him in 
the command of the troops till the end of the action. He was aftér- 
wards appointed by General Simpson to succeed Brigadier-General 
Lockyer in the command of the second brigade of the second division. 
On the day when the Malakoff battery was captured Colonel Windham 
led the column which stormed the Redan, and he remained within the 
fortress leading and stimulating the troops. Atl ength, having sent 
three times to General Codrington for fresh troops in support, and 
finding that no assistance came, he said to Captain Crealock, “I must — 
go to the general for supports. Now, mind, let it be known, in case I 
am killed, why I went away.” He reached General Codrington, 
through a storm of balls, without having been struck; but imme- 
diately afterwards the troops retreated in confusion from the Redan. 
After the capture of Sebastopol, Colonel Windham received the 
appointment of governor of the Karabalnaia—that part of the fortress 
which the British occupied. By the Crown he had been created a 
Commander of the Bath, July 5, 1855, and was now promoted to the 
rank of major-general, ‘for his distinguished conduct in having with 
the greatest intrepidity and coolness headed the column of attack 
which assaulted the enemy’s defences on the 8th of September 1855.” 
He also received the medal and clasps. On the resignation of General 
Barnard, in November 1855, he became chief of the staff of the 
Eastern army. He has this year (1857), as stated in the public 
journals, gone out to Hindustan to enter again into active service. 

WINDHAM, WILLIAM, was born on the 8rd of May 1750, in 
Golden-square, London, and was the only son of Colonel William 
Windham, of Felbrigg in Norfolk. The Windhams had been settled 
in Norfolk ever since the 11th or the beginning of the 12th century, 
and took their name from the town of Wymondham (pronounced 
Windham), where they resided till the middle of the 15th century, 
when one of Mr. Windham’s ancestors purchased the property at 
Felbrigg. Mr. Windham lost his father when he was only eleven years 
old. He had been placed at Kton at the age of seven, and was con- 
tinued there till he was sixteen by his guardians, who were Dr, 
Dampier (then under-master at Eton and afterwards dean of Durham), 
Garrick the actor, Mr. Price of Hereford, and Dr. Stillingfleet. e 
was then sent for a year to the University of Glasgow, where he applied 
himself with great diligence to the study of mathematics, a study for 
which he retained his fondness and which he pursued with success in 
his later life. In September 1767 he was entered as a gentleman- 
commoner at University College, Oxford. He left Oxford in 1771, 
having in the meantime refused an offer from Lord Townshend, an 
intimate friend of his father’s, when appointed lord-lieutenant of | 
Ireland, to go with him to Ireland as his private secretary. At this 
period of his life so marked was the future statesman’s indifference to 
politics, that, as we are told by Mr. Amyot, his biographer, on Mr. 
Windham’s own authority, it was a standing joke of one of his contem- 
poraries, that “ Windham would never know who was prime minister.” _ 
On leaving Oxford, Mr. Windham went abroad. In 1773 he joined an — 
expedition of discovery then setting out, under the command of Com- 
modore Phipps (afterwards Lord Mulgrave), towards the North Pole. 
Illness however obliged him to land on the eoast of Norway, and to — 
forego the expedition, 

Mr. Windham’s first appearance as a public speaker, and in connec- 
tion with politics, was at a county meeting held at Norwich, on the © 
28th of January 1778, in order to set on foot a subscription in aid of 
government, for carrying on the war with the American colonies, — 
Lord Townshend having proposed, and the Hon. Henry Hobart, brother — 
of the Earl of Buckinghamshire, having seconded the opening of a 


subseription, Mr. Windham came forward strenuously to oppose it, — 
and to denounce the conduct of the American war. ‘Two years after, — 


the interval having been passed by Mr. Windham almost entirely — 
abroad, the memory of this speech led to his being put in nomination, — 
in his absence and without his knowledge, for the city of Norwich, in 
the general election of 1780. He happened to arrive at Norwich, on — 
his return from abroad to Felbrigg, being ignorant of the use which 


- which owned Lord Rockingham for its leader. 


eo 


7697 WINDHAM, WILLIAM. 


WINDHAM, WILLIAM. 753 


had been made of his name, three days before the poll commenced. 
He then entered heartily into the contest, but he was not elected ; 
though his position on the poll was, under all the circumstances, so 
satisfactory as to induce him to reserve himself for Norwich on a future 
occasion. 

In 1782 he declined an offer to allow himself to be put in nomination 
for Westminster whenever a vacancy should arise. After his return 
from abroad, and his unsuccessful contest for Norwich, he lived prin- 
cipally in London, mixing much in literary and political circles. He 
was a member of the celebrated Literary Club, of which Johnson and 
Burke were leading members. His political sympathies were with 
Burke and Fox, and generally with that section of the then opposition 
On the formation of 
the coalition-ministry in 1783, of whicli the Duke of Portland was the 
nominal head, and Fox and Lord North were the most conspicuous 
members, Mr. Windham received the appointment of chief secretary 
to the Earl of Northington, who was appointed Lord-Lieutenant of 
Ireland. Mr. Windham however resigned his office in August of the 
same year, It is stated in Hardy’s ‘Memoirs of the Earl of Charle- 


mont,’ that the reason of his resignation was a distribution of patronage 
by Lord Northington in favour of the old court party, and in oppo- 


sition to the views of Lord Charlemont and the Whigs in Ireland. 
The coalition-ministry was itself at an end before the close of the year 
1783. In March of the succeeding year Mr. Pitt dissolved parliament, 
and Mr. Windham again contested Norwich, and this time with 
success. 

Mr. Windham made his first speech in parliament on the subject of 
the Westminster scrutiny, on the 9th of February 1785. The particu- 
lar motion was, to order the high bailiff to make an immediate return: 
it was opposed by Mr. Pitt, to whom Mr. Windham replied, and he 
was followed by Mr. Fox, who congratulated the House on “the 
accession of the abilities they had witnessed.” Mr, Windham was 
appointed one of the managers of the impeachment of Warren Hastings, 
the particular charge intrusted to him being the breach of a treaty 
made with the Nabob Fyzoola Khan in 1774, after an invasion of his 
territories by the Company’s troops, and the payment by the Nabob 
of the sum of 150,000/. on ratifying the treaty. On the Regency 
questions which arose in 1788 out of the king’s illness, Mr, Windham 
took a decided and zealous part in favour of the hereditary right of 
the Prince of Wales to the Regency, and against any restrictions on 
his power. When this parliament (Mr. Windham’s first parliament) 
was dissolved in June 1790, he had already acquired a ripe political 
reputation, 

Mr, Windham was again elected for Norwich in the new parliament. 
In the division of the Whig party, which was shortly after caused by 
the events of the French Revolution, he took part with Mr. Burke, 
Lords Fitzwilliam and Spencer, and the Duke of Portland, and zealously 
supported the war with France. In 1794, the Duke of Portland, Lords 
Spencer and Fitzwilliam, and Mr. Windham joined Mr. Pitt’s cabinet, 
Mr. Windham receiving the appointment of secretary-at-war. He held 
this office until February 1801, when he resigned, together with Mr. 
Pitt, Lord Loughborough, Lord Grenville, Lord Spencer, and Mr. 
Dundas, because the king would not consent to the measures for the 
relief of the Roman Catholics in Ireland, which they considered indis- 
pensable to the success of the legislative union. During the seven 
years that Mr. Windham had been in office, he had introduced many 
useful reforms into the administration of the army. On the 10th of 
July 1798 he had married Cecilia, a daughter of Admiral Forrest, a 
very gallant and distinguished officer; and this marriage added much 
to the happiness of his life. 

Mr. Addington was placed at the head of the new administration, 
which immediately applied itself to bringing the war to a termina- 
tion, and in the autumn of 1801, during the prorogation of parlia- 
ment, arranged the preliminaries of the peace of Amiens, Mr. Wind- 
ham took a very prominent part in opposing this peace. On the 13th 
of May 1802, he moved an address to his majesty, deploring the sacri- 
fices which had been made by the treaty, and the increase of territory 
and power which it had confirmed to France; a similar address was 
moved in the House of Lords by Lord Grenville. The address was 
rejected in both Houses by overpowering majorities. Mr. Windham’s 
course with reference to this peace caused the loss of bis re-election 
for Norwich, on the dissolution of parliament in the summer of 1802. 
An attempt was made, on his being defeated at, Norwich, to bring him 
forward as a candidate for the county of Norfolk, and a subscription 
was immediately set on foot by his friends to effect this object; but 
Mr. Windham declined the offer, and, through the interest of the 
Grenville family, he was elected for the borough of St. Mawes. 

The peace of Amiens was not long-lived : after the renewal of the war 
in 1803, Mr. Addington’s administration, which had begun with general 
support in parliament and with the confidence of the country, was 
suddenly shaken materially. Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox had both advo- 
cated the peace of Amiens, and the former especially had given Mr, 
Addington effective support at the outset of his administration. But 
when the war broke out again, a general opinion prevailed that the 
ministry was incompetent to carry it on: and both Mr. Pitt and 
Mr. Fox joined, and by their influence largely increased, an opposition 
that had been before confined to the small party led by Mr. Windham 
in the House of Commons and by Lord Greville in the House of Lords, 


A series of divisions, on questions all more or less relating to the 
conduct of the war, in which the minister's majority gradually 
dwindled down to an exceedingly small one, caused Mr. Addington’s 
resignation in April 1804, Mr. Pitt was commissioned by the king to 
form a new ministry, and endeavoured to form one which should 
comprise Mr. Fox as well as Lord Grenville and Mr. Windham. But 
the king would not hear of Mr. Fox’s name: and on Mr. Pitt yielding 
to the royal objection to that statesman, Mr. Windham and Lord 
Grenville refused to join his ministry. 

Mr. Windham was now again united in opposition with his old poli- 
tical friend and the friend of his schoolboy days, Mr. Fox, against a 
ministry formed exclusively out of Mr, Pitt’s old connection. The 
death of Mr. Pitt in 1806 brought him into office, in Lord Grenville’s 
administration of the Talents, when Mr. Fox was made foreign secre- 
tary, and Mr. Windham secretary for the war and colonial depart- 
ments. He applied himself diligently, on entering office, to the con- 
sideration of the best means of increasing the military force of the 
country: and on the 3rd of April 1806, he opened his views on this 
question at great length to the House of Commons, in moving for 
leave to bring in a bill to repeal the Additional Force Act, His chief 
object was to better the condition of the soldier, and make the army a 
more inviting profession. The object of repealing the Additional 
Force Act was to remove the obstacles created by its high bounties to 
the ordinary recruiting service, Mr. Windham’s various particular 
proposals for increasing the pay and pensions of officers and soldiers, 
and for shortening the time of service, were carried into effect by 
large majorities. Mr. Windham’s period of office ended on the 25th 
of March 1807, when the administration of the Talents came to an 
end, owing to a disagreement with the king on the subject of a pro- 
posal to give the Roman Catholics privileges in the army. Mr. Wind- 
ham had shortly before declined an offer of a peerage, and at the 
general election in the preceding autumn had been returned for the 
county of Norfolk, but having been petitioned against, and having lost 
his seat for that county on petition, had taken his seat for the borough 
of New Romney, for which place he had also been elected. 

The new ministry again dissolved parliament; and, by the interest 
of Lord Fitzwilliam, Mr. Windham was now chosen for Higham- 
Ferrars. In the session of 1808 Mr. Windham strongly denounced the 
expedition against Copenhagen, and, in the subsequent session, the 
ill-fated Walcheren expedition. On the resignation of Lord Castlereagh 
and Mr. Canning, after the failure of the Walcheren expedition, and 
on the consequent offer of Mr. Perceval to Lords Grey and Grenville, 
which they ultimately declined, there was a prospect of Mr. Wind- 
ham’s return to office, which he contemplated with no pleasure. He 
thought his health scarcely equal to the labour, and he feared that he 
should not be allowed to carry out the measures which he thought 
the state of the army absolutely required. He wrote, “I feel but 
little stomach to return to office, unless I can have carte-blanche as to 
my military plans; and even then the whole is so be-tlevilled, that 
there is no restoring things to their original state.” His health had 
much to do with this disinclination for official life. He had been for 
some time past a constant sufferer from rheumatic complaints, In 
May 1810, he found himself afflicted with a large tumour in the hip, 
which, having been neglected till then, caused him much alarm, and 
ultimately brought on his death. In July of the preceding year he 
had, on his return home one evening, seen a house on fire in Conduit- 
street, dangerously near to that of his friend Mr. Frederick North, who 
was at the time abroad, and whose valuable library was thus threatened 
with immediate destruction, and had given most zealous assistance in 
carrying away Mr. North’s books, succeeding in saving about four- 
fifths of them before the house was consumed. During his exertions 
he fell and hurt himself in the hip; and this was the origin of the 
tumour. In May 1810, it was found necessary that he should undergo 
an operation for the extraction of the tumour. The operation was 
performed on the 17th of that month; at first everything went on 
well, but symptomatic fever afterwards came on, and he then grew 
daily worse, until the 3rd of June, on which day he died. 

Mr. Windham has left behind him a reputation not so brilliant as 
those of his contemporaries, Pitt, Fox, and Burke, yet one which is 
generally associated with theirs, and not unworthy of the association. 
His was a refined and highly cultivated mind, and if his eloquence had 
not the power or force to make it, as Mr, Canning justly said, “the 
most commanding” they had ever heard in the house, it was “the 
most insinuating.” His political life was marked throughout by a high 
sense of honour; and if his opinions may in some respects have erred, 
on the side of moderation, as for instance on the subject of Parlia- 
mentary Reform, which, first and last, he opposed, he had always the 
courage to avow opinions which placed him in opposition to those 
with whom he usually acted, and exposed him to popular disappro- 
bation, He was an accomplished scholar and mathematician. Dr. 
Johnson, writing of a visit which Windham paid him, says, “Such 
conversation I shall not have again till I come back to the regions of 
literature, and there Windham is ‘inter stellas luna minores.”” Ina 
word, Mr. Windham has been described, and the description has been 
generally adopted as appropriate, as a model of the true English 
gentleman. ; , 

His speeches have been collected and published in 3 vols. 8vo, with 
a Life prefixed, by Mr. Thomas Amyot, who was for some years his 


759 WINER, GEORG BENEDICT. 


WINSLOW, JACQUES-BENIGNE. 760 


private secretary, to which we have been chiefly indebted for this 
account, 

* WINER, GEORG BENEDICT, ecclesiastical counsellor and pro- 
fessor of theology in the University of Leipzig, was born at Leipzig, 
April 13, 1789. He studied in the Nicholaischule and the university 
of that town, in the latter of which he passed his examination in 1817. 
In the following year he became professor extraordinary of theology, 
and received the degree of D.D. from the Universities of Halle and 
Rostock. His scientific studies were at first directed to the yet but 
little explored critical and exegetical examination of the oriental trans- 
lations of the Bible, and then turned his attention to an investigation 
of the exegesis of the New Testament, grounding it firmly upon a 
knowledge of the language. In his ‘ Biblische Realwérterbuch’ (Dic- 
tionary of Biblical Matters), 1820, particularly in the second and third 
editions of 1833 and 1845-47, will be found an abundant mine of acute, 
learned, and trustworthy disquisitions. In his expositions of the ‘Ad 
Galatum Epistola’ (Epistle to the Galatians), 1821, he applied G. 
Hermann’s philosophical principles to the language of the New Testa- 
ment, The other fruits of his labours in this province are ‘ Gram- 
matik des biblischen und targumischen Chaldiismus,’ 1824; ‘ Chal- 
diiischen Lesebuch,’ 1825; his preparation of Simon’s ‘ Lexicon 
manuale hebraicum,’ 1828; his excellent ‘ Grammatik des neutes- 
tamentlichen Sprachidioms,’ 1822, which has gone through several 
editions; and several of his vacation programmes, written at Erlan- 
gen, whither he was called as professor of theology in 1823, an 
account of his reputation as a teacher, and of his widely-extended 
writings. In 1824 he published his ‘Comparative Darstellung des 
Lehrbegriffs der verschiedenen christlichen Kirchenparteien, nebst 
Belegen aus ibren symbolischen Schriften’ (Comparative Statement 
of the Systems of the various Christian Church Sects, with Documents 
out of their Symbolical Writings), and in 1825 the ‘ Handbuch der 
theologischen Literatur, hauptsichlich der protestantischen Deutsch- 
lands’ (Handbook of Theological Literature, principally that of Pro- 
testant Germany); to which a supplement was issued in 1842, ‘ Die 
Literatur von 1839 bis Ende 1841.’ After having declined the pro- 
fessorship of theology in the University of Jena, he returned in 
1832 to Leipzig as professor of theology in that University, taking 
the second place. In 1843 he issued the first part of his work ‘De 
verborum et prepositionibus compositorum in Novum Testamentum 


usu. . 

WING, VINCENT, an English astronomer of the 17th century, 
enjoyed some reputation during his life; and his writings, at the time 
they were published, possessed a certain value. Neither the year of 
his birth nor of his death is known. 

He is principally distinguished by his work (in Latin) entitled 
* Astronomia Britannica,’ which was published in London in 1669. 
This is divided into five parts, of which the first is designated ‘ Logis- 
tica Astronomica ;’ the second, ‘Trigonometria ;’ the third, ‘ Doctrina 
Spherica ;’ the fourth, ‘ Theoria Planetarum ;’ and the fifth, ‘ Tabule 
Astronomics :’ to these is added a collection of astronomical obser- 
vations. His theory of the planets is founded on the systems of 
Copernicus and Kepler, for he supposes the orbits of the planets 
to be ellipses, and the sun to be placed in a common focus; but, 
like Bullialdus and Dr. Seth Ward, he considers the other focus of 
each orbit to be the centre of the planet’s mean or uniform motion. 

The transit of Venus, which had been observed by Horrox and 
Crabtree in 1639, indicated that the sun’s parallax did not exceed a 
few seconds, but the evidence which it afforded was not, by some 
. astronomers, at that time considered conclusive; and Wing, who 
supposed that the parallax was equal to one minute (more than seven 
times as great as it is in reality), endeavoured to account, from the 
effects of refraction, for the smallness of that which was obtained 
from the observation alluded to, The astronomical observations in 
the work consist of several longitudes of the sun at the times of the 
equinox, transits of Mercury over the sun, and eclipses of the sun 
and moon, ancient and modern: among those of the sun there is 
mentioned one which was observed in 1652; and it is stated that at 
the time when the eclipse should have been total, the moon was 
surrounded by a luminous crown within which it appeared to turn on 
its centre like a millstone. 

The ‘ Logistica Astronomica’ contains a table of logistic logarithms, 
with precepts for their use; and in the ‘Trigonometria’ are rather 
complicated demonstrations of the theorems for plane and spherical 
triangles. 

In the year 1651 Wing published (in English) a work entitled ‘Har- 
monicon Coeleste, or the Harmony of the Visible World, containing 
an absolute and entire piece of Astronomie.’ It is similar in its 
arrangement to the ‘Astronomia Britannica’ above mentioned, but it 
contains some subjects which are not in the latter; and among these 
may be cited his refutation of the ancient opinion that the planets 
are attached to solid and transparent spheres. He objects to the 
opinion on the ground that if it were just the comets could not pass 
without impediment from one part of the solar system to another, 
and that the spheres would produce great refractions in the light 
which is transmitted to the earth from the fixed stars. The work 
contains a table of the logarithms of the ten thousand first numbers, 
and aiso of the sines and tangents of angles for every minute of the 
quadrant. He appears to have criticised the ‘ Astronomia Carolina,’ 


which was published. by Street in 1661, for the latter replied in 1667 
to his animadversions in a work containing, as appears in the title, ‘a 
castigation of the envy and ignorance of Vincent Wing;’ the points 
in dispute between the two astronomers are however in the present 
age quite destitute of interest. 
Wing was the author of a series of Ephemerides for thirteen years, 
viz. from 1659 to 1671 inclusive; and he published annually for the 


Stationers’ Company a book and a sheet almanac, the latter of which — 


is still continued under his name, 


WINGATE, EDMUND, a younger son of Roger Wingate, a landed ; 


proprietor in Yorkshire and Bedfordshire, was born in Yorkshire in 
1593, entered of Queen’s College, Oxford, in 1610, from whence, after 
his degree, he removed to Gray’s Inn. Here he mixed mathematical 
studies with his legal ones, and became well known in the former 
sciences. In 1724 he removed to France, where he spent some years, 


and seems to have been about the court: he taught English to the - 


Princess Henrietta Maria and her ladies. By the time the troubles. 
broke out he had inherited some property in Bedfordshire; he took 
the Covenant, was justice of peace, recorder of Bedford, and held 
other offices. In 1650, or thereabouts, he took the oath called the 
Engagement, became known to the Protector, and served in parliament 
for the county of Bedford: he was also one of the commissioners in 
that county for the detection.and ejection of those ministers and 
schoolmasters who were called loyal by one party and ignorant and 
scandalous by the other, 
December 13, 1656. : 

Wingate’s writings have generally only the initials E. W., with the 
description ‘of Gray’s Inn’ sometimes appended. Hence several 
works which have only initials have been attributed to him: thus 
Wood makes him the author of Wyberd’s ‘ Tactometria.’ There are 
several legal writings, of no note whatever, by ‘E. W. of Gray’s Inn,’ 
who is supposed to be Wingate. f 

It has been said that Wingate was the first who carried logarithms 
into France, which is not correct ; and some of those who have amended 
the error state it was the sliding-rule which he took there, which is 
equally incorrect. He did, in 1624, introduce into that country 
Gunter’s scale, in his ‘ Construction, Description, et Usage de la Régle 
de Proportion,’ Paris, 1624, dedicated to the Duke of Anjou. He did 
intend to publish a table of logarithms, to which the preceding was 
to have been an appendix, and he obtained the ‘ privilége du roi’ for 
both works in one, dated November 4, 1624. But an advocate of 
Dijon, to whom he had communicated the account of Gunter’s rule, 
broke confidence, and either published or was going to publish an 
account of it; whereupon Wingate altered his first intention, published 


the account of the scale in 1624, as above noticed, and followed at — 
leisure with the ‘ Arithmétique Logarithmetique,’ Paris, 1626, which _ 
last work is, by an easily explicable mistake, often set down as of 1624. 


Besides the English tables of 1632 and 16385 attributed to Wingate, he 
published on the same subject ‘ Ludus Mathematicus,’ London, 1654, 


a kind of logarithmic game; also a translation of his earlier French — 


work, ‘ The Use of the Rule of Proportion,’ London, 1645; also a trans- 


lation (probably) of the descriptive part of his second French work, — 


‘ Construction and Use of the Logarithmeticall Tables,’ London, 1635. 

The work by which Wingate is best known is his ‘ Arithmetic,’ of 
which the first edition (according to Wood) was in 1630. Of this 
work Kersey published an edition during Wingate’s lifetime, at his 
request : the sixth edition of the works, which is also Kersey’s, was in 
1673. Shelley published another edition in 1720, and Dodson another 
in 1760. Wood attributes to Wingate a work on surveying: we sus- 
pect he is here confounded with Wing. 

WINRAM, JOHN, an ecelesiastic, whose name occurs very frequently 
in connection with the history of the Reformation in Scotland, but 
whose real influence in the struggle was not so great as to entitle him 
to more than a brief notice. He took the degree of B.A. at St. 
Andrews in 1515. In 1536 he was subprior of the monastery of St. 
Andrews. His first public appearance was at the trial of George 
Wishart [WisHart] where he preached before the judges, a singular 
duty for one who is said to have embraced the doctrines of the Refor- 
mation, and as singularly performed by his preaching, as appropriate 
to a trial for heresy, from the parable of the wheat and the tares, “ Let 
both grow together until the harvest.” He continued ostensibly to 


hold office in the Roman Catholic Church, till the parliament of — 


1560, where, though sitting as prior of Portmoak, he appears to have 


voted for the ‘Confession of Faith’ which was then passed. On the — 


establishment of the new polity in 1561, he was appointed superin- 
tendent of the eastern districts. His influence in the new church was 
very considerable, but it appears to have been merely that of a dex- 
terous intriguer, who knew when and how to the best effect to remove 
his support from a party who could not sufficiently reward his services, 
Knox, while accepting his aid, seems always to have distrusted him. 
He died on 28th September 1582. 

WINSLOW, JACQUES-BENIGNE, was born at Odensee, a town 


in Denmark, in the island of Fiinen, on the 9th of April 1669: his — 


father was a Lutheran minister in the parish of Odensee. Winslow 
was destined for the church, and early commenced his studies in 
Lutheran theology. He however changed his mind and took to the 


study of medicine, and obtained a pension from the king of Denmark — 
for the purpose of enabling him to study in the principal universities 


He was buried at St. Andrew’s in Holborn, | 


—— 


dered himself favourably known by his exertions. 


- afterwards an associate. 


761 WINSTON, THOMAS. 


WINTER, PETER VON. 762 


of Europe. He first went to Holland, where he studied for some 
time, and in 1698 he arrived in Paris. Here he became a pupil of the 
celebrated Duverney, who encouraged his taste for the study of ana- 
tomy. He pursued his medical studies without any other interruption 
than an occasional discussion on the subject of religion with a young 
Dane. Winslow for the sake of argument assumed the principles of 
Romanism, and, to render himself more skilled, purchased Bossuet’s 
‘Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church.’ This work led him 
seriously to question his own principles as a Protestant, and as a con- 
sequence he had recourse to Bossuet, who was then bishop of Meaux, 
to solve his difficulties. This happened at a time when Louis XIV. 
was doing all that he could to bring back the Protestants into the 
bosom of the Church; Bossuet left no argument unused, and the 
young student of anatomy was induced publicly to recant and enter 
the Roman church. This appears to have been an act of conviction 
on the part of Wiaslew; if he expected to derive any advantage from 
it in Paris, he forfeited all in Denmark, and from thenceforth was 
expatriated. The Bishop of Meaux however became his patron, and 
he accordingly proceeded to take his degree from the Faculty of 
Medicine in Paris, which he did in 1705, not however until after the 
death of his benefactor, who died. in 1704. He had by this time ren- 
In 1707 he was 
admitted a student of the Royal Academy of Sciences of Paris, and 
About this time he also assisted Duverney 
in his lectures on anatomy and surgery in the Jardin du Roi. He 
himself succeeded to this position, but not till. after the death of 
Hunault, who was successor to Duverney, and which occurred in 1743, 
Eleven years previous to this, Winslow had published his great work 
on human anatomy, with the title ‘Exposition Anatomique de la 
Structure du Corps Humain,’ 4to, Paris, 1732. This work obtained 
for him at once a great reputation, and placed him among the best 
anatomists of his day, This work is not more remarkable for its 
embracing the labours of others, and the clear manner in which the 
matter is arranged, than it is for the amount of original observation 
which it contains. In the introductory chapters to the description 
of each system of organs, he gives a general view of their functions, 
and in this department of science his judicious observations did much 
to prepare for subsequent discoveries, especially with regard to the 
functions of the muscular system. The ‘ Exposition’ has often been 
republished. It was translated into English, and published in London 
as early after its publication as 1733. It was also translated into 
Latin, German, and Italian; and is the model on which most of our 
text-books on human anatomy have since been constructed. 

Some of Winslow’s biographers state that he was twice nearly buried 
alive, by falling into a state of only apparent death. This induced 
him to take up the subject of the signs of certain and uncertain death, 
and the result of his researches he published in 1740, in an answer to 
the question ‘An mortis incerte signa minus incerta d chirurgicis 
quim ab aliis experimentis?” This treatise was translated into 
French, and published in two volumes, 12mo, at Paris, in 1742. In 
this work the author has brought forward a number of cases of per- 


-sons buried, opened, and otherwise treated as dead, who were only 


apparently so, and arrives at the conclusion that nothing but the indi- 
cation of decomposition of the body going on is sufficient evidence of 
death. 

Tn addition to his other appointments Winslow was made expounder 
of the Teutonic languages at the Royal Library of Paris. He was an 
active member of the Royal Academy, and published several papers 
on various subjects in their Memoirs. He practised medicine in Paris, 
but was remarkable for the timidity with which he prescribed, and is 
said never to have ordered a powerful dose of medicine without 
trembling. It has often happened in the history of medicine that 
those who have studied the human frame in detail have been afraid 
to treat it as a whole, and some of the best anatomists have been 
the worst practitioners. Winslow lived to the age of ninety-one, 
having died on the 3rd of April 1760, He married in 1711, and left 
behind him a son and a daughter. 

WINSTON, THOMAS, was born in 1575. He received his educa- 
tion at Clare Hall, Cambridge, of which he beeame a Fellow. He 
took his degree of Master of Arts in 1602. Having determined on 
studying medicine, he visited the Continent, and attended the lectures 
of the most celebrated men of the day. He became a pupil of 
Fabricius ab Aquapendente, also of Caspar Bauhin of Basel, and of 
Prosper Alpinus at Padua. He took his degree of Doctor of Medicine 
at Padua, and returned to London to practise his profession in 1607, 
He was then admitted a Licentiate of the College of Physicians, and 
becaine a Fellow in 1613, On the death of Dr. Mounsell, in 1615, ho 
was appointed professor of anatomy at Gresham College. It was here 
he delivered those lectures on anatomy which after his death were 
published, and were for a long time considered the best text-book for 
students of anatomy. He obtained permission from the House of 
Lords to leave the country during the troubles of 1642, and returned 
after an absence of ten years. He died on the 24th of October 1655. 

WINT, PETER DE, was born at Stone, in Staffordshire, in 1784. 
He was apprenticed to Raphael Smith, the mezzotinto engraver, and 
had for a fellow pupil, Hilton, the academician, whose sister he after- 
wards married. Abandoning engraving, Mr. De Wint adopted painting 
in water-colours as his line of art; and was elected a member of the 


Society of Painters in Water-Colours, in 1810, six years after its 
foundation. For nearly forty years his pictures were among the lead- ° 
ing attractions of the annual exhibitions of that society. He painted 
almost exclusively home scenery :—Views in Kent, Lincolnshire, &c. ; 
among the lakes and mountains of Cumberland, Westmoreland, and 
Wales; on the Thames, the Wye, and other rivers; corn-fields, hay- 
fields, water-mills, and the like, being especial favourites with his 
pencil. His style was broad, bold, and vigorous, his colour fresh; 
and in general effect his pictures represented with fidelity the ordinary 
aspects of English scenery. But he was wanting in refinement, and in 
aiming at breadth of effect he was often negligent of details. His 
touch and texture were peculiar; but, allowing for an almost inevitable 
mannerism, very agreeable and effective. Avoiding all the methods 
adopted by the younger generation of water-colour painters for pro- 
ducing force and brilliancy, he to the last continued to paint according 
to the method of the founders of the English school with washes of 
transparent colours only, but what he thus lost in power and variety 
he, to some extent, made up in clearness and freshness. He died on 
the 30th of June 1849, in his sixty-sixth year. 

WINTER, JAN WILLEM VAN, was born at the Texel in 1750. 
He entered the naval service of Holland in 1762, and soon distinguished 
himself by his zeal and courage. He was still only a lieutenant in 
1787, when the Revolution broke out in Holland. He attached him- 
self to the popular party, and the adherents of the Stadtholder 
having gained the ascendancy, he was obliged to fly to France. He 
entered the French army; served with distinction under Dumourier 
and Pichegru, in the campaigns of 1792 and 1793; and was promoted 
to the rank of general of brigade. Van Winter returned to Holland in 
1795, when the republican army under Pichegru invaded that country. 
The states-general invited him to re-enter their navy, and offered him 
the rank of rear-admiral. Next year he was promoted to be vice- 
admiral, and placed in command of the Texel fleet. 

After being kept in port for a considerable time by a superior 
blockading force, he evaded its vigilance, and put to sea, intending to 
join the French armament at Brest, on the 7th of October 1797, at the 
head of twenty-seven armed vessels, fourteen of which were ships of 
the line. At nine o'clock in the morning of the 11th, he found himself 
in presence of the English fleet under Admiral Duncan, which cen- 
sisted of sixteen ships of the line and a number of smaller vessels. 
The action commenced about twelve o’clock, and continued for three 
hours anda half. The Vryheid (74 guns), Van Winter’s ship, engaged 
with three English vessels, and struck to Vice-Admiral Onslow, after 
losing all its masts and half of its crew. The Dutch lost in this 
action nine ships of the line, taken or sunk, 600 meu killed, and about 
800 wounded. The loss on the side of the victorious English was 
scarcely less severe. 

Van Winter was received in England with the respect due to a 
brave man. He was liberated by exchange in a few months, and, on 
the 11th of October, the court-martial commissioned to examine into 
his conduct declared that he had maintained the honour of the 
flag of the Batavian republic. The despatch in which Admiral 
Duncan gave an account of the action bears testimony to the obstinate 
valour with which both Van Winter and his second in command 
(Vice-Admiral Reyntjes) fought their ships :—“ The carnage on board 
the two ships which bore the admirals’ flags has been beyond all 
description.” 

He was sent in the capacity of minister-plenipotentiary to the 
French government in 1798, and retained the appointment till 1802, 
when he was recalled to take the command of the Dutch fleet. The 
only memorable event that marked his period of command was the 
termination of the differences between Holland and Tripoli by his 
management. Louis Bonaparte, when king of Holland, reposed entire 
confidence in Van Winter, whom he created Count of Huesca, marshal 
of the kingdom, and commander-in-chief both of the sea and land 
forces, Napoleon, after he incorporated Holland in the empire, 
treated him with equal favour, made him grand officer of the Legion 
of Honour and inspector-general of the shores of the North Sea. In 
July 1811, Van Winter was appointed to command the naval force 
assembled at the Texel. A severe attack of sickness forced him to 
leave the fleet for Paris, where he died on the 2nd of June 1812. He 
was buried in the Parthenon, with all the ceremonies usually observed 
at the obsequies of the great dignitaries of the empire; M. Marren 
delivered the funeral oration. 

WINTER, PETER VON, chapel-master to the king of Bavaria and 
knight of the Order of Merit, was born at Mannheim in 1755. His 
father, a brigadier in the Palatine Guards, observing his son’s genius 
for music, placed him with the court musician, Mair, from whom he 
learned the rudiments of the art. His instrument being the violin, 
he completed his studies as a performer under William Cramer (the 
father of J. B. and F. Cramer), who was first violin at the court of 
Mannheim from 1750 to 1770. With this excellent master he made 
such progress that he became a performer in the elector’s orchestra at 
the age of ten, and speedily distinguished himself on other instru- 
ments. It has been generally supposed that Winter studied compo- 
sition under the Abbé Vogler. He always denied this however, and 
in a manner which indicated a strong dislike of the abbé. He cer- 
tainly had an opportunity of acquiring information from Salieri of 
Vienna; but it is probable that he was more indebted to his own 


- 


763 WINTERHALTER, FRANZ XAVIER. 


WINTRINGHAM, CLIFTON, 764 


penetrating mind, directed to a careful examination of the scores of 
the great contemporary masters, to which he devoted much time, for 
his knowledge, than to the instruction of any individual teacher. In 
1776, when Lessing carried into effect the establishment of a German 
opera at Mannheim, Winter was chosen director of the orchestra. He 
now first attempted composition, and all his early efforts decidedly 
failed, and he destroyed them nearly as soon as they were written. In 
1780 appeared his first complete opera, ‘Helena und Paris,’ and this 
was followed by ‘ Bellerophon.’ He had brought out three ballads on 
the Vienna stage; but now Salieri, by a significant friendly hint, 
induced him to listen and study more, and to write less. We there- 


fore do not hear of his having produced anything worthy of notice: 


till 1791, when he proceeded to Italy, and at Naples composed 
‘ Antigone,’ also the ‘Fratelli Rivali,’ as well as the ‘Saerifizio di 
Crete, for Venice, From 1794 to 1796 he resided at Vienna, where 
he produced some of his most effective works, and among these ‘ Das 
Unterbrochene Opferfest’ (The Interrupted Sacrifice), the libretto, or 
text, of which was furnished by Huber. From 1796 to 1800 Prague 
was his place of residence, where he brought out ‘Il Trionfo del Bel 
Sesso,’ and ‘Maometto. He was then invited to undertake the 
direction of the opera at Munich, for which he wrote his ‘Maria von 
Montalban.’ Between the years 1803 and 1805 he was in London, and 
gave at the King’s Theatre his three finest works—‘Calypso,’ ‘Il Ratto 
di Proserpina, and ‘ Zaira,’ the chief characters in which were sus- 
tained by Mrs. Billington and Madame Grassini. Here he also brought 
forth the music of the grand ballet of ‘ Orphée,’ composed in a style 
then new to the stage, uniting the energy and vivacity of pantomimic 
music with the chastened regularity of that of the drama. From 
London he proceeded to Paris, and gave his ‘ Tamerlane’ at the Aca- 
démie Royale de Musique with great success. He there was persuaded 
to reset Quinault’s ‘Castor et Pollux,’ originally composed by Rameau. 
Gluck long before had declined this dangerous task, and Winter by 
undertaking it drew down on himself a storm from the admirers of 
the ancient master which induced him to quit France. The same 
work was afterwards performed in London without success, 

In 1814, the fiftieth year of Winter’s service at the court of Bavaria, 
the king bestowed on him the honour of knighthood. In the same 
year he produced his Battle Symphony with a chorus, in celebration of 
the general peace; but this had only patriotic motives to recommend 
it. He now retired into privacy; but in 1818 he unexpectedly 
re-appeared, and made a journey into the north of Germany, accom- 
panied by the celebrated singer Madame Vespermann, giving concerts 
in most of the principal towns; and then proceeded to Milan, where 
he directed the performance of his ‘ Maometto,’ recently retouched by 
him, into which he breathed all his youthful spirit. In addition to 
this, he, the following year, got up in the same city two other operas. 
His last work for the stage was a comic piece, ‘Der Siinger und der 
Schneider’ (The Singer and the Tailor), which long continued a 
favourite on the German lyric theatres. He however continued com- 
posing for the Church up to the very period of his decease, which 
took place at Munich in 1825, 

Winter’s muse was very prolific. His German biographer gives a 
list of nine masses and other sacred works, forty-one operas for the 
theatre, twelve for the chamber, twelve symphonies and other instru- 
mental pieces, many sets of cantatas, canzonets, together with nume- 
rous detached compositions, all of which he produced five years before 
his death ; and to them are to be added others written subsequently 
to those enumerated. His early works do not exhibit much genius; 
but as he advanced in life his mind became gradually more vigorous, 
and at length developed a power which entitles him to be ranked very 
high as a composer for the stage and for the orchestra. 

*WINTERHALTER, FRANZ XAVIER, was born in 1808, at 
St. Blasien, in Baden ; and was educated at Carlsruhe, whence he 
proceeded to Munich, where in 1823 he entered as a student the 
Academy of Art. Having passed through the usual course of study, 
and made a visit to Italy, he commenced the practice of his profession. 
Although he has painted both historical and poetic subjects, his 
pencil has been chiefly devoted to portraiture, in which he has pro- 
bably found higher and more ample patronage than any other painter 
of the day. Besides many of the German kings and princes, he had 
the good fortune to win the favour of Louis-Philippe of France, and 
Victoria of England, as well as her Consort. For some years past he 
has indeed been the favourite court painter. He has painted the 
Queen and the Prince Consort a great many times, and ho has also 
painted all the younger members of the royal family; as well as 
portraits of Wellington and Peel for her Majesty, and many other 
royal commissions. Among the higher nobility he has also of course 
found numerous patrons, Not many of his works however have come 
before the general public, Besides a few royal portraits, the only 
work of importance which we recollect to have seen publicly exhibited 
was his ‘Florinde, a somewhat opera-like rendering of the story of 
Frederick the Goth observing Florinda bathing in the Tagus, which 
appeared at the Royal Academy in 1852, At the Manchester Exhibi- 
tion his state portraits of her Majesty and the Prince Consort, con- 
tributed by the Queen, attracted some notice, but alongside the 
portraits of Titian, Rubens, Rembrandt, Vandyck, Reynolds, and 
Gainsborough, his mincing style and overwrought conventionalism, were 
brought into somewhat unfair prominence, Herr Winterhalter belongs 


te a far lower class of portrait painters than the great men we have 
named, but though his touch is feeble and his colour affected, he is 


a careful artist; finishes his work smoothly and conscientiously, . 


renders the court costume with scrupulous fidelity, colours gaily after 
the French fashion, and, if he does not succeed in imparting to his 
sitters a high degree of intellectual expression, or much force of 
character, seldom fails to depict an amiable and pleasing countenance. 
One of his best poetic pictures, ‘Il Decamerone,’ is in the collection of 
the Duke of Sutherland. Many of his royal pictures and some of his 
fancy subjects, have been engraved or lithographed. He has himself 
lithographed several works of modern German painters, and some of 
his own portraits. 

*WINTHER, CHRISTIAN, or to give his name at full length, 
RASMUS VILLADS CHRISTIAN FERDINAND WINTHER, a 
Danish poet of high reputation, was born on the 29th of July 1796, at 
the country town of Fensmark in the island of Seeland. —He lost his’ 
father, who was a clergyman, in 1808, but in his mother’s second 
husband, Rasmus Mdller, he found a second parent, and in Poul 
Martin Moller, who became her step-son by the marriage, a companion, 
who took the place of a brother. Rasmus Méller, who was afterwards 
bishop of Laaland and Falster, was a copious theological writer, his 
son, who died in 1838, became an eminent professor, and after his 
death a collection of his works was edited by Winther. 
was himself intended for a clergyman, and in 1824 passed his theolo- 
gical examination at the university of Copenhagen, which he had 
entered in 1815 as a student, but he seems to have felt no inclination 
to the calling. After spending some years as a private tutor, the 


death of an uncle in 1829 put him in possession of the means of — 


making a tour to Italy, where he passed ten months in the study of 
its language and literature. So early as when a student in 1819, he 
had ‘written a song for the students which had remarkable popularity ; 
he had afterwards inserted some lyrics in periodicals, and in 1828 had 
published his first volume of poetry, which met witha warm welcome. 
After his return from Italy, le issued occasional volumes of poems, 


which fixed his place as one of the first lyric poets of Denmark, and — 


an annual pension of a thousand rix-dollars was assigned him by the 
Diet in 1853. The king had previously in recompence for his services 
in instructing the present Queen of Denmark in Danish, granted him 
the title of Professor. The last we believe of his numerous volumes 
of lyrics is that intitled ‘ Nye Digtninger,’ ‘ New Poems’ in 1853. He 
is also the author of several short novels which are in as high estima- 
tion as his poems, have run through several ‘editions, and ha 
translated intoGerman. For some time he was editor of the ‘ Danske 
Kunstblad,’ or ‘ Danish Art-Journal,’ and he has also published  Five- 
and-twenty Fables,’ and other books for children, a translation of 
‘Reynard the Fox,’ &c., &c. Like many other Danish poets he has 
also composed in German, but his ‘ Judith, a fragment of a large poem” 
in that language (1837) has hitherto remained a fragment during the 
lapse of twenty years. The most successful efforts of Winther are 
his poetical sketches, entitled ‘Tresnit, ‘ Wood-cuts, which are 
admirable for their sharpness and truth to nature. = 

WINTRINGHAM, CLIFTON, father and son. The elder Win- 
tringham practised as a surgeon at York, and published several works 
which have obtained for him a reputation both as a physician and 
physiologist. His first work was on gout, and was published at 
York, with the title ‘Tractatus de Podagra, in quo de ultimis et 
liquidis et succo nutritio tractatur,’ 8vo, 1714. In this work there are 
evident indications of his belonging to the mechanical school. He 
attributed gout to several causes, such as the acrimonious viscosity of 
the nervous liquid, the rigidity of the muscles, and a contraction of 
the diameter of the vessels near the joints. In 1718 he published ‘A 
Treatise on Endemic Diseases.’ This work consists of an analysis of 
the causes producing endemic diseases, and attributes them variously 
to a change of temperature, to prevailing winds, to the nature of the 
soil, to the influence of water and food, and particular climates, In 
1729 he published a commentary on the epidemic diseases of York 
and its neighbourhood, with the title ‘Commentarium nosologicum 
morbos Epidemicos et aéris variationes in urbe Eboracensi, locisque 
vicinis, ab anno 1715 ad anni 1725 finem grassantes complectens, 8vo, 
London. This work is an admirable description of the diseases on which 
it treats. A second edition was published by the younger Wintringham 
in 1783. In1740 he published in London ‘ An Experimental Enquiry 
on some Parts of the Animal Structure,’ 8vo. These inquiries were 
principally directed to the vascular system and the functions of the 
eye. In 1743 he published a second physiological work, entitled ‘An 
Enquiry into the Exility of the Vessels of the Human Body,’ 8vo. In 
this work he has attempted to apply mathematical formule to the 
solution of physiological problems. But as the data upon which all 
the subsequent reasoning is based were mere assumptions, he came to 
no results of any importance; but these works, independent of their 
speculations, contain much accurate observation and valuable research, 
These works are often erroneously attributed to his son, and this 
error pervades most of the continental biographies, The elder Win- 
tringham was a Fellow of the Royal Society, and died at York, on the 
12th of March 1748. 

WINTRINGHAM, CLIFton, the Younger, was born at York in 1710, 
and was educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, and took his degree 
of Doctor of Medicine in that university in 1749. He afterwards 


The poet . 


been 


a aan 


i 
~~ 


765 WINWOOD, SIR RALPH. 


WISEMAN, CARDINAL NICHOLAS. 766 


became a Fellow of the College of Physicians; and settled in London. 
In the same year he was appointed physician to the Duke of Cumber- 
land, and in 1762 was made physician to George III., by whom he was 
knighted. In 1759 he was made physician extraordinary, and subse- 
quently was appointed physician-general to the army. He was created 
a baronet in 1774, but the title has become extinct. He had a large 
practice, and was much respected both in public and private life. In 
1782 he published some essays on various departments of medicine, 
under the title ‘De Morbis quibusdam Commentarii,’ 2 vols. 8vo. He 
also published an edition of his father’s works, and edited Mead’s 


_ *Monita et Pracepta Medica,’ to which he added numerous annota- 


tions. There is a small marble bust of Aisculapius, which was found 
near Rome, in Trinity College, Cambridge, which was the bequest of 
Sir Clifton Wintringham. He died at Hammersmith on the 9th of 
January 1794. ; ; 

WINWOOD, SIR RALPH, Ky*., was born at Aynho, or Ayno-on- 
the-Hill, a village in the north-western corner of Northamptonshire, 
about the year 1564, His father, whose name was Richard, was the 
son of Lewis Winwood, who was at one time secretary to Charles 
Brandon, duke of Suffolk. Winwood was educated at Oxford, where 
he was first admitted of St. John’s College, but was in 1582 elected 


| cyprgrnerigmeda of Magdalen. He took his degree of B.A. in Novem- 


er of that year; that of M.A. in June 1587 ; and that of LL.B. in 


- February 1590. In April 1592, he was chosen proctor of the uni- 


versity. He then spent some years in foreign travel, After his 
return home, Sir Henry Neville being, in 1599, sent as ambassador to 
France, Winwood was appointed his secretary; and he was ultimately 
left for some time, during Sir Henry’s absence, as resident at Paris, 
From this post he was recalled in January 1603, and was the same 
year sent on a mission by James I. to the States of Holland. He was 
knighted June 28th, 1607, and in August following he and Sir Richard 
Spence were together appointed ambassadors to Holland. In August 
1609, he was once more sent as envoy to that country; and two years 
after he distinguished himself by the zeal with which he acted in the 
affair of the Arminian divine, Conrad Vorstius, whose appointment as 
professor of divinity at Leyden so enraged the English king, that he 
threatened to separate himself from the alliance with the States unless 
they deposed and banished the heretical doctor. Vorstius in fact was 
in the end obliged to resign his professorship, and to leave the country. 
When Winwood was recalled from Holland does not appear; but on 
the 20th of March 1614, he was made secretary of state; and he con- 
—— in that post till his death at London, on the 27th of October 
1617. 

The name of Sir Ralph Winwood has been preserved in our litera- 
ture by a valuable historical collection, which was published at 
London in 1725, in 8 vols. folio, under the following title :—‘ Memorials 
of Affairs of State in the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King James L, 
collected chiefly from the original papers of the Right Honourable Sir 
Ralph Winwood, Knt., sometime one of the Principal Secretaries of 
State; comprehending likewise the negociations of Sir Henry Neville, 
Sir Charles Cornwallis, Sir Dudley Carleton, Sir Thomas, Edmonds, 
Mr. Trumbuli, Mr. Cottington, and others at the Courts of France and 
Spain, and in Holland, Venice, &c. Wherein the principal transactions 
of those times are faithfully related, and the policies and intrigues of 
those Courts at large discovered. The whole digested in an exact 
series of time. By Edmund Sawyer, of Lincoln’s-Inn, Esq., and one of 
the Masters in Chancery.’ 

WINZET, or WINGET, NINIAN, a Scottish ecclesiastic, is sup- 
posed to have been born in Renfrewshire in 1518, and to have been 
educated at the University of Glasgow. In 1551 he was master of 
the grammar-school of Linlithgow, and soon afterwards, while he con- 
tinued in that situation, he entered into holy orders. In 1561, on the 
establishment of the ecclesiastical polity of the Reformation, he was 
cited before the Superintendent of the Lothians, to answer for his 
religious opinions, when, adhering to the doctrine of the Roman 
Catholic Church, he was deposed from his office. In the following 
year he published ‘Certane Tractatis for Reformation of Doctryne and 
Maneris, set furth at the desire and in ye name of ye afflicted Catho- 
likis, of inferiour ordour of Clergie, and Layit Men in Scotland.” The 
object of this work was one which few attempted in those days of 
fierce controversy—an internal reform in the Roman Catholic Church, 
as distinct from its severance from the Papal authority. At a later 
period in the same year, and after Knox had addressed against him some 
controversial arguments from the pulpit, he attempted to publish a 
work called ‘The Last Blast of the Trumpet of Gode’s Worde against 
the usurpit auctoritie of Johne Knox, and his Caluiniane brether, 
intrudit Precheouris,’ &c., but the Protestants had not made sufficient 
progress in religious toleration to leave a free press at the disposal of 
their adversaries, and the copies of the work were seized in the 
printing-office. Winzet himself made a narrow escape, and the printer 
was imprisoned. The only fragment of this work which has survived 
to the present day is a copy of the first five leaves, preserved in the 
University Library of Edinburgh. Winzet now thought it prudent to 
take refuge in Flanders, and in 1563 he published at Antwerp ‘The 
Buke of four scoir thre Questions, touching Doctrine, Ordour, and 
Maneris.’ This is a controversial tract, in which, though complaining 
of the usage he had received from the reformers “ for denying only to 
subscrive yair phantasie and factioun of faith,” there is an air of gentle- 


ness which seems to have been peculiar to the disposition of the 
author, and is not characteristic of the controversial writings of the 
times. Winzet affected to adhere to the older style of the Scottish 
language. He says to Knox, “ Gif ze, throw curiositie of novationis, 
hes forzet our auld plane Scottis, quhilk zour mother lerit zou, in 
tymes cuming I sall wryte to you my mynd in Latin;” yet Winzet's 
own style shows nearly as great a divergence from the Scottish of a 
century earlier as that of Knox, though the latter made a nearer 
approach to the English of the 16th century. In 1576 Winzet was 
appointed abbot of the Scottish monastery of St. James’s, at Ratisbon. 
In 1582 he published ‘ Flagellum Sectariorum,’ another controversial 
work, to which he appended an attack on the ‘De Jure Regni apud 
Scotos’ of Buchanan, which is one of the earliest works in which the 
spirit of free inquiry then in operation as to religion was extended to 
politics. Winzet died on the 21st of September 1592. (Irving, Lives 
of Scottish Writers, i. 98-101 ; Memoir prefixed to Collection of Winzet’e 
vernacular Works, printed for the Maitland Club.) 

WISE, MICHAEL, one of the most justly admired of our Church 
composers, was born in Wiltshire, and was among the first set of 
children of the Chapel-Royal at the Restoration. He was chosen as 
organist and master of the choristers in the cathedral of Salisbury in 
1668, Seven years later he received the appointment of Gentleman of 
the Chapel-Royal; and in 1686 he added to his other offices that of 
almoner of St. Paul’s Cathedral, including the mastership of the 
choristers, He was a great favourite of Charles Il.; but it is said 
that, presuming too much on the notice of royalty, he incurred the 
king’s displeasure, and was for some time suspended from his situation 
at court. He was a man, says Sir John Hawkins, of much pleasantry, 
and this, added to his high musical talents, may have recommended 
him to the favour of the ‘merry monarch.’ His end was tragical; for 
quitting his house at night in a state of great irritation, he was stopped 
by the watchman, with whom he entered into a quarrel, and was killed 
in the affray. 

The compositions of Wise are among the glories of our cathedral 
music, He added melody to science, and in setting sacred words 
evinced as much judgment as genius. His anthems, ‘Awake up, my 
Glory, ‘Prepare ye the way of the Lord,’ and ‘The ways of Zion do 
mourn,’ have lost none of their charms by use or age, and are still 
listened to with admiration by all who hear them and whose feelings 
are attuned to church music of the most elegant and expressive kind. 

*WISEMAN, CARDINAL NICHOLAS, the son of a merchant of 
Waterford and Seville, was born at Seville on the 2nd of August 1802. 
His father’s family long held large landed property, in the county of 
Essex, and still retain the baronetey conferred on his ancestors by 
King Charles I. His mother was one of the ancient family of Strange, 
of Aylward’s Town, county Kilkenny, and died in 1851, after having 
seen her son invested with his present dignity. Having received his 
early education at Waterford and at St. Cuthbert’s College, Ushaw, 
near Durham, he became one of the first members of the English 
College at Rome in December 1818, and was created D.D, in 1824. In 
1825 he was ordained, and became successively professor of Oriental 
languages, and vice-rector of the English College, and in 1829 rector. 
He had already composed and printed his learned work, ‘Hore 
Syriace’ from Oriental manuscripts in the Vatican. Returning to 
England in 1835, he gained much reputation as a preacher by a series 
of ‘ Lectures on the Doctrines and Practices of the Catholic Church,’ 
delivered at the Sardinian Chapel, and afterwards published in 2 vols. 
12mo. They were followed by his ‘Treatise on the Holy Eucharist,’ 
which occasioned a learned controversy with Dr. Turton, now Bishop 
of Ely, and his ‘Lectures on the Connection between Science and 
Revealed Religion,’ which at once established his name as a theologian 
and a man of scientific acquirements. In 1840, on the increase of 
the Roman Catholic Vicars Apostolic from four to eight, Dr. Wise- 
man was appointed Coadjutor to the late Bishop Walsh of the Midland 
District (with the title of Bishop of Melipotamus in partibus), and at 
the same time president of St. Mary’s College, Oscott. In 1848 he 
became Pro-Vicar Apostolic of the London District, to which he 
eventually succeeded in the following year on the death of Bishop 
Walsh. In August 1850, Bishop Wiseman was summoned to Rome, 
where in the following month, he was nominated by the Pope ‘ Arch- 
bishop of Westminster. This, which was called by the Roman 
Catholics the restoration of the hierarchy in England, led as is well 
known, to a great deal of angry feeling in this country, and the papal 
assumption was met by the passing of the Act (14 and 15 Vict. cap. 
60) ‘to prevent the assumption of certain Ecclesiastical Titles in 
respect of places in the United Kingdom,’ by which the use of such 
titles was made penal. ‘The archbishop’s territorial dignity has 
remained therefore in all respects an unsubstantial figment. At the 
same time that he was created archbishop he was invested with the 
dignity of a Cardinal Priest, taking his title from the ancient Churclt 
of St. Prudentia. He is the seventh Englishman elevated to that 
rank since the Reformation. Cardinal Wiseman was one of the 
founders, and has long been joint-editor of, and a frequent contributor 
to, the ‘Dublin Review,’ in which first appeared his ‘High Church 
Claims.’ These and his other writings, which include ‘Lectures on 
the Offices and Ceremonies of Holy Week,’ ‘ Letters on Catholic Unity,’ 
a ‘Letter to the Rev. J. H. Newman on Tract, No. 90,’ and other 
pamphlets, were republished in a collected form in 8 vols. 8vo, in 


767 WISEMAN, RICHARD. 


WISTAR, CASPAR. 76s 


. 


1853. Cardinal Wiseman has frequently lectured since that time 
before the literary societies of the Metropolis, and on behalf of 
public institutions, on various subjects connected with education, 
history, science, art, and literature. 

WISEMAN, RICHARD, lived in the 17th century; he became first 
known as a surgeon during the civil wars of Charles I., and was the 
companion of Prince Charles when a fugitive in France, Holland, and 
Belgium. He was afterwards a surgeon in the Spanish navy for three 
years, and returning to England, he was present at the battle of 
Worcester, where he was made prisoner. He was liberated in 1652, 
and then took up his residence in London. At the Restoration, 
Charles did not forget his old companion, and he was made sergeant- 
surgeon to the king. He was an observant judicious surgeon, and his 
publications on various diseases were read by the profession with 
much avidity. In 1676 he collected his various treatises into one 
volume, and published them with the title, ‘Several Surgical Treatises 
on Tumours, Ulcers, Diseases of the Anus, Scrofula, Wounds, Gun- 
shot-wounds, Fractures and Luxations, and Syphilis,’ 2 vols. 8vo. 
This work is remarkable for the honesty of the writer, in which, with 
a single eye to the advancement of medical science, he records every- 
thing that occurred, whether successful or unsuccessful, in the treat- 
ment of his cases. He suffered in early life for his attachment to 
royalty, and he will perhaps be excused on this ground, if his feelings 
are considered, for having advocated the efficacy of the royal touch in 
cases of scrofula. His works have always been considered valuable 
contributions to surgical knowledge, and the two volumes in which 
they are contained have gone through several editions. 

WISHART,*GEORGE, called ‘the Martyr,’ a champion of the 
Reformation in Scotland, is supposed to have been a son of James 
Wishart of Pittarrow, justice-clerk during the reign of James V. The 
time of his birth is not known. At the beginning of the 16th century 
he was master of a grammar-school at Montrose, where he introduced 
the study of Greek. Whether he ever took orders is a point undeter- 
mined. He began to diffuse the doctrines of the Reformation at 
Montrose, but becoming alarmed by the enmity which he roused, he 
fled to England. He preached the same doctrines at Bristol in 1538, 
but sterner measures seem to have been there adopted towards him, 
and he recanted and publicly burned his faggot. In 1543 he was at 
Cambridge, According to a notice of his character, appearance, and 
habits at that time by his pupil Emery Tylney, he “ was a tall man, 
polde headed, and on the same a round French cap of the best. 
Judged of melancholye complexion by his physiognomie, black haired, 
long bearded, comely of personage, well spoken after his country of 
Scotland, courteous, lowly, lovely, glad to teach, desirous to learne, 
and was well travailed.’”’ He is further described as charitable to the 
poor, and abstinent to the extent of austerity. In July 1543 he 
returned to Scotland along with the commissioners who had been sent 
to England to treat for a marriage between Prince Edward and the 
infant Queen of Scots. Protected by the heads of the Reformation 
party, he now preached with boldness and fervour in Dundee, Perth, 
Montrose, and Ayr, creating popular tumults, which ended in the 
destruction of several ecclesiastical edifices, and threatening the 
authorities with coming vengeance when they interfered with his pro- 
ceedings. The timidity which attended him while he was an obscure 
propagator of his opinions, seems, now that he exercised a wide influ- 
ence on the popular mind and filled a large place in the eye of his 
countrymen, to have been succeeded by a resolute spirit of defiance 
and a contempt of danger. 

The view which the impartial narrator must take of Wishart’s cha- 
racter has of late years been materially changed by the discovery of 
documents affording what is almost conclusive historical proof that he 
was engaged in plots against Cardinal Beaton’s life. This charge, stated 
by two old Scottish biographical authors, Dempster and Dr. George 
Mackenzie, whose accuracy is justly doubted, was repeated in 1831 by 
a Roman Catholic historian (Carruthers, ‘ Hist. of Queen Mary,’ p. 40), 
and has been amply illustrated from original documents by Mr. Tytler. 
In a series of letters, which show that there were several parties who 
were prepared to assassinate the cardinal, if they had the direct autho- 
rity of Henry VIII. to perpetrate the deed, and his promise of protec- 
tion and reward, one signed by the Earl of Hertford, Holgate, bishop of 
Landaff, and Sir Ralph Sadler, and addressed to the king, dated 17th 
April, 1544, has this passage : “ Please it your highness to understand, 
that this day arryved here with me, the erll of Hertford, a Scotishman 
called Wyshert, and brought me a letter from the Larde of Brunstone, 
which I sende your highnesse herewith : and, according to his request, 
have taken order for the repayre of the said Wysshert to your majestie 
by poste, bothe for the delyvire of such letters as he hathe to your 
majestie from the said Brunstone, and also for the declaration of his 
credence, which, as I can perceyve by him, consisteth in two poyntes : 
one is that the Larde of Graunge, late thesaurer of Scotlande, the Mr. 
of Rothes, the earl of Rothe’s eldest son, and John Charters, wolde 
attempt eyther t’apprehend or slee the cardynal at some tyme when 
he shall pass through the Fyflande, as he doth sundrye times to Saint 
Andrewes,” &c. It appears from these letters that Wishart had imme- 
diately afterwards an interview with Henry, in which he repeated the 
offer to put Beaton to death. The negociations were continued by 
Brunston and the Earl of Cassilis, but were not quite satisfactory to 
either of them, the king declining to authorise the assassination, or, as 


Sir Ralph Sadler said, “ his highness, reputing the fact not mete to be 
set forward expressly by his majesty, will not seem to have to do in it, 
and yet not misliking the offer.” In the end however the two persons 
whom Wishart represented as prepared to commit the murder, Kirk- 
aldy of Grange and the master of Rothes, were the actual perpetrators 
of it. It remains of course a matter of doubt whether George Wishart 


‘the Martyr’ was the same Wishart who was the vehicle of the propo- — 


sal, but this doubt is much narrowed by the fact that the laird of 
Brunston was George Wishart’s champion and familiar friend. It is 
believed that Beaton was aware of the plots against his life, Wishart 
had therefore probably good reason to predict danger to himself, and 
he was generally surrounded by armed friends, of whom Knox was 
one. While in Dundee he received an invitation from Cassilis and 
other Protestant barons to hold a disputation in Edinburgh. Re 

ing thither, his friends, probably through timidity, did not meet - 
Unprotected however as he was, he preached in the neighbourh 
and then, on the approach of the governor and the cardinal, fled to the 
laird of Brunston’s house, four miles from Edinburgh. Venturing to 
preach in the town of Haddington, he took refuge with another sup- 
porter, Cockburn of Ormiston, in whose house he was seized the 
cardinal’s troops, and conveyed to St. Andrews. He was imm 

put on trial for heresy before a special ecclesiastical council; Arran, 
the governor, having refused to give the proceeding the countenance of 
the civil power. He was condemned to be burned at the stake, and 
the sentence was executed at St. Andrews on the 28th of March 1546, 
amid the portentous murmurs of the people. 

Among many unfulfilled prophecies traditionally attributed to 
Wishart was one, that Beaton should soon hang in ignominy from= 
the same window whence he was witnessing the execution; and the 
circumstances above detailed show that Wishart might perhaps have 
reasonably anticipated such an event without possessing the gift of 
prophecy. 4 

(Mackenzie, Lives of Scots Writers, iii. 9-19 ; Tytler, Hist. of 
vol. v.; Lyon, Hist. of St. Andrews, ii. 358-366; M‘Crie, Life of Knox, 

eriod ii.) 

WISHART, GEORGE, an ecclesiastic and biographical writer, is 
said to have been born in Haddingtonshire, in 1609, and to haye 
studied in the University of Edinburgh. In 1639 he was a clergy- 
man in St. Andrews, when, refusing to take the covenant, he was 
deposed from the ministry. On 28th January 1645, he is found 
petitioning the Scottish parliament as “sometymes at St. Andrews, 
and laitly at Neucastle, neu prissoner in the comon jayell of Edin- 
brughe, beging mantinence, since he and his wyffe and 5 children 
wer lykly to sterve.” (Balfour's ‘Annals, anno 1645.) He was 
several times imprisoned during the dominancy of the Presbyte- 
rian party. The approach of Montrose’s army enabled him to join 
that commander, to whom he became chaplain. In 1647 he published 
his history of the wars of Montrose, with the title ‘De Rebus sub 
Imperio Jacobi Montisrosarum Marchionis, anno 1644 et duobus 
sequentibus preclare gestis, Commentarius. On the execution of 
Montrose in 1650, this work was hung, in contumely, from his neck. 
It was reprinted at Paris in 1648, and acquired a high reputation for 
the elegance of its Latinity. It was translated into English in 1652, 
and the author is supposed to have been the translator. There is in 
the Advocates’ Library a manuscript continuation of the work to the 
death of Montrose, which has not been published in the original 
Latin; but a translation of it was appended to a translation of the first 
part in 1720, and both were re-translated and published by Ruddiman 
in 1756. A new edition of this translation was published at Edin- 
burgh in 1819. After his patron’s death, Wishart became chaplain to 
Elizabeth, the Electress Palatine. At the Restoration he was made 
rector of Newcastle, and in 1662 was consecrated bishop of Edinburgh. 
Though he had himself suffered persecution, and in his writings vin- 
dicated the cruel acts of Montrose, he is said to have been averse to 
the intolerant policy of Charles IL.’s government, and to have recom- 
mended leniency to the Covenanters. He died in 1671. (Keith, 
Catalogue of the Bishops of Scotland ; Lyon, History of St. Andrews, 
ii. 10-12.) 

WISTAR, CASPAR, was born at New Jersey, United States of 
North America, where his father was a glass manufacturer, in the year 
1760. His father was a German emigrant, and a member of the Society 
of Friends, of which society Wistar remained a member. He was edu- 
cated in Philadelphia at the school founded by William Penn, and 
commenced his medical education in that city. In 1782 he received 
the degree of Bachelor of Medicine in Philadelphia, and afterwards 
came to pursue his studies in Europe, and graduated in medicine at 
Edinburgh in 1786. His thesis was entitled ‘De Animo demisso.’ 
He returned to his own country in 1787; and when the college at 
Philadelphia was revived, he was appointed professor of chemistry and 
physiology, and he delivered the course of lectures on these subjects 
in 1789 and 1790. He was afterwards appointed to share the chairs 
of anatomy and surgery with Dr. Shippen, at whose decease the 
whole duties of these chairs devolved on him. He was successively 
appointed physician and consulting physician to the dispensary, and 
physician to the hospital, of Philadelphia. In 1816 he was elected 
president of the American Philosophical Society. He published 
several papers on medicine and anatomy: amongst others, ‘ Remarks 
on the Fever of 1793,’ and ‘Memoirs on the Ethmoid Bone,’ and ‘ on 


a 


| 


WITHER, GEORGE. 


769 


770 


WITHERING, WILLIAM. 


the Remains of an Animal belonging to the genus Bos,’ In 1812 he 
published, in 2 vols. 8vo, ‘A System of Anatomy,’ a work embracing 
the subjects, anatomical and physiological, which constituted his 
course of lectures in the college. He was very successful as a teacher, 
and his lectures were always well attended. He died on the 22nd of 
aepuaty 1818, of a fever which he caught during bis professional 

uties. 

WITHER, or WYTHER (sometimes improperly WITHERS), 
GEORGE, was born June 11th, 1588, at Bentworth, near Alton in 


Hampshire, and was the only son of George Wither of Bentworth, 


who was himself the second son (the first by a second wife), of John 
Wither, Esq., of Manydowne, near Wotton-St.-Lawrence, in that 
county. The name of Wither’s mother was Anne Serle. After re- 
ceiving the usual instruction at the grammar-school of Colemore, or 
Colemere, under its eminent master, John Greaves, he was sent about 
1604 to Magdalen College, Oxford, where he had for his tutor Dr. 
John Warner, afterwards bishop of Rochester. After remaining how- 
ever about three years, he was called home without having taken a 


degree, as he himself tells us (in his ‘Abuses Stript and Whipt’), “ to 


hold the plough.” Anthony Wood says that “ his geny-being addicted 
to things more trivial” than the studies pursued at the university, he 
went to London and entered himself first at one of the inns of Chan- 
cery, afterwards at Lincoln’s Inn. “ But,” continues Wood, “ still his 


‘geny hanging after things more smooth and delightful, he did at length 


make himself known to the world (after he had taken several rambles 
therein) by certain specimens of poetry; which being dispersed in 
several hands, [he] became shortly after a public author, and much 
admired by some in that age for his quick advancement in that 
faculty.” Some pieces of less pretension had already made his name 
known in a limited circle, when in 1613 he published his volume of 
poetical satires on the manners of the time, entitled ‘ Abuses Stript and 
Whipt.’ For some things in this production which gave offence to the 
government he was committed (it is not stated_by what authority) to 
the Marshalsea prison, and lay there for several months. While in 
confinement he wrote and published his ‘Satire to the King,’ 1614, in 
which he complains bitterly of the injustice of his detention, and 
which is supposed to have procured his release. The spirit of his 
poetry and the usage he had met with now made him a great favourite 
with the puritanical party, by whom, Wood states, he was much “ cried 
up for his profuse pouring-forth of English rhyme.” Afterwards, it is 
added, “‘the vulgar sort of people” came to regard his poetry as having 
in it something prophetical. He denounced the abuses of the times 
too in various prose pamphlets as well as in his more frequent dis- 
charges of flowing verse. All this while he appears to have lived in 
easy circumstances on the landed property which he had inherited. 
But, as might have been expected in so hot and restless a spirit, Wither, 
as soon as the storm of the civil: war began to blow, hastened to throw 
himself into the scene of commotion and excitement—at first, as it 
would appear, without much minding which side or what principles 
he fought for. He served as a captain of horse, and quarter-master- 
general of his regiment, in the expedition which Charles I, led against 
the Scotch Covenanters in the spring of 1639 (also, it may be noted, 
the first campaign of the cavalier-poet Lovelace). Three years after, 
when the war began between the king and his English subjects, Wither 
sold his estate and raised a troop of horse for the Parliament, in whose 
army he was speedily promoted to the rank of major. On his colours, 
we are told, he carried the motto, ‘Pro Rege, Lege, Grege.’ Being 
taken prisoner by the royalists, he is said to have been indebted for 
his life to a bon-mot of Sir John Denham :—“ Denham,” says Wood, 
“some of whose estates at Egham in Surrey Wither had got into his 
clutches, desired his Majesty not to hang him, because, so long as 
Wither lived, he (Denham) would not be accounted the worst poet in 
England.” He also probably soon recovered his liberty. Not long 
after this, Wood tells us, “ he was constituted by the Long Parliament 
a justice of peace in quorum for Hampshire, Surrey, and Essex, which 
office he kept six years, and afterwards was made by Cromwell major- 
general of all the horse and foot in the county of Surrey, in which 
employment he licked his fingers sufficiently, gaining thereby a great 
odium from the generous royalists.” A manuscript note on a copy of 
one of his tracts in the British Museum, his ‘ Boni Ominis Votum,’ 
2pm in 1656, describes him as “ lately made master of the statute 
office.” 

At the Restoration, Wither was not only forced to disgorge all this 
spoil, but was by a vote of the Convention Parliament sent to Newgate 
on the charge of being the author of a publication entitled ‘ Vox 
Vulgi,’ which was regarded as a scandalous and seditious libel. There 
is extant a 12mo pamphlet which he published in 1661, entitled ‘The 
Prisoner’s Plea humbly offered in a Remonstrance, with a Petition 
annexed, to the Commons in parliament assembled, by G. Wyther, 
falsely charged to have composed a libel against the said Commons, 
and therefore now a prisoner in Newgate ;’ but Wood asserts that he 
afterwards confessed himself the author of the obnoxious publication, 
upon which he was committed a close prisoner to the Tower, with 
orders that he should be debarred the use of pen, ink, and paper, and 
at the same time an impeachment was ordered to be drawn up against 
him. The impeachment does not appear to have been proceeded 
with; and he even contrived, by the connivance of the keeper, to 
write and to send to the press from time to time sundry pieces both 

BIOG, DIV, VOL. VI. 


. is given from a very ancient copy in the editor’s folio MS.” 


in verse and in prose. It is not known when he was released: Wood 
says that he lay in the Tower three years and more; Aubrey’s account 
is, that his imprisonment lasted about three-quarters of a year ; it is 
certain however that he had obtained his liberty some years before his* 
death, which took place on the 2nd of May 1667. He was buried, 
says Aubrey, “within the east door of the Savoy Church, where he 
died.” He had married, the same authority states, Elizabeth, eldest 
daughter of H. Emerson, of South Lambeth: “she was,’ Aubrey 
adds, “a great wit, and would write in verse too.” It appears that a 
grandson of Wither’s, Hunt Wither, of Fidding, in the county of 
Southampton, designating himself colonel of foot in her majesty’s 
army, and brigadier-general in the service of Charles III. of Spain, 
was alive in 1709. But his paternal estate of Bentworth had latterly 
come into the possession of an heir female, and was a few years ago 
held by Mr. Bigg Wither, who in consequence had taken the old 
family name. (See ‘Memoir of Wither,’ in ‘ British Bibliographer,’ 
vol. i, pp. 1-18, published in 1810.) Anthony Wood characteristically 
rounds off his account of Wither with the critical remark that “ the 
things that he hath written and published are very many, accounted 
by the generality of scholars as mere scribbles.” The list of his works 
fills about 13 columns in Dr. Bliss’s edition of the ‘Fasti Oxoniensis.’ 
But the most detailed catalogue of them is that contributed to the 
‘British Bibliographer’ by the late Mr. Thomas Park ; it includes 112 
articles (among which however are some not known to have been 
printed), and extends over vol.i., pp. 179-205, 305-332, 417-440, and 
vol. ii., pp. 17-32, 378-391. Various bibliographical notices relating to 
Wither are also to be found in the pages of the ‘Restituta’ and the 
*Censura Literaria.’ 

Some of Wither’s religious verses continued to be printed for some 
time after the commencement of the last century, but were in request 
no doubt more for their devotional than their poetical qualities. The 
estimation in which he was then held as a poet may be gathered from 
the contemptuous mention of him by Pope in the ‘ Dunciad’ (book i. 
296 ; see also the note on v. 146)— 


** Safe, where no critics damn, no duns molest, 
Where wretched Withers, Ward, and Gildon rest.” 


Swift has also spoken of him in similar terms (in an unlucky passage 
however in which he couples him with Dryden). Even Bishop Percy, 
long after this time, in publishing one of Wither’s short pieces in the 
first (1765) edition of his ‘ Reliques,’ vol. iii., p. 120, does not venture 
to prefix the author's name : “ This beautiful old song,” he merely says, 
So also 
in the case of another fragment at p. 253. And even in the subse- 
quent editions of the work his admiration of Wither is very cautiously 
expressed. In the fourth edition (1794), the last he superintended, he 
speaks of him as merely “not altogether devoid of genius” (vol. iii., 
p. 190). Long before this indeed, in the poem entitled ‘Bibliotheca,’ 
published in 1712, the author, supposed to be Dr. William King, 
mentions him with the epithet of ‘melodious Wither ;” and seems to 
intimate that he had still a sort of reputation among poetical anti- 
quaries. One of the first persons who expressed a cordial appreciation 
of the merits of Wither’s poetry was the late Mr. Octavius Gilchrist 
in a Life of him which he communicated to the 70th volume of the 
*Gentleman’s Magazine,’ published in 1797. Since then ample justice 
has been done to this long neglected writer by the late Mr. George 
Ellis, in the second edition of his ‘Specimens of Early English 
Poetry’ (1801); by Mr. Thomas Campbell, in his ‘Specimens of the 
British Poets’ (1819); by the late Mr. Hazlitt, in his ‘ Lectures on 
English Poetry’ (1818); and especially by the late Sir Egerton 
Brydges, in the ‘ Restituta,’ the ‘Censura Literaria,’ the British Biblio- 
grapher, and other publications; and there have been many reprints 
of his poetry or portions of it. 

Wither’s poetry is of very unequal excellence, and a good deal of it 
is worthless enough. His fatal facility, which grew upon him as he 
advanced in life, and soon debased his style from freedom to sloven- 
liness, has left nearly everything he has done weak and unfinished in 
some part or other. But there was in him a true poetic genius, a 
quick and teeming invention, a universal sympathy, a fancy that could 
gild any subject, or “make a sunshine,” like Spenser’s Una, ‘*in the 
shadiest place;” above all, a natural love of truth and simplicity, 
which, whatever else may be sometimes wanting, has put a life and 
enduring freshness into all that he has written. His earliest style is 
his happiest; in that he seems to have sought by art and pains for the 
directness and transparency for which he afterwards trusted mostly to 
negligence or chance; latterly also he took, apparently from design, 
to a greater harshness both of phraseology and rhythm; but, both in 
his verse and in his prose, his English is rarely without the charm of 
great ease and clearness, as well as idiomatic vigour. 

WITHERING, WILLIAM, was born in 1741, at Wellington in 
Shropshire, where his father was a surgeon-apothecary in considerable 
practice. He received his early education at a school in his native 
place, and commenced his medical education under his father’s 
instruction, After spending the usual preliminary time with his 
father, he was sent to complete his medical education at Edinburgh, 
in the university of which place he took his degree of Doctor of 
Medicine in 1766. He commenced the practice of his profession at 


Stafford, where he married; but not succeeding, he ee to Bir- 
D 


771 WITHERINGTON, WILLIAM FREDERICK, R.A. 


WITIKIND. 


mingham in 1774. Here he became the successor to Dr. Small, and 
quickly succeeded in obtaining a large and lucrative practice. His 
income is said to have been larger than any physician of his day out 
of London.’ In the midst however of his great professional avocations 
he found time to cultivate with great ardour the sciences connected 
with natural history. He was exceedingly attached to botany, and 
having become acquainted with a large number of the plants growing 
in Great Britain, he was induced to publish, in 1776, a work on the 
plants of this island. It appeared first at Birmingham, in 2 vols. 8vo, 
and was entitled ‘A Botanical Arrangement of all the Vegetables 
naturally growing in Great Britain.” As this work appeared at first it 
was little more than a translation of the descriptions of the British 
genera and species from the great work of Linnzus, with the addition 
of many of the habitats of the plants from Ray’s works, The work 
however was wanted, and quickly found a sale. A second edition was 
published in 1793, and a third in 1796, In this edition the work was 
increased in size to four volumes, and a vast amount of original 
matter added, so as to give it quite a different character from the first 
edition. In this work he was much assisted by many of his botanical 
friends, and he has everywhere acknowledged how much he was 
indebted to Dr. Stokes and Messrs. Woodward, Velley, Stackhouse, 
and others, Since the death of Dr. Withering several editions of his 
‘Arrangement of British Plants’ have been published. It is now 
however entirely superseded by the more valuable manuals of Smith, 
Hooker, Lindley, Babington, &c. It had the merit of being the first 
British Flora arranged according to the Linnean system; and the 
early editions may now be consulted with adyantage on the properties 
and uses of the plants native to Great Britain, and the traditions 
about them. i 

Botany was not Withering’s only scientific pursuit; he was fond of 
chemistry and mineralogy. He published in 1793 a translation of 
Bergmann’s ‘ Sciagraphia Regni Mineralis,’ with the title ‘ Outlines of 
Mineralogy.’ He was a Fellow of the Royal Society, and published 
several papers on mineralogy and chemistry in the ‘ Philosophical 
Transactions,’ of which the following are the titles :—In the volume 
for 1773, ‘ Experiments on different kinds of Marle found in Stafford- 
shire ;’ in 1782, ‘Analysis of the Toadstone of Derbyshire ;’ in 1784, 
‘Experiments on the Terra Ponderosa;’ in 1798, ‘ An Analysis of a 
Hot Mineral-Spring in Portugal.’ These papers display a very com- 
petent knowledge of the chemistry of the time. But whilst pursuing 
science he did not neglect his profession, and he published several 
papers on medical topics. In 1778 he published ‘An Account of 
Scarlet Fever and Sore Throat, especially as it appeared at Birmingham 
in the year 1778,’ 8vo. He also published in 1785 ‘An Account of 
the Foxglove and some of its medical uses; with practical remarks on 
the Dropsy and other diseases.’ Although he was not the first to 
recommend foxglove (digitalis) as a medicine, he must still be looked 
upon as the first physician who knew how to use it, and by his writings 
gave it the character as a powerful medicinal agent, which it has never 
since ceased to retain. 

Dr. Withering was always the subject of a weak state of health, and 
was frequently attacked with inflammation of the lungs. This had so 
much weakened him in 1793 as to induce him to try a change of air 
for the benefit of his health, and he accordingly spent the winter of 
that year in Lisbon. At the latter end of the year 1794 he again went 
to Lisbon, and returned the following year. His health was somewhat 
re-established, and on returning to Birmingham again he changed his 
residence from Edgbaston Hall to a place called the Larches, previously 
the residence of Dr. Priestley. ere in retirement he spent the 
remainder of his days, and died in November 1799. 

* WITHERINGTON, WILLIAM FREDERICK, R.A.,, was born in 
London, in 1786. As a landseape-painter Mr. Witherington has 
secured a very respectable position, and he has also painted many 
clever genre pictures and portraits. His landscapes are all thoroughly 
English in character,—Lane Scenes, Kentish Hop Gardens, Riverside 
Ferries, Water Mills, and the like,—and his knowledge of the human 
form has enabled him to diversify them with groups of figures—a 
little larger in size than are usually put in landscape foregrounds— 
engaged in some characteristic occupation, or indicating some rustic 
incident, from which his pictures generally derive their titles (‘The 
Angler,’ ‘The Lucky Escape,’ ‘Making Hay,’ ‘The Robin,’ ‘The Hop 
Garland,’ ‘ Passing the Lock,’ ‘A Lift on the Road,’ ‘Returning from 
the Village,’ and so forth), and which have served to increase their 
popularity with the ordinary visitors to the exhibition-rooms and picture 
galleries. Mr. Witherington does not take rank with the highest class 
of English landscape-painters, but his genuine loye of nature, and 
directness of purpose, and the homely unpretending range of his 
subjects, will always render his pictures favourites with the lovers of 
English rural scenery and country life. He was elected A.R.A. in 
1830; and R.A. in 1840. In the Vernon Collection there are two 
pictures by him—‘ The Stepping Stones,’ and ‘The Hop Garland ;’ and 
in the Sheepshanks’ Collection one—‘The Hop Garden.’ 

WITHOF, JOHANN PHILIPP LORENZ, a German physician who 
distinguished himself as a writer of didactic poetry, was the son of 
Johann Hildebrand Withof, professor of history, eloquence, and Greek 
literature, and was born at Duisburg on the Rhine, June Ist, 1725. 
In 1740 he entered the university of his native place, where for the 
first three years, he applied himself to classical literature, history, and 


antiquities, and afterwards entirely to medicine, His father then sent 
him to Utrecht and Leyden, on returning from which seats of study 
he obtained his medical diploma at Duisburg, in 1747, and began to 
practise at Lingen, but did not remain there above three years, After 
an interim of about two years more, at Duisburg again, during which 
he lectured on anatomy and physiology, he accepted, in 1752, an 
appointment in the gymnasium at Hamm, as professor of history and 
philosophy. About the same time he was made corresponding mem- 
ber of the Gottingen Scientific Society, and also of the Royal Society, 
London. He continued at Hamm until he received an offer from the 
university of his native place, in 1770, inviting him to accept the pro- 
fessorship of eloquence and Greek literature, which he held at the 
time of his death, July 3, 1789. 

Though most of his poems had been composed very long before 
being in fact the productions of his youth, and some few of them , 
actually appeared in print, it was not till 1782 that he gave them to 
the public, in two volumes, under the title of ‘ Academische Gedichte,’ 
one, as Eschenburg observes, not particularly well chosen, since it 
does not convey any idea of their subjects, but would rather im 
their being only occasional pieces, or else written for aca al 
purposes. ‘Philosophical’ would have been a far more appropriate 
general epithet for them than ‘Academical,’ since it is} the philoso- 
phical spirit, the depth of thought, and extensive learning they display, 
which have established for them the high though limited reputation 
they possess. Withof is a writer for thinkers, and not for mere 
readers of poetry ; since, instead of alluring the latter to his di 
strains by jthe graces of language and felicity of f exp 
is generally negligent even to harshness in his versification, and at 
times very obscure as to meaning, faults which he appears in some 
degree to have affected rather than to have endeavoured to shu 
Still those who can overlook imperfections of that kind, and who 
attach more importance to the value of the matter than to any charm 
of manner, will be repaid by his ‘ Die Moralischen Ketzer,’ and ‘Sinn- 
liche Ergétzungen,’ for the studious perusal which they require. 

WITIKIND, WITTEKING, or WITTICHIND, was the pags 
duke or commander-in-chief of the Saxons in their wars with : 
magne. He is also called king (Rex Saxonum et Alborum), but in- 
correctly, because the Saxons have never had kings: the government 
was in the hands of an assembly, which met annually at Macklo, on 
the Weser, and to which each ‘gau,’ or county, sent twelve edelings or 
nobles, twelve freemen being freeholders, and twelve freemen haying 
lands in lease. The Saxons inhabited the extensive tract between 
Friesland, the Northern Sea, and the Eider, in the north; the Bal 
the Trave and the Middle Elbe, in the east; the Saale, Thuringia, 
Hesse, in the south; and a line in the west which corresponded pro- 
bably to the present limits of the Prussian province of Westphalia. 
The western limits however were never well fixed. The Saxons were 
divided into Westphalians west of the Weser ; Engerns, who lived 
likewise west ofthe Weser, in the mountainous province of Sauerland; 
Eastphalians, between the Weser and Elbe; and Albi, or North 
Albingians, in the present duchy of Holstein. They were a fieree and 
warlike nation, and made continual incursions into the Frankish 
empire by land and by sea. Faithful to the worship of Woden and 
other gods of their forefathers, they made a strong opposition to the 
progress of Christianity, which was in their opinion only a disguised 
form of slavery. When Lebuin, the yo appeared am 
them for the purpose of preaching the Gospel, they not only Bar | 
to listen to him, but threatened his life; and he only escaped death 
by the mediation of his friend Buto, a Saxon noble, 


By choosing Aachen (Aix-la-Chapelle) for his residence, Charle- 


magne clearly indicated that, being sure of the obedience of the west, 
he intended to extend his empire towards the east. He declared his 
intention to subdue the Saxons, and to foree them to adopt the Chris- 


tian religion, in the diet at Worms in the first year of his reign, is ’ 


His first campaign was successful, He penetrated into the country 
the Engerns, took their fortress of Eresburg (now Stadtberg, on the 
Diemel) by surprise, and destroyed the ‘ Irmensul,’ a national monu- — 
ment. Great wealth was found there by the Franks, In the n 


‘oh. 
bourhood of this monument Charlemagne made a truce with the 
Saxons, and returned to his dominions in order to prepare his ex- — 


pedition against Desiderius, king of the Longobards. Dyeing % 
absence of Charlemagne in Italy the Saxons prepared for a fresh war, 
and chose two commanders-in-chief, Witikind and Albion. Witikind 
had extensive estates in Engern and Westphalia, and it appears that 
he was‘ duke’ of the warriors of these two countries; while Albion 


commanded the Eastphalians and North Albingians. Witikind im- — 


mediately invaded the Frankish territory ; but in 775 Charles ap- 
proached with a mighty host, pd, paneorsted as far as the Ocker, 
the present duchy of Brunswick. After several defeats the Eastphalians, — 
under duke Hessi, or Hassio, and the Engerns, whose duke was th 
Bruno, made peace and gave hostages to Charles. Bruno and Hosa : 
were probably subordinate dukes, The Westphalians followed their 
example, but it does not appear that Witikind submitted. The truce 
was of short duration; but Charles made new progress, and built 
fortresses, in which he placed strong garrisons. In 777 he held a 
meeting at Paderborn, which was attended by a great number of — 
Saxon nobles and commoners, part of whom were baptised and sub- 
mitted to the Franks. i Po 


- 
—— 


i 


_ 


La 


773 WITT, DE, JOHN anp CORNELIUS. 


WITT, DE, JOHN and CORNELIUS. 774 


Witikind however did not appear, but fled to Siegfried, king of 
Denmark, whose sister Gera he had married. Charles, believing that 
Saxony would keep quiet, turned his arms towards the Arabs in 
Spain; but no sooner was he gone than Witikind, supported by a 
body of Danish horsemen, renewed the war; and when the Saxons 
heard that a Frankish army had been destroyed by the Basques in the 
yalley of Roncesvalles, the whole country took up arms, and Witikind 
ravaged the Frankish territory as far as Cologne and Coblenz, Charles 
returned from Spain in 779, invaded Saxony, defeated his enemy at 
Bocholt (not far from Wesel), and in 780 encamped near the junction 
of the Ohre with the Elbe, where he once more received the homage of 
many Saxon chiefs, but not of Witikind, who remained in Holstein, 


and quietly waited for the absence of Charles, against whom he secretly 


excited the Sorbi, a Slavonian nation on the right bank of the Elbe. 
Suddenly he crossed the Elbe and destroyed a Frankish army at 
Mount Siintelberg, near Minden, Charles, infuriated, appeared with 
fresh troops, and haying compelled a portion of the Saxons to give up 
their principal leaders with their adherents, he ordered them all to be 
beheaded near Verden, on the Aller, 4500 in number (783). This 
cruelty produced a terrible outbreak among the Saxons. A bloody 
but indecisive battle was fought near the place where Varus perished 
with three Roman legions, in the Teutoburger Wald; nor could 
Charles boast of having defeated his enemy in a second engagement 
which was fought near the sources of the Hase, north of Osnabriick. 
The places where Charles and Witikind had ranged their armies, two 
sand-plains, at a short distance from each other, near Vérden, in a 
barren desolate country, are called to the present day, the one the 
‘Kerlsfeld,’ the other the ‘ Wittefeld.” During the two following 
years Charles continued an obstinate struggle with the Saxons; and 
seeing the impossibility of subduing them unless he gained their 
chiefs, he sent messengers to Witikind and Albion, who were then in 
Holstein, and promised them the free enjoyment of all their estates if 
they would adopt the Christian religion and recognise Charles as their 
master, Upon this proposition they both submitted, They went to 
Attiniacum, now Attigny, near Rheims in Champagne, were Charles 
then resided, submitted to the Frankish king, and were baptised ; 
whereupon they returned to their dominions (a.p, 785). The final 
subjugation of the Saxons was not however completely effected till 
the year 803, 

A proof of Witikind’s attachment to the Christian religion is his 
foundation of the convent, afterwards chapter of St. Alexander, at 
Wildeshausen, in the grand-duchy of Oldenburg, where the respective 
documents (though not signed by Witikind) may still be seen. At 
Wildeshausen there are some ruins, situated on a hillock surrounded 
by the Hunte, which are said to be the remains of the chief residence 
of Witikind ; and in the mountains near Dissen, east of Osnabriick, 
there is a ruined stronghold called Witikinds-Burg. It is said, but it 
cannot be proved, that Witikind lost his life in 807, in a battle with 
Geroald, duke of Suabia. His body was interred at Paderborn, whence 
it was carried to Engers, and subsequently to Herford, near Minden. 
In 1377 the emperor Charles IV. ordered a monument to be erected to 
his memory in the parochial church at Engers, and in.1822 his re- 
mains were carried from Herford to Engers, and deposited under that 
monument, 

(Eginhartus, Vita Caroli Magni, ed. Schminck, with the notes of 
Besels, Bolland, and Goldast; Poeta Saxo (Anonymous) in Leibnitz, 
Scriptores Rer. Brunswic. ; Moser, Osnabriickische Geschichte, vol. i., the 
best work on the subject.) 

WITT, DE, JOHN and CORNELIUS, two of the ablest and 
most honourable of Dutch statesmen, were so inseparable in their 
career that the history of their lives must also be one. Jobn, though 
the younger by two years, played, in consequence of his genial, ver- 
satile, and aspiring character, the more prominent part; but it is 
doubtful whether he could so long have sustained himself without 
the aid of his brother's solid though less showy parts. Cornelius was 
one of those rare and invaluable natures who intuitively feel them- 
selves born to perform a secondary part, and are,probably, in the per- 
severing unostentatious discharge of their duties, more useful as they 
are more difficult to find than even leaders of commanding talent. 
There is something extremely beautiful in the uninterrupted co- 
operation of two men like Cornelius and John de Witt, each among 
the very finest specimens of his own class of characters, when the tie 
of brotherhood strengthens the bands of friendship. 

The father of John and Cornelius was a leader in the party opposed 
to the assumptions of the house of Orange, and a member of the 
States General of Holland and West Friesland. He was considered 
by advisers of the Stadtholder of sufficient consequence to be included 
among the eight citizens imprisoned in the castle of Lowenstein, in 
1650, The young De Witts therefore were early imbued with hostility 
to the pretensions of the family of Orange, and devoted to the Repub- 
lican and Arminian party; and at the same time encouraged by the 
position of their father to look forward to public employment. 

JoHN DE WirT was born at Dordrecht in 1625, and educated at 
Leyden, where, in addition to the studies necessary for one who 
aspired to rise in the state, he is understood to have cultivated the 
mathematical sciences with success. A treatise published at Leyden, 
a hd under the title ‘ Elementa Linearum Curvarum,’ is attributed 

0 


The death of William II., prince of Orange, on the 2nd of October 
1650, threw the management of affairs into the hands of the party to 
which De Witt’s father belonged. Cornelius, his eldest son, having 
been, as will appear in the more particular notice of his career in 
the sequel of this article, appointed burgomaster of Dordrecht, the 
family influence obtained for John the office of pensionary of that 
city. The ability which he displayed in that charge procured for him, 
two years later (in 1652), when only in his 27th year, the more 
important appointment of grand pensionary of Holland, which he 
retained till 1672, During the intervening twenty years, he was, 
under the modest title of grand pensionary, virtual chief-magistrate of 
the republic. The period was a critical one for Holland—during the 
earlier part of it De Witt was called upon to make head against Crom- 
well, and during the latter against Louis XIV., and he struggled at 
the same time against the inveteracy of domestic faction. 

De Witt on assuming the reins of government found the republic 
engaged ina war with England, A series of sea-engagements in which, 
although great skill and bravery were displayed by the Dutch and 
English commanders, and many lives were lost, victory inclined 
alternately to each side without declaring very decidedly for either, 
paved the way for a peace which was negociated by De Witt, and 
signed at Westminster on the 15th of April 1654. On the part of the 
Dutch the honours claimed by the English for their flag in the Channel 
were conceded, A secret article was appended to the treaty, in which 
it was stipulated that the Stuart family should receive no support 
from the United States, and that no prince of the house of Orange, 
so nearly allied to the Stuarts, should be elected stadtholder, or grand- 
admiral. This article was first signed by the representative of Holland 
alone: the other provinces were as jealous of the ascendancy of Hol- 
land as the republican party of the ambition of the house of Orange. 
This treaty embraced the great outlines of the policy in which De 
Witt persevered during the whole of his future administration :— 
Avoiding giving umbrage to the States of Europe by stickling on 
points of empty etiquette; aiming to preserve peace and the security 
of its foreign possessions for Holland; balancing the different European 
poms against each other; and guarding against the establishment of 

ereditary power in the house of Orange, 

Towards the attainment of the last-mentioned object De Witt 
laboured indefatigably. The republican party preponderated in Hol- 
land, but the Orangists were masters in Zealand, The other states 
hesitated between their fears of being domineered over by Holland or 
by the Prince of Orange. It was not till the year 1667 that De Witt 
obtained the assent of the States General to the ‘ perpetual edict,’ by 
which the office of stadtholder was declared to be for ever abolished. 
There was however no admixture of personal hostility to the Prince 
of Orange in this persevering zeal for the destruction of his house’s 

ower, William, prince of Orange, (afterwards William III. of Eng- 
and) was a posthumous child, and the care of his education devolving 
on the States, had been left almost entirely to De Witt. He discharged 
this duty conscientiously and sagaciously; and William, notwith- 
standing the hatred against De Witt which his mother endeavoured to 
instilinto him, and notwithstanding his own ambition, which rendered 
him ready enough to take advantage of the grand pensionary’s unpo- 
pularity, always retained and expressed, in his guarded manner, a 
grateful and respectful sense of the manner in which De Witt behaved 
towards him during his minority, 

The next care of De Witt was to introduce order into the finances 
of the republic. In this he succeeded so well that the States of Hol- 
land presented a formal request to him that he would develop his 
financial system in writing. 

Mutual respect had established a friendship that might almost be 
termed confidential between Viscount Turenne and De Witt, Turenne, 
in 1660, had endeayoured to persuade the French government to con- 
elude treaties with Portugal and the United Provinces, as a check 
upon the ambition of Spain, but had been thwarted by Mazarin. On 
the death of that minister the viscount renewed his representations 
to Louis XIV., who left the affair entirely in his hands. The price at 
which Turenne obtained the acquiescence of the grand pensionary in 
his scheme was a treaty of commerce between France and the United 
Provinces, concluded in 1661, by which each state conceded to the 
other entire freedom of commerce in their respective ports; the States 
General guaranteed the possession of Dunkerque to France; and the 
king of France guaranteed to the Dutch the right which they claimed 
of fishing off the coast of Great Britain and Ireland, The cabinet of 
Charles II, made a feeble remonstrance against this last article, but 
Louis contrived to appease them for the time. 

But the affront rankled in the public mind of England; and the 
commercial rivalry between that nation and Holland soon accumulated 
other grounds. of complaint. The mariners and traders of the two 
countries had frequent quarrels on the coast of Africa and in the 
Indies, and each persisted in representing the other as the aggressor. 
War was declared between Holland and England in 1665. De Witt 
invoked the aid of France, but in vain: Louis XIV. only offered his 
mediation, Admiral Opdam was defeated by the Duke of York and 
Prince Rupert off Harwich, and forced to seek shelter with the 
remnant of his fleet in the Texel. On this occasion De Witt gave a 
striking instance of the daring self-confidence which a great emergency 
could awaken in him, Antwerp was the only port in the possession 


WITT, DE, JOHN anp CORNELIUS. 


775 


WITT, DE, JOHN anp CORNELIUS. 


776 


of the republic where the fleet could be refitted. The pilots refused 
to take upon them the responsibility of navigating the ships from the 
Texel to Antwerp, by a course which would secure them from the 


attacks of the English, and yet be free from the danger of stranding. 


on the shallows. De Witt repaired on board the fleet; undertook the 
responsibility from which skilled professional men shrunk ; conveyed 
the fleet in safety to Antwerp; whence, under his energetic super- 
intendence, it again took the sea in fighting trim in an incredibly short 
space of time. Louis now declared in favour of Holland, and osten- 
sibly issued orders to his fleet to join that of the United Provinces. 
No junction however took place, and after two more well contested 
battles between the naval forces of Holland and England, a peace was 
concluded at Breda, bya treaty, to which Denmark and France became 
parties, between the belligerents, on the 30th of July 1667. 

De Witt endeavoured after the peace to concentrate his attention 
upon the internal organisation of the republic. The perpetual edict 
and the financial resolutions above alluded to were the first fruits 
of this determination. But the conduct of the French king soon inter- 
rupted these labours by drawing his attention to foreign affairs, Louis 
invaded the Spanish Netherlands in 1667, under the pretext that they 
fell by right to his queen on the death of her father the king of Spain. 
Turenne took one fortification after another with his usual rapidity, 
and was advancing towards Brussels, when the Marquis de Castel- 
Rodrigo represented to the states-general, that if France were allowed 
to conquer the Netherlands there would remain no barrier between it 
and the United Provinces. These representations were backed by 
those of Temple, sent by the English ministry to propose an alliance 
between Holland, England, and Sweden, with a view to oblige France 
and Spain to conclude a peace. This measure coincided with the 
policy of De Witt, who felt the danger of irritating France, and the 
equal danger of remaining a passive witness of its"aggressions. The 
triple alliance was resolved upon on the 23rd of January, 1668 ; signed 
on the 7th of February, and ratified on the 25th of April. At the 
same time the forces of the republic were secretly augmented by 
De Witt: 25,000 infantry were raised, and quartered in the frontier 
garrisons, and a fleet of forty vessels put in commission. These 
negociations were accelerated by the progress of the French arms in 
Franche Comté, The treaty disposed France to listen to overtures of 
peace, as the invasion of Franche Comté disposed the court of Spain ; 
and under the direction of De Witt and Temple the peace of Aix-la- 
Chapelle was signed on the 2nd of May. Louis dissembled-his anger 
at the part taken by the United Provinces in these negociations till an 
opportunity of avenging himself should offer. 

In 1670 Charles II. was persuaded by the intrigues of the French 
court to promise that England would withdraw from the triple 
alliance. In 1671 the bishop of Miinster and several Roman Catholic 
princes of the Empire entered into a league with France for the pur- 
pose of reconquering some frontier towns which they alleged had been 
unjustly and forcibly torn from the Empire by Holland. In Sweden 
the council of regency appointed to conduct the affairs of state during 
the minority of Charles XI. was also detached fromthe interests of 
Holland. The inaction of De Witt while these intrigues were carrying 
on all around him would appear unaccountable but for two circum- 
stances which contributed to paralyse him. The first was the anar- 
chical constitution of the republic, in which there was no central 
authority, every province and almost every town retaining its sove- 
reignty. To raise money or troops the consent of an immense 
number of petty councils was necessary, composed of men whom 
. immediate and visible danger alone could convince of the necessity of 
making the slightest sacrifices. The other circumstance was the grow- 
ing strength of the Orange party, to which various causes contributed : 
popular fickleness, tired of an administration of twenty years’ standing ; 
the number of disappointed candidates for office which had accumu- 
lated in the course of twenty years; the inveterate malevolence of the 
Calvinistic clergy against the party of which De Witt was the chief; 
and the natural tendency of men to favour the pretensions of a house 
of real historical greatness. To this combination of adverse influences 
must the fact be in a great measure attributed, and when the frontiers 
of Holland were simultaneously assailed by the forces of Louis XIV. 
and the German princes, in the spring of 1672, the forts were held by 
garrisons weak alike in numbers and in the inexperience and want of 
discipline of the raw levies which composed them. 

The partisans of the House of Orange seized the opportunity of 
national alarm and confusion to clamour for the repeal of the per- 
petual edict, De Witt and his friends were still strong enough to 
refuse this demand, but not to prevent the Prince of Orange from 
being nominated captain and admiral-general on the 25th of February 
1672. A precaution taken to guard against any advantage William 
might be inclined to take of his military power rather precipitated 
than delayed the downfall of De Witt. Eight deputies were selected 
from among the members of the states-general to act as council to the 
military and naval commanders: Cornelius de Witt, who was one of 
them, was sent on board the fleet of De Ruyter; the other seven were 
ordered to accompany Prince William. As usual, a multiplicity of 
councils only embarrassed the commander-in-chief, and added to the 
number of reverses which enabled De Witt’s enemies to raise a storm 
of public indignation against him. 

France and England declared war against Holland on the 7th of 


April; the elector of Cologne and the bishop of Miinster a month 
later. In the course of two months the French and German armies 
had occupied the provinces of Gueldre, Over-Yssel, and Utrecht, 
taken fifty cities, and made upwards of 24,000 prisoners. At sea the 
Dutch were less unfortunate, but the utmost efforts of De Ruyter and 
his brave companions in arms were unable to achieve more than a 
drawn battle in the encounter with the Duke of York off Solbay. The 
advance-guard of the French army was within five leagues of Amster- 
dam. The cities of Holland and Brabant, to avoid surrendering, were 
obliged to break the dykes and inundate the surrounding pie 
The clamour for the rescinding of the perpetual edict was successfully 
renewed at this disastrous crisis. The revocation of the edict was 
signed by the magistrates of the principal towns of Holland and West 
Friesland. 

In the beginning of July Louis returned to Paris; Turenne was 
obliged to draw towards the German frontier to meet succours for 
Holland which were advancing under the elector of Brandenburg; and 
the Duke of Luxembourg was left in the conquered provinces with a 
force no more than sufficient to hold the Prince of Orange in cheek, 
The temporary relief from all-engrossing fear thus afforded to the 
inhabitants of the unsubdued provinces was employed by the enemies 
of De Witt in stimulating the populace against him by all kinds of 
malevolent misrepresentations. His brother was arrested on a false 
accusation, brought to the Hague, and on the 24th of July tortured 
and sentenced to perpetual exile. He himself was attacked by assas- 
sins in the streets of the same city, and dangerously wounded. After 
the condemnation of Cornelius, John visited him in prison; a mob 
assembled, uttering violent threats against both brothers. Three 
companies of cavalry, under Count Tilly, in garrison at the Hague, 
put in motion by their officers to rescue the De Witts, were ordered to 
move in another direction by the States of Holland, under the pretext 
that a body of insurgent peasants were advancing against the town. 
The brothers thus left without protection were savagely murdered, 
and their bodies attached toa gibbet. After the mob had dispersed, 
the bodies were decently entombed by order of the states-general ; a 
faint effort was made to preserve appearances by ordering inquiry to 
be made after the murderers ; and medals were allowed to be struck 
in honour of the murdered. 

John de Witt combined an active enterprising disposition with solid 
judgment; he was a persuasive orator and a dexterous negociator, He 
was bold in the hour of danger and patient under protracted reverses. 
For the space of twenty years he frustrated the hostility of all the 
great surrounding monarchies against the small and ill-organised re- 
public at the head of which he stood. The honour of first introducing 
regularity into its finances, and in great part the honour of checking 
the progress of Louis XIV. by the triple alliance and the peace of Aix- 
la-Chapelle, belongs to him. That he should have fallen under the 
trying circumstances which attended the close of his career is less to 
be wondered at than that he should so long have kept head against 
the anarchy of the Seven United Provinces. The truest mirror of his 
character is to be found in his works—the ‘ Mémoires de Jean de Witt, 
Grand Pensionnaire d’Hollande,’ published at the Hague in Dutch; in 
1667; in French, in 1709; and the ‘ Letters et Négociations entre 
Jean de Witt et les Plénipotentiaires des Provinces Unies aux Cours 
de France, &c. depuis lan 1652 jusqu’a 1669,’ Dutch at Amsterdam, 
in 1725 ; French, in 1728. A ‘Life’ of the brothers was published at 
Utrecht in 1709, by Madame Zouteland. 

CogNELIUS DE Wirt was born at Dordrecht on the 23rd of June 
1623. He is said to have served several years in the fleet of the 
United Provinces in his early youth. His later career however was 
essentially that of a civilian. On the overthrow of the Orange party in 
1650 he was appointed burgomaster of his native town and elected 
deputy to the States of Holland and West Friesland. Soon afterhe 
was chosen inspector of dykes in the district of Putten. Ostensibly — 
he held no higher office during the greater part of his brother’s admi- — 
nistration; but the confidence which his firmness, probity, business 
talent, and sound sense acquired from all rendered him in reality the 
most efficient supporter of his brother’s power. As has been men- — 
tioned in the preceding sketch, he held a political appointment on 
board the fleet of De Ruyter in 1672; and in 1667 he had filled a — 
similar post. On both occasions he distinguished himself by his ~ 
bravery in action. After the battle of Solbay he was obliged to leave 
the fleet by a violent malady, and retired to Dordrecht. Before his 
arrival the other magistrates had signed the revocation of the per- 
petual edict. A tumultous crowd intruded itself into his sick room, 
demanding his signature to the document, With great difficulty his — 
friends persuaded him to comply; but he added the initials V. C. (vi 
coactus) to his name; and refusing to erase them, the mob was only ~ 
pacified by one of his attendants doing it unknown to him, He was 
soon after arrested on a false accusation of conspiring to poison the 
Prince of Orange, conveyed to the Hague, and put to the torture, 
While on the rack he is said to have repeated Horace’s ode, which — 
begins “ Justum et tenacem propositi virum.” On the 24th of July he 
was condemned to perpetual exile, and his subsequent fate has already — 
been narrated. 

The authorities for the incidents of the life of Cornelius de Witt are 
the same mentioned above in the sketch of his brother's career. — 
Some valuable materials are also to be found for the history of both — 


ve ae eee ee 


777 WITTE, PIETER DE. 


WODROW, ROBERT. 778 


brothers in the works of Sir William Temple and Ramsay's ‘ Memoirs 
of Turenne.’ 

WITTE,. PIETER DE, or PIETRO CANDIDO, as the Italians 
have translated his name, or he for them, was born at Bruges in 1548, 
He went early with his parents to Florence, and studied as an his- 
torical painter there, in fresco and in oil. He was probably the 
scholar of Vasari, for he assisted that painter in Florence, and in his 
works in the Vatican at Rome. He made for the Duke of Tuscany 
many cartoons to be worked in tapestry, He was afterwards invited 
while in Italy, by the Elector of Bavaria, to go to Munich and enter 
his service, which he did, and he remained there many years, until his 
death in 1628, and all works of art produced in his time were executed 
under his direction. He painted, under the arcade of the long gallery 
of the Hof-garten at Munich, a series of frescoes, representing the 
deeds of Otto of Wittelsbach, and the departure of the Emperor 
Ludwig IV. for Rome in 1327. These paintings were whitewashed 
over; the designs however are preserved in the tapestries which were 
worked from them, and in the engravings which were made by Amling 
from the tapestries: the prints are marked with the name of Pietro 
Candido as the painter. Amling engraved thirteen plates from these 
tapestries, representing the histories of the Emperor Otho, Louis of 
Bavaria, and Otho of Wittelsbach, according to Huber. 

WITTGENSTEIN is the name of a noble German family, which is 


“probably descended from one of those Frankish nobles upon whom 


Charlemagne conferred extensive estates in Saxony. This family has 
assumed the name of Sayn-Wittgenstein, although it never possessed 
the county of Sayn. The former county of Wittgenstein was situated 
in the southern corner of Westphalia, about the sources of the Sieg 
and the Lahn, a mountainous tract renowned for its rich iron-mines, 
and which exports great quantities of scythes and sickles. The counts 
of Wittgenstein were sovereign members of the German empire. They 
were early divided into two branches, the elder of which was sub- 
divided into two under-branches—the counts of Sayn-Wittgenstein- 
Berleburg and those of Sayn-Wittgenstein of Hohenstein, both of which 
acquired the title of Prince. The younger of the two branches above 
mentioned was raised to the rank of prince in 1834, on account of the 
military reputation of one of its members, Louis Adolphus, and who 
was one of the chief commanders of the Russian army in the wars 
against Napoleon.’ 

Louis ApoLrHus, CounT oF WITTGENSTEIN, born in 1769, entered 
the Prussian army, and made his first campaign against France in 
1793. He afterwards entered the Russian service, and fought with 
great distinction against the French and the Turks. In the campaign 
of 1807, in Prussia and Poland, he commanded under Benningsen, the 
Russian field-marshal, and was highly distinguished by the Emperor 
Alexander. Napoleon having invaded Russia in 1812, Count Witt- 
genstein was intrusted with the command of the right wing of the 
Russian army, which was to cover St. Petersburg, and the head- 
quarters of which were at Riga. He defended his position success- 
fully, during the whole war, against Marshal Macdonald, whom he 
finally drove back towards the Prussian frontier. The corps of Witt- 
genstein having suffered less than the rest of the Russians, it was 
employed as vanguard, and Wittgenstein entered Berlin on the 11th 
of March 1818. Kutusow, the Russian field-marshal, having died 
early in 1813, Wittgenstein was appointed commander-in-chief of the 
combined Russian and Prussian forces, In this situation he issued 
those famous but bombastic proclamations by which he intended to 
rouse the German nation, and, in particular, the Saxons, to make 
common cause with the allied powers. He lost the battles of Lutzen 
and Bautzen, but effected his retreat so well that Napoleon could not 
derive any benefit from his victories. When Austria adhered to the 
coalition (August 1813), Prince Schwarzenberg was invested with the 
command-in-chief of the united forces of the allies, and Wittgenstein 
was superseded in his command by Barclay de Tolly for the Russian 
forces, and by Bliicher for the Prussian army. He nevertheless con- 
tinued in command of a strong division of the Russian army, and in 
the battle of Leipzig (16th-18th October 1813) was at the head of 
70,000 men, with whom he occupied the position round the villages 
of Mark-Kleeberg, Wachau, and Liebertwolkwitz. In the campaign 
of 1814, in France, Wittgenstein, in the beginning of February, had 
penetrated as far as the neighbourhood of Paris, but Napoleon defeated 
him in the battles of Mormant and Nangis. After the war with 
Napoleon was terminated by the two peaces of Paris, Alexander 
rewarded him with extensive estates in Podolia, and put on the 
count’s coat of arms the inscription Meine ehre geb’ ich Niemand” 
(“I give my honour to nobody”). The merchants of St. Petersburg 
presented him with the sum of 150,000 silver rubles (30,0002). In 
1826 Wittgenstein was created a field-marshal, and, in 1828, the 
Emperor Nicolas gave him the command-in-chief against the Turks, 
The first campaign resulted in the passage of the Pruth and the 
Danube, and the conquest of Braila, Isakcha, Varna, and other for- 
tresses, which were taken by the Russians. These advantages how- 
ever were balanced by some severe losses, and Wittgenstein was 
recalled on the 18th of February 1829; but the emperor ‘did not 
dismiss him without giving him new proofs of his esteem. Wittgen- 
stein retired to his estates in Podolia, where he died in the beginning 
of the summer of 1843. In 1834 the King of Prussia conferred upon 
him and his successors the title of prince, 


WITZLEBEN, KARL AUGUST FRIEDRICH VON, better 
known as a writer by his literary pseudonym of Von Tromlitz, the 
name of his father’s estate near Weimar, where he was born March 
17, 1772. At the age of nine he was enrolled among the pages 
at the court of Weimar, and there had Muszeus and Herder for his 
instructors. Having entered very early into the Prussian service he 
obtained advancement in it, and distinguished himself in the Rhine 
campaigns of 1792-95. It was about the same time that he made his 
first literary attempt, being engaged by a publisher to complete a 
work entitled ‘Avanturen der Deutschen am Rhine, the author of 
which lived only to finish the first volume; and he also wrote several 
political pamphlets, at that period, and his romance, ‘ Das Stille Thal,’ 
Though Schiller encouraged him to cultivate his literary talent, that 
production was his last, until about twenty years afterwards, when he 
again appeared as a writer, 

During that interval he was constantly engaged in military service, 
of which he experienced a great deal in various campaigns ;—was at 
the battle of Jena; was taken prisoner at Prenzlau; became a com- 
mander ofinfantry in the army of the grand-duke of Berg (Murat) ; 
had a regiment in the Peninsular war, in 1811, when he was posted 
near Burgos; afterwards entered the allied army against France 3; and 
in 1813 became a colonel in the Russianservice. At the general peace 
his military career terminated, and he retired to Beuchlitz near Halle, 
where he followed farming for about the next seven years, when he 
went to Berlin, and at the age of forty-nine made literature his sole 
occupation. He did not however remain at Berlin many years, but 
in 1826 removed to Dresden, in which city and its neighbourhood he 
continued to reside till his death, July 9, 1839. 

That ‘Tromlitz’ was both a fertile writer and a favourite one with 
the public, is tolerably evident from three editions of his collected 
tales and novels—two in 36, and one in 27 volumes—having passed 
through the press between 1833 and 1840. He distinguished himself 
chiefly by his historical romances—a species of literature greatly in 
vogue, and in which he took Scott for his model, and with perhaps as 
much success as any other of his imitators. Interest of story, clever- 
ness of invention, and an agreeable style of narrative, sufficiently re- 
commended his productions of that class to readers in general, though 
it has been alleged that they show no very great knowledge of history 
or deep insight into human nature. Those of most note among them 
are :—* Die Pappenheimer,’ ‘Franz von Sickingen,’ ‘ Mutius Sforza,’ 
‘Das Leben des Markgrafen Albrecht von Brandenburg,’ and ‘Die 
Carracas.’ He also displayed some dramatic talent in his ‘Douglas’ 
(1826), but not with such success as to encourage him to pursue 
that career. 

WODROW, ROBERT, an antiquary and ecclesiastical historian, 
second son of James Wodrovw, professor of divinity in the University 
of Glasgow, was born in that city in 1679. He studied at his native 
university, which he entered in 1691. While studying theology under 
his father, he was appointed librarian of the college, an office very con- 
genial to his pursuits. He was licensed as a preacher in March 1703, 
and in the summer of that year he was ordained minister of Eastwood 
in Renfrewshire, a parish situated between Glasgow and Paisley. His 
history from this period to his death is almost entirely that of his 
literary labours. He felt that the seclusive and light duties of a 
retired and small parish gave him the best chance of leisure for the 
accomplishment of his projected works, and though repeatedly invited 
to accept of more important ministerial charges, in Glasgow and in 
Stirling, he spent the remainder of his days at Eastwood. He was 
however an active church politician; he punctually attended the eccle- 
siastical courts, and had much influence on their deliberations, He 
was chosen one of a committee of Presbytery to act with the com- 
mission of the Assembly in Edinburgh for the protection of the Church 
of Scotland, on the occasion of the Union of 1707. He exerted him- 
self in opposing the Act of 1712 for re-establishing patronage, the 
same which, after having been for 130 years a source of division in the 
Church of Scotland, caused the great secession of 1843. Wodrow was 
the most prominent member of a committee of five clergymen who, on 
the accession of George I., were deputed by the General Assembly to 
proceed to London, and urge the repeal of the obnoxious Patronage 
Act. Defeated in his object, he became conspicuous among his 
brethren in recommending submission to the law as it stood, and in 
giving a beneficial effect to its operations. Yielding however on this 
point, he was one of those clergy who steadily resisted the imposition 
of the oath of abjuration ; a test which gradually fell into desuetude, 
as those who refused to submit to it were at the same time among the 
best friends of the Hanover succession. Though he objected to the 
tendering of tests involving a principle of civil government, to church- 
men, he was a zealous supporter of the principle of subscribing articles 
of faith—that is to say, the articles of faith of his own church; and he 
conducted a long and laborious written controversy on the subject with 
the supporters of the independent principle in England and Ireland. 

He died on the 21st of March 1734. It remains to give a cursory 
notice of his literary labours. His ‘ History of the Sufferings of the 
Church of Scotland, from the Restoration to the Revolution,’ was pub- 
lished in two volumes, folio, in 1721-22. A few years ago it was a 
scarce and high-priced book, and in 1829 it was republished in four 
volumes 8vo, with a memoir of the author, by the Rev. Robert Burns 
of Paisley, now of Toronto, in Canada, Wodrow contemplated a 


779 WOELFL, JOSEPH. 


WOLCOTT, JOHN. 780 


complete History of the Church of Scotland, in a series of lives of 
individuals conspicuously connected with it. The manuscript of this 
large work, not finally corrected for press, is in the library of the 
University of Glasgow. A considerable number of the Lives have 
been printed by the Maitland Club, and a portion of the work is 
among the publications of the Wodrow Society. 

Wodrow was a zealous and minute historian. In narrating the per- 
secutions of the Presbyterian nonconformists during the reign of 
Charles II., he undertook a subject in relation to which the bitterest 
feelings of indignation were still alive in the circle of society to which 
he belonged. The book is written in a purely partisan spirit. It con- 
tains a good deal of gossiping scandal, pays little respect to the 
characters of individuals of the Episcopal party, and invariably adopts 
the very worst view of their motives. It is generally admitted how- 
ever to be faithful as a narrative of public occurrences, and few strictly 
party narratives can be so safely relied upon as the ‘history of the 
troubles.’ But the author is wholly wanting in toleration. Presby- 
terianism yhe looked upon as the truth; oppressing it he considered 
equivalent to making war on the Deity, and the toleration of any other 
form of worship he viewed as something only a degree less wicked. 
‘“‘ The king’s softness,” he says, speaking of James VI. of Scotland, “as 
to Papists, and his carelessness to execute the laws, not only against 
them, but against every branch of wickedness now abounding, brought 
him into great contempt, and every one did according to his own 
eyes, as if there had been no king or settled government.” (‘Life of 
Bruce,’ p. 25.) In the Advocate’s Library there are six closely-written 


volumes called ‘ Wodrow’s Analecta,’ a diary and collection of anec- 


dotes, commencing with the year 1701. It is partly written in a 
secret hand, which has however been deciphered. This curious work 
has been printed by the Maitland Club, It exhibits a mind deeply 
tinged with a sort of dubious superstition—many spectral and pro- 
phetic stories such as the following are given, not as events for which 
the narrator “ pledges his belief,’ yet always as told him by some 
person worthy of credit :—“ Mr. John Welsh was preaching at a con- 
venticle, and ther was one cast a loafe at him when preaching. Mr, 
Welsh stopped, and told them he knew not the person that had done 
soe, but he was persuaded ther would be moe persons at that person’s 
death then ther wer hearing him preach that day; and everybody 
knowes what a confluence ther was at Philip Stainfield’s execution for 
murdering his father, and this Philip was the person that thus mocked 
Mr. Welsh in his youth.” Of course all the miraculous interpositions 
and special providences act in favour of the narrator’s own side in 
church politics. The ‘Wodrow MSS.’ in the Advocates’ Library 
amount to several hundred volumes. They are the collections made 
by the historian for the prosecution of his intended works. Many of 
them are original state-papers and letters, English and Scottish, bound 
up in volumes, with contents in Wodrow’s hand-writing. Others are 
copies taken by himself of documents of which the originals in many 
cases are not now to be found, This collection, with his printed 
works, and many hundreds of long letters on ecclesiastical matters, are 
a striking illustration of his zeal and untiring industry. In May 1841 
the ‘Wodrow Society,’ already referred to, was instituted “ for the 
publication of the works of the fathers and early writers of the 
Reformed Church of Scotland.” 

WOELFL, JOSEPH, a distinguished composer and a performer on 
the pianoforte, was born at Salzburg in 1772, where he received 
instructions from Leopold Mozart, father of the illustrious Wolfgang, 
and from Michael Haydn, brother of the no less illustrious father of 
. taodern symphony. After a short musical tour he reached Vienna in 
1795, and there successfully produced his first opera. He then visited 
Dresden, Berlin, Hamburg, &c., and arrived in London in 1799, where 
he remained, composing and giving lessons, two years, then proceeded 
to Paris, and in all those cities excited great admiration by his powers 
of execution. He returned to England in a few months, and resided 
in its capital till his death, which took place in 1811. 

As a pianist, Woelfl exhibited very extraordinary powers. His 
hands, which were of gigantic dimensions, enabled him to do, by 
means of their capacious grasp and strength, what none of his con- 
temporaries could accomplish, thus making him, as it were, the 
precursor of the living Thalberg; and his profound knowledge of 
harmony qualified him to turn to the best advantage the prodigality 
of nature, if it may be so considered, His compositions are numerous, 
extending to nearly every branch of the art, and all prove him to have 
been a thorough-bred musician, though many were written principally 
with a view to sale, and several are too elaborate and too difficult to 
be popular. Nevertheless, had he not indulged to excess in that habit 
which in his day was so prevalent with his countrymen, and which 
brought his life to a close at the premature age of thirty-nine, he pro- 
bably would have made a reputation little inferior to that of the great 
musical triumvirate of modern Germany, 

WOHLGEMUTH, MICHAEL, a celebrated old German painter 
and engraver on copper and in wood, was born at Niirnberg in 1434, 
He was the first German artist who attained any degree of excellence 
in painting, and he has the additional honour of having been the 
master of Albert Diirer. Wohlgemuth’s wood-cuts are the oldest 
prints of that class in Germany of which the artist is known, and they 
are extremely scarce. Wohlgemuth’s paintings are likewise scarce; 
there are two in the Augustine church at Niirnberg, another in Our 


Lady’s chapel, and a Last Judgment in the town-house of the same 
place; and one in the church of Schwabach for which he was paid, in 
1507, 600 florins, for that period a very great sum: some years after 
this the celebrated Amberger charged the Emperor Charles V, for his 
forces only 35 florins. There is also a valuable work by him in the 


mperial Gallery of Vienna, painted in 1511; another in the Louvre 


at Paris; in the Pinakothek at Miinich there are five pieces by Wohl- 
gemuth ; and the Liverpool Royal Institution possesses fiye pictures 


attributed to him. He died in 1519, aged eighty-five. The king of — 
Bavaria possesses a portrait of Wohlgemuth, painted in 1516, in his — 


eighty-second year, by his pupil Albert Diirer; this is inscribed upon 
the back of the picture. ; 

Wohlgemuth’s style has the defects of the works of art of his age, 
especially in design; his works however are finished with extreme 
minuteness and accuracy of details, exhibit much expression, and in 
the draperies are superior to the works of many of the eminent Ger- 
man painters who succeeded him, 

Wohlgemuth and Pleydenwurff cut in wood the illustrations of a 
curious and celebrated old work in folio, known as the ‘ Niirn 
Chronicle’ of Hartmann Schedel, a physician, It was published first 
in Latin, in 1493, eight years after the death of its author, and was 
translated into German in the following year. The cuts consist of 
views of towns and portraits of eminent men. The Latin edition is 
the better ; the title commences— Liber Chronicorum per viam Epi- 
tomatis et Breviarii compilatus,’ &c. 

There are several old prints and wood-cuts marked W., which have 
been attributed to Wohlgemuth, but from their inferiority it is very 
doubtful whether he was the author of them : two other old rg: 
Wenceslaus and J, Walch, marked their prints with a W, but A 
known that Wohlgemuth ever did. 

WOIDE, CHARLES GODFREY, was a native of Holland, or of 
Poland according to Lefebvre-Cauchy, in the ‘ Biographie Universelle, 
who also says that he was born in 1725, and that he studied at Frank- 
fort-on-the-Oder and at Leyden, In 1770 he was invited to 
land, being appointed preacher at the German Royal Cha 
James’s, where he afterwards became reader also. In 1782 he was 
appointed assistant-librarian at the British Museum, in the depart- 
ment of natural history, and soon afterwards in the department 
of printed books. The University of Copenhagen conferred upon 
him the degree of D.D., and in 1786 the University of Oxford the 
degree of Doctorin Civil Law. In 1788 he was chosen a fellow of the 
Royal Society. On the 6th of May 1790, he was seized with an 
apoplectic fit in the house of Sir Joseph Banks, and he died on the 
following day, in his apartments in the British Museum. Dr. Woide 
left two daughters by his wife, who died in 1782, His principal 
literary productions are :—1, ‘ Mathurin Veyssiére la Croze, eH 
/Egyptiaco-Latinum ex veteribus illius Lingue Monumentis, quod in 
Compendium redegit Christianus Scholtz; Notulas quasdam et Indi- 
cem adjecit C. G. Woide,’ e Typographia Clarendon. Oxford, 1775, 
4to. 
the beginning of the 18th century by the learned French refugée La 
Croze, who published his preface to it in 1772, in the ‘ Bremer Ephe- 
meriden,’ The work however remained in manuscript, which was 
revised, abridged in some places, and completed in others by Scholtz. 
The revised manuscript became the property of the library of hay its 
where it was examined by Woide, who conceived the idea of pub- 
lishing it. It is said that there was then no printing-office in this 
country provided with Coptic characters, and the University of Oxford 
liberally undertook to bear the expense, Part of the work was already 
printed, when Woide was requested to make some additions to it, 


which he could only do for the three last letters of the Coptic 


alphabet : he also added an index. 2, ‘ Christianus Scholtz, Gram- 
matica Aigyptiaca utriusque dialecti, edita 3 C. G. Woide,’ Oxford, 
1778, 4to, This was a manuscript of the learned Scholtz, who had 
revised the dictionary of La Croze: it was very voluminous, and 
Woide abridged it so as to come into one printed volume 4to, He also 
made additions, and that part of the grammar which relates to the 
Sahidic dialect of the Coptic language is entirely by Dr, Woide. 3, 
‘Novum Testamentum Grecum, & Codice MS. Alexandrino qui Lon- 
dini in Bibliotheca Musei Britannici asservatur, deseriptum & C. G, 
Woide,’ &c., ex Prelo Joannis Nichols, Typis Jacksonianis, 1786, folio. 
The Alexandrine manuscript of the Bible in the British Museum 
(King’s MS., 1, D. viii.) is of great value. As Dr. Woide required the 
collation of the Vatican and} other manuscripts made for Dr. Bentle 


y: 
he addressed himself to the doctor's son, the Rev. Dr. Richard Bentley, 


rector of Nailston near Ashby in Leicestershire, who was in n 
of those collations, and who allowed Woide to collate them during a 


fortnight in the house of the Rev, J. C. Gallaway, the vicar of Hinck- — 


ley. Dr. Woide transcribed the part of the Alexandrine manuscri 


pt 
which he intended to publish with his own hand, and he collated it — 
al : Dr. John Butler, the bishop of Oxford, — 

assisted him in the transcription, and Mr. Harper, of the British 


twice with the origin 


Museum, in the collating. Woide wrote a Latin preface to this wo: 
in which he gives a critical investigation of the history and merits 


the Alexandrine manuscript. (Nichols, Literary Anecdotes of the 


Eighteenth Century, vol. ix., p. 9-14.) 
WOLCOTT, JOHN, better known by his assumed name of Peter 


Pindar, was born at Dodbrooke in Devonshire, about the beginning of — 


This is a dictionary of the Coptic language, which was made at 


781 WOLCOTT, JOHN. 


. WOLF, FRIEDRICH AUGUST, 782 


1788, His father, a substantial yeoman, died about the time his son 
attained his eleventh year. John received the rudiments of his edu- 
cation at the free-school of Kingsbridge, a neighbouring market-town ; 
and was, after his father’s death, placed under the Rev. Mr. Fisher, 
master of a grammar-school at Bodmin. He described himself, in 
after life, as having been a dull scholar, but as having showed eyen at 
that early age a turn for versifying. 

On leaying school he was removed to Fowey in Cornwall, to the 
house of an uncle, who was a medical practitioner. This gentleman 
sent his nephew to reside for a year in Normandy, with a view to 
attain a command of the French language. On his return John 
Wolcott became his uncle’s apprentice for seven years. At the termi- 
nation of his apprenticeship he completed his medical education by 
the usual attendance in a London hospital, He appears to have 
applied himself with sufficient diligence to obtain a knowledge of his 
future profession; but he annoyed his uncle and two aunts by culti- 
vating his talents for versifying and painting. 

In 1767 Sir William Trelawney was appointed governor of Jamaica, 
and Wolcott, who had some connection with the family, was invited to 
accompany him. Before leaving England, Wolcott procured the degree 
of M.D. from the University of Aberdeen. His hopes of obtaining a 
lucrative practice in Jamaica were soon dispelled, The white popu- 
lation was not numerous, and the coloured could not pay. The 
incumbent of a valuable living in the island being dangerously ill, the 
governor suggested to his young friend that he might obtain prefer- 
ment inthe church, Wolcott upon this hint proceeded to England, 
and was ordained by the Bishop of London; but on his return the 
clergyman whom he was to succeed had recovered, and he was obliged 
to remain contented with the curacy of Vere, His clerical duties he 
is said to have utterly neglected : his real employment was officiating 
as master of ceremonies to the governor. After the death of Sir 
William Trelawney, in 1768, Wolcott accompanied his widow to Eng- 
land, and never returned to the West Indies, 

The next twelve years of his life were spent in attempting to 
establish himself as a physician at Truro, Helstone, and other towns 
in Cornwall. In this he uniformly failed, apparently on account of 
an invincible propensity to live as a practical humorist and satirise his 
neighbours, but he probably had no great amount of knowledge or skill 
in his profession. During his residence at Truro, some songs of his 
composition were set to music by Mr. W. Jackson, of Exeter, and first 
introduced him to general notice, In 1778 he published his first com- 
position in that peculiar style which not long after obtained for him 
such a high and continued popularity—‘ The Epistle to the Reviewers.’ 
It was during Wolcott’s residence at Truro too that he detected the 
talents of the self-taught artist Opie. With this protégé he, in 1780, 
transferred his residence to the metropolis. Wolcott’s own account 
of this adventure is as follows :—“ At length I proposed to him to go 
first to Exeter and afterwards to London, and having lost an income 
of 3007. or 400/, by the change of scene, entered into a written engage- 
ment, by which it was agreed we should share the joint profits in 
equal divisions. We actually did so for a year; but at the end of 
that time my pupil told me I might return to the country, as he could 
now do for himself.” That his pupil, as he terms him, should have 
done so is scarcely to be wondered at, for it does not appear that 
Wolcott contributed anything the ‘joint profits;’ or that he really 
sustained any pecuniary loss by his change of residence. 

No opening offering itself in the metropolis, either in physic or 
divinity, Wolcott was obliged to betake himself to his pen for support. 
His satirical and artistical tastes suggested the subject of his first 
publication :—‘ Lyric Odes to the Royal Academicians for 1782, by 
Peter Pindar, Esq., a distant relation of the Poet of Thebes, and 
Laureate to the Academy,’ took the town by surprise. The justice of 
many of his remarks, the reckless daring of the personalities, the 
quaintness of the style, were something so entirely new that the work 
obtained immediate popularity. Encouraged by success the author 
returned to the attack in 1783, 1785, and 1786. But he soon dis- 
covered that, in order to keep alive the first impression, he must vary 
his themes; and that the more daring he was in the selection of his 
objects of attack, the more would his works be run after, and the less 
would he incur any real danger. The king, ministers, opposition 
leaders, and: authors, were assailed in succession, The latest public 
gossip was sure to be versified by Peter Pindar, and to be sought after 
with avidity. Partly by real talent, but far more by the most licen- 
tious personality, his works, as they issued in succession from the 
press, continued to be run after for a period of nearly forty years. A 
collected edition of them was published in 1812, but it is defective, 
for they were so numerous that the author himself could not retain’ 
them all in his memory. An imperfect list of Dr. Wolcott’s works 
printed at the end of his life in the ‘Annual Biography’ for 1819 
enumerates no less than sixty-four. 

There is a fashion in the burlesque poetry of every age that is 
palatable to the public of that age only. The subjects of Woleott’s 
verses were ephemeral ; they are now forgotten except by the students 
of the memoirs, pamphlets, and forgotten literature of his time. 
These circumstances will prevent their continuing generally popular. 
But the few curious inquirers who have a taste for the obsolete will 
acknowledge that Wolcott’s popularity, though mainly, was not 
entirely earned by his audacious personalities. His versification is 


nervous, though not varied in its modulation; his language is racy 
and idiomatic; his wit, though often forced, is even more often 
genuine; and through all his puns and quaintnesseg there runs a vein 
of strong manly sense. 

The personal character of Wolcott is very far from an amiable one. 
His attempt to support himself by the labours of Opie has already 
been noticed. After all his biting satires on George III. and Pitt, he 
accepted a pension from the administration of which Pitt was the 
head—not to laud it (for praise was not in his nature) but to vitu- 
perate its opponents, He took orders and even officiated as a clergy- 
man, though an avowed and profane unbeliever. He had a shrewd 
intellect ; some taste in the arts of design and music (a series of his 
landscapes was engraved by Alken, and published in 1797 under the 
title of ‘Picturesque Views ;’ and some of his tunes have attained a 
permanent popularity) ; and his literary compositions have the finish 
of an artist. But his utter selfishness and entire want of principle 
rendered these intellectual tastes scarcely more elevated in him than 
his sensual appetites, which were equally regulated by taste and judg- 
ment, He was the perfection of a self-indulgent voluptuary both in 
physical and intellectual respects, 

Wolcott’s constitution was probably naturally strong, for he attained 
to the advanced age of eighty-one. But for many years previous to 
his death he was the victim of asthma, very deaf, and almost entirely 
blind, His mind however retained its full powers. He lived only for 
himself; declined dinner invitations “to avoid the danger of loading 
his stomach with more than nature required ;” lay in bed the greater 
part of his time, because “it would be folly in me to be groping 
around my drawing-room,” and because “ when up and in motion I 
am obliged to carry a load of eleven stone, while here I have only a 
few ounces of blankets to support ;” and when out of bed he amused 
himself with his violin, or examining, as well as his sight permitted, 
his crayons and pictures. He showed no aversion to receive notoriety- 
hunters who came to see and hear ‘Peter Pindar,’ but evinced no 
desire for society. He left a considerable property to his relations. 
John Wolcott died on the 14th of January 1819, and was interred in 
the churchyard of St. Paul’s, Covent Garden, 

WOLF, FRIEDRICH AUGUST, the greatest of modern German 
scholars, was born on the 15th of February 1759, at Hainrode, a 
village in the county of Hohenstein, near Nordhausen, where his 
father was organist, and from whence he was afterwards removed to 
Nordhausen, and appointed teacher at one of the schools of the place. 
Up to the seventh year, when he entered the gymnasium of Nord- 
hausen, Wolf's education was conducted with great care and strictness 
by his parents, Under the influence of Hake, the head of that insti- 
tution, Wolf conceived that love of antiquity which never forsook 
him, and the same teacher also implanted in his mind a habit which 
characterises his whole literary life, the habit of thinking and judging 
for himself without being swayed by any authority, and of pursuing 
only one thing at a time. By following this system, and making con- 
scientious use of his time, Wolf, even before he went to the university, 
had read all the most important ancient, as well as German, French, 
English, Italian, and Spanish writers. His father’s intention was to 
make him, as well as his brothers Georg Friedrich, a professional 
musician ; and after he himself had given him all the theoretical and 
practical instruction he was capable of, he sent both sons to the learned 
organist Schroter, who also iustructed them in mathematics, a science 
to which Friedrich August had an aversion throughout life. But old 
Wolf's plan was adopted only by Georg Friedrich ; for although 
Friedrich August was fond of music, sang, and played several instru- 
ments, yet he regarded the art only as an elegant amusement, and was 
resolyed to fellow the course of study which he had commenced at 
the gymnasium. In 1777 he accordingly went to the University of 
Gottingen to study philology exclusively. He always prized private 
study more than any other; and in consequence of this he was highly 
irregular in his attendance in the lecture-rooms. Heyne observed this 
inclination in Wolf, and on one occasion when Heyne was going to 
lecture on Pindar, and Wolf wanted to enter his name as one of hig 
hearers, Heyne refused to admit him, From this moment Wolf 
avoided Heyne, and did not even attempt to become a member of the 
philological seminary, though in a financial point of view it would 
have been a material assistance to him. But Wolf nevertheless lived 
happy and retired at Gottingen, and he made up the deficiencies in 
his finances by giving private lessons to other students in Greek and 
English; and it is a curious fact, that in order to have an English 
book which he might read with his pupils, he published, in 1778, an 
edition of Shakspere’s ‘Macbeth,’ with explanatory notes. Heyne 
was at the time a man of paramount influence in all scholastic matters 
in Germany, and Wolf before leaving the university presented to him 
a dissertation on Homer, in which he explained some points on which 
he ventured to differ from Heyne; but Heyne peremptorily refused to 
read it. 

In 1779 Wolf left Gottingen, and was immediately after appointed 
teacher in the paedagogium at Ilfeld. Here he made himself first 
known to scholars by his edition of Plato’s ‘Symposium’ (8vo, Leipzig, 
1782; a second edition appeared in 1828), with notes and a valuable 
introduction in German. The manner in which Wolf treated his 
author met with general approbation, and attracted the attention of 
the Prussian minister, Baron von Zedlitz.’ In consequence of this pub- 


783 WOLF, FRIEDRICH AUGUST. 


WOLF, HIERONYMUS. 


784 


lication Wolf was appointed, in 1782, rector of the public school of 
Osterode, at the foot of the Harz mountains. In the year following 
he received two invitations, one to the office of rector of the gymnasium 
at Gera, and the other to that of ordinary professor of philosophy in 
the University of Halle, and rector of the paedagogical institute, 
which was then connected with the university. Although the post at 
Halle was less lucrative than that of Gera, Wolf preferred it, because it 
opened to him a wider and more satisfactory sphere of action. His 
mode of teaching at Halle was so different from that which had been 
customary, that in the first years he was little understood and appre- 
ciated by the students, and he gradually discovered that he must 
descend to the capacity and knowledge of his hearers. From the time 
he adopted this plan his lecture-room was always crowded, and the 
greatest zeal prevailed among the students. With the assistance of 
Baron von Zedlitz, Wolf succeeded in transforming the paedagogical 
institute of Halle into a philological seminary, similar to that which 
Heyne conducted at Géttingen. As an academical teacher Wolf fol- 
lowed his own way, and being thoroughly convinced that there is no 
fitter means of educating men for the higher purposes of life than the 
study of the ancient languages and antiquity generally, his great object 
was to train a number of able teachers, who were to diffuse sound 
principles of education throughout Germany, and counteract the 
numerous empirical schemes which were then afloat. Wolf always 
regarded it as his peculiar vocation to work as a teacher; literary 
labours and reputation were matters of secondary importance with 
him. To give the reader some notion of his extraordinary activity as 
a teacher, we may mention the fact, that during the twenty-three 
years of his professorship at Halle he delivered upwards of fifty 
courses of lectures on different subjects of antiquity, independent of 
what he did in conducting the philological seminary. In order to 
supply a suitable text of Hesiod for the purpose of a course of lectures 
on mythology, he published, in 1784, an edition of Hesiod’s ‘ Theo- 
gony, with a preface and some notes. 

About this time his attention was drawn to the Homeric poems by the 
request of a publisher to prepare an edition of them. Many years 
however passed away before this plan was realised. In 1789 he pub- 
lished his celebrated edition of Demosthenes’ oration against Leptines, 
together with the declamation of Aelius Aristides on the same subject. 
The learning displayed in the introduction, the excellent commentary, 
and the ingenious emendations of the text, established his reputation 
as a first-rate scholar and critic. In 1795 he at length published the 
results of his Homeric studies in the celebrated ‘Prolegomena ad 
Homerum,’ in which he developed his views on the original form of 
the ‘ Iliad’ and ‘ Odyssey,’ explained the history of these poems, and 
pointed out in what manner their original form might be restored. 
With extraordinary sagacity and learning he here endeavours to show 
that the ‘ Iliad’ and the ‘Odyssey’ in their present form are not the 
work of Homer, but the work of several rhapsodists, which were sub- 
sequently put together and made up in the two epics bearing the 
name of Homer. ‘his work created a great sensation all through 
Europe, and gave rise to numerous historical and antiquarian investi- 
gations. Several scholars, and among them Heyne, endeavoured to 
diminish Wolf’s merits by asserting that they had entertained similar 
ideas respecting the Homeric poems ; and Heyne went so far as to say 
that Wolf had done nothing but strung together the notions which he 
had gathered at Gottingen. This unfounded assertion provoked 
Wolf to publish a series of letters addressed to Heyne, ‘Briefe an 
Heyne, eine Beilage zu den neuesten Untersuchungen iiber Homer’ 
. (8vo, Berlin, 1797), the first three of which are models of a learned 
controversy and exquisite irony, Wolf’s ‘Prolegomena’ have un- 
questionably had greater influence than any other learned production 
of modern times; and although the results at which the author had 
arrived are now almost universally regarded as untenable, or at least 
greatly modified, yet the work begot that spirit of critical investigation 
which has ever since characterised the best among the learned works 
of Germany. It was Wolf who gave this impulse. 

In the years 1801 and 1802, in which his literary activity was 
greatest, he published—1, Five orations of Cicero (‘ Post reditum in 
senatu,’ ‘Ad Quirites post reditum,’ ‘Pro domo ad pontifices,’ ‘De 
Haruspicum responsis,’ and Pro Marcello’), and he endeavoured to 
prove that these orations are spurious, that they are mere declamations 
of later rhetoricians, and altogether unworthy of Cicero; 2, His 
edition of Suetonius, in 4 vols. 8vo (Leipzig, 1802), with the notes of 
Ernesti, Isaac Casaubon, and some of his own. This edition contains 
also the fragments of the ‘Monumentum Ancyranum,’ and of the 
‘Fasti Praenestini.’ 3, A collection of his smaller essays and occa- 
sional orations delivered at Halle, ‘ Vermischte Schriften und Aufsiitze 
in Lat. und Deutscher Sprache,’ 8vo, Halle, 1802, During this period 
Wolf received several honourable invitations from other universities ; 
in 1796 an invitation to a professorship at Leyden ; in 1798 another as 
chief manager of all the learned schools in Denmark ; and in 1805 a 
third invitation to Miinich. But he declined all these flattering offers, 
and was rewarded for it by the Prussian government with a consider- 
able increase of his salary and the title of privy councillor (Geheimer 
Rath). During the time from 1804 to 1807 he was engaged in the 
publication of his text of the Homeric poems (8vo, Leipzig, 4 vols). 
A second and still better edition is that of 1817, in 4 vols. 12mo. It 
was reprinted, with a preface by G. Hermann, in 2 vols. 8vo, Leipzig, 


1825, and in 1828, in 4 vols. 12mo. Wolf had not finished his 
edition of Homer when, after the disasters of 1806, the University 
of Halle was closed. As Wolf had no property, he was for a time 
in considerable difficulties, In 1807 he went to Berlin, where he 
found an opportunity of devoting his energy to the Academy of 
Sciences of that capital, of which he was a member. Here he also 
took a most active part in the establishment of the University of 
Berlin. For himself he wished to have the general superintendence of 
all the schools at Berlin, and the management of a philological semi- 
nary which was to be connected with the new university and the 
gymnasia of Berlin, and for which he drew up an excellent plan, In 
the meantime he also obtained a high office in the ministry for public 
instruction; but as he could not realise his plans, and as the duties of 
his several offices engrossed a great deal of his time which he would 
have preferred to devote to teaching—his favourite occupation—he 
withdrew from public service, but being a member of the Berlin 
academy, he reserved to himself the right of lecturing in the university 
on such subjects as might be most agreeable to him. During the 
period of leisure which now followed, he devoted nearly all his time 
to literary labours. From 1807 to 1810 he edited, together with 
Buttmann, the ‘Museum der Alterthumswissenschaft’ (Berlin, 2 vols. 
8vo); the first volume contains Wolf’s celebrated treatise ‘ Darstellung 
der Alterthumswissenschaft nach Begriff, Umfang, Zweck und Werth, 

which was reprinted at Leipzig, 8vo, 1833, together with a select 
number of his smaller essays, by S. F. W. Hoffmann. This treatise is 
the first in which Philology, or the Alterthumswissenschaft (a word for 
which an equivalent is much wanted in English), was treated as and 
raised to the rank of ascience. In 1812 he edited three dialogues of 
Plato (‘Euthyphro,’ ‘ Apologia Socratis,’ and ‘ Crito’), Berlin, 1 vol. 4to, 
with an elegant Latin translation. From 1817 to 1820 he edited a 
periodical, ‘ Literarische Analekten’ (Berlin, 4 vols. 8vo), perhaps the 
best philological journal that has ever been published. He gave it up 
suddenly in 1820, on account of the restrictions imposed upon the 
press by the government, to which he was unwilling to submit. Some 
years after this he began to suffer from ill health. In April 1824, he 
travelled to the south of France for the purpose of restoring his 
health, but he never returned to his country: he died at Marseille, on 
the 18th of August 1824. 

An interesting volume compiled from the papers which Wolf had 
left on matters of education, was edited by W. Korte, Wolf’s son-in- 
law, under the title ‘Ueber Erziehung Schule, Universitit (Consilia 
Scholastica),’ Quedlinburg und Leipzig, 8vo, 1835. After the death of 
Wolf several of his former pupils set about editing some of his most 
important courses of lectures, but the haste and carelessness with 
which the task was undertaken left much to be desired. These — 
lectures are—1, ‘ Encyclopaedie der Philologie,’ edited by Stockmann, 
1 vol. 8vo, Leipzig, 1830; 2, ‘Vorlesungen iiber die Alterthums- 
wissenschaft,’ edited by Giirtler, 5 vol. 8vo, Leipzig, 1831-35; 3, * Vor- 
lesungen iiber die vier ersten Gesiinge von Homer’s Ilias, edited by 
Usteri, 3 vols. 8vo, Bern, 1831. 

(Hanhart, Zrinnerungen an Fr. A. Wolf, 8vo, Basel, 1825; W. Korte, 
Leben und Studien Fr. A. Wolf’s, des Philologen, 2 vols. 8vo, Essen, 
1833; 8. F. W. Hoffmann’s Preface to Fr. A. Wolf’s Darstellung der 
Alterthumswissenschaft.) 

WOLF, HIERO’NYMUS, a German scholar of the 16th century, 
was born on the 13th of August 1516, at Dettingen, and belonged to a 
noble but reduced family. From his early youth he showed a great 
inclination to study, but his father, whose means were very limited, 
and who also thought the delicate constitution of his son unsuited for 
a studious life, tried to dissuade him from it, His son at last gave 
way, and resolved to become a soldier; but some books which chance 
threw in his way again changed his determination, and he went to the 
University of Tiibingen, where he became a pupil of Camerarius and 


J. Schegk. As his father could not supply him with money, he was 


obliged to become a sort of literary servant (famulus) to one of the 
professors. He was however soon tired of this situation, and went to 
Wiirzburg, where he got a place as clerk in the bishop’s office. Here 
too he did not remain long, He resigned his post and went to Wit-— 
tenberg, where he attended the lectures of Melanchthon and others, 
and also began to translate some Greek authors into Latin, which was 
his favourite occupation. In 1539 he went from Wittenberg to Niirn- 
berg, where he acted for a time as assistant-master in a public school, 
until, in 1543, he was appointed rector of the gymnasium at Miihl- 
hausen, on the recommendation of Melanchthon: but his restless dis- 
position did not allow him to remain there more than two years; he 
resigned his office and returned to Niirnberg. Having stayed there 
for some time, during which he maintained himself by giving private 
lessons, he went to Strassburg. The next few years he spent partly at 
Strassburg and partly at Basel, being all the while zealously engaged 
in preparing his editions of Isocrates, Demosthenes, and Aeschines, — 
From Strassburg he accompanied some young men whom he instructed 
in Greek, to Paris, and after a short stay there he returned to Basel, — 
He now took his degree of Master of Arts, and then went to Augsburg, 
where he at length found a resting-place. Anton Fugger received him — 
into his house, made him his librarian, and employed him in carrying — 
on his Latin correspondence. After having been in this situation for 
six years, from 1551 to 1557, he was appointed professor of Greekin 
the gymnasium of Augsburg. Soon after he was promoted to the — 


785 WOLF, JOHANN CHRISTOPH. 


WOLFE, REV. CHARLES, 736 


rectorship of the same institution, and obtained in addition to it the 
office of librarian of the public library of the city of Augsburg. These 
offices he held until his death, on the 8th of October 1580. 
Hieronymus Wolf was a man of very extensive learning, and parti- 
cularly distinguished for his knowledge of Greek, which he is said to 
have written with greater facility than Latin. Some of his works 
have Greek prefaces, which show that he possessed a perfect know- 
ledge of Greek. His Latin translations from the Greek are more 
faithful and correct than elegant. He was a man of a very discon- 
tented disposition, and was often in a state of melancholy. He had 
scarcely any friend, and was never married, He was fond of astrologi- 
cal speculations, Among his editions and translations of Greek writers 


the following deserve to be mentioned, and some of them are still of 


reat value, as he made good use of manuscripts:—1, An edition of 
chorus Gregoras, with a Latin translation and notes, folio, Basel. 
1552; 2, An abridged edition of Suidas, with a Latin translation, 
folio, Basel, 1581; 3, An edition of Demosthenes and Aeschines, with, 
a Latin translation, the commentary of Ulpian, Greek scolia, various 
readings and notes, folio, Basel, 1572; 4, A very good edition of all 
the works of Isocrates, with a Latin translation and notes, folio, Basel, 
1570. The edition of these three Attic orators is the best among his 
editions of ancient authors; 5, An edition of Zonaras, with a Latin 
translation, for which he collated five manuscripts, folio, Basel, 1557 ; 
6, The first edition of Nicetas Acominatus, with a Latin translation, 
folio, Basel, 1557. He also wrote notes on several works of Cicero, 
which however are not of much value, and some original treatises, 
such as ‘ Dialogus de Usu Astrologie,’ and several others. 

WOLF, JOHANN CHRISTOPH, a learned Lutheran divine, was 
born on the 21st of February 1683, at Wernigerode, where his father 
was ecclesiastical superintendent. In 1695 the family removed to 
Hamburg, where the father died three months after his arrival; but 
young Wolf found a friend in Johann Albert Fabricius, who received 
him into his house, allowed him the use of his extensive library, and 
also gave him great assistance in his studies. The young man availed 
himself of these opportunities, and before he had attained his twentieth 
year, and before he went to the university, he had not only read the 
most important among the ancient writers, but also the whole Com- 
mentary of Eustathius upon Homer, and conjointly with Peter Zorn 
he drew up a list of the authors mentioned in that commentary. This 
list is printed, with a few improvements, in Fabricius’s ‘ Bibliotheca 
Greca’ (vol. i, p. 457-501). Subsequently he made a similar list of 
authors referred to in the Scholia on Apollonius Rhodius, which is 
likewise printed in Fabricius (vol. iv., p. 279-286), Having obtained a 
scholarship, which enabled him to continue his studies, he went in 
1703 to the University of Wittenberg. 

He took his degree of M.A. the year after, and in 1706 he began 
lecturing at Wittenberg on philosophical subjects, but as the dis- 
turbances then caused by the Swedes in northern Germany drew away 
many of the students, Wolf left Wittenberg in 1707, and returned to 
Hamburg. In the same year he was appointed conrector of the 
gymnasium at Flensburg, but he employed the year 1708 in a journey 
through Holland and England, and spent the greater part of the time 
in examining the libraries of these countries, especially the Bodleian 
library. On his return he resigned his office at Flensburg, and after 
having visited Denmark in 1710, and the University of Copenhagen, he 
went to Wittenberg, where he again commenced the career of an 
academical teacher, as professor extraordinary in the philosophical 
faculty. His lectures were favourably received, but a few years after 
he accepted the offer of the professorship of Oriental languages at the 
gymnasium of Hamburg, and being soon after promoted to the rector- 
ship of the same institution, he also obtained with it the office of 
preacher in the cathedral. In 1716 he was appointed pastor in the 
church of St. Catherine, and he held this post until his death, on the 
25th of July, 1739. 

J.C, Wolf was never married ; his unwearied studies and his love 
of books, which he seems to have imbibed from Fabricius, left no room 
for any other attachment, He had collected an immense number of 
Oriental and Rabbinical works, both printed and manuscript, and his 
library amounted ,to upwards of 25,000 volumes, which in his will 
he bequeathed to the city of Hamburg, where it still exists. Wolf did 
for Jewish and Rabbinical literature what Fabricius did for Greek and 
Roman literature, and his works on those subjects are still indispen- 
sable to those who study that branch of literature. His principal 
works in this department are—1, ‘ Bibliotheca Hebraica, sive notitia 
tum auctorum Hebrzorum cujuscunque etatis, tum scriptorum, quae 
vel Hebraice primum exarata vel ab aliis conversa sunt,’ Hamburg, 
4 vols, 4to, 1715-33. A supplement to this important work was 
published by H. F. Kocher, under the title ‘Nova Bibliotheca He- 
braica,’ Jena, 2 vols, 4to, 1788 and 1784, 2, ‘ Historia Lexicorum 
Hebraicorum,’ Wittenberg, 8vo, 1705. Besides these he wrote several 
treatises on Hebrew, on the history of the Manicheans, and on the use 
of the Rabbinical literature. He also translated Lardner’s ‘ Credibility’ 
into Latin. His merits as a classical scholar are not much inferior to 
his merits as a rabbinical scholar. The following list contains his 
most important works connected with classical literature, and his 
editions of ancient authors: 1, ‘ Dissertatio epistolica, qua Hieroclis 
in aurea Pythagoree carmina commentarius nuper in Anglia editus 
(by Needham) partim illustratur et partim emendatur, &c., Leipzig, 

BIOG. DIV. VOL VIL 


8vo, 1710; 2, ‘Origenis Philosophumena,’ Hamburg, 8vo, 1706: 3, 
‘Libanii Epistole,’ with notes and a Latin translation, Amsterdam, 
fol. 1738, This is still the best edition of the Letters of Libanius, and 
contains about one hundred letters which are not in any previous 
edition, and which Wolf had before edited separately. 4, ‘ Anecdota 
Graeca sacra et profana, ex codicibus manu exaratis nune primum 
in lucem edita, versione Latina donata et notis illustrata,’ Hamburg, 
4 vols. 8vo, 1722 and 1728. 

(Seelen, Commentatio de Vita et Scriptis J. C. Wolfii; Moller, Cim- 
bria Literata; Gotte, Jetzt lebendes Gelehrtes Europa, Braunschweig, 
1735, &e.) , 

WOLFE, REV. CHARLES, was born at. Dublin on the 14th of 
December, 1791, and was the youngest son of Theobald Wolfe, Esq. 
of Blackhall, in the county of Kildare (of the same family with General 
Wolfe). The death of his father while Charles was still a child ocea- 
sioned the removal of the family to England. After being at several 
schools he was finally sent to Winchester college, where under Mr. 
Richards, sen., he distinguished himself by his rapid progress in classical 
knowledge and especially by the talent he showed for Greek and Latin 
versification. In 1809 he entered the university of Dublin, where at 
the usual period he obtained a scholarship, and became a very active 
college tutor. Most of his poems, his biographer tells us, were 
written within a very short period, during his abode in college. He 
took his degree of B.A. in 1814, and soon after commenced the task of 
reading for a fellowship; but although he is said to have evinced a 
decided genius for mathematics, his habits of study were always 
impulsive and desultory, and he soon flagged in this attempt. A dis- 
appointment in love which he met with at last determined him, in 
1817, to give it up altogether; the income of the scholarship would 
have enabled him to marry the lady to whom he was attached ; “ but, 
unhappily,” says his biographer, “ the statute which rendered marriage 
incompatible with that honourable station had been lately revived.” 
It is stated however that this circumstance had no influence in deter- 
mining the choice of his profession ; that the prevailing tendency of 
his mind had always been towards the ministry. Accordingly, he took 
holy orders in 1817, and immediately entered upon the duties of the 
curacy of Ballyclog in the county of Tyrone, from which however in 
the course of a few weeks he removed to the extensive parish of 
Donoughmore, where he officiated in the same capacity. Here Wolfe 
devoted himself with activity and zeal to his spiritual calling, and 
soon acquired in an extraordinary degree the attachment of his 
parishioners of all denominations. But his exertions, and, still more 
perhaps than his attention to the welfare of others, his neglect of his 
own health and comfort, speedily began to wear him down; a con- 
sumptive tendency in his constitution, of which some symptoms had 
appeared while he was at college, was confirmed; a hurried journey 
which he made to’ Scotland in May 1821 (in the course of which he 
spoke at a public meeting held in Edinburgh to receive a deputation 
from the Jrish Tract Society), brought his malady suddenly to a 
height; and immediately after his return home he was obliged to 
leave his parish and place himself under medical treatment at Dublin. 
There for a short time he continued to preach occasionally with his 
usual energy; but he gradually got worse; as winter approached it 
was thought advisable that he should go to the south of France, but 
after being twice driven back to Holyhead he gave up the attempt, 
and fixed himself near Exeter; on the return of summer he came 
back to Dyblin; in August he made a voyage to Bordeaux; in 
November, as a last remaining hope, he removed to the shelter of the 
Cove of Cork; and there he expired on the morning of the 21st of 
February 1823, in the commencement of his thirty-second year, 

His literary compositions were collected and published in 1825 by 
his friend the Rev. John A. Russell, M.A., archdeacon of Clogher, 
under the title of ‘Remains of the late Rev. Charles Wolfe, A.B., 
Curate of Donoughmore, Diocese of Armagh.’ From this small volu:ne, 
which has been very popular, and passed through many editions, the 
above facts have been taken. An interesting sketch of Wolfe’s history 
is also given in a 12mo volume entitled ‘College Recollections,’ 
published at London in the same year with Archdeacon Russell’s 
work, but we believe some months before it, The ‘Remains’ (filling 
368 pp.) consist principally of Fifteen Sermons, an appendix of mis- 
cellaneous thoughts and other fragments, and some juvenile poems, 
some letters, and other compositions inserted in the Memoir, which, 
including these, occupies nearly half the volume. Wolfe’s literary 
reputation rests on his famous ode entitled ‘The Burial of Sir John 
Moore,’ which he composed in 1817, on reading Southey’s prose 
narrative in the ‘Edinburgh Annual Register,’ and which first appeared 
soon after with his initials, though without his knowledge, in the 
‘Newry Telegraph,’ from which it was immediately copied into the 
London papers, and from them into those of Dublin. The poem, 
which in the pathos of a noble simplicity has rarely been surpassed, 
drew much attention from the first; but its authorship remained 
unknown, except to a small circle of Wolfe’s friends or associates, 
until the question came to be publicly discussed in consequence of a 
high encomium stated in Captain Medwin’s ‘ Conversations of Byron’ 
(published in 1824), to have been passed upon it by his lordship. The 
lines were attributed to various writers ; and claimants to the honour 
of having produced them have started up from time to time; but 


none of these attempts to defraud the true author of his pe have 
E 


787 WOLFE, JAMES. 


WOLFE, JAMES. 783 


been persisted in; and any doubts. which they may have raised were 
entirely dissipated by Archdeacon Russell’s volume above referred to. 
A letter from Mr. Wolfe to a friend (Mr. J. Taylor) containing the 
ode is preserved in the Royal Irish Academy, and the history of it is 
given in the ‘Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy’ for 1844. 
There are some lines of Wolfe’s written to the popular Irish air 
‘Gramachree,’ which in their kind are little inferior in merit to those 
on the burial of Moore. 

WOLFE, JAMES, was born at Westerham in Kent, on the 2nd of 
January 1726, the younger of two sons, the elder of whom died in his 
infancy. His father, Edward Wolfe, an officer in the British army, 
who had served with distinction under Marlborough, was made a 
major-general in 1745, and lieutenant-general in 1747; he died in 
1759. 

A commission was obtained for James at an early age. He was 
made a second lieutenant in the regiment of Marines, of which his 
father was colonel, in November 1741; ensign in Colonel Duroure’s 
regiment in March 1742, and lieutenant and adjutant of the same 
regiment in July 1743; and captain in Barrell’s regiment in June 1744. 
He was present at the battle of Dettingen in 1742, and of Fontenoy in 
1745. He also appears to have served in the affair of Falkirk, Jan. 17, 
1746, when the royal troops under Hawley were defeated by the 
Pretender’s forces; and he served as Hawley’s aide-de-camp in the 
battle of Culloden. He was also present at the battle of Lafeldt, in 
1747, where he had the good fortune to distinguish himself by his 
presence of mind at a critical juncture, and where he was wounded. 
The treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle restoréd peace to Europe in the course 
of the next year; but Wolfe (who was appointed major in Lord George 
Sackville’s regiment in January 1748-49, lieutenant-colonel in March 
1749-50, and colonel in October 1757, and transferred to the coloneley 
of the 67th regiment in April 1758) had found means to keep alive the 
favourable impression he had made on the minds of his superior 
officers in action by the skill and attention which he evinced in the 
irksome routine duties of training and preserving discipline. The 
precision with which the six British battalions of infantry performed 
their evolutions on the field of Minden (1759), and the firmness with 
which they kept their ground when exposed in consequence of Lord 
George Sackville’s dilatoriness in bringing up the cavalry, were in a 
great measure attributed to the exertions of Wolfe during the peace. 

Hostilities recommenced between France and Great Britain in 1755, 
and in 1757 Wolfe was appointed quarter-master-general to the forces, 
under Sir John Mordaunt, intended to attack Rochefort. While the 
military and naval commanders of that mismanaged expedition were 
wasting time in idle controversy, Wolfe landed one night and advanced 
two miles into the country. His report of the absence of any obstacles 
to a descent, and his urgent recommendations that it should be made, 
as well as his offer to take the place himself if three ships and 500 
men were placed at his disposal, were disregarded; but they became 
known to Pitt, and were the main reason of his afterwards selecting 
Wolfe to command in Canada. 

In 1758 Wolfe was sent, with the rank of brigadier-general, on the 
expedition against Cape Breton, in which Boscawen commanded the 
sea and Amherst the land forces. The brunt of the French fire in 
landing before Louisbourg was borne by the left division under Wolfe; 
the attacks by the centre and right divisions being mere feints to dis- 
tract the enemy. The after-operations of the siege were also in a great 
measure conducted by Wolfe; and it was an honourable trait in the 

character of Amherst that in his despatches he allowed his brigadier 
' the full credit of his actions. The landing was effected on the 8th of 
June: Louisbourg surrendered on the 26th of July. Wolfe soon after- 
wards, by Pitt's desire, returned to England. 

In 1759 an expedition was fitted out against Quebec by Pitt, who 
had resolved to deprive the French crown of its most important settle- 
ments in America. The command of the sea-forces was intrusted to 
Saunders ; the command of the land-forces (8000 men, including pro- 
vincials) to Wolfe, who was created major-general. Wolfe was one of 
the youngest generals who had ever been appointed to so important a 
command. But Pitt, who regarded the successful issue of the American 
expedition as a matter of the utmost importance, boldly set aside the 
claims of seniority, and selected for the command the officer whom he 
believed to be of all the most fitted. Lord Mahon relates a curious anec- 
dote connected with his appointment which, as he observes, “affords 
a striking proof how much a fault of manner may obscure and dis- 
parage high excellence of mind.” . . . . “ After Wolfe’s appointment, 
and on the day preceding his embarkation to America, Pitt, desirous 
of giving his last verbal instructions, invited him to dinner,—Lord 
Temple being the only other guest. As the evening advanced, Wolfe, 
heated perhaps by his own aspiring thoughts and the unwonted 
society of statesmen, broke forth into a strain of gasconade and 
bravado, He drew his sword—he rapped the table with it—he 
flourished it round the room—he talked of the mighty things which 
that sword was to achieve. The two ministers sat aghast at an 
exhibition so unusual from any man of real sense and rea spirit; and 
when at last Wolfe had taken his leave, and his carriage was heard to 
roll from the door, Pitt seemed for the moment shaken in the high 
opinion which his deliberate judgment had formed of Wolfe: he lifted 
up his eyes and arms, and exclaimed to Lord Temple, ‘Good God! 
that I should have entrusted the fate of the country and of the 


| which is known to exist, been given to the world. It 


administration to such hands!’” This story was told by Lord Temple __ 
himself to a near relative, the Right Hon. Thomas Grenville. It 
confirms, as Lord Mahon very truly remarks,  Wolfe’s own avowal 
that he was not seen to advantage in the common occurrences of life, 
and shows how shyness may at intervals rush, as it were, for refuge, 
into the opposite extreme.” The embarkation arrived at the Isle of 
Orleans on the 27th of June, and Wolfe at once set about con- 
structing batteries at the points of Levis and the Isle of Orleans, 
whence his artillery could play upon Quebec. In August W 
issued a proclamation to the Canadian peasants, informing them that 
his forces were masters of the river, while a powerful army, under 
General Amherst, threatened their country from the interior ; pce | " 
upon them to observe a striet neutrality during the struggle between 
the French and English crowns, and Pee to protect them 
their possessions and the exercise of their religion. Montcalm had 
concentrated all the forces he could raise in the province in Quebe 
which he had fortified in a masterly manner. The months of 
and August were spent in repeated unsuccessful attempts to drive the 
French from their advantageous post at the mouth of the Montmo- 
renci. On the night between the 12th and 13th of September Wolfe 
landed his troops—reduced by sickness and losses, and by the necessity 
of leaving behind a force sufficient to defend Point Levis and the Isle — 
of Orleans, to 3600 men—immediately above Quebec, and, favoured 
by the night, ascended the hills which command that city from the 
west. Montcalm, when he learned that the English were in Lgeapeey = 
of these heights, saw at once that nothing but a battle could save the 
town, and took his measures accordingly. The battle was strenuously 
contested, but the French at length gave way. Montcalm and Wolfe 
fell in the action, and their seconds in command were both ; : 
ously wounded, and obliged to leave the field before the fate of the — 
day was decided. From the spot to which he had been conveyed, 
Wolfe ‘from time to time lifted his head to gaze on the field of bee | 4 
till he found his eyesight begin to fail. Then for some moments he 
lay motionless, with no other sign of life than heavy breathing ora 
stifled groan. All at once an officer who stood by exclaimed, * See, 
how they run!’ *Who run?’ cried Wolfe, eagerly raising himself on 
his elbow. ‘The enemy,’ answered the officer ; ‘they give way in all 
directions.’ ‘Then God be praised !’ said Wolfe, after a short pause} 
‘I shall die happy.’—These were his last words; he again fell bens] 
and, turning on his side, as if by a sharp convulsion, expired. He wa 
but thirty-three years of age, when thus—the Nelson of the 
died amidst the tidings of the victory he had achieved.” The Marquis 
de Montcalm “ was struck by a musket-ball while gallantly endeavour- 
ing to rally his men. He was carried back into the city, where he 
expired next day. When told that his end was approaching, he — 
answered, in a spirit worthy the antagonist of Wolfe, ‘So much the 
better; I shall not live then to see the surrender of Quebee.’” 
(Mahon). The French lost in the engagement 1500 men; the English 
600. Five days after the action Quebec surrendered, and Canada was 
lost to France. Jove 
The feature of Wolfe’s character most dwelt upon by his contempo- 
raries was his ardént and fearless spirit of enterprise. His thorough 
knowledge of his profession, and skill as a disciplinarian, however, th 
pains he took to ascertain the real state of affairs at Rochefort, and 
the arguments by which he supported the proposal of a descent, and, 
above all, his letter addressed to the prime minister from his head- 
quarters at Montmorenci, on the 2nd of September, show that this 
quality was combined with an observant and deliberate mind. Enter- 
prise was with Wolfe the result of perfect and laboriously-attained 
knowledge of his position. : Wwe 
The death of Wolfe made a deep impression in England. The most 
touching instance is mentioned by Burke :—“ A little circumstance 
was talked of at that time, and it deserves to be recorded, as it shows — 
a fineness of sentiment and a justness of thinking in the lower kind 
of people that is rarely met with, even among persons of education. 
The mother of General Wolfe was an object marked out for pity by 
great and peculiar distress; the public wound pierced her mind with — 
a peculiar affliction, who had experienced the dutiful son, the amiable 
domestic character, whilst the world admired the accomplished officer. 
Within a few months she had lost her husband; she now lost his son 
—her only child. The populace of the village where she lived unani- _ 
mously agreed to admit no illuminations or fireworks, or any other — 
sign of rejoicing whatsoever near her house, lest they should seem, by 
an ill-timed triumph, to insult over her grief. There was a justness in 
this, and whoever knows the people knows that they made no = 
sacrifice on this occasion.” The remains of Wolfe were brought Ay 4 
England and interred at Greenwich. A monument was erected to his — 
memory in 1760 by the gentlemen of his native parish, A public — 
monument in Westminster Abbey was voted by the House of Com- 
mons in 1759, and opened to the public in 1773; a marble statue was” 
voted by the Assembly of Massachusetts, A column marks the spot — 
where Wolfe received his death wound; and recently an obelisk 60 feet — 
high has been erected in a conspicuous position in the government — 
grounds at Quebec overlooking the site of the battle, having on one of — 
its faces inscribed the name of Wolfe and on the other that of 
Montcalm. ie 
There is still no good life of Wolfe, nor has his Correspondence, — 


would 


J L 


799 WOLFF, EMIL 


Sn nna 


WOLFF, JOHANN CHRISTIAN VON. 720 


instructive to the military man, for his character as a soldier was 
almost perfect, though the field in which his talents were developed 
was a narrow one. The task was undertaken by Southey, and after- 
wards by Gleig, but relinquished by both from unexplained difficulties 
which intervened, In the third volume of ‘Glasgow, Past and Present,’ 
published at Glasgow in 1856, are printed thirteen letters by Wolfe 
(some of which appeared in a less complete form in ‘ Tait’s Magazine’ 
for 1849). They are of a very interesting character, and are accom- 
panied by a brief memoir, in which several new facts are stated. 
Mueh information respecting Wolfe (in good part the result of inqui- 
ries started by the author of the memoir just mentioned) will be found 
in ‘ Notes and Queries,’ vols. iv. to xii. inclusive. 

*WOLFF, EMIL, an eminent German sculptor, was born in Berlin 
about 1800. He studied under Rudolf Schadow, in the Art Academy 
of that city, where he gained the prize in 1821 for a relievo of 
‘David playing on the Harp before Saul.’ He then proceeded to 
Rome, where he for some time studied under Thorwaldsen. Having 
fixed on Rome as his permanent residence, he has continued diligently 
occupied in the quiet pursuit of his art, finding ample patronage 
among foreigners as well as his countrymen, and gradually working 
his way to a place among the leading artists of the Roman capital. 


A large part of his attention has been given to classical subjects, into 


the spirit of which his thorough study of antique art has qualified him 


-to enter, and which he renders with purity of form, and elevation of 


style. His religious pieces are also much admired; and he has exe- 
cuted more homely subjects with much success, of which his ‘German 
Maiden with a Lamb’ isa happy example. Among his classic works 
may be mentioned his relievi of ‘Midas,’ and ‘Charity;’ and his 
statues of ‘ Hercules,’ ‘Prometheus,’ ‘Diana,’ ‘ Pandora, and ‘ Melea- 
ger;’ his groups of ‘Achilles and Thetis,’ *Telephus suckled by a 
Hind,’ the ‘Death of Patroclus,’ ‘Amazons,’ ‘ Victory narrating to a 
youth the deeds of heroes,’ &c. | Of a different order are his life-sized 
group, ‘Jephtha and his Daughter, and his popular statuette of 
‘Winter.’ Wolff enjoys considerable reputation as a portrait sculp- 
tor ; he has executed busts of the sculptors Thorwaldsen and Schadow; 
of Niebuhr; Winckelmann; Angelo Mai; Palestrina, &c. In 1841 he 
visited England, when he was commissioned by her Majesty to execute 
companion statues of the Queen and Prince Albert (the latter in 
Grecian costume), a bust of the Princess Royal, &c. Casts of several 
of Wolff’s statues are in the Crystal Palace at Sydenham. He is a 
member of the Academy of Arts at Berlin. 

WOLFF, JOHANN CHRISTIAN VON, a celebrated German 
mathematician and philosopher, was born at Breslau, January 24, 
1679, and at an early age showed a taste for the acquisition of know- 
ledge. His father, who was a brewer, strongly encouraged in him this 
disposition; he became his first preceptor, and having instructed him 
in the Latin language, he sent -him to the public school of the town, 
in order that he might have the benefit of the best masters which it 
afforded. The youth there studied diligently the philosophy of the 
age, and he-acquired such a facility in the practice of disputing, that 
he is said to have become the rival of his tutors; but before he was 
twenty years of age, having obtained information of the revolution 
which the writings of Descartes had begun to produce in the schools, 
he was actuated by a strong desire to become acquainted with them. 
The result of his application to the Cartesian philosophy was a deter- 
mination to cultivate mathematical science for the purpose of founding 
on its principles a system of metaphysics. With this object in view 
he passed through a course of mathematics at the university of Jena, 
and he afterwards went to Leipzig, where he resided during three or 
four years. Here, in 1703, he began to deliver lectures ; and in the 
same year he published two tracts, one entitled ‘De Rotis Dentatis,’ 
and the other * De Algorithmo Infinitesimali Differentiali. The ability 
displayed in these dissertations procured for Wolff the esteem and 
friendship of the learned men of his country; he became intimate 
with Tschirnhausen and Leibnitz, and by them he was encouraged in 
his views of giving to Germany a national philosophy which might 
replace that of Aristotle as then understood. He at first intended to 
enter the church as a profession, but he was finally induced to seek 
an appointment in fulfilling the duties of which he might continually 
advance his knowledge of the sciences.’ He became therefore a can- 
didate for a professor's chair, and in 1707 he was appointed to give 
instruction in pure and mixed mathematics in the University of Halle. 
It was while he held this post that) he wrote his tract entitled ‘De 
Methodo Mathematica,’ and his ‘Elementa’ Matheseos Universe,’ of 
which last work an enlarged edition was published at Geneva between 
the years 1732 and 1741, in five volumes, 4to. The first volume con- 
tains the following subjects :—‘Commentatio de Methodo -Mathe- 
matica; Arithmetica; Geometria; Trigonometria plana et spheerica »’ 
the second, ‘ Mechanica cum Statica; Hydrostatica, &c.:’ the third, 
‘Optica; Perspectiva atque Astronomia :’ the fourth, ‘Geographia; 
Chronologia; Gnomonica; Pyrotechnia et Architectura:’ and the 
fifth, * Commentatio de Precipuis Scriptis Mathematicis, &c.’ He also 
published at Leipzig and Frankfort, in 1728, ‘ Tabulae Sinuum atque 
Tangentium tam naturaliam quam artificialum, una cum Logarithmis 
numerorum vulgarium, &c.’ Being made a member of the Philoso- 
phical Society at Leipzig, he wrote several memoirs relating to mathe- 
matics and physics, which were inserted in the ‘Acta Eruditorum,’ 
and in 1710 he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of London. 


; 


But the life of Wolff was almost wholly devoted to the study of 
metaphysical and moral philosophy; and between the years 1712 
and 1723 he wrote his ‘Thoughts on the Powers of the Human 
Mind; on the Deity and the Universe; on the Operations of Nature; 
on the Search after Happiness ;’ and, as a sequel to the last, ‘ Thoughts 
on Society as a means of advancing Human Happiness.’ These works 
were published separately in the German language, a medium till 
then unemployed in treating such subjects. At a later period he pub- 
lished in the same language a Dictionary of Mathematics. 

While thus employed, and while his talents were procuring for him 
invitations to occupy the chairs of philosophy at Wittenberg, Leipzig, 
and St. Petersburg, a serious opposition to his person and writings 
began to manifest itself in the university of which he was so distin- 
guished a member. This is supposed to have arisen from the 
intrigues of the theological professors, one of whom conceived a 
violent dislike to Wolff because the latter, who held the post of dean 
of the faculty of theology, declining to receive his son on the ground 
of incapacity, had appointed Thiimmig, one of his own pupils, to be 
his assistant. In such circumstances subjects of accusation are not 
long wanting, and Wolff was charged with endeavouring to subvert the 
proofs of the existence of the Deity, and to disturb the religious 
belief of the students in the university, while his metaphysical prin- 
ciples were violently criticised by Stahler in a work which was pub- 
lished at Jena. It happened also that Wolff, in one of his lectures, 
had spoken highly in favour of the moral precepts of Confucius, 
which had then recently been made known to the people of Europe 
through the researches of the Jesuit missionaries in the East; and 
this approbation of the doctrines of a heathen philosopher was con- 
sidered as a crime, though Wolff was so far from being aware of giving 
cause of offence, that, as he states in his letter to the minister at 
Berlin, he intended to publish the discourse at Rome with the consent 
of the Inquisition. The King of Prussia, being instigated by some of 
the military authorities, who represented that the sentiments of Wolff 
might become dangerous to the state by holding out to the soldiers 
an excuse for desertion, suddenly deprived the professor of his appoint- 
ment, and issued an order that he should quit the kingdom in two 
days. Wolff accordingly, November 3, 1723, left Halle and went to 
reside at Cassel, where he was kindly received by the landgrave, who 
conferred on him the title of councillor, and appointed him professor 
of mathematics and philosophy at Marburg. Here he resided about 
eighteen years, and during that time he published his metaphysical 
works. The first and greatest of these is entitled ‘ Philosophia Ratio- 
nalis, sive Logica methodo scientificd pertractata,’ 4to, 1728. The 
others are, ‘ Psychologia Empirica, &c.,’ 4to, 1728; ‘ Philosophia prima, 
sive Ontologia, &c.,’ 4to, 1730; ‘ Cosmologia generalis,’ 4to, 1731; 
‘Psychologia Rationalis,’ 4to, 1734; ‘Theologia Naturalis, 4to, 1737 ; 
‘Philosophia Practica Universalis,’ 4to, 1738-39; and ‘Philosophia 
Moralis, sive Ethica,’ 4to, 1732. 

Amidst these labours Wolff found time to write in defence of his 
doctrines, and by degrees the violence of his antagonists began to 
abate. Among them there were many who disapproved of the strong 
measures which had been adopted against him, and there were some 
who desired his return in the hope of promoting a revival of meta- 
physical science in Prussia, Frederick the Great, when he ascended 
the throne, appointed commissioners to examine Wolff’s writings and 
inquire into the cause of his banishment, and the report being favour- 
able, he was in 1738 invited back to Halle; the invitation was repeated 
six years afterwards, but it was not till 1741 that it was accepted. 
Wolff had been, in 1725, appointed an honorary professor of the 
Academy of St. Petersburg; and in 1733 he was elected a member 
of the Académie des Sciences at Paris. 

On his return to Halle he was made privy-councillor, vice-chancellor, 
and professor of international law; the king afterwards made him 
Chancellor of the University, and by the elector of Bavaria the dig- 
nity of a Baron of the Empire was conferred upon him, It is said 
however that Wolff had the mortification to perceive that his lectures 
were not well attended; either age had diminished his powers, or, as 
is supposed, his numerous writings being in the hands of all the 
German students, his. oral instructions were no longer necessary. 
Being attacked by gout in the stomach, he died, having borne his 
sufferings with fortitude’ and Christian piety, April 9, 1754, in the 
seventy-sixth year of his age. 

The merit of Wolff consisted in a correct and methodical arrange- 
ment of the subjects of philosophical science, rather than in discovery. 
He borrowed freely from his immediate predecessors, Descartes and 
Leibnitz, and even from the writers of the Aristotelian school; and, 
having an earnest desire to combine utility with truth, he endeavoured 
to reduce the apparently heterogeneous elements under one system. 
That he completely succeeded in this difficult task it is too much to 
say; entertaining the project of introducing in philosophical investi- 
gations the precise methods which are employed in mathematics, he 
appears to have overlooked the want of homogeneity in the elements of 
the former branch of science, which renders it impossible to arrive at 
conclusions by purely abstract reasonings. In stating a philosophical 
proposition which perhaps is self-evident, he often exhibits a tedious 
demonstration in order that he may show its dependence on some 
more general theorem which precedes it; and his developments are 
remarkable for their extraordinary prolixity. 


791 WOLFF, PIUS ALEXANDER. 


792 


WOLLASTON, WILLIAM. 


Wolff divides human knowledge, into three parts, historical, philo- 
sophical, and mathematical: in the first he includes everything 
relating to. material as well as immaterial being, that is, whatever is 
cognisable by the senses or by internal conviction. The second he 
considers as comprehending the reasons of things ; and he states its 
object to be the explanation of the reason that what is possible may 
be realised. His third division constitutes the knowledge of quantity. 
He divides psychology into two kinds, which are designated rational 
and empirical, and the former is distinguished from the latter as the 
science of things possible relatively to the soul only. He defines 
science in general, the faculty of demonstrating. : 

He appears to have formed but an imperfect idea of the connection of 
the sciences, his taste leading him to seek the grounds of their connec- 
tion only in their being deduced from first principles, which he conceived 
to exist in the human understanding; and his criterion of truth con- 
sisted in the thing predicated being in accordance with the idea of the 
subject. His dissertations on the employment of hypotheses, and on 
the deductions drawn from experience, are the developments of a few 
general maxims, very just, but trite; and his views on the liberty of 
philosophising are sound, though, at the time they were written, they 
appeared too bold. t 4 : 

His metaphysical theory maintained its ground in Germany from 
the death of Leibnitz to the time when the school of Kant was formed. 
He is considered as the disciple and commentator of the former philo- 
sopher ; and he admitted a sort of pre-established harmony from whence 
results the conformity of the operations of the soul with those of the 
body, but he differed from his master in considering that harmony not 
as a result of the will of the Deity, but of the changes which are con- 
tinually in operation in the universe: the latter he considered as a 
piece of mechanism set in motion by its first cause. He demonstrates 
at length the existence of God, taking care at the same time to sepa- 
rate the idea of the Divine Being from that of the soul of the world; 
and he maintained the opinion that the Author of the universe being 
all-perfect must have necessarily created the best of all possible worlds. 
Asserting also the perfect freedom of man’s will, he admits that this 
freedom is limited to the power of choosing what appears to be the 
best under existing circumstances, 

His general rule of morality is, that each man should, as much as 
depends on himself, do what may render his own condition and that 
of others as perfect as possible. While acknowledging that God is the 
source of all morality, he considers that man is in some respects a law 
to himself; that an action is good or bad in itself, independently of 
divine precepts, and that the conduct of man ought not to be influ- 
enced merely by the fear of punishment or the hope of reward. 
Natural law is in his mind identical with morality, and he makes both 
to depend on the obligation man is under to advance constantly towards 
perfection. 

Wolff's political science is founded on the principle that everything 
should be done for the public benefit and the maintenance of public 
security : he considers a limited monarchy as the most favourable for 
the attainment of these ends, though he admits that this is not with- 
out some inconveniences, He leaves to the prince the right of deter- 
mining what is best for the public good, but he makes him subject to 
the laws of his country. He inquires into the causes of the wealth of 
nations, but his views on this subject are confined chiefly to the state 
of society in his own age, and want the generality which is consistent 
with the present state of this branch of science. 

His political works are, ‘Jus Nature,’ viii. tom. 4to, Francofurti et 
- Lipsiw, 1732; and ‘Jus Gentium,’ Halle, 1752. . 

(Ludovici, Vita, fata et scripta, Ch. Wolfii, Leipzig.) 

WOLFF, PIUS ALEXANDER, one of the most distinguished 
German actors of the present century, was born in 1782, at Augsburg. 
His parents designed him for one of the learned professions, but his 
own inclination, as well as his natural talents, led him to the stage. 
In 1804 he was one of the actors engaged at Weimar, the theatre of 
which place was then regarded as the model for all Germany. Schiller 
and Gothe were themselves actively engaged in conducting the theatre 
and training the actors. As Wolff was a man of much greater talent 
than the majority of actors, Géthe took especial trouble with him, 
trained him on sound artistic principles, and afterwards declared that 
Wolff had become an actor quite to his mind. Wolff devoted himself 
especially to the performance of tragic characters and youthful heroes, 
which he acted to perfection. His performance of Hamlet, the Marquis 
Posa, Max. Piccolomini, Weisslingen, Orestes, and Tasso, made such an 
impression in Germany, that to this day he is considered the standard 
by which other actors are measured. At a later period he occasion- 
ally also acted comic and humorous characters, in which he was much 
admired, though tragedy was at all times his peculiar field, in which 
he was unsurpassed. In 1816 he became a member of the royal 
theatre of Berlin. 

He died at Weimar in 1828, During the latter years of his life he 
wrote several dramas, which were well received, and some of which 
long remained favourite plays in Germany. Three of them, ‘ Caesurio,’ 
a comedy, ‘ Pflicht um Pflicht,’ and ‘ Preciosa,’ form the first volume 
of a collection which he published under the title ‘ Dramatische 
Spiele, Berlin, 1823, but the collection was not continued, and his 
other plays appeared separately at different times. ‘Preciosa’ has 
become celebrated by being taken by C. M. von Weber as the text for 


would be incorrect to call it an epic; full of deep thoughts on the ; 


one of his most popular operas, His other plays are—‘ Der Hund des 
Aubri,’ a farce, (Berlin, 1822); ‘Der Mann von fiinfzig Jahren’ (Berlin, 
1830); ‘Treue siegt in Liebesnetzen,’ and ‘Der Kammerdiener’ 
(Berlin, 1832). 

WOLFRAM VON ESCHENBACH, a Minnesiinger, who lived in 
the first part of the 13th century, was the best German poet of his | 
time. He was probably born at a castle called Eschenbach, which 
seems to have been situated in the Upper Palatinate, and he was __ 
descended from a noble family. After having been made a knight,he 
led the life of a warlike troubadour, and the princes of the empire 
received him with equal satisfaction in their camp and at their court. } 
He was present at the famous poetical festival on the Wartburg. 
Towards the end of his life he retired to his native country: he died 
in 1220, 

Wolfram von Eschenbach was a very fertile poet. Of his numerous — 
productions the greater part however are lost, but his principal poem 
has most luckily been preserved in manuscript at St. Gallen and at 
some other places. This poem is entitled ‘ Parzival:’ the subject of 
it is partly taken from French and Provencal models—the holy Gral 
being the marvellous object which the hero of the poem, Parzival, 
pursues in a long course of adventures. He at last becomes king of 
the Gral, and thus enjoys the purest happiness and perfection which 
man can attain. -There is an epical tendency in the poem, but it 


destiny of man, on the mysterious nature of his soul, on his religious 
and moral duties, it belongs to a class of poems which are peculiar to 
German literature, and of which Gothe’s ‘Faust’ may be considered _ 
as the most striking specimen. The ‘ Parzival’ was written about 
1205. It was first printed in fol., 1477, in an incorrect and mutilated 
edition, which was reprinted and somewhat corrected in the first 
volume of ‘Sammlung Altdeutscher Gedichte,’ by Miiller, who collated 
the manuscript of St. Gallen. The other extant works of Wolfram of 
Eschenbach are, 2,‘ Titurel,’ first printed in 4to, 1477, a fragment of 
an introductory poem to Parzival, and in Gervinus’s opinion the finest 
specimen of ancient German poetry, which must not be confounded 
with another poem, likewise called‘ Titurel,? which was once in- 
correctly attributed to Wolfram ; 3, ‘ Willehalm von Orangis’ (William 
of Orange), in Manesse’s collection of Minnesiingers, where there are 
also several of the author’s minor lyrical poems. An excellent critical 
edition of all the extant productions of Wolfram von Eschenbach was 
published by Lachmann, Berlin, 8vo, 1833, who has added a valuable 
introduction to the Life and Works of the author. Wolfram, accord- 
ing to contemporary writers, was a very learned man; his style is 
simple, clear, and elegant, and the difficulties which exist are rather — 
due to the mystical tendency of the author and his transcendental 
ideas, than to a want of those qualities which constitute a great 
writer. , 
WOLLASTON, WILLIAM, author of ‘The Religion of Nature 
Delineated,’ was born at Coton-Clanford in Staffordshire, on the 26th 
of March, 1659. He was descended from an old and considerable — 
Staffordshire family, but belonged to a younger and a poor branch of 
it. When he was in his tenth year, a Latin school was opened at 
Shenston in Staffordshire, where his father, a private gentleman of a 
small fortune, then resided, young Wollaston was immediately sent 
to it. He continued there near two years, when he was sent to 
Litchfield school, in which a great confusion soon after happened, and 
the magistrates of the city turned the master out of the schoolhouse. — 
Many scholars followed the ejected master; and Mr. Wollaston amongst 
the rest. He remained with him till he quitted his school, which was 
about three years; and then, the schism being ended, he returned into 
the free-school, and continued there about a year. This was all the 
schooling Mr. Wollaston ever had. (Clarke’s ‘Life of Wollaston, 
prefixed to his edition of the ‘ Religion of Nature,’ 8vo, 1750, p. v.) On 
the 18th of June 1674, he was entered a pensioner at Sidney Sussex — 
College, Cambridge, where he resided almost without interruption © 
until the 29th of September 1681, by which time he had taken his 
Master of Arts’ degree and deacon’s orders. He was disappointed in 
not obtaining a fellowship in his college, for which he had laboured — 
with great diligence, and in the hope of obtaining which he had sub- — 
mitted to much inconvenience from poverty during his residence in — 
the university. On leaving college he took the situation of assistant- 
master at Birmingham school, and shortly after he joined the school — 
he obtained a lectureship in a chapel two miles out of Birmingham, 
After having filled the situation of assistant-master for about four years, — 
he was appointed second master of the school, which had three 
masters and two assistant-masters, and at the same time took priests — 
orders. This mastership was worth only 70. a year. Out of his — 
small income he was able to give assistance to two brothers who had — 
got into difficulties. 4 
In August 1688, the poor schoolmaster suddenly found himself in — 
affluence by the death of a second cousin, the head of his own branch 
of the Wollaston family, Mr. Wollaston of Shenton. in Leicestershire, — 
who greatly to his own surprise made him his heir, This gentleman — 
had not long before his death lost his only son, and not choosing to — 
give his estate to his daughters, proceeded to settle it on the uncle — 
and father of the subject of this sketch. But a further acquaintance 
with his younger relative, and the high character which he heard of — 
him, led him before his death to revoke this settlement and make — 


793 WOLLASTON, WILLIAM. 


WOLLASTON, WILLIAM HYDE, M.D. 794 


another. “His cousin of Shenton was used to employ persons 
privately, to observe our author’s behaviour, who little suspected any 
such matter, And his behaviour was found to be such, that the 
stricter the observations were upon it, the more they turned to his 
advantage. In fine, Mr. Wollaston became so thoroughly satisfied of 
our author’s merit, that he revoked the before-mentioned settlement 
and made a will in his favour.” (Clarke’s ‘ Life,’ p. xi.) 

Wollaston now went to reside in London, and on the 26th of Novem- 
ber, 1689, married a daughter of Mr. Nicholas Charlton, a citizen of 
London, who brought him another accession of fortune. He now 
devoted himself entirely to the enjoyment of domestic happiness and 
the pursuit of learning. “He may most truly be said,” observes his 
biographer, “ to have settled in London, for he very seldom went out 
of it. He took no delight in unnecessary journeys, and for above 
thirty years before his death had not been absent from his habitation 
in Charterhouse-square so much as one whole night.” (p. xiv.) His 
studies were principally directed to the ancient languages, and morals 
and theology, and embraced mathematics and natural philosophy, and 
the Arabic language. In 1690 he published a paraphrase of a part of 
the ‘Book of Ecclesiastes,’ and in 1703 he composed and printed, but 
only for private circulation, a small Latin grammar. The ‘Religion 

‘of Nature Delineated’ was published in 1724, but a very short time 
before his death. A number of other works, which he had written 
. during his four-and-thirty years’ studious residence in London, were 
committed by him to the flames a short time before his death. The 
following is a list of manuscripts which were found after his death, 
and which his biographer supposes escaped the same fate only by 
their being forgotten :—1, A Hebrew Grammar; 2, ‘ Tyrocinia Arabica 
et Syriaca;’ 3, ‘Specimen Vocabularii Biblio-Hebraici, literis nostra- 
tibus quantum fert Linguarum Dissonantia descripti;’ 4, ‘ Formule 
quedam Gemarine ;’ 5, ‘De Generibus Pedum, Metrorum, Carminum, 
&c, apud Judzos, Greecos, et Latinos ;’ 6,‘ De Vocum Tonis Monitio 
ad Tyrones;’ 7, ‘ Rudimenta ad Mathesin et Philosophiam spectantia ;’ 
8, ‘Miscellanea Philologica;’ 9, ‘Opinions of the Ancient Philoso- 
phers ;’ 10, , Iovdatxa, sive Religionis et Literaturee Judaicze Synopsis;’ 
11, ‘A Collection of some Antiquities and Particulars in the History 
of Mankind, tending to show that Men have not been here upon this 
Earth from Eternity,’ &c.; 12, ‘Some Passages relating to the History 
of Christ, collected out of the Primitive Fathérs;’ 13, ‘A Treatise 
relating to the Jews, of their Antiquities, Language, &c.’ Besides 
these there was a numerous collection of sermons found. From the 
titles it may be supposed that many of these manuscript works were 
composed to assist his own studies. ‘ What renders it the more pro- 
bable,” says Dr, Clarke, “ or indeed almost beyond doubt, that he 
would have destroyed these likewise if he had remembered them, is 
that several of those which remain undestroyed are only rudiments or 
rougher sketches of what he afterwards reconsidered and carried on 
much farther, and which soon after such revisal he nevertheless com- 
mitted to the flames, as being still, in his opinion, short of that perfec- 
tion to which he desired and had intended to bring them.” (p. xxiii.) 

Wollaston died on the 29th of October 1724, in his sixty-sixth year. 
The immediate cause of his death was a fracture of the arm, which 
happened when he was in a bad state of health. His wife had died 
four years before. They had lived most happily together for thirty 
years, and she had borne him eleven children, of whom seven survived 
their father, He was buried by the side of his wife in the church of 
Great Finborough in Suffolk, where one of his estates lay, and where 
his eldest son afterwards resided. 

‘The Religion of Nature Delineated’ is, as the name implies, an 
exposition of man’s various moral duties and the principles of them, 
independently of revelation, and of so much as may be learnt without 
revelation of the divine government of the world. The chief pecu- 
liarity of Wollaston’s system of morals is that he refers all duties to 
truth as their fundamental principle, defining truth to be the expres- 
sion of things as they are, and extending the definition by the remark 
that “a true proposition may be denied, or things may be denied to 
be what they are by deeds as well as by express words, or another 
proposition.” As aninstance, theft would be interpreted by Wollaston 
as a denial of the true owner's property in the goods stolen. On this 
somewhat fanciful foundation the whole range of human duties, with 
the exception of course of those arising out of revealed religion, is 
built up by Wollaston with great ingenuity and skill. The work is 
not complete: the author sets out with proposing to himself three 
questions to be answered :—l, “Is there really any such thing as 
natural religion, properly and truly so called?” 2, “ If there is, what 
is it?” and, 3, “ How may a man qualify himself, so as to be able to 
judge for himself, of the other religions professed in the world; to 
settle his own opinions in disputable matters; and then to enjoy 
tranquillity of mind, neither disturbing others, nor being disturbed at 
what passes among them?” Only the first two of these questions are 
answered, Wollaston had begun to answer the third question, but 
had made little progress, when death overtook him. 

The work was very popular on its first publication; ten thousand 
copies of it, according to Dr. Clarke, having been sold in a very few 
years. The best edition is the seventh and last, to which is prefixed 
the biographical sketch, by Dr. Clarke, whence this account has been 
principally derived, and which was edited by him at the request, as he 
states in an advertisement, of Caroline, the wife of George II. 


WOLLASTON, WILLIAM HYDE, M.D., F.R.S,, a distinguished 
cultivator of natural science, was born August 6th, 1776. He was the 
third son of the Rev. Francis Wollaston, F.R.S., of Chiselhurst in Kent, 
and rector of St. Vedast, Foster-lane, in the city of London, who was 
himself the grandson of the author of the ‘Religion of Nature Deli- 
neated,’ the subject of the preceding article. A peculiar taste for intel- 
lectual pursuits of the more exact kind appears to have been hereditary 
in his family. He was an astronomer, and published, in 1789, a ‘Speci- 
men of a General Astronomical Catalogue, arranged in Zones of North 
Polar Distance, and adapted to January 1, 1790.’ He also produced, 
from his own observations, an extensive catalogue of the northern 
circumpolar stars, which, with an account of the instruments employed, 
tables for the reductions, and some miscellaneous papers, was pub- 
lished under the title of ‘Fasciculus Astronomicus, in 1800. His 
eldest son, the Rev. Archdeacon Francis John Hyde Wollaston, B.D., 
F.R.S., was also a man of science, and constructed a thermome- 
trical barometer for measuring heights, on which he communicated 
two papers to the ‘Philosophical Transactions, in the years 1817 
and 1820. 

W. H. Wollaston having gone through the usual preparatory course 
of education, was sent to Caius College, Cambridge, where he applied 
himself diligently to the studies immediately relating to the medical 
profession, for which he was intended, and where he took the degree 
of Doctor in Medicine in 1793: in the same year he was elected a 
Fellow of the Royal Society, to whose ‘ Philosophical Transactions,’ 
during his life, he communicated many papers of the highest import- 
ance, and in 1806 he was chosen one of its secretaries, an office which 
he retained for some years. On the decease of Sir Joseph Banks, in 
1820, he was appointed president of the society until the anniversary 
election of that year. He was for many years a member of the Board 
of Longitude, and remained such until its improvident abolition by the 
government shortly prior to his decease; and he had been an early 
member and oflice-bearer of the Geological Society. 

After premonitory symptoms of paralysis for many months, he died 
of an effusion of blood in the ventricles of the brain, on the 22nd of 
Decémber 1828. 

Dr. Wollaston had entered into practice as a physician, and fora 
time resided at Bury St. Edmunds: he afterwards removed to London, 
and it might have been supposed that in this city his talents would 
procure for him an extensive reputation; but either because his 
success was not equal to his expectations, or in consequence of the 
disappointment which he felt in not obtaining the post of physician to 
St. George’s Hospital, Dr. Pemberton having been on this occazion 
preferred to him, he determined to quit the profession, and to devote 
himself wholly to the pursuit of science. It is possible that the 
effects of another-cause may have contributed to this determination, 
either in his own mind or in the minds of his friends. The pecu- 
liarities of temper and deportment in a distinguished member of the 
healing art [ABERNETHY, JOHN], as exhibited to his patients, have 
already been noticed. It was long ago remarked in conversation, by 
an experimental philosopher of great eminence, and a junior contem- 
porary of Dr. Wollaston, that in the practice of medicine, he would, 
from some of his own characteristics, have been “still more disagree- 
able than Abernethy.” 

The researches of men of science, however important they may have 
been to mankind by the improvements to which they have led in the 
arts and manufactures, have seldom been productive of immediate 
benefit to those who first conducted them: some more fortunate 
person, by seizing on an original idea already propounded, and bring- 
ing it down to the level of a practical application, has thereby acquired 
both fame and fortune; while the original discoverer has remained 
unnoticed, and perhaps even his name has been forgotten. This was 
not the fate of Dr. Wollaston, in whom were combined the genius of 
the philosopher and the skill of the artist; since from his different 
discoveries, and particularly from his method of manufacturing plati- 
num, he acquired a considerable fortune. No one however could have 
better deserved the rewards due to genius and industry ; for not only 
were the qualities of his mind of a high order, but his application to 
philosophical investigations and experiments was unremitting: even 
when near his last moments, though suffering under a painful malady, 
he had the fortitude to dictate an account of some of his most im- 
portant unpublished researches, in the benevolent hope that a know- 
ledge of them might thus be preserved for the benefit of mankind. 

Among the papers so produced, was ‘The Bakerian Lecture.—On a 
method of rendering Platina malleable,’ which appears in the ‘ Philoso- 
phical Transactions’ for 1829. With the exception of one requisite 
precaution, slightly mentioned in his paper ‘On a new metal [Rho- 
dium] found in crude Platina,’ communicated to the Royal Society, 
and published in the same work (a quarter of a century before, being 
the first in which he treated of platinum and the metals which accom- 
any it,) no account of the process he employed in the manufacture of 
that metal had hitherto been made public. In the Bakerian lecture it 
is described with the perspicuous brevity always characteristic of his 
style, but so as to enable any competent person to put it in practice. 
It consists, essentially, in the first place, in the treatment of the crude 
metal, often termed the ore of platinum, in aqua regia of a certain 
strength, and the precipitation of that metal from the resulting solution 
by sal-ammoniac,—a process long well-known,—the careful washing of 


796 WOLLASTON, WILLIAM HYDE; M.D. 


WOLLASTON, WILLIAM HYDE, M.D. 796 


the ammonio-muriate of platinum (in more modern chemical language, 
the double chloride of ammonium and platinum) so obtained, and its 
heating, with the utmost caution, and with so low a heat as just to 
expel the whole of the elements of the sal-ammoniac, and to occasion 
the particles of platinum to cohere as little as possible; for on this 
depends the ultimate ductility of the metal. In the next place, the 
resulting gray product of platinum is to be rubbed to powder or 
ground, well washed and diffused in water, and allowed to subside into 
a uniform mud or pulp, which is to be transferred to a brass mould, 
and subjected in that to forcible compression. F inally, the cake of plati- 
num thus produced, is to be exposed to the most intense heat that a 
wind-furnace (in Dr. Wollaston’s time) could be made to receive, and 
struck, while hot, with a heavy hammer, so as at oue heating effec- 
tually to close the metal, or weld the particles into a solid mass 
which may then be forged into an ingot and subsequently subjected 
to any process of manufacture. n 

The first introduction of the continued mechanical pressure of the 
reduced platinum before it is heated for the purpose of welding it 
together, as an essential part of the process for obtaining the metal in 
a malleable state, was claimed in private, by the late Mr. Thomas 
Cock, a practical metallurgist, and a member of the British Mineralo- 
gical Society, noticed in a former article [Pepys, W. H.] with Mr. 
Pepys, Messrs. A. and C. R, Aikin, Dr. Babington, Mr. R, Phillips, and 
other chemists and mineralogists, He also affirms that it was origin- 
ally proposed by him to Dr. Wollaston, who effected by a lever-press 
of peculiar construction, which he devised for the purpose (and 
described in the Bakerian lecture for 1829) what Mr. Cock, according 
to his own statement and to an account of the process communicated 
by him to Messrs, Aikin’s ‘Chemical Dictionary,’ had previously 
effected by a screw-press. 

The welding together of the platinum without the addition of any 
other metal or substance, stated by Leopold Gmelin in his ‘ Handbook 
of Chemistry ’ to characterise Dr, Wollaston’s method as distinguished 
from the inadequate processes before adopted for obtaining it in a 
malleable state, is common to the processes of the late Mr. Richard 
Knight (also a member of the British Mineralogical Society, and after- 
wards F,.G.8.) Mr. Cock and Dr, Wollaston, and was probably first 
employed by Mr. Knight, It certainly belongs to English chemists 
ofthe beginning of the present century. In Dr. Wollaston’s hands 
however every part of the process received the impress of the peculiar 
combination of comprehensive views with minute aceuracy in par- 
ticulars by which he was distinguished. He made it his own 
in the most undeniable manner, and all the preceding methods have 
been entirely superseded by his. Every student of chemistry, and 
every practical chemist may profitably study the Bakerian lecture as a 
model of the application of Chemistry and Physics by an operator 
extensively and accurately versed in both, to effect a single object of 
great importance. 

It is right to say, in conclusion of this subject, that Dr. Wollaston 
did not claim the invention of the method which he practised; he 
simply stated as the reason for describing it, that, from long experience, 
he was better acquainted with the treatment of platinum, so as to 
render it perfectly malleable, than any other member of the Royal 
Society. Butof some of the most refined, philosophically conceived, 
and efficacious portions of it, he was undoubtedly the originator. 
The late Dr. Thomas Thomson, F.R.S., the author of the celebrated 
‘System of Chemistry,’ and Regius Professor of that science in the 
University of Glasgow, remarks in his ‘ History of Chemistry ’ (form- 

-ing part of the ‘ National Library,’ of which a few volumes appeared), 
that it was Dr, Wollaston who first sueceeded in reducing platinum 
“into ingots in a state of purity, and fit for every kind of use:” that 
“it was employed, in consequence, for making vessels for chemical 
purposes ;” and that “it is to its introduction that we are to ascribe 
the present accuracy of chemical investigations. It has been gradually 
introduced,” he continues, “into the sulphuric acid manufactories, as 
a substitute for glass retorts.” 

The use of platinum vessels for the final concentration of sulphurie 
acid by distillation, had been practised on a smiall scale by a manu- 
facturing chemist named Sandman, a member of the British Mineralo- 
gical Society; but Mr. Richard Farmer was the first sulphuric acid 
maker who adopted it, and this he did on the large scale, at his 
works, still carried on by his near connection Mr. Edward Probart, on 
Kennington Common, London. In 1809 he engaged Dr. Wollaston to 
superintend the construction for the purpose of a large vessel of his 
own platinum, weighing 32240z. troy, at the cost of 8002. ; and this 
proving of the anticipated advantage, two other vessels were con- 
structed in the course of the following six years, having the aggregate 
weight of 828 oz.,and costing together 685/. Dr. Wollaston afterwards 
constructed similar large vessels of platinum, for other makers and 
rectifiers of sulphuric acid. From his correspondence with Mr. 
Farmer, which we have been kindly permitted to examine, it appears 
that the method of transacting business pursued by Dr. Wollaston in 
such cases, was to charge per oz. for the platinum he sapplied,—and 
of which metal indeed he was for many years, nearly throughout his 
life, the sole manufacturer—and in addition, the actual sums dis- 
bursed in payment of workmen, for the fabrication of the vessels, 
but not to receive any remuneration for his own superintendence, 
which however was of the most effective description. When he pro- 


posed to manufacturers or tradesmen improvements in chemical 
processes, or in the construction of instruments or apparatus, he con- 
tracted to receive nothing, if they should prove unsuccessful, but to 
be paid a certain proportion of the savings or profits, in the event of 
their succeeding. In making a profitable business of practical science, 
he thus never abandoned the character of. a professional man and. a 
master-manufacturer, but always maintained the position of a 
gentleman. 

In giving a biographical sketch of Dr. Wollaston, it will be proper 
to allude more particularly to some of the memoirs which he eontri- 
buted tothe Transactions of the Royal Society ; we cannot, we believe, 
more effectually perform this duty than by quoting what has been 
said of his varied labours by his contemporaries and friends Mr. 
Brande and Dr. Thomson. ‘he former remarks that the promul- 
gation of the theory of definite proportions “in this country is chiefly 
to be attributed to Dr, Wollaston, whose admirable suggestion of a 
synoptic scale of chemical equivalents was brought before the Royal 
Society in November 1813. Many years previous to this he had 
established the important doctrine of multiple proportions, in a paper 
‘On Super-acid and Sub-acid Salts,’ printed in the ‘ Phi phieal 
Transactions’ for the year 1808 : he now showed the important prac- 
tical applications of which the theory was susceptible, and by con- 
necting the scale of equivalents with Gunter’s sliding rule, has put 
into the hands of the chemist an instrument infinite in its uses, and 
equally essential to the student, the adept, and the manufacturer.” 

‘Dr. Wollaston’s first contribution to the Transactions of the Royal 
Society was in June 1797, being an essay ‘On Gouty and Urinary 
Coneretions, in which he made known several new compounds con- 
nected with the production of those maladies, in addition to the urie 
combinations previously discovered by Scheele: these were, phosphate 
of lime; ammonio-magnesian phosphate, a mixture of the two form- 
ing the fusible calculus; oxalate of lime; and more lately he added 
cystic oxide to the list of his previous discoveries. (‘ Phil. Trans.,’ 
1810.) In 1804 and 1805 he made known palladium and rhodium, 
two new metals contained in the ore of platinum, and associated with 
osmium and iridium, discovered about the same time by Tennant. In 
1809 he showed that the supposed new metal tantalum was identical 
with columbium, previously discovered by Hatchett, and sho 
before his death he transmitted to the Royal Society the Bakerian 
lecture, in which he fully describes his ingenious method of rendering 
platinum malleable.” (‘Manual of Chemistry,’ 6th edition, 1848, vol. 
i, p. cii.). = 

In his ‘ History of Chemistry,’ as cited above (vol. ii., p. 248), Dr. 
Thomson remarks :—“ Dr» Wollaston had a particular turn for con- 
triving pieces of apparatus for scientific purposes. His reflective 
goniometer was a most valuable present to mineralogists, and it is by 
its means that crystallography has acquired the great degree of per: 
fection which it has recently exhibited. He contrived a very si 
apparatus for ascertaining the power of various bodies to reflect light. 
His camera lucida furnished those who were ignorant of drawing with 
a convenient method of delineating natural objects. His periseopic 
glasses must have been found useful, for they sold rather extensively ; 
and his sliding rule for chemical equivalents furnished a ready m 1 
for calculating the proportions of one substance necessary to decom- 
pose a given weight of another. Dr. Wollaston’s knowledge was more 
varied and his taste less exclusive than any other philosopher of his 
time, except Mr. Cavendish ; but optics and chemistry are the two 
sciences which lie under the greatest obligations to him. To him we 
owe the first demonstration of the identity of galvanism and common 
electricity ; and the first explanation of the cause of the different 
phenomena exhibited by galvanic and common electricity.” ge) 

We may add to the above, that Sir John Herschel has stated that 
Dr. Wollaston was the first to introduce into instrumental practice, in 
his goniometer, the directionvof a reflected ray of light, as the indi- 
cation of the angular position of a surface too delicate for handling— 
a method afterwards proposed by Mr. Babbage and employed by Gauss 
for other purposes. The use of this instrument by English ndedandst 
gists has already been adverted to in the articles Minter, W. H., and 
Puintres, W. In the hands of the late Professor Armand Lévy also, 
and those of the late Mr. Henry James Brooke, F.R.S., distinguished 
for his exact knowledge of minerals, and of his son, Mr, Charles 
Brooke, F.R.S., it has greatly aided the progress of mineralogy and of — 
the knowledge of crystallised bodies in general. no ih 

Huyghens [HuycHens, Curist1aAn} had applied the undulatory _ 
theory of light to the determination of the course of the extraordinary — 
ray in the double refraction of Iceland-spar, a variety of carbonate of 
lime. This was “a problem,” Dr. Peacock has remarked, “ of the 
highest order of difficulty, whose solution, equally remarkable for its — 
completeness and geometrical elegance, was unfortunately left unno- 
ticed or unknown until the beginning of the present century.” “We — 
are indebted to Dr. Young” [Youne, THomas], he continues, “for the 
first suggestion, and to’ Dr. Wollaston for the first complete deme 
stration of its value, as giving results which are in strict accordance — 
with the observed laws of double refraction, which Newton had 
unfortunately mistaken and misstated.” Dr, Wollaston’s demon: 
stration is contained in his paper ‘On the Oblique Refraction of 
Iceland Crystal,’ inserted in the ‘ Philosophical Transactions” for 
1803. saeihia3 gin 


797 WOLLSTONECRAFT, MARY. 


WOLSEY, THOMAS, 798 


Dr. Wollaston’s contemporaries in science, and especially those who 
have eulogised his philosophical character, have had to lament that he 
never could be induced to describe his manipulations in print, or to 
communicate to the world his happy and peculiar contrivances. But 
they were made known to his friends, and have gradually become 
public property. Nor did he contribute to the literature of science 
any separate work. His reputation, beyond the circle of his imme- 
diate associates, was and will continue to be founded upon his papers 
in the ‘Philosophical Transactions, 88 in number, which appeared 
one or more in almost every annual volume from 1797 to 1829, all 
containing new facts or the soundest theoretical views, enunciated in 
a style at once explicit and concise, not a single word being insignifi- 
eink redundant, or deficient. His accuracy, whether in experiment 
or in description, could not of course shicld his labours from the 
eommon lot of modification and correction by the subsequent progress 
of science; and this has been chiefly the case perhaps with his minor 
researches in chemistry, such as those on the blood of diabetic patients, 
and on the compound of titanium with nitrogen and carbon in certain 
iron slags, which he (and after him the most eminent chemists of the 
present day also, down to within these few years) mistook for that 


metal in an uncombined atate. But probably there is no practical 


hilosopher the truth of whose statements and conclusions upon sub- 
jects embracing a vast range in nature has been so little impugned. 


’- Without entering further into an account of the various papers by 


Dr. Wollaston which appear in the ‘Philosophical Transactions,’ on 
which much might still be said, did our limits permit, we shall con- 
elude with the following general remarks on his scientific character, by 
a profound judge of his excellence, the late Dr. William Henry, F.R.S. 
(‘ Elements of Chemistry,’ 11th edit., vol. i., p. 8) :—** Dr. Wollaston,” 
he observes, “ was endowed with bodily senses of extraordinary acute- 
ness and accuracy, and with great general vigour of understanding, 
Trained in the discipline of the exact sciences, he had acquired a 


' powerful command over his attention, and had habituated himself to 


the most rigid correctness, both of thought and of language. He was 
sufficiently provided with the resources of the mathematics to be 
enabled to pursue, with success, profound inquiries in mechanical and 
optical philosophy, the results of which enabled him to unfold the 
eauses of phenomena not before understood, and to enrich the arts 
connected with those sciences by the invention of ingenious and 
valuable instruments. In chemistry he was distinguished by the 
extreme nicety and delicacy of his observations, by the quickness and 
precision with which he marked resemblances and discriminated differ- 
ences, the sagacity with which he devised experiments and anticipated 
their results, and the skill with which he executed the analysis of 
fragments of new substances, often so minute as to be scarcely per- 
ceptible by ordinary eyes. He was remarkable too for the caution 
with which he advanced from facts to general conclusions; a caution 
which, if it sometimes prevented him from reaching at once to the 
most sublime truths, yet rendered every step of his ascent a secure 
station, from which it was easy to rise to higher and more enlarged 
inductions.” 
WOLLSTONECRAFT, MARY. 
col. 133.] ; 
WOLSEY, THOMAS, the celebrated cardinal of that name, was 
born at Ipswich in Suffolk, in 1741. The tale that he was the son of 
a butcher is probable, though it does not rest upon any sure founda- 
tion. Itappears that Robert and Joan Wolsey, his parents, were poor 
but reputable persons, and possessed of sufficient means to provide a 
good education for their son. After having received some preparatory 
instruction, he was sent to Magdalen College, Oxford, where he 
graduated at the age of fifteen, gaining by his early advancement the 
nickname of “the boy bachelor.” (Cavendish’s ‘Life of Wolsey.’) 
He was made fellow of his college, appointed teacher of a school in 
connection with it, and was ordained. At this school were three sons 
of the Marquis of Dorset, with whom Wolsey became acquainted, and 
through whose patronage he enjoyed his first ecclesiastical preferment, 
the living of Lymington in Somersetshire. He was now twenty-nine 
years of age, and possessed a winning address, which, combined with 
great natural ability, and a keen and rapid judgment of character, 
greatly assisted his promotion. We cannot follow him through every 
step of his progress, even at the beginning of his carcer. Though he 
was not always discreet, it is apparent that he acquired friendships and 
obtained confidence in each place where he resided. It is said that 
while he lived at Lymington he got drunk at a neighbouring fair; for 
some such cause it is certain that Sir Amias Poulet put him into the 
stocks, a punishment for which he subsequently revenged himself; but 
the first part of the story is probably a fable, Through his intimacy 
with a Somersetshire gentleman of some importance, Sir John Nafant, 
treasurer of Calais, he was named by Sir John his deputy in that 
office, to which he was personally incapacitated from attending by age 
and sickness. Nafant’s influence at court also procured for Wolsey a 
nomination as king’s chaplain, and introduced him to Henry VIL, in 
whose favour he soon gained a prominent place. Wolsey’s insinuating 
manners and ready ability were not lost upon the king. These were 
days in which the clergy were barred from no office, ecclesiastical or 
otherwise. An ambassador was sought to go to Flanders with a 
message concerning the marriage of the king : despatch was necessary, 
and the king intrusted the business to Wolsey, who travelled with 


[Gopwix, Wittram, vol. iii, 


such rapidity as to return to London before, it is said, his master 
knew of his departure, and acted in such a manner upon imperfect 
instructions as to give the king great satisfaction. The credit that he 
gained by this cervice contributed to procure him the valuable deanery 
of Lincoln, to which he was appointed in February 1508. In the 
following year the king died, and was succeeded by Henry VIIL, 
whose age and character, widely different from his father’s, raised a 
general expectation of an entire change of counsellors and favourites. 

Up to this time Wolsey had had no opportunity of playing a great 
part. He had risen indeed, and risen very rapidly; but he was an 
obscure person, of low birth, and sufficient time had not elapsed for 
him to gain any very great elevation. But in the changes to be made 
at the accession of the new king, it soon became evident that Wolsey’s 
power would be materially increased. Many circumstances favoured 
his promotion: he was in the prime of life; he was accustomed to 
the court, for which his manners and address peculiarly fitted him ;. 
and he likewise held an important place in the church. The position 
of public affairs moreover contributed to secure him a place near the 
person of the king. There were animosities between the Earl of 
Surrey, the lord-treasurer, and Fox, bishop of Winchester, who held 
the important offices of privy seal and secretary of state. Fox, 
desirous of strengthening his influence, sought to place near the king 
one of his own friends and adherents. For this purpose he made 
Wolsey the king’s almoner, trusting that his active spirit, his acute- 
ness, and insinuating address would make the favourite of the father 
the still greater favourite of the son, The adroit courtier did not 
disappoint his patron: he rose so quickly in the king’s good graces 
that he soon did nearly what he pleased. His religious scruples were 
not strong enough to lead him to discourage the king’s humours and 
pleasures; on the contrary, he would seem to have promoted his care- 
less gaiety, knowing well that the more time the king employed in its 
pursuit, the more necessary he would find it to have some active 
favourite to supply him with the information which he needed, and to 
proceed with the business which he omitted to transact. Thus, though 
the king never wholly neglected his affairs, the conduct of them 
chiefly devolved upon the favourite. The success of his general 
management was soon proved by the gifts that were bestowed upon 
him. Before the year of the king’s accession had passed he had been 
made lord-almoner, and had been presented with some valuable lands 
and houses in the parish of St. Bride’s, Fleet-street, which Empson 
had forfeited to the crown. In 1510 he became rector of Torrington ; 
in 1511, canon of Windsor and registrar of the Order of the Garter; 
in 1512, prebendary of York; in 1513, dean of York and bishop of 
Tournay in France; in 1514, bishop of Lincoln, and in the same year 
archbishop of York, In 1515 he was made a cardinal, and succeeded 
Warham as chancellor. In 1516 the pope made him legate & latere, a 
commission which gave him great wealth and almost unlimited power 
over the English clergy : he likewise farmed, for the foreign bishops 
who held them, the revenues of the dioceses of Bath, Worcester, and 
Hereford, allowing them fixed stipends far below the annual proceeds 
which were collected; he had also in commendam the abbey of St. 
Albans; while the enormous revenues that he derived from these 
sources were further increased by stipends received from the kings of 
France and Spain and the doge of Venice. Thus Wolsey had accumu- 
lated in his own hands the whole power of the state, both civil and eccle- 
siastical, and derived from foreign and domestic sources an amount of 
income to which no subject has ever approached: his wealth and 
influence were almost an encroachment on the dignity of the crown. 
His ambition however was not satisfied; his anxiety for the papacy 
was avowed; nor did his expectations of gaining it appear extrava- 
gant, for at the death of Maximilian (1519) both the kings of France 
and Spain aspired to the empire, and each, eager to secure the 
influence of so powerful a minister as Wolsey, promised to assist him 
in his designs. At the death of Leo X., in 1522, and again in the 
following year, at the death of Adrian VI, Wolsey sought the vacant 
throne, but in neither instance was.he chosen. “ His foreign policy 
seems to have been biassed by his disappointment, which he attributed 
to Charles V., whom he ever afterwards held in aversion.” We have 
other instances of the continuance of his resentment and his inability 
to forgive. He had taken offence at the Duke of Buckingham’s con- 
duct towards him: that nobleman’s indiscretions afterwards subjected 
him to an attainder for treason; Wolsey prosecuted the case with 

reat severity, and though there were hardly suflicient public reasons 
or such harshness, instigated his execution. An outcry was raised 
against him for his want of leniency towards this popular favourite : 
it soon subsided however, for his power made him feared, and his 
magnificence admired. 

Nobody could vie with Wolsey in display: his retinue on the Field 
of the Cloth of Gold was more numerous and splendid than that of 
any subject; and during each foreign mission on which he was 
employed, he was attended with extraordinary pomp. At York Place 
(now Whitehall) his residence was furnished with every luxury; and 
he built for himself at Hampton Court a noble palace, of which he 
eventually made a present to the king. His dress was gorgeous, his 
manner of living sumptuous, and his household consisted of more than 
500 persons; there were among them many people of rank—the Earl 
of Derby, Lord Henry Percy, and others. He had a “steward” (says 
his biographer Cavendish, who was his gentleman-usher) “ which was 


799 WOLSEY, THOMAS. 


WOOD, JOHN, 800 


always a dean or priest; a treasurer a knight; and a comptroller an 
esquire ; which have always within his house their white staves. . . . 
In his privy kitchen he had a master-cook, who went daily in damask, 
satin, or velvet, with a chain of gold about his neck.” But on the 
other hand, he promoted learning with consistent liberality: the 
University of Oxford is indebted to him for its Cardinal’s (now Christ- 
church) College; and for several professorships, which, with the college 
he founded in his native town of Ipswich, had only a short existence ; 
he likewise encouraged learned persons by patronage and gifts. He 
was himself no mean scholar, and he is said to have assisted the king, 
by his intimate knowledge of the works of his favourite author, 
Thomas Aquinas, and other theological writers, when he composed 
his treatise against Luther. He drew up, in 1528, the Latin rules for 
his school of Ipswich, which are extant; they are printed in the 
‘Essay on a System of Classical Instruction’ (London, John Taylor, 
1825), and contain the course of Latin instruction which Wolsey pre- 
scribed for the eight classes into which he divided the school, 

The see of Durham, to which he had been recently appointed, 
Wolsey resigned for that of Winchester. It does not appear that he 
encouraged any change of doctrine among his clergy; his adherence 
to the Roman Catholic Church was never shaken, The Reformation 
indeed made little progress, though many of its seeds were sown in 
his time. His abuse of ecclesiastical revenues and duties gave con- 
vincing evidence of the necessity of change: such rapid translation 
from dignity to dignity, so large a number of offices held continually 
in the same hands, while their duties were for the most part neg- 
lected, were evils that could not long be tolerated. The exercise of 
his legatine powers with regard to the examination and suppression of 
the monasteries, his conduct likewise in the matter of Queen Cathe- 
rine’s divorce, gave strength to the dawning Reformation. 

To circumstances connected with the divorce Wolsey’s fall is mainly 
attributable: he advised the king to put away Catherine, but not to 
- marry Anne Boleyn, and thus he offended both the actual queen and 
the queen elect. An oppressive and illegal taxation had made him 
unpopular with the multitude; while at court there were powerful 
enemies labouring continually to poison the king’s mind against the 
favourite, whom he had treated with such unlimited confidence, and 
trusted with such unparalleled authority. The dukes of Norfolk and 
Suffolk, and Lord Rochford, Anne Boleyn’s father, and Anne herself, 
united in their efforts to overthrow him, and eventually succeeded in 
their machinations, At the commencement of the Michaelmas term, 
1529, two informations were filed against him in the Court of King’s 
Bench, charging him with having, as legate, transgressed the statute 
of premunire. Wolsey admitted the charge, “of which he was 
technically guilty, inasmuch as he had received bulls from the pope 
without a formal licence.” (Sir J. Mackintosh, ‘ Hist. Eng.,’ vol. ii., 
p. 166.) “The court pronounced their sentence, that he was out of 
the protection of the law, that his lands, goods, and chattels were 
forfeited, and that his person was at the mercy of the king.” He was 
ordered to retire to Esher, a country-house belonging to the see of 
Winchester, and was so closely shorn of all magnificence as nearly to 
be wanting in the ordinary comforts of life. Many of his friends 
deserted him ; his followers and dependents showed the most devoted 
attachment to their master in his distress. He sank into a state of 
deep dejection. Henry temporarily reinstated him in the following 
year (1530). Wolsey “was restored to the see of Winchester and the 
abbey of St. Alban’s, with a grant of 6000/,, and of all other rents not 
parcel of the archbishopric of York. Even that great diocese was 
' afterwards restored. He arrived at Cawood Castle about the end of 
September 1530, where ne employed himself in magnificent prepara- 
tions for his installation on the archiepiscopal throne.” His popularity 
in the north was increased by his hospitality and affability. His ene- 
mies at court however were bent upon his ruin, and the king’s deter- 
mination to cast off the pope favoured their design, for under these 
circumstances it was evidently little desirable that a cardinal should 
fill the principal offices in the state. The Earl of Northumberland 
received orders to arrest him for treason, and to bring him to London 
to stand his trial. With what particular act he was charged we are 
not informed, and with the obsequious servants of the tyrant it little 
mattered. He proceeded towards London on his mule, but by the 
way he was attacked with a dysentery. As he entered the gate of the 
monastery of Leicester, he said, “ Father Abbot, I am come to lay my 
bones among you;” and so the event proved : the monks carried him 
to his bed, upon which, three days afterwards, he expired (November 
1530). Shakspere has little altered the words he addressed on his 
deathbed to Kyngston, the lieutenant of the Tower, though in the play 
they are given to Cromwell—*“ If I had served God as diligently as I 
have done the king, he would not have given me over in my grey hairs.” 

Wolsey attained his elevation by a winning address, combined with 
shrewdness, talent, and learning; his ambition was unlimited, his 
rapacity great, he was arrogant and overbearing, and extremely fond 
of splendour and parade. But he was a great minister, enlightened 
beyond the age in which he lived, diligent in business, and a good 
servant to the king; for when his authority was established he checked 
the king’s cruelty, restrained many of his caprices, and kept his 
passions within bounds: the latter part of Henry’s reign was very far 
more where: than that during which the cardinal presided over his 
counsels, 


architect of considerable repute in the time of George IL., in ability 


WOOD, or A WOOD, ANTHONY, was born in the city of Oxford, 
December 17, 1632. His father was a gentleman of independent pro- 
perty. Anthony was sent to a private .Latin school in 1640, and in 
1641 was removed to New College, Oxford, but in 1644, in conse- . 
quence of the civil disturbances, was sent to a school at Thame. In 
1646 his mother placed him under his brother Edward, in Trinity 
College, Oxford, and he went to him once or twice a day to receive 
instruction. On the 26th of May 1647, he was matriculated in the 
University of Oxford as the son of a gentleman, and entered Merton 
College, October 18, 1647, About 1650 or 1651 he began to learn to 
play on the violin, at first without instruction, but afterwards under — 
ateacher. He seems to have attained to great skill on the instrument, 
and was for many years a member of a musical club in Oxford, in 
which concerted pieces were performed, both vocal and instrumental, 
by men of some eminence as musicians. Painting was also another of 
his favourite pursuits, but there seems to be no evidence of his skill 
in that art. He graduated A.B. in 1652. Heraldry, which also 
became one of his studies, was perhaps better suited to his antiquarian 
tastes; is sedulous study in the public library of the University 
attracted the attention of Dr. Thomas Barlow, the head keeper of the 
library, who treated Anthony with much kindness, gave him every 
assistance in his power, and even allowed him to take books 
mauuscripts to his home, 

In December 1655, Wood took the degree of M.A. Dugdale’s ‘ Anti- 
quities of Warwickshire’ came out in 1656, and wes read by Wood 
with great delight and admiration, His fondness for the study of 
antiquities was confirmed, and he now began to transcribe the monu- 
mental inscriptions and arms in the parish churches and college 
chapels of the city and University of Oxford. After the Restoration 
he obtained leave from Dr. Wallis, in 1660, to consult the university. 
registers, monuments, and other documents in the Schools Tower. 
This was a valuable fund for him, and here he may be said to have 
laid the foundation of his ‘History and Antiquities of Oxford.’ In 
1667 Wood went to London with a letter of introduction from Dr 
Barlow to Sir William Dugdale, by whose influence he obtained leave 
to peruse the manuscripts in the Cotton Library and the records in 
the Tower, ) 

Wood having completed his ‘History and Antiquities of Oxford,’ 
the University offered him 100/. for the copyright, which he accepted 
in October 1669, and the payment was made in March 1670. This 
purchase was made with the intention of having the work translated 
into Latin for the use of foreigners, which was done under the i - 
tion of Dr. Fell, and the work was published at Oxford in 1674, in 2 
vols. folio, with the title of ‘Historia et Antiquitates Universitatis 
Oxoniensis.’ Wood complained bitterly of this translation; and Dr. 
Thomas Warton, who may be supposed to be a less prejudiced judge, 
remarks, “I cannot omit the opportunity of lamenting that Dr. Fell 
ever proposed a translation of Wood’s English work, which would 
have been infinitely more pleasing in the plain natural dress of its 
artless but accurate author. The translation in general is allowed to 
be full of mistakes: it is also stiff and unpleasing, perpetually disgust- 
ing to the reader with its affected phraseology.” 5 

In 1691 Wood published his ‘ Athenze Oxonienses, an exact His 
of all the writers and bishops who have had their education in the 
University of Oxford from 1500 to 1695, to which are added the Fasti 
or Annals of the said University,’ London, folio, 2 -vols.in one. The 
work is written in very slovenly English, but it contains a valuable 
fund of materials, selected with care, though not always with judg- 
ment and without prejudice, He was prosecuted in the vice-chan- 
cellor’s court of the university for some remarks in the ‘Athens 
Oxonienses,” on the character of the late Earl of Clarendon, and 
received a sentence of expulsion. He was also attacked by Bishop — 
Burnet, and replied in a ‘ Vindication,’ &c., 4to, 1693. ] 

Wood died November 29, 1695, aged sixty-five. He wasa large and — 
strong man. He retained his faculties to the last, and just before he — 
died gave directions for the burning of a great mass of manuscripts, 
and left his books and such of his manuscripts as he considered of 
value to the University of Oxford: they were deposited in the Ash- 
molean Museum. 

In 1721 a second edition, ‘ corrected, and enlarged with the addition — 
of above 500 new lives from the author’s original manuscripts, was 
published in London, 2 vols, folio. Philip Bliss published at Oxford 
*Wood’s Athenze Oxonienses continued to 1800,’ 4to, 2 vols., 1813: to — 
the 8rd volume, published in 1817, was added ‘ Fasti Oxonienses, or — 
Annals of the said university, with Notes and Additions,’ 4to. The — 
Rev. John Gutch, M.A., registrar of the University of Oxford, pub- — 
lished in 1786-94, at Oxford, ‘The History and Antiquities of the — 
University of Oxford, now first published in English from the original 
Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, by Anthony Wood ; with a Con- — 
tinuation to the present time, by the Editor,’ 3 vols. 4to. The first — 
volume of a new edition of Dr. Bliss’s edition of the Athens Oxoni- — 
ensis, containing the Life of Wood, was published by the Ecclesiastical 
History Society in 1848; but no farther progress was made in the work, — 
the society having been dissolved, a circumstance much to be regretted 
as Dr. Bliss is known to have accumulated a great amountof valuable — 
additional information since the publication of his former edition, __ 

WOOD, JOHN, commonly spoken of as ‘ Wood of Bath,’ was an 


i so 


‘vidual structures of importance. 


WOODHOUSE, ROBERT. 602 


801 WOOD, ROBERT. 


and taste little if at all inferior to any of his contemporaries, although 
he has obtained less notice from architectural and biographical writers 
than some of them have done.. In fact very little can now be collected 
relative to him beyond what he himself has incidentally told us in his 
‘Description of Bath.’ That city is indebted to him for its architec- 
tural fame, and he may be considered as having there introduced a 
style of street architecture till then quite unknown in this country, 
by combining a number of private houses into one general design. 

Tt was about the end of 1726 that he began his Bath ‘improve- 
ments,’ which he carried on uninterruptedly for about twenty years, 
within which time he entirely changed the architectural character of 
the place, and conferred upon it even a degree of magnificence, at 
least as displayed in such parts as the Parades, the Circus, the Royal 
Crescent, Queen Square, and some of the public edifices, and even 
some of these would have been superior to what they are, had they 
been executed entirely according to the original designs. What he 
did at Bath alone would justly entitle Wood to an eminent place in 
the history of English architecture, and not least of all for the very 
reason which has perhaps occasioned him to be passed over with mere 
general notice, inasmuch as he distinguished himself rather as the 
founder of a system of improvement than as the author of any indi- 
Still he produced some works of 
the latter class that would have preserved his name from oblivion ; 


-among them are the noble mansion of Prior Park, erected for ‘ the 


generous Allen,’ that of Buckland, for Sir John Throckmorton, and 
the Exchange at Bristol, first opened in September 1743. This last is, 
if not a very large, a very handsome structure (110 by 148 feet), and 
the principal or north front a more tasteful specimen of the Palladian 
style than almost anything by Palladio himself. 

Wood, who at that time was a justice of the peace for Somerset- 
shire, died May 28rd, 1754, but at what age is not said: he was pro- 
bably born about the close of the preceding century. He was also 
known as a philosophical writer upon his art by his ‘ Origin of Building, 
or the Plagiarism of the Ancients,’ fol., 1741, which is however rather 
strained and fanciful in its opinions, its argument being to show that 
the system of architectonic beauty and proportion is derived from 
the Jewish nation. To this publication may be added his ‘Essay 
towards a Description of Bath,’ second edition, 2 vols. 8vo, plates, 
London, 1749; and ‘Description of the Exchange of Bristol,’ with 
plates, 8vo, Bath, 1745. 

WOOD, ROBERT, sometimes distinguished as ‘Palmyra’ Wood, 
an accomplished scholar and archeologist, was born at Riverstown in 
the county of Meath, Ireland, in 1716. Having finished his studies at 
Oxford, where he applied himself with extraordinary diligence to 
classical and more especially Grecian literature, he visited Italy more 
than once, and in 1742 made a voyage as far as the island of Chios; 
but it was not until 1750 that, in conjunction with his friends Bouverie 
and Dawkins, and with the Italian architect Borra for their draftsman, 
he set out on his celebrated antiquarian expedition through Asia 
Minor and Syria. Before reaching Palmyra, Bouverie died of fatigue, 
but Wood and his remaining companions pursued their researches and 
labours with success. Almost immediately on his return he published 
the ‘ Ruins of Palmyra,’ 1753, with 57 plates; and in 1757 the ‘Ruins 
of Balbeck,’ 47 plates,—two works constituting an epoch in the study 
of classical architecture, and which, if afterwards surpassed by Stuart's 
‘ Athens,’ had the merit of preceding it by several years. 

In 1759, while engaged in preparing for the press his ‘ Essay on the 
Genius of Homer,’ he was made under-secretary of state by the Earl of 
Chatham, in consequence of which he suspended his literary studies, 
and that work was not published till after his death (which happened 
at Putney, September 9, 1771), when it appeared under the title of 
‘ An Essay on the Original Genius and Writings of Homer; with a 
Comparative View of the Antient and Present State of the Troad,’ 4to, 
London, 1775. This learned dissertation, which has been translated 
into French, German, Italian, and Spanish, treats of the country of 
Homer, his travels, his system of mythology, and of the geography 
and ethnography of the ‘Iliad’ and ‘ Odyssey.’ It is however by his 
two other works that he is now more generally known, and they are a 
very important addition to the history and archeology of architecture, 
affording as they do satisfactory evidence of Roman magnificence in 
distant regions, and in places whose very existence had come to be 
nearly regarded as fabulous. 

WOODALL, JOHN, an English surgeon, was born about 1556. He 
was a surgeon in the army during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and 
went to France with the troops under Lord Willoughby. On his return 
he settled in London, and was very active in his attentions to those sick 
of the plague which prevailed in London in the early part of the reign of 
James I. Thereis no record of his having been a surgeon in the navy, but 
in 1612 he published a work describing the diseases of sailors, under the 
title of the ‘Surgeon’s Mate,’ In this work there is an excellent account 
of the fearful disease, as it prevailed at that time, known by the name 
of scurvy. In the same year that he published this book he was 
appointed surgeon to St. Bartholomew's Hospital. In 1628 he pub- 
lished a treatise entitled ‘ Viaticum,’ and afterwards a treatise ‘On the 
Plague,’ and a work upon ‘Gangrene and Sphacelus.’ All these works 
were collected together and published in London, in 1639. These 
works display sound observation and correct reasoning, and obtained 
for him an extensive reputation. He had a large practice in London, 

BIOG. DIV. VOL. VI. 


and was made a master of the Surgeons’ Company. There is no 
account of the time at which he died. In the preface to the works 
published in 1639, he speaks of himself then as in infirm health. 
WOODDESSON, DR. RICHARD, was Vinerian professor in the 
University of Oxford. He published ‘Elements of Jurisprudence, 
treated of in the preliminary part of a Course of Lectures on the Laws 
of England,’ 4to, London, 1783 ; ‘A Systematical View of the Laws of 
England, as treated in a Course of Lectures read at Oxford during a 
series of years,’ 3 vols. 8vo, London, 1792; ‘ Brief Vindication of the 
Rights of the British Legislature; in answer to some Positions 
advanced in a pamphlet entitled Thoughts on the English Govern- 
ment,’ London, 1799, 8vo pamphlet. Wooddesson died October 22, 
1822. The Lectures on the Law of England were edited in 1834, in 3 
small volumes, 8vo, by W. R. Williams, D.C.L., who observes in the 
preface that “these lectures seem to be as superior to the Com- 
mentaries (of Blackstone) in accuracy of rules and justness of division 
and definition, as they are inferior in elegance of style and charm of 
narrative ;” or, to speak in plain terms, the editor means to say that 
the Lectures are superior to the Commentaries in all matters which 
constitute the merit of a law book; and he is quite right. 
WOODFALL, WILLIAM, was the son of the printer of the ‘ Public 
Advertiser’ newspaper : another son, we believe the elder of the two, 
was Henry Sampson Woodfall, who succeeded his father in the manage- 
ment of the paper, and held it when it became the medium through 
which the letters of Junius were given to the world. William was 
born in 1745 or 1746, and began life by being sent to learn the print- 
ing business under Mr. Baldwin, of Paternoster-row. He was then 
employed for some time in assisting his father in printing and editing 
the ‘ Advertiser,’ till a taste for theatrical amusements, it is related, 
took such possession of him, that he broke away with a company of 
players on an excursion to Scotland to gratify that passion. While in 
Scotland he married, but returned to London about 1772, when he was 
first employed for a short time as editor of a newspaper called ‘ The 
London Packet,’ andthen undertook the direction, both as editor and 
printer, of ‘The Morning Chronicle.’ With that paper he remained 
connected till 1789, when he left it and set up one of his own, which 
he called ‘The Diary.’ Before this, in 1785, he published in an 8vo 
pamphlet a ‘Sketch of the Debate in the House of Commons in Ire- 
land upon the rejection of the twenty commercial propositions ;’ but 
it was in ‘The Diary’ that he first gave proof of his wonderful talent 
for reporting, by presenting his readers with as detailed accounts of 
the parliamentary debates on the day after each took place, as the 
other papers had been in the habit of supplying after an interval of 
many days; for the practice then was to give only the shortest sum- 
mary at the time, and to reserve the full speeches till the reports of 
them could be! prepared at leisure. Woodfall’s mode of proceeding 
was what would now be thought very extraordinary. “ Without 
taking a note to assist his memory,” says the notice of him in the 
obituary of the ‘Annual Register,’ “without the use of an amanu- 
ensis to ease his labour, he has been known to write sixteen columns, 
after having sat in a crowded gallery for as many hours, without an 
interval of rest.” This exertion however, it is added, in which he 
took pride, and which brought him more praise than profit, “ wore 
down his constitution, which was naturally good; and when other 
papers, by the division of labour, produced the same length of debate, 
with an earlier publication, he yielded the contest, and suffered his 
‘Diary’ to expire.” In his latter years he offered himself a candidate 
for the office of City Remembrancer, but it was given to another. To 
the last he continued constantly to attend the debates: he was in the 
House of Lords four or five days before his death, on the Ist of August 
1803. He left a large family, of whom at least one son, Henry, 
acquired some literary reputation; and a daughter, Sophia, who mar- 
ried Mr. M‘Gibbon, became an actress, and also wrote several novels. 
WOODHOUSE, ROBERT. There is almost a total silence concern- 
ing Professor Woodhouse in the ordinary depositories of biographi- 
cal information; for the facts of his private life,as here given, we 
have been indebted to the courtesy of his brothers, Dr. J. T. Wood- 
house, Senior Fellow of Caius College, Cambridge, and Richard 
Woodhouse, Esq., formerly attached to the Supreme Court at Bombay. 
Robert Woodhouse was born at Norwich, April 28, 1773. His 
father was in business in that city, where he was possessed of some 
freehold estates. He was of a family of some antiquity, and claimed 
and sought to recover an estate at Beesthorpe, in the possession of 
Lord Byron (the uncle of the poet). His mother was the daughter of 
the Rev. J. Alderson of Lowestoft, who was the grandfather of Baron 
Alderson and Mrs. Amelia Opie. He was educated at North Walsham 
public school, where he showed no particular desire for the studies in 
which he afterwards became eminent. He must have commenced 
residence at Caius College, Cambridge, in 1791, and he took his first 
degree, and was senior wrangler and first Smith’s prizeman, in 1795. 
He gained a fellowship in his college (in which the fellows, or most of 
them, may continue laymen), and the concerns of the college and uni- 
versity, with his studies, private pupils, and writings, occupied his life. 
In 1820 he was elected to succeed Dr. Milner as Lucasian professor of 
mathematics ; and in 1822 he was removed to the Plumian professor- 
ship of astronomy and experimental philosophy, vacant by the death 
of Mr. Vinee. In 1823 he married Harriet, the sister of William 


Wilkins, R.A., the architect, whom he survived. In as when the 
F 


803 WOODHOUSE, ROBERT. 


Observatory was completed at Cambridge, he was appointed its super- 
intendent ; but by this time his ‘health had failed, and he was hardly 
equal to the extent of his duties. He died in London, December 23, 
1827, and was buried in the chapel at Caius College. . P 

Woodhouse is distinguished as the first who, in his university, culti- 
vated the methods of analysis which the genius of the Continental 
mathematicians had made far superior in power to that which Newton 
had left, which last was exclusively studied in England at the time 
when he graduated, He was the first who introduced this analysis 
into a work written (or at least published) for the English student, 
and he must therefore be considered as the leader of the movement by 
which the mathematicians of this country assimilated their methods to 
those of their Continental brethren. For this position he had peculiar 
qualifications : a profound and extensive knowledge of every stage of 
the progress of all that he attempted to introduce; severe habits of 
logic, such as are frequently wanting in the modern mathematician ; a 
perfect absence of discipleship; ability to see that much of his impor- 
tation was as inferior in accuracy as it was superior in power; and 
thought and talent to suggest the means of amendment. To these 
we must add a high private character, and the esteem of his contem- 
poraries—things of the utmost consequence to a literary reformer. 
His style of writing is peculiarly his own, frequently difficult and per- 
plexed in appearance, but always containing those little additions and 
collateral explanations which many writers omit, to the detriment of 
the reader. It would almost seem as if the hints just alluded to had 
been stuck in after the sentences were written. With those who 
would rather be stopped for a minute by a writer’s construction than 
for an hour by want of materials to make out a meaning, Woodhouse 
is a favourite writer ; still more so with those who like to think about 
the first principles of their subject. But to those others who parse 
instead of comprehending, and think they have made out an author as 
soon as they see how his sentence runs, he is repulsive; and still more 
so to those who are rather bent upon using mathematical symbols 
than understanding them. 

We do not mention his papers in the ‘Philosophical Transactions,’ 
as their principal points are repeated in his separate writings, which 
are as follows :— 

1. ‘The Principles of Analytical Calculation,’ 4to, Cambridge, 1803, 
In this work, which is rather of the descriptive and controversial, 
than of the elementary character, Woodhouse called the attention of 
his university to the language and first principles of the Continental 
analysis, with strong recommendation of the former, and a searching 
criticism on the latter. He passes under review the methods of 
infinitesimals, limits, expansions, &c., exposes the total insufficiency 
of the method of Lagrange, and gives his own views of the mode of 
establishing the differential calculus. He had evidently, as often 
happens to those who strictly investigate received systems, acquired, 
if not an absolute scepticism as to the possibility of any rigour at the 
outset, at least an instinctive habit of objection. Though differing 
from several of his positive conclusions, particularly those which he 
comes to on the character of the theory of limits, we must always 
admire the sound thought and clear exposition which distinguish the 
work throughout. Considering the time and place at which it was 
published, it is a rare instance of felicity in the choice of a subject 
and of the manner of treating it. 

Among the other qualifications of a controversialist, Woodhouse had 
a power of sarcasm, which, though in private life, it only went the 
length of what is called “dry humour,” yet appeared now and then in 
_ his writings in a manner which would have made an opponent careful 
what he advanced. i 

2, ‘Elements of Trigonometry,’ 8vo, Cambridge, 1809 (several sub- 
sequent editions), Of this work Dr. Peacock says that “it more than 
any other contributed to revolutionise the mathematical studies of 
this country. It was a work, independently of its singularly oppor- 
tune appearance, of great merit, and such as is not likely, notwith- 
standing the crowd of similar publications in the present day, to be 
speedily superseded in the business of education; . . . and, like all 
other works of this author, it is written in a manner well calculated to 
fix strongly the attention of the student, and to make him reflect 
attentively upon the particular processes which are followed, and 
upon the reasons for their adoption.” The ‘Analytical Calculations’ 
was an appeal to the teacher, but the ‘Trigonometry’ was addressed 
to the student. It excited the opposition of those who were attached 
to the old system, and paved the way for the subsequent introduction 
of the differential calculus, the works on which must have been 
accompanied by treatises on trigonometry adapted to themselves, if 
Woodhouse had not supplied the want. 

3. ‘A Treatise on Isoperimetrical Problems, and the Calculus of 
Variations,’ 8vo, Cambridge, 1810. There is something peculiar to 
himself in every work which Woodhouse produced. The mode of 
writing scientific history, which Delambre afterwards adopted, is here 
seen for the first time : it consists in taking up the subject in such a 
manner that its history in the hands of each individual is separate 
from the rest; accordingly we have both the history of the subject 
and of each of its promoters in his connection with it. Woodhouse 
puts distinctly before the reader the very problems, methods, and 
notation of the several writers on the calculus of variations, from the 
earliest isolated problems of the Bernoullis, to the connected and com- 


WOODWARD, JOHN. 804 


paratively finished methods of Lagrange. This book will not pass 
away like an elementary work ; it is a history. 
4, ‘A Treatise on Astronomy,’ 8vo, Cambridge, 1812. This was 
always intended as a first volume, and the second, published in 1818, 
is on the theory of gravitation, which is somewhat improperly 
‘Physical Astronomy.’ But in the subsequent editions the first 
volume was enlarged into two, which were obliged to be called 
parts; so that we now have vol. i, parts 1 and 2, on astronomy, and 
vol, ii., on physical astronomy, or the theory of gravitation. Of the _ 
latter it is only necessary to say, that it was the first work in which 
the student was introduced to what had been done abroad sinee the 
death of Newton, and that it does not retain its place only because the — 
subject has advanced both abroad and at home. But the first volume 
still remains perhaps the most remarkable work on astronomy of its 
century. This distinction it owes to the manner in which Woodhouse _ 
makes the reader feel that he is in the very observatory itself. The 
methods are as perfect as if they had been directions to a computer, a 
quality which writers who have to explain those methods mathe- — 
matically frequently do not give them; the examples seem as if they 
were real ones, as if some astronomer had had to put down the actual 
figures, and the very observations which are cited are made to smell 
of the instruments which gave them. Many theoretical works on 
astronomy may make a reader think he would like the practical part 
of the science, in which he may afterwards find himself mistaken: 
but Woodhouse’s treatise cannot deceive him in this respect; he will 
or will not relish practical astronomy according as he is or is not 
pleased with Woodhouse’s book. At least the preceding is more near — 
the truth of this book than of any other. The secret was, that the 
author was an expert practical astronomer, as well as an original 
thinker on first principles, who was able to change places with the 
student in an unusual degree. He was very fond of the subject of 
practical astronomy, a taste which is not always found in the mathe- 
matician, and rarely indeed in one of a speculative turn. Had the 
observatory been built before the failure of his health, he would pro- 
bably have become as distinguished in the promotion of astronomy as 
he was in its explanation: as it was, he had only time to discover the 
injurious effect of the diagonal braces of the transit instrument. — ; 
The character which must be given of the several writings of Wood- 
house entitles us to suppose that the revolution in our mathematical — 
studies, of which he was the first promoter, would not have been ~ 
brought about so easily if its earliest advocacy had fallen into less — 
judicious hands. For instance had he not, when he first called atten- — 
tion to the continental analysis, exposed the unsoundness of some of — 
the usual methods in establishing it more like an opponent than a — 
partisan, those who were adverse from the change would probably — 
have made a successful stand against the whole upon the ground 
which, as it was, Woodhouse had already made his own. From the 
nature of his subjects, his reputation can never equal that of the first 
seer of a comet with the world at large: but the few who can appre- — 
ciate what he did will always regard him as one of the most philoso- — 
phical thinkers and useful guides of his time. . 
WOODHOUSELEE, LORD. [Tyruimr, A. F.] ¥ 
WOODVILLE, WILLIAM, was born at Cockermouth in 1752. 
He served an apprenticeship to an apothecary, and afterwards studied 
medicine at Edinburgh, where he graduated in 1775. After studying 
some time in the medical schools of the Continent, he returned to 
Cockermouth, where he commenced the practice of his profession, — 
He continued there five or six years, and then removed to . ae 
Here he was appointed physician to the Middlesex Dispensary, and in — 
1792 he was elected Physician to the Small-Pox Hospital. Haying 
paid considerable attention to the plants yielding medicines, he pub- 
lished in 1790 a large work, in four quarto volumes, entitled ‘Medical _ 
Botany,’ which consisted of a series of plates representing mela F 
plants, and containing an account of their natural history and uses. — 
This work is imperfect both in the drawings and descriptions of plants, — 
but it was a valuable work at the time it was published, and has led — 
to the production of better works on the same subject. In 1796 
Woodville commenced the publication of a work entitled a ‘ History of — 
the Small-Pox in Great Britain.’ This work was never completed, on — 
account of the introduction of vaccination about this time by Jenner, — 
Dr. Woodville had good opportunities of investigating the claims of 
Jenner's discovery to confidehce, and came at first to a conclusion 
unfavourable to vaccination, He however continued to make o . 
tions, and before his death became a strenuous advocate for the intro- 
duction of vaccination. He died in 1805. wy 
WOODWARD, JOHN, the author of ‘A Natural History of the 
Earth,’ and the founder of the professorship of geology at Cambridge, 
was born in Derbyshire in 1665. He studied comparative anatomy 7 
and natural history at the seat of Sir Ralph Dutton in Glouces ieee 
under the direction of Dr. Barwick, and received his degree of M.D. 
from Archbishop Tenison. Woodward's attention to fossils was first 
excited by the shelly limestones of Gloucestershire, from which he 
conceived the notions of the successive deposition of strata which he — 
afterwards applied to the explanation of the structure of the earth. — 
Previous to 1695 he had, by travelling over the greatest part of Eng- | 
land, made himself acquainted with the “present condition of the 
earth and all bodies contained in it ;” collected the “ plants, insects, — 
sea, river, and land-shells ;” examined the “ water of mines, grottoes,” 


Se 


£05 WOOLHOUSE, JOHN THOMAS. 


WOOLSTON, THOMAS, 806 


&e.; “for the purpose of getting as complete and satisfactory informa- 
tion of the whole mineral kingdom as he could possibly obtain.” In 
all natural and artificial exposures of the rocks he noted in a journal 
everything memorable in each pit, quarry, or mine. Unable to travel 
in Europe amidat the commotions then prevalent, he drew up a series 
of queries, and transmitted them to intelligent foreigners, who might 
give him some insight into the structure of the earth as it appeared in 
foreign regions. The result of all these inquiries was, that “ the cir- 
cumstances of these things were much the same in remoter countries 
as in England ;” and Woodward proceeded to combine his observa- 
tions into ‘A Natwral History of the Earth.’ This work, which ap- 


peared in 1695 (dedicated to Sir Robert Southwell, president of the 
Royal Society), has had a remarkable and permanent influence on the 


progress of English geology. It establishes great truths, linked with 
at errors. It refutes the notion of the earlier writers, such as Plot, 
who believed that the fishes, shells, and corals found in the rocks were 
“mere mineral substances,” never connected with or dependent on 
the functions of life, but formed, like “ selenites, marcasites, and flints,” 
by a plastic force in the earth; proves them to be the exuviz of ani- 
mals; and appeals to them as ancient inhabitants of the sea, yielding 
evidence of great revolutions in the condition of the globe. 
' Woodward's conception of these great truths is clear. His inferences 
concerning the nature and proximate causes of the phenomena which 


che had examined are clouded by fundamental errors; for instead of 


the philosophical opinion of antiquity revived by Steno, that the dry 
land in which the marine exuvise were found had formerly been the 
bed of the sea, and had been raised out of it by convulsions, or left by 
retirement of the waters, Woodward maintained that these marine 
bodies “were borne forth of the sea by the universal deluge; that 
during the time of the deluge all the stone and marble of the antedilu- 
vian earth, all the metals of it, all mineral concretions, and, in a word, 
all fossils whatever that had any solidity, were totally dissolved into 
one confused mass: the parts of this mass subsided according to the 
laws of gravity, the heaviest descending first, and inclosing the heavier 
sorts of shells (as cockles, &c.); the lighter (as chalk) falling after- 
wards, and inclosing lighter shells (as echini); while human bodies, 
bodies of quadrupeds, birds, &c., teeth and horns, &c., shells of land- 
snails, &c., being, bulk for bulk, lighter than sand, marl, chalk, &c., 
were not precipitated till the last, and so lay above all the former, 
constituting the supreme or outmost stratum of the globe.” Wood- 
ward further maintained that the strata were originally horizontal, 
and that the actual irregularities of their position were due to convul- 
sions whose catfse was seated in the earth; and in his pages appear 
many other curious glimpses of important truths, obscured by the 
general fault of his system, the reference of a// the phenomena which 
he observed to one universal deluge. 

_The work received and deserved applause, but met with immediate 
opposition on good philosophiéal principles by J. A., M.D. (Dr. Arbuth- 
not), 1697. The author however remained unconvinced, and published 
in 1724 a defence of his system against the objections of Camerarius 
of Tiibingen (‘ Naturalis Historia Telluris illustrata et aucta’). To 


this work Woodward appended a Classification of Earths, Stones, Salts, 


Bitumens, Minerals, and Metals (‘ Methodica Fossilium in Classes Dis- 
tributio,’ dedicated to Sir Isaac Newton, Pres. R.S.). In 1728, after 
his death, appeared an enlargement of this method, accompanied by 
interesting letters to Newton, Hoskyns, &c., and directions for observ- 
ers and collectors. A greater and more valuable work, in two volumes, 
published from Woodward's manuscript in 1728 and 1729 (‘ Attempt 
towards a Natural History of the Fossils of England’), closes the list 
of the geological publications of Woodward. ‘The first volume of this 
catalogue contains notices of above “ fifteen hundred bodyes’’ in the 
first part, and a catalogue of “ English extrancous fossils” in the second 
part. These specimens were bequeathed to the University of Cam- 
bridge, and are still preserved therein, according to the directions of 
the will, by the professors on Woodward’s foundation. In the second 
volume are described additional English and some foreign specimens, 
which were ordered to be sold. 

Dr. Woodward appears to have been diligent and accurate in gather- 
ing information, and tolerably versed in the philosophy and science of 
his day, but his hypotheses are little in harmony with chemistry or 
mechanics, and sometimes opposed to the most obvious and ordinary 
facts.. The sincerity and zeal with which he prosecuted geology are 
evinced by the noble bequest of his collections, and a fund for endow- 
ing a professorship, to the University of Cambridge; a bequest which 
has given the opportunity for Mitchell and Sedgwick to add to the 
renown of the University, and to link the name of Woodward with 
some of the highest and surest generalisations im geological science. 

In 1707 he published ‘An Account of Roman Urns and other 
Antiquities lately dug up near Bishopsgate,’ addressed to Sir Christo- 
pher Wren, and in other respects he distinguished himself as a collector 
of antiquities. His professional career appears to have been prosperous. 
He was elected Fellow of the Royal Society and of the College of 
Physicians, and was appointed professor of physic in Gresham College. 
He engaged in controversy with Mead and Friend on the subject of 
small-pox. His death happened in 1728. 

WOOLHOUSE, JOHN THOMAS, an English surgeon who devoted 
himself principally to the treatment of diseases of the eye. For this 
purpose he travelled throughout Europe, and became known to the 


principal men of science of his day. -He wrote many works on the 
eye and its diseases. They are all written in French, and were pub- 
lished in Paris, although he does not appear to have resided in France. 
His best works are his ‘Catalogue d’Instrumens pour les Opérations 
des Yeux,’ published in 8vo at Paris in 1696, and his ‘ Expériences 
des, différentes Opérations manuelles et des Guérisons spécifiques qu’il 
a practiquées aux Yeux.’ This last book, which contains a good 
account of the various operations performed at the time it was 
written, was published at Paris, in 1711. His books are written in 
an inflated style, and were evidently intended to advance his views 
in the practice of his art. He wrote against Heister on the seat of 
cataract, in which he contended that it was not in the crystalline 
lens. There is at present in the library of the College of Surgeons, 
London, a manuscript work by Woolhouse, entitled ‘ Traité des Mala- 
dies de l’(Eil,’ in two volumes quarto. This work is more complete 
than his other works, but was never published. 

(Biog. Med. ; Woolhouse, Works, at College of Surgeons.) 

WOOLLETT, WILLIAM. This excellent engraver was born at 
Maidstone in Kent, in 1735. He learned his art of John Tinney, an 
obscure engraver in London, but he soon adopted a style of his own, 
acquired early a great reputation as a landscape engraver, and was 
appointed engraver to George III. No artist ever used together more 
effectively the etching needle and the graver: in foliage, water, and in 
rocks, Woollett was particularly successful, and is still unrivalled; 
but in figures, and especially in flesh, he was less so. In the latter 
part of his life Woollett took to historical engraving ; and also in this 
department he has produced some of the finest plates of which the 
English school of engraving can boast: the ‘Death of General Wolfe,’ 
and the ‘Battle of the Hogue,’ both after West, are considered his 
best historical pieces, and they are certainly plates of remarkable 
merit. Of his landscapes his masterpieces are those which he en- 
graved after Wilson: they are nine in number, namely, ‘ Phaeton,’ 
‘Niobe,’ ‘Celadon and Amelia,’ ‘Ceyx and Alcyone,’ ‘Snowdon,’ ‘Cicero 
at his Villa” ‘Meleager and Atalanta,’ ‘Apollo and the Seasons,’ and 
‘Solitude,’ a companion-piece to ‘Cicero at his Villa.’ In the last 
plate he was assisted by Ellis, and in the Meleager and in the Apollo 
by Pouncey. He engraved also after Claude, Zuccarelli, the Smiths 
of Chichester, Stubbs, and others; and he executed some plates after 
views drawn from nature by himself. Woollett died in London in 
1785, aged fifty, and was buried in old St. Pancras churchyard: there 
isa monument to him in the cloisters of Westminster Abbey. He 
is spoken of as a man of admirable character, a very amiable dispo- 
sition, and as being utterly regardless of labour when he thought that 
he could by any additional amount of work improve a plate. 

WOOLSTON, THOMAS, was born in 1669, at Northampton, and 
was the son of a respectable tradesman of that city. He went from 
a grammar-school to Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, where, after 
taking the degrees of Bachelor of Arts and Master of Arts, he was 
elected a fellow of his college, and continued to reside assuch. He 
entered into holy orders, and in due time took the degree of Bachelor 
of Divinity. In 1705 he published his first work, entitled ‘The Old 
Apology of the Truth for the Christian Religion against the Jews and 
Gentiles revived.’ No publication again proceeded from him till after 
an interval of fifteen years spent in laborious study of the works of 
the fathers within the walls of his college; and in 1720 he published 
three Latin tracts, one of which, entitled ‘De Pontii Pilati ad Tibe- 
rium Epistola cirea Res Jesu Christi gestas, per Mystagogum,’ was an 
endeavour to prove that the letter of Pontius Pilate which had been 
transmitted*by the fathers was a forgery, without denying that a 
letter had been written to Tiberius; and the two others were 
letters written, under the title of ‘Origen Adamantius Renatus,’ 
to Doctors Whitby, Waterland, and Whiston, on the interpretation of 
the Scriptures. About the same time he published two tracts, in the 
form of letters to Dr. Bennet, and under the name of Aristobulus, one 
on the question ‘Whether the Quakers do not the nearest of any 
other sect of religion resemble the Primitive Christians in principles 
and practice?’ and the other being ‘A Defence of the Apostles and 
Primitive Fathers of the Church in their Allegorical Interpretation of 
the Law of Moses, against the Ministers of the Letter and Literal 
Commentators of this age ;’ and he immediately followed up these 
publications by writing an answer to them. The letters to Dr. 
Bennet, and the answer to the letters, abounded in attacks upon the 
clergy, which, together with the spirit of allegorical interpretation of 
the Scriptures pervading as well the latter of the two letters, as his 
previous letters to Doctors Whitby, Waterland, and Whiston, exposed 
Woolston to much suspicion and attack from the clergy. His next 
publication, in 1722, was one not calculated to give offence, being a 
tract entitled ‘The exact Fitness of the Time in which Christ was 
manifested in the Flesh, demonstrated by Reason, against the Objec- 
tions of the Old Gentiles and of Modern Unbelievers, which had been 
written twenty years before, and read in Sidney Sussex College chapel. 
In 1723 and 1724 he published four pamphlets, under the title of 
‘Free Gifts to the Clergy,’ and then an answer to them; all directed 
against the clergy. In 1726 he entered into the controversy raised 
by Anthony Collins’s ‘ Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion, 
by the publication of a work to which he gave the name of ‘ Moderator 
between an Infidel and Apostate, and two ‘Supplements to Mode- 


-rator” The lengths to which he carried his allegorical interpretation 


807 WORDSWORTH, REY. CHRISTOPHER, D.D. 


: WORDSWORTH, WILLIAM. 893 


of the Scriptures in these last publications, denying the reality of the 
miracles wrought by Christ, brought upon him a prosecution by the 
attorney-general, This prosecution was stopped at the intercession 
of Mr, Whiston. Nothing daunted, he proceeded in proclaiming his 
views as to the allegorical character of the miracles, in ‘ Six Discourses 
on the Miracles of Christ,’ which were addressed to six bishops— 
Gibson, bishop of London; Chandler, bishop of Lichfield; Smalbroke, 
bishop of St. David’s; Hare, bishop of Chichester; Sherlock, bishop 
of Bangor ; and Potter, bishop of Oxford. In these discourses much 
irony against the bishops whom he addressed, and against the clergy 
in general, was mixed with the heterodox doctrine which they were 
written to support; and the tone of ridicule and banter in which the 
miracles were treated of aggravated the offence given. Woolston was 
again made the object of a prosecution, and having defended himself 
on his trial, was sentenced by the court of King’s Bench to a year’s 
imprisonment anda fine of 1007. At the expiration of the year, being 
unable to pay the fine, he continued in confinement. Attempts were 
made by some of his friends to procure his release; but Woolston 
would not consent to give security not to offend again by similar 
writings. By the assistance of a brother, an alderman of Northampton, 
he was enabled to purchase the liberty of the rules of the King’s 
Bench, and was partly supported by him during the short remainder 
of his life. He had lost his fellowship at Cambridge some years before 
by non-residence, He died on the 27th of January 1733, after a 
-very short illness. He was buried in St. George’s Churchyard, 
Southwark. 

WORDSWORTH, REV. CHISTOPHER, D.D., was born June 9, 
1774, at Cockermouth, Cumberland. He was the youngest son of 
John Wordsworth, and the youngest brother of William Wordsworth 
the poet. He was educated at Hawkshead grammar-school, and at 
Trinity College, Cambridge, where he went in 1792, and took his 
degree of B.A. in 1796. He was elected Fellow of Trinity College, 
October 1, 1798, and in 1799 took his degree of M.A. In 1802 he 
published ‘Six Letters to Granville Sharp, Esq., respecting his 
Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive Article in the Greek Text of 
the New Testament,’ 8vo, a volume which was praised by Bishop 
Horsley and Bishop Middleton, and procured him the patronage of 
Dr. Manners Sutton, Archbishop of Canterbury, who appointed him 
his domestic chaplain. He married October 6, 1804, Priscilla, 
daughter of Charles Lloyd, Esq., banker, of Birmingham, and in the 
game year was preferred to the rectory of Ashby and Obey-with-Thirne 
in Norfolk, whence he was promoted to the deanery of Bocking, in 
Essex, May 80, 1808. In 1809 appeared the first edition of his 
‘Ecclesiastical Biography, or the Lives of Eminent Men connected 
with the History of Religion in England, 6 vols. 8vo, which was 
reprinted in 1818, and again in 1839, with additions, in 4 vols. 8vo. 
He received by royal mandate the degree of D.D. in 1810, and in that 
year Dr. Wordsworth published his ‘ Reasons for declining to become a 
Subscriber to the British and Foreign Bible Society,’ a ‘ Letter to Lord 
Teignmouth,’ in vindication of his ‘Reasons,’ and a ‘Second Letter 
to Lord Teignmouth,’ In 1814 he published ‘Sermons on various 
Occasions,’ 2 vols. 8vo. He was appointed rector of St. Mary’s, Lam- 
beth, Surrey, and of Sundridge in Kent, April 10,1816. Soon after- 
wards he served as chaplain to the House of Commons, On the 26th 
of July 1820, he was installed Master of Trinity College, Cambridge. 
In the same year he exchanged the livings of Lambeth and Sundridge 
for the rectory of Buxted, with Uckfield, in Sussex. In 1824 and 1828 
he produced two elaborate volumes on the authorship of ‘ Icon Basi- 
liké,’ which he unhesitatingly ascribed to Charles I, The first volume 
is entitled ‘ Who wrote Ixéy BaciAiky, considered and answered,’ 8vo; 
the second, ‘King Charles the First the Author of Icdn Basiliké 
further proved, in a Letter to his Grace the Archbishop of Canter- 
bury, in Reply to the Objections of Dr. Lingard, Mr. Todd, Mr. 
Broughton, the Edinburgh Review, and Mr. Hallam,’ 8vo. Dr. 
Wordsworth’s last important literary work was his ‘ Christian Insti- 
tutes,’ 4 vols. 8yo, 1837, designed specially for the use of students in 
the university and candidates for holy orders, He resigned the 
Mastership of Trinity College in 1841, and was succeeded by the 
present Master, Dr. Whewell. From that time he resided at Buxted, 
where he died February 2, 1846. He was buried in Buxted Church- 
yard. He had three sons. 1, Rev. John Wordsworth, born July 1, 
1805, was Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and died there 
December 31, 1839. 2, Rt, Rev. Charles Wordsworth, M.A. and 


D.C.L., graduated at Christchurch, Oxford, was second master of 


Winchester College, and is now (1857) Bishop of the United Diocese 
of St. Andrews, Dunkeld, and Dunblane, Scotland, to which he was 
consecrated in 1853. 38, Rev. Christopher Wordsworth, the subject 
of the following notice. 

*WORDSWORTH, REY. CHRISTOPHER, D.D., was born about 
1808, and is the youngest of the three sons of the late Dr. Christopher 
Wordsworth. He studied at Trinity College, Cambridge, where, in 
1827 he wrote the ‘ Druids,’ a poem, which obtained the chancellor's 
medal; in 1828 he received the Browne’s medals for the best Latin 
ode and Greek epigram, and was again a chancellor’s medallist in 1830, 
in which year he took his degree of B.A. In 1832-33 he travelled in 
Greece, Having graduated M.A. and taken holy orders, he was elected 
a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and in 1836 public orator 
in the university. In 1835 he became head-master of Harrow School, 


a situation which he retained till November 1844, when he was 
appointed a canon of Westminster Cathedral. In 1850 he was pre- 
ferred to the vicarage of Stanford-in-the-Vale, Berkshire. 

Dr. Wordsworth’s literary works are numerous. The following list 
comprises the most important of them, with the dates in which they 
were successively published. ‘Athens and Attica, Journal of a Resi- 
dence there,’ 8vo, 1836, ‘Ancient Writings copied from the Walls 
of the City of Pompeii, with Fac-Similes,” 8vo,1838. ‘Greece, Pic- - 
torial, Descriptive, and Historical,’ roy, 8vo. ‘Sermons preached at 
Harrow School,’ 8vo, 1841. ‘The Correspondence of Richard Bentley, 
D.D., Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, with Notes and Illustra- 
tions,’ 2 vols. 8vo, 1842. ‘Theophilus Anglicanus, or Instruction for 
the Young Student concerning the Church, and our own Branch of it,” 
8vo, 1848. ‘Preces Select; Prayers for Harrow School,’ 18mo, 
1843. ‘Theocritus, Codicum MSS. ope recensitus et emendatus, cum 
Indicibus Locupletissimis,’ 8vo, 1844. ‘Diary in France, mainly on 
Topics concerning Education and the Church,’ 8vo, 1845. ‘ Letters 
to M. Gondon, author of “Mouvement Religieux en Angleterre,” &., 
on the Destructive Character of the Church of Rome both in Religion 
and Policy,’ 8vo, 1847. ‘Sequel to Letters to M. Gondon,’ 8vo, 1848. 
‘On the Canon of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, and 
on the Apocrypha, Eleven Discourses preached before the University 
of Cambridge, being the Hulsean Lectures for the year 1847,’ 8vo, 1848. 
The second edition in 1851, with an additional lecture, is entitled ‘On _ 
the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, or, on the Canon,’ &c. ‘Lee- 
tures on the Apocalypse, Critical, Explanatory, and Practical, delivered 
before the University of Cambridge, being the Hulsean Lectures for 
the year 1848,’ 8vo, 1849. ‘Elements of Instruction concerning the 
Church and the Anglican Branch of it, for the Use of Young Persons,” 
12mo, 1849. This is the ‘Theophilus Avglicanus, in an abrid, 
form. ‘Occasicnal Sermons preached in Westminster Abbey,’ 2 vols. 
8vo, 1850, &c. ‘Memoirs of William Wordsworth, Poet-Laureate, 
D.C.L.,’ 2 vols. 8vo, 1851. ‘St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome — 
in the earlier Part of the Third Century (from the newly-discovered 
Philosophumena),’ 8vo, 1853. ‘Remarks on M. Bunsen’s Work on 
St. Hippolytus, particularly on the Preface to his new Edition, 8yo, 
1855. ‘Babylon, or the Question examined, Is the Church of Rome 
the Babylon of the Apocalypse,’ 12mo, 8rd edit., 1856. ss 

WORDSWORTH, WILLIAM, was born at Cockermouth, Cumber- _ 
land, on the 7th of April 1770, the second son of John Wordswoth, 
attorney-at-law, and law-agent to Sir James Lowther, afterwards Earl 
of Lonsdale, by Anne, only daughter of William Cookson, a mercer at 
Penrith. The Wordsworths came originally from Peniston in York- 
shire, where they had been settled from the Norman Conquest; and 
the name of Wordsworth’s maternal grandmother was Crackanthorpe, _ 
of the Crackanthorpes of Westmorland. The poet was therefore by 
pedigree a thorough North-of-England man. He had three brothers— __ 
Richard, who was two years his senior, and who becamea London 
attorney, and died in 1816; John, who was nearly three years his 
junior, and who became commander in the navy, and perished by ship- _ 
wreck off Weymouth in 1805 ; and Christopher, the youngest, noticed 
above. [WorDswortH, Rev. CuRistoPpHER.} He had also a sister, 
Dorothy, born between William and John. ‘The mother of the family 
died in 1778, when the poet was only eight years old; the father died 
in 1783, when the poet was but thirteen. 

Till about the time of his mother’s death, Wordsworth’s early life 
was spent partly at Cockermouth and partly with his parents at Pen- 
rith, where he attended a dame’s school; but about that time he was 
sent, with his elder brother, to a public school at Hawkshead, in Lan- — 
cashire, whither his two younger brothers followed him. Here he — 
remained till 1787, left very much at liberty to read what he chose, 
and to wander about in the neighbourhood, “TI read,” he says, “all 
Fielding’s works, ‘Don Quixote,’ ‘Gil Blas,’ and any part of Swift that 
I liked ; ‘ Gulliver's Travels’ and the ‘ Tale of a Tub’ being both much 
to my taste.” Here also he first began to write verses, as school- 
exercises, and to store his memory with observations of English 
rural nature. He became a fair Latin scholar, and was taught some- 
thing of mathematics; but, upon the whole, the acquisitions possible 
at the school were not great. On the death of Wordsworth’s father, 
which occurred while he was still at school, it was found that the prin- 
cipal part of his property consisted of a debt of 5000. owing to his 
estate by Lord Lonsdale; a considerable part of what there was — 
besides was expended in a lawsuit with a view to recover this; but 
enough remained, when scraped together, to complete the education — 
of the children, under the guardianship of two uncles. By them — 
Wordsworth was sent, in October 1787, to St. John’s College, Cam- 
bridge, of which college he continued a student till January 1791, — 
when he quitted Cambridge altogether, having taken his B.A. degree, — 
His recollections of his Alma Mater were by no means affectionate or 
reverential. He says— a 

**T did not love, ‘ a 
Judging not ill perhaps, the timid course = 
Of our scholastic studies; could have wished 
» 'To see the river flow with ampler range 
And freer pace ”— 4i 
and, in particular, he was repelled by the mechanical manner in which 
religious forms and exercises were gone through. “ Intellectually,” — 
says his nephew and biographer, “he and the'university were nob in 


a 


Revolution was in its full tide of progress. 


- took place when I was at Orleans.” 


609 WORDSWORTH, WILLIAM. 


WORDSWORTH, WILLIAM, 810 


full sympathy with each other. He had never been subject to re- 
straint ; his schooldays were days of freedom; and latterly, since the 
death of his. parents, he was almost entirely his own master. In addi- 
tion to this, his natural temperament was eager, impetuous, and impa- 
tient of control.” At college, however, he read and thought much; 
he studied Italian ; and he began to feel himself a poet. He employed 
the vacations in tours, to gratify his passion for the open air and for 
scenes of natural beauty and grandeur; and one of these tours, made 
in the autumn of 1790, with a fellow-collegian, was a pedestrian one 
through France and Switzerland, at the very time when the French 
In 1791, after taking his 
degree, he spent some time in London, and made a pedestrian tour in 


_- North Wales; and in the autumn of that year he went over to France, 


where he spent fifteen months in all, partly in Paris, partly in Orleans, 
and partly in Blois. “It was,” he says, “a stirring time. The king 
was dethroned when I was at Blois; and the massacres of September 
Wordsworth was no mere indiffer- 
ent spectator of the scenes of the Revolution. At this time of his life 
he was a vehement republican, and an ardent partisan of revolutionary 
France against all the rest of the world. He had friends too among 
the revolutionists of the Girondist party, and so fully did he share 
their enthusiasm that he even entertained the intention of becoming 
a naturalised Frenchman, and throwing himself, heart and soul, into 
the struggle for liberty—believing that what it chiefly wanted to ensure 
a glorious success was the activity of a few steady, virtuous, and lofty 
minds, such as he was conscious of possessing. Of this he was still 
more convinced after Robespierre began to exercise his power. Had 
he carried out his intention, the probability, as he himself says, is that 
he would have been one of Robespierre’s victims, and have died on the 
scaffold with some of his Girondist friends. Circumstances however 
fortunately obliged him to return to England towards the end of 1792, 
a little before the execution of the king. He took up his abode for 
the time in London; but his thoughts were still on the other side of 
the Channel, and he followed the farther course of the Revolution 
with intense interest, complicated by the feeling that Britain, in de- 
claring war against France, had engaged in an unjust enterprise. 
Much of the influence of this time, though greatly modified, remained 
with Wordsworth throughout his life. 

From 1792 to 1795, Wordsworth lived in a desultory manner in 
London and other parts of England. He had been destined for the 
church, and his friends were much disappointed at his preferring what 
seemed to them an idle and aimless life. His religious, as well as his 
political, principles, at this time were not of a kind conformable to the 
society in which he moved. Poetry, next to republican politics, was 
his passion; and he had already conceived the possibility of a new 
kind of descriptive poetry, which should do justice to “the infinite 
variety of natural appearances.that had been unnoticed by the poets 
of any age or country.” In the year 1793 the published his first 
literary venture, two poems of this kind in the heroic couplet-—‘ An 
Evening Walk, addressed to a Young Lady,’ and ‘ Descriptive Sketches, 
taken during a pedestrian tour among the Alps.’ It was the time of 
the rise of a new poetical spirit in England, Bowles and Crabbe having 
just appeared in the field after Cowper, and the Scottish poet Burns 
being then in the full flush of his fame. New poets were also spring- 
ing up; and one of these, Coleridge, thus describes the impression 
made on him by the volume which Wordsworth had published : 
“ During the last year of my residence at Cambridge, I became 


_ acquainted with Mr. Wordsworth’s first publication; and seldom, if 


ever, was the emergence of an original poetical genius above the 
literary horizon more evidently announced.” The volume did not 
however attract general attention; and for a while, Wordsworth’s 
prospects were very uncertain. Having no independent means of 
livelihood, he contemplated entering the legal profession and support- 
ing himself meanwhile as a political writer on the liberal side-for the 
London newspapers. From this situation he was rescued by the 
discerning generosity of a young friend, named Calvert, who on his 
death in 1795, left him 900/., expressly as a token of his admiration 
and of his wish that he would devote himself to poetry. This sum, 
judiciously managed, enabled Wordsworth and his sister (who came +o 
live with him about this time, and who exercised a wonderful influence 
over his spirits and’ his plans,) to live for some seven years, without 
any necessity on his part to undertake any employment incompatible 
with his freedom as a poet; and as it fortunately happened that, at the 
end of that time (1802), a sum of 8,500/. was paid over to the family by 
the second Earl Lonsdale in liquidation of the debt owing to their 
father by his predecessor, there was again a sufficiency of means for 
the: poet’s purposes. = 

In the autumn of 1795, Wordsworth and his sister settled at Race- 
down Lodge, near Crewkerne, in Dorsetshire; and here, living in a 
quiet and happy manner, he wrote his ‘Salisbury Plain, or Guilt and 
Sorrow,’ and began his tragedy of ‘The Borderers,’ neither of which was 
published till long afterwards. In June 1797, Coleridge, then residing 
at Bristol, paid his first visit to the Wordsworths ; and “ for the sake 
of being near him when he had removed to Nether-Stowey in Somer- 
setshire, we removed,” says Wordsworth, “to Alfoxden, three miles 
from that place.” This was in August 1797, and one result of the 
intimate association thus formed between the two poets was the 
appearance in 1798 of the ‘ Lyrical Ballads,’ a small duodecimo volume, 


published by Mr. Cottle of Bristol, the first composition of which was 
the ‘Ancient Mariner’ of Coleridge, and the rest, tothe number of 
twenty-two pieces, Wordsworth’s. The edition consisted only of 500 
copies, the greater portion of which remained unsold; and when Mr. 
Cottle shortly afterwards gave up business, and sold his copyrights to 
the Messrs. Longman of London, the copyright of this little volume 
was valued at nil. Mr. Cottle therefore, begged it back and presented 
it to the authors. Little affected by the indifference with which the 
volume had been received, or by the contemporaneous rejection of 
tragedies which they had respectively submitted to London theatre- 
proprietors, they were engaged in a new work. In 1798-9, they 
travelled together in Germany; and on their return, Wordsworth and 
his sister settled at Grasmere. Grasmere was his residence from 1799 
to 1808, when he removed to Allan Bank in the same neighbourhood, 
and it was on account of his residence in this Lake-district, and the 
congregation or occasional stay in the same beautiful region of other 
and kindred spirits such as Coleridge, Southey, De Quincey, and young 
Wilson, that the nickname of the ‘Lake School” was invented as a 
designation for him and his companions and disciples. From Grasmere 
and Allan Bank he made occasional excursions of business or pleasure. 
Thus in 1802 he made another tour in France; on his return from 
which he married Mary Hutchinson, whom he had known from her 
childhood. Wordsworth’s sister still continued a member of the 
household, and the intellectual companion of William in all his 
labours. In 1803, the poet, his wife, and his sister set out on a tour 
in Scotland, in the course of which they made the acquaintance of 
Scott, and gathered observations and impressions which served as 
future materials and hints for many poems. Before their departure 
for Scotland, the poet’s eldest child, a son, named John, was born ; 
and the poet's other children were all born, either at Grasmere or at 
Allan Bank—a daughter, Dora, in 1804; a son, Thomas, in 1806; a 
second daughter, Catharine, in 1808; and the youngest, a son, named 
William, in 1810. 

The period of Wordsworth’s residence at Grasmere and Allan Bank 
(1799-1813) was the period of his memorable struggle against the 
critics, and of the slow and gradual recognition of his poetic genius. 
He was incessantly active, turning his observations and thoughts into 
poems, and he had projected and was occasionally labouring at his 
great philosophical poem in blank verse, of which ‘the Prelude’ and 
the ‘Excursion’ are the accomplished fragments. What he presented 
to the public however was his minor pieces. In 1800 appeared a 
second edition of the ‘Lyrical Ballads, in two volumes, with nume- 
rous additions ; and there were subsequent editions in 1802 and 1805. 
In 1807 appeared a distinct collection of pieces, entitled ‘Poems in 
two volumes ;’ and in 1809 appeared his political prose ‘ Essay on the 
Convention of Cintra.’ "This last work was published contempora- 
neously with the first numbers of Coleridge’s ‘Friend,’ to which 
Wordsworth contributed his ‘ Essay on Epitaphs.’ In 1810 the poet 
wrote a portion of the letter-press for a volume entitled ‘Select Views 
in Cumberland, Westmoreland, and Lancashire,’ edited by the Rey. 
Joseph Wilkinson—a fine mark of his interest in the lake scenery, and 
his desire to diffuse the love of natural beauty. Itseems to have been 
Wordsworth’s theory not only that the enjoyment of nature has a 
medicinal effect on the minds of men in general, worthy of being 
systematically taken into account and resorted to, but also, that it is 
part of the functions of the poet to minister this influence of nature, 
by permanently connecting himself with some one spot or district, so 
as to transfer its peculiar facts and teachings into his poetry. Hence 
a greater fitness in the name ‘ Lake Poets’ than was intended by those 
who invented it. 

Wordsworth appeared professedly not only as a new poet, but also 
as the representative and champion of a new theory of poetry. In 
the volumes he had published up to this time he had not only exem- 
plified his principles of composition in the poems themselves, but he 
had also propounded and illustrated those principles didactically in 
prose prefaces and dissertations. He believed, with Coleridge, that 
the period in the history of English Literature intervening between 
Milton’s age and his own had been, with a few exceptions, a kind of 
interregnum in English poetry—a period during which poetry had 
been prosecuted on false principles, both as to themes and as to style; 
and what he claimed for himself and for those who were associated 
with him, was the merit of reviving the true notion and art of poetry. 
The following summary has been given of his views :—“ Poetry, 
according to Wordsworth, takes its origin from emotion recollected in 
tranquillity ; what the poet chiefly does, or ought to do, is to represent 
out of real life, scenes and passions of an affecting or exciting character. 
Now, men originally placed in such scenes or animated by such 
passions use a nervous and exquisite language expressly adapted for 
the occasion by nature herself; and the poet therefore in imitating 
such scenes and passions, will recall them more vividly in proportion 
as he can succeed in employing the same language. Only one consi- 
deration should operate to make him modify that language—the con- 
sideration, namely, that his business as a poet is to give pleasure. All 
such words or expressions therefore as though natural in the original 
transaction of a passionate scene, would be unpleasant or disgusting 
in the poetic rehearsal, must be omitted. Pruned and weeded in 
accordance with this negative rule, any description of a moving 
occurrence, whether in prose or in verse, would be true poetry. But to 


811 WORDSWORTH, WILLIAM. 


WORM, OLAUS. 12 


secure still more perfectly their great end of giving pleasure, while 
they excite emotion, poets use the artificial assistance of metre and 
rhyme.” In illustrating these views, as to the true nature of poetic 
subjects, and the true nature of poetic diction, Wordsworth was very 
severe in his criticism of the poets of the 18th century. Very few of 
them, he said, had looked at nature for themselves, satisfied with 
repeating over and over again images and allusions which had become a 
kind of property of the poetic corporation or guild, and which, though 
originally they might have arisen from genuine observation of nature, 
had by incessant repetition and attrition become mere lying artificiali- 
ties; and so, also, very few of them had employed a diction at all 
resembling the language of real men and women under any circum- 
stances, counting it rather the essence of their craft to use a certain 
conventional phraseology, called poetic diction, in which words were 
distorted out of their natural order, and the distortion regarded as 
metrical art. ote ys : 

These views naturally provoked opposition, as similar views had 
already done when urged by Bowles; and Wordsworth’s own poeins, 
exemplifying the views, were either neglected or severely criticised. 
In the interest of his views he had selected, for many of his pieces, 
very simple subjects, and had written a language as close as possible 
to that of real life; and these pieces were fastened on by the adverse 
critics and held up to ridicule as childish, grotesque, &e. Thus began 
the great literary controversy as to Wordsworth’s poetry—a contro- 
versy which lasted almost to the end of Wordsworth’s life, though by 
that time his triumph was, on the whole, decisive, and his admirers 
included the best part of the nation, The triumph was partly the 
result of time as affecting the appreciation of what he had already 
published, partly of the appearance of other poems, thrown out at 
intervals from his retreat among the Lakes, each making a new im- 
pression and some revealing the poet’s powers dissociated from those 
peculiarities which had jarred most on the critics of the old school. 
In 1813, he took up his residence at Rydal Mount, not far from his 
former habitations; and here he remained till his death, allowing for 
occasional visits to London, a second tour in Scotland in 1814, a new 
continental tour in 1820, a tour in Holland and Belgium in 1823, in 
North Wales in 1824, on the Rhine in 1828, in Ireland in 1829, in 
Scotland again in 1833, in Italy in 1837, &c. Before his removal to 
Rydal Mount, his children Catharine and Thomas had died, leaving 
two sons and a daughter still alive. His poems were as yet no source 
of income to him; but just at the time of his removal to Rydal 
Mount, he was appointed, through Lord Lonsdale’s influence, to the 
distributorship of stamps for the county of Westmoreland, a post 
which, with light duties and the advantage of permitting him to 
remain in the district of his affections, afforded him about 500/. a 
year. In 1814 he published his great philosophical poem of ‘The 
Excursion.’ It had little commercial success, and drew down the 
critics upon him more than before—ineluding Jeffrey’s famous verdict 
“this will never do;” but here and there it found readers who did not 
hesitate to recognise in it, as the world now recognises in it, one of the 
greatest poems in the English language. It was followed in 1815 by 
‘The White Doe of Rylstone;’ this in 1819 by ‘Peter Bell,’ dedi- 
cated to Southey, and which, though not less attacked than his former 
poems, was more immediately popular; this, very shortly, by ‘The 
Waggoner,’ dedicated to Charles Lamb, and ‘Sonnets on the River 
Duddon.’ These poems had, most of them, been in manuscript long 
before they were published. In 1822 (by which time there had been 
new editions of some of the previous volumes, and in spite of all 

opposition, Wordsworth’s name was pronounced everywhere as that 
of a literary power of the highest order) appeared Sonnets and other 
Poems under the title of ‘Memorials of a Tour on the Continent;’ 
several years afterwards appeared his noble series of ‘ Ecclesiastical 
Sonnets,’ increased in subsequent editions; and in 1835, he published 
and dedicated to Rogers ‘ Yarrow Revisited and other Poems,’ the 
result chiefly of his recent Scottish tour. Other collections of the 
pieces which he either had written long before or had recently penned 
were subsequently published; and in 1842 he published a collected 
edition of his poems in seven volumes, re-arranging them in a new 
order on a peculiar principle of his own, and with new titles to the 
separate divisions. Various editions of the whole, in different shapes, 
_ have been since published; and after Wordsworth’s death appeared 
his autobiographical poem, ‘The Prelude,’ written in the early part of 
the century, and: bringing down the narrative of his life till the period 
of his determination to Poetry after his first political schemes. The 
death of Wordsworth took place at Rydal Mount on the 23rd of April 
1850, when he had just completed his eightieth year; and he was 
buried in Grasmere Churchyard. In 1839 he had been made D.C.L. of 
Oxford ; in 1842 he had resigned his post of Distributor of Stamps in 
- favour of his younger son, receiving a pension of 300/. a year; and in 
1843 he had sueceeded Southey as Poet-Laureate. His wife and his 
sister and his. two sons survived him. His only daughter Dora had 
married in 1841 Edward Quillinan, Esq., a gentleman who had been in 
the army and who is known by various literary works. She was taken 
for her health to Portugal and Spain, of her travels in which countries 
she published a journal; and after her return she died in 1847. 

The ‘Memoirs of Wordsworth’ in two volumes were published by 
his nephew Canon Wordsworth in 1851; and contain many letters, 
dictations, and conversations, illustrative of the occasions of his 


_brandt. 


poems, of his character and habits generally, and of his progressive 
views of men and things. Though his life was one of stately retire- 
ment, he was a shrewd and diligent observer of all that occurred at 
home and abroad ; and he expressed strong and decided viewsonthe 
great political events and movements of his time, such as the war 
with Napoleon, Catholic Emancipation, the French Revolution of 
1830, the Reform Bill, the Railway Mania, &c. His views on these 
subjects were generally Conservative and in contrast with those which 
he had held so strongly in early life; and in some of his letters and 
conversations he alludes to this apparent change and gives the philo- 
sophy of it. In 1818 he even mixed himself up with local polities in 
the Conservative interest by publishing ‘Two Addresses to the Free- _ 
holders of Westmoreland.’ He was during the last forty or fifty years 
of his life a zealous and devout supporter of the Established Church 
of England. A lofty and serene toleration however pervaded all his 
views; and his whole life was consecrated from first to last to the 
service of the great, the permanent, and the noble. His influence on 
the literature and especially on the poetry of Britain and America in 
this century, has been immense, and is far yet from being exhausted. — 
WORLIDGE, THOMAS, an English painter and etcher, born at 
Peterborough in Northamptonshire in 1700. He was first a pupil of 
Grimaldi, and then of Boitard, a scholar of La Fage. Worlidge is 
chiefly known for his drawings and etchings in imitation of Rem- — 
He copied also some of Rembrandt's most celebrated prints ; 
there is a very good copy by him of the so-called Hundred Guilders, _ 
Worlidge drew in black-lead and with Indian ink, on vellum, with 
extraordinary neatness. He made a set of 180 beautiful drawings of 
antique gems. His etchings, which are all in the style of Rembrandt, 
amount to 140; there are also several good portraits by him, likewise 
exact imitations of Rembrandt. Some of his admirers in his own 
time used to call him the English Rembrandt. Walpole says of him, 
“Thomas Worlidge for the greater part of his life Ash, portraits 
in miniature; he afterwards with worse success performed them in oil; _ 
but at last acquired reputation and money by etchings in the manner 
of Rembrandt, proved to be a very easy task by the numbersof men 
who have counterfeited that master so as to deceive all those who did 
not know his works by heart. Worlidge’s imitations and his headsin 
black-lead have grown astonishingly into fashion. His best piece is 
the whole length of Sir John Astley, copied from Rembrandt: his 
print of the Theatre at Oxford and the act there, and his statue of 
Lady Pomfret’s Cicero, are very poor performances.” ‘Worlidge’s wife 
worked pictures in needlework with great skill. Worlidge died at 
Hammersmith in 1666. _ 4a 
WORM, OLAUS, Latinised WORMIUS, a distinguished Danish 
historian and antiquary, was born on the 13th of May 1588, at Aarhuus 
in Jutland, where his father was alderman; his family was originally _ 
from Guelderland. He was educated successively at the schoolsof 
Aarhuus, Liineberg, and Emmerich on the Lower Rhine, where he 
lived three years under the care of some learned relations and friends 
of his father. In 1605 he went to the University of Marburg in 
Hesse, where he studied divinity; but he afterwards left divinity for 
medicine, and visited successively the universities of Giessen, Strass- 
bourg, Basel, and Padua. The corporation of the German students at 
Padua chose him their procurator and consiliarius anatomicus. After 
having travelled through Italy he went to Montpellier and Paris, and 
in both places he attended the medical schools. In Paris he became 
acquainted with Isaac Casaubon. He also visited the Netherlands 
and England. He was going to take the degree of M.D. at Marburg _ 
in 1611 when the plague compelled him to retire to Basel, where he __ 
became Doctor of Medicine in the course of the same year. As he 
had studied history and languages with great success, he was appointed, _ 
in 1613, professor of Literee Humaniores in the University of Copen- 
hagen, where he lived till his death, teaching successively literature, 
medicine, chemistry and physic. Five times he held the office of 
rector of the university. Cardinal. Mazarin bestowed apension upon 
him; and King Christian IV. of Denmark made him a dean of the 
chapter at Lund in Scania, and appointed him his private physician, 
which office he held till his death, under the successor of Christian LV., 
Frederick III. He died on the 31st of August 1654. Olaus Wormius _ 
is best known as an historian and antiquarian, although his merits as 
a physician were far from being inconsiderable. He is known in the 
history of anatomy by the bones of the skull named after him, ossa _ 
Wormiana, which he particularly described, though he did not, as is 
commonly supposed, discover them. The chief object of his studies 
was the earlier history and antiquities of Denmark, and in this depart- __ 
ment he has obtained a high rank. He also wrote on the history of 
Norway. His collection of Scandinavian and especially Danish anti- 
quities was very rich; he made another collection of objects referring 
to the natural history of Denmark and the adjacent countries, These — 
collections are described in the ‘Museum Wormianum,’ Leyden, folio, — 
1655, which was edited by William Worm, the son of Olaus. Albert — 
Bartholin, in his work ‘De Seriptis Danorum (Liber Posthumus),’ p. _ 
112, &¢., gives a complete catalogue of the works of Olaus Worm: — 
the principal are—I. Works on medicine, natural history, &e.: 1, — 
‘Liber de Mundo: Commentarii in Aristotelem,’ Rostock, 8vo, 1625; ~ 
2, ‘ Exereitationes Physic,’ Copenhagen, 4to, 1623 ; 3, ‘Selecta Con- — 
troversiarum Medicarum Centuria,’ Basel, 4to, 1611. Il. Works on — 
history, antiquities, &c.; 4, ‘Literatura Danica antiquissima, vulgo 


, 


. 


5 


813 WORNUM, RALPH NICHOLSON. 


WORONZOW, PRINCE. 


814 


Gothica dicta,’ &c., Copenhagen, 4to, 1636; folio, 1651; 5, ‘ Fasti 

Danici,’ Copenhagen, folio, 1626; 6, ‘Monumentorum Danicorum 

Libri VI.,’ Copenhagen, folio, 1643 ; 7, ‘ Lexicon Runicum et Appendix 

ad Monumenta Danica,’ Copenhagen, folio, 1650. This work is of 

great repute, and almost indispensable for those who study Scandi- 

, Mavian antiquities, 8, ‘De Cornu Aureo,’ Copenhagen, folio, 1641. 

' This work gives a description of a large golden horn of beautiful 

workmanship, adorned with numerous figures and ornaments in 

relievo, which was in the possession of the kings of Denmark till it 

was stolen and melted down in the last century. 9, ‘Historia Nor- 

wegize Vernacula,’ Copenhagen, 4to, 1636. This history has been 

_ superseded by the excellent work of Torfaeus on the history of 

_- Norway. (‘Vita Olai Wormii,’ in the first volume of Olai Wormii 
Epistole, ed. Thomas Bartholin.) : 

*WORNUM, RALPH NICHOLSON, the son of Robert Wornum 
the well-known Pianoforte-maker, was born at Thornton néar Norham, 
North Durham, on the 29th of December 1812. Having completed his 
general education at University College, then known as the University 
of London, in 1833, and having been led by a love of art to adopt the 
profession of a painter, he attended at Mr. Sass’s Studio for three 

months; and then in the beginning of 1834 went abroad to prosecute 
the study of painting on the Continent. He resided for nearly six 
ears at Munich, Dresden, Rome, and Paris, when he returned to 
igtidon, at the close of 1839, and commenced to practise as a portrait 
painter. For some few years he combined the literature with the prac- 
tice of art, but, finding the two to be incompatible, he eventually 
wholly occupied himself in art literature. 

In 1840 Mr. Wornum became a contributor to the Pepny Cyclo- 
peedia; and in the following year furnished the article on Painting in 
Messrs. Taylor and Walton’s ‘Dictionary of Greek and Roman Anti- 
quities,’ edited by Dr. W. Smith. He also contributed the lives of the 
Artists for the incomplete Biographical Dictionary of the Society for the 
Diffusion of Useful Knowledge; and wrote many articles for the Sup- 
plement to the Penny Cyclopedia. In 1846 he commenced a series 
of contributions for the Art-Journal. In the same year he was 
authorised by Sir Robert Peel, then First Lord of the Treasury, to 
write the official Catalogue of the National Gallery of Pictures, which 
is still sold and has now, 1857, attained to the twenty-second edition : 
the first edition was published in 1847. In this year also was pub- 
lished the ‘ History of Painting, Ancient and Modern,’ in 2 vols. 
12mo, forming one of the works of ‘Knight’s Shilling volume,’ In 
1848 Mr. Wornum was appointed Lecturer on the History, Principles 
and Practice of Ornamental Art, to the Government Schools of Design 
in London and in the provinces. When these schools were constituted 
into a Department of Art under the Board of Trade in 1852, Mr. 
Wornum was appointed also Librarian and Keeper of Casts, and in 
this capacity he prepared for the department—1l, ‘Report on the 
Arrangement and Character of French Art-Collections, and Systems 
of Instruction in Schools of Design in France,’ published in the 
Appendix of the Report of the Department in 1853. 2, ‘Catalogue 
of Ornamental Casts in the possession of the Department, &c. 3rd 
Division. Renaissance Styles Illustrated.’ Roy. 8vo, 1854. 38, ‘An 
Account of the Library of the Department, with a classified Catalogue 
of the works contained in it, 8yo, 1855; and 4, ‘Analysis of Orna- 
ment. The Characteristics of Styles: an Introduction to the Study of 
the History of Ornamental Art, &c. Royal 8vo, 1856. 

In addition to these works he prepared in 1848 for Mr. Bohn’s 
Scientific Library an edition of the ‘Lectures on Painting by the 
Royal Academicians, Barry, Opie, and Fuseli, with an Introduction 
and Notes;* and in 1849 for the same publisher an edition of 
*Walpole’s Anecdotes of Painting in England,’ 3 vols, 8vo. In 1851 
he wrote for the Art-Journal Illustrated Catalogue of the Universal 
Industrial Exhibition of that year, ‘The Exhibition as a Lesson in 
Taste, &c. in which the different styles are compared, with a. view to 
the improvement of Taste in home manufactures.’ Prize Essay, 4to ; 
and in 1855 he edited a Handbook to the Picture Gallery for Mr. 
Murray, under the title of a ‘Biographical Catalogue of the Principal 
Italian Painters, &c.,8vo. Upon the new organisation of the National 
Gallery, in 1855, Mr. Wornum was appointed Keeper and Secretary of 
that institution, and resigned his offices under the Department of 
Science and Art. In this capacity he drew up, in 1857, a ‘ Descriptive 
and Historical Catalogue of the National Pictures of the British 
School,’ &c., now exhibited at Marlborough House, comprising the 
Turner Bequest. He has also written some other contributions to 

i art-literature in various serial publications. 
By these various writings Mr. Wornum has done much to diffuse 
sound principles of taste, and correct information respecting the 
y several schools of painting and the lives of the principal painters. 
The greater proportion of the biographies of the ancient, and several 
of those of the modern artists in the English Cyclopedia, have pro- 
ceeded from his pen. All his writings are marked by careful and 
extensive research, by judicious criticism, and by good feeling. To his 
zeal and knowledge the public is also mainly indebted for the 
admirable manner in which so much of the Turner bequest, as the 
limited space permits, has been prepared for exhibition. 
WORONICZ, JAN PAWEL, archbishop of Warsaw, and one of the 
most eminent Polish writers of his time, both in poetry and pulpit 
eloquence, was born in 1757. Educated in one of the Jesuit semi- 


naries, he entered that order at an unusually early age, and on its 
abolition (1772), into the ‘Society of Missionaries,’ Here he soon 
began to attract the attention of some of the higher clergy, more 
especially of the bishop of Cholm, then vice-chancellor, who intrusted 
him with preparing many important official papers, for which services 
he was rewarded with the deanship of Lvov. On the partition of 
Poland, in 1795, he retired to the small town of Kazimierz, where he 
took upon himself the duties of a parish priest, and where, being in 
the neighbourhood of Pulawy, the country-seat of the Princess Isabella 
Czartoryski, he became acquainted with that accomplished woman. 
It was then that, inspired both by her society and by the enchanting 
scenery which Delille has celebrated in his ‘Jardins,’ he produced his 
‘Sybylla ;’ the idea of which was suggested by the so-called ‘ Temple 
of the Sibyl,’ at Pulawy, and which is esteemed the finest specimen of 
historical poetry in the language. When the duchy of Warsaw was 
established in 1808, he was made both a member of the council and 
dean in the chapter of the cathedral; and through the influence of 
the Czartoryski family, was nominated by the emperor Alexander to 
the bishoprie of Cracow in 1815. Twelve years afterwards the emperor 
Nicolas raised him to the dignity of archbishop of Warsaw and 
primate of all Poland; but he was labouring under infirmities which 
induced him to go abroad for medical advice, and while thus travel- 
ling, he died at Vienna, October 16th, 1829. 

- Besides his ‘Sybylla,’ he wrote several other poetical compositions 
of merit, and one of them, ‘Sejm Wislicki,’ or the Diet of Wislica, 
though only a fragment of what was perhaps intended to be an 
historical epic, is thought by some to display greater power than his 
first more celebrated production. His poetical fame however is fully 
rivalled by that of his prose writings. “His sermons,” says Szyrma, 
the author of the ‘ Letters on Poland,’ “excel in a boldness of con- 
ception akin to those of Herder, and seem to be the instantaneous 
emanations from the pure source of religious \morality—the more 
impressive, as they are couched in an energetic dithyrambic language, 
like that of the prophets of old.’”’ They were published at Cracow, in 
8vo, 1829, under the title of ‘ Kazania, ezyli Nauki Parafjalne.’ 

WORONZOW (VORONTZOV), COUNT MIKHAIL ILARIONO- 
VICH, Russian chancellor and diplomatist, was born July 12th, 1714, 
and at the age of fifteen obtained an appointment as page at the 
court of the grand-duchess Elizabeth, in whose elevation to the throne 
he some years after (1741) took a principal part. His services on that 
important occasion secured him not only the empress’s favour, but 
various orders and marks of honour from foreign potentates. The 
office of vice-chancellor, under Bestuzhev-Rumin, was however so little 
agreeable to him, that he sought to decline it by travelling abroad 
under a pretext of ill-health, yet after so passing about two years in 
Germany, Italy, France, and Holland, he returned and undertook its 
duties. He had not long done so, before he was accused (1748) of 
plotting to depose Elizabeth, and place the grand-duke Peter (III.) on 
the throne, but he succeeded in fully exculpating himself with the 
empress. 

Ten years later, on the downfall of Bestuzhev-Rumin, he became 
chancellor, and, so long as he held that arduous office showed superior 
ability as a statesman; but after Catherine II. had ascended the 
throne, his influence waned, at least the enmity of several of the more 
powerful nobles towards him showed itself in such manner, that he 
sought to avoid worse consequences by absenting himself, as formerly, 
under the pretext that travelling was necessary for his health (1763), 
and Panin was appointed to act as his deputy inthe meanwhile. On 
his return to Russia, finding his opponents no better disposed towards 
him than before, he solicited permission to resign office altogether, 
and retired to Moscow, where he died February 13 (0.s.), 1767. 

Woronzow had many of the qualities that mark a superior states- 
man, and was in other respects a man of a noble character. He 
patronised the literature of his country in the person of Lomonosov, 
to whom he erected a monument, besides purchasing all the manu- 
scripts and papers he had left, Count Michael’s only offspring was a 
daughter, married to Count Alexander Strogonoy; but he was the 
uncle of three females, the most distinguished of their time and 
country for beauty and for talents: these were the daughters of his 
elder brother, Count Roman Ilarionovich (1707—1783),—Maria, the 
beautiful Countess Buturlin; Elizabeth, the wife of Colonel Poly- 
ansky; and Catherine, the no less eccentric than accomplished Prin- 
cess Dashkow 

WORONZOW, MIKHAIL SEMENOVICH, PRINCE, a very dis- 
tinguished Russian statesman and soldier, was born at Moscow, in 
1782, the son of Semen or Simon’ Woronzow, who was nephew of the 
chancellor Woronzow, and brother of Princess Dashkov [DasHxov]. 
Semen Woronzow was for many years Russian ambassador to England, 
where he was first sent by the influence of Prince Potemkin, in 1784, 
and where he remained in that capacity till 1806, when, retiring from 
the service, on account of ill-health, he obtained permission from his 
government‘ to remain in England, and resided in London as a private 
gentleman till his death, in 1832, at the age of eighty-nine. His son 
was educated in England, his daughter, who died in 1856, married the 
late Earl of Pembroke, and was mother of the Right Hon. Sidney 
Herbert. Mikhail Woronzow, living in England to the age of sixteen, 
was as familiar with the English language and manners as many of 
his countrymen are with the French. He was a warm admirer of 


815 WORRING, ANDREW. 


WORSAAE, JENS JACOB. 816 


England, and the country of his education certainly had no cause to 
blush for its pupil. At the age of nineteen he entered the Russian 
army, in which he fought under Kutuzov against the Turks, and 
took a distinguished part in the great campaigns against Napoleon I. 
He commanded a division at the battle of Borodino, where he 
was severely wounded, and he led the Russian cavalry at the battle 
of Leipzig. It is said that on a subsequent occasion, in 1824, his 
conduct in action elicited from Napoleon the exclamation, e That 
is the stuff of which marshals are made.” Several interesting notices 
of his opinions and conversation at the time of the occupation of Paris 
by the allies after Waterloo, are to be found in the diaries of his friend, 
Sir John Malcolm, printed in the recent Life of Sir John, by Kaye. 
He commanded the Russian contingent in France from 1815 to 1818, 
and is said to have paid an enormous sum from his private purse to 
avoid the disgrace of leaving the debts of Russian officers unpaid when 
they evacuated the country. In 1823, after his return to Russia, he 
was appointed Governor of New Russia and Bessarabia, a post which 
he held for many years, only quitting it for a short time in 1828, to 
take the command of the Russian army after Menshikov had been 
wounded at the siege of Varna. ‘To this command was added in 1844, 
that of the Caucasian Provinces, with an authority superior to that 
of any preceding governor, Woronzow being made dependant on the 
Czar alone. He adopted as far as possible a policy of conciliation 
to the native tribes, while at the same time he pursued the war with 
such vigour, as to capture in 1845 the stronghold of Shamyl, the town 
of Dargo. The bravery and obstinacy of the mountaineers rendered 
his military successes in Circassia of no permanent value, but he suc- 
ceeded in introducing great improvements into the other countries 
under his government, building towns, making roads, promoting the 
cultivation of the vine, and setting in general an example of dis- 
interestedness and high feeling. He always continued partial to the 
land of his youth, he was fond of receiving Englishmen, and his 
country-seat or palace at Alupka in the Crimea, the finest in the 
country after the imperial residence of Orianda, was built from the 
designs of an English architect, Mr. Papworth. He is understood to 
have been averse to the Russian war with England and France on the 
Turkish question, in which, by a somewhat singular combination of 
circumstances, his nephew was the English secretary at war. During 
the early progress of it he was kept by ill-health at Tiflis, and in 
March 1854 he obtained a six months’ leave of absence, which he 
spent at Karlsbad and Schlangenbad, but with so little benefit, that in 
October of the same year he solicited and obtained permission to 
retire. He died on November 18th 1856 at Odessa, leaving behind 
him a high reputation among both natives and foreigners for probity 
and independence. 

_* WORRING, ANDREW, manager of the Imperial Printing Office 
at Vienna, and whose name is intimately associated with the new art 
of Nature-Printing, was born at Vienna, about the year 1806. Having 
entered the printing-office at an early age as a compositor-student, he 
subsequently devoted his services to type-founding; after having 
acquired which, he paid great attention to the more important and 
interesting branch of the business, also practised in that establishment, 
the punch-cutting. He eventually succeeded Mr. Paul Pretsch in the 
department of galvano-plastics. Here the practical genius of Mr. 
Worring was called into operation in a new line by the idea of Pro- 
fessor Haidinger in the year 1852, which however might have become 
abortive, if it had not been for the skill and experience of Mr. 
Worring, who made the experiments, and after the exercise of much 
labour and display of intelligence conducted them to a successful 
‘result. The first experiments were made in the simple transfer of 
laces, patterns, &c.; but they afterwards embraced leaves and flowers, 
to the botanical illustration of which they were eminently applicable. 

Everything that emanates from the Vienna printing-office, being 
a government establishment, comes out under the auspices of the 
director, and therefore the first specimens which appeared. bore 
the name of Auer. It was attempted to introduce these speci- 
mens into England as a mercantile transaction ; but after a pro- 
visional patent had been taken out, the scheme was abandoned. It 
was again attempted to procure attention to them, by inserting them 
as illustrations to a pamphlet, and for this purpose they were pre- 
sented to some literary and scientific institutions. The pamphlet, as 
a history of the new art, was comparatively of little worth. Its object 
was to assert, with more violence than argument, that the secret of 
the process had been surreptitiously obtained; and amidst its asser- 
tions were introduced personalities adverting to matters that had no 
reference whatever to the case at issue. No serious reply was made 
to these attacks, The interest of the subject of Nature-Printing, and 
its successful introduction to this country, demand a few words of 
explanation, which have been furnished to us: Mr. Henry Bradbury 
was a student at the Imperial Printing Office of Vienna at the time of 
the alleged discovery. Of course, the mysteries and manipulation of 
its different departments were communicated to him in such capacity, 
and he judged, as many of the greatest benefactors of industry have 
thought before him, that he had every right to make use of his know- 
ledge and skill for the benefit of his own country. No guarantee to 
the contrary could be exacted, so none could be given, How far this 
pamphlet, printed in four different languages, has effected its object 
abroad, is shown by the gifts from crowned heads to the person assailed, 


for securing to England decidedly the finest specimen of the art. A 
Lecture on Nature-Printing, delivered at the Royal Institution of Great 
Britain in 1855, and published by Mr. Bradbury, plainly showed that 
the so-called invention of Auer was not original, and therefore there 
could have been no surreptitious adaptation of the process, 

Frankly admitting the beauty of the specimens from the Vienna 
Imperial Printing Office, which had been forwarded to Denmark, Pro- 
fessor Thiele of Copenhagen had at once thrown down the gage in 
behalf of a Danish goldsmith, named Kyhl, as the inventor of the art. 
Nor, indeed, is it at all unlikely that Kyhl, in a practical point of 
view, was the inventor. Although it must be admitted, that there 
may be independent attempts at the perfecting of a common idea, 
yet there always are under-currents of information, which lead to a 
final result. This is more than hinted at by Professor Thiele, who 
strongly alludes to the probability of Kyhl’s process having become 
divulged by his manuscripts, Even before the appearance of Councillor 
Auer’s so-called specimens (for it may be observed that subsequently 
Councillor Auer withdrew his signature from the plates), a great many 
gentlemen in England had been exercising their ingenuity in the 
same channel, and had even assumed to be inventors, but the prac- 
tical turn which they adopted, was rather to the ornamentation of 
metals, than to the illustration of botanical works. In this consists — 
the great value of the practical skill of Mr. Worring: for the 
specimens of his art show that it is admirably adapted to confer all 
the advantages of an Herbarium, without any of its defects. The 
works that have already been issued from the Vienna press, under the 
auspices of Mr. Worring, are—‘Specimen flore Cryptogame vallis 
Arpasch, carpate Transilvani,’ folio, with 7 plates, Vienna, 1853; 
‘ Physiotypia Plantarum Austriacarum der Naturselbstdruck in seiner 
Anwendung auf die Gefiisspflanzen des dsterr. Kaiserstaates, 5 vols. 
large fol., with 500 plates, and 1 vol. 4to, with 30 plates, Vienna, — 
1855; ‘Die Algen der dalmatinischen Kiiste mit Hinzufiigung der — 
von Kiitzung im adriatischen Meere iiberhaupt aufgefundenen Arten,’ 
20 plates, Vienna, 1855, 

In this country the exemplification of Nature-Printing in its applica- 
tion to the illustration of plants has been carried out on a magnificent 
scale by Mr. Bradbury, in his ‘Fern Flora of the United Kingdom, 
folio, with 51 plates, under the editorship of the celebrated botanist, 
Dr. Lindley. While engaged in bringing out this work, he delivered 
the lecture at the Royal Institution of Great Britain, already alluded 
to, on ‘ Nature-Printing, its History and Objects.’ He entered very 
fully into the former, and besides the crude endeavours of Kyhl, he 
advanced another claimant for the honour of invention, if any, in the 
person of Professor Kniphoff,* in 1761, whose specimens, amounting 
to 1200, coloured, were of great beauty and perfection, so much as to 
have excited the attention of Linnzus. 
become so public that it was successively taken up by the ‘ Quarterly 
Review’ and the ‘Athenzeum.’ Whatever may be the true history o: 
the discovery, which seems likely to remain a questio vexata, there 
can be no doubt that for the succesful introduction of Nature-Printing, 
as an adjunct to botany, we are indebted to Mr. Andrew Worring. 

(Die Enideckung .des Naturselbstdruckes, &c., by Councillor Auer, 
Vienna, 4to, 1854; Berlingske Titdende, No. 123, by Professor Thiele, 
Copenhagen, 1853; Natwre Printing, its History and Objects, by Henry 
Bradbury, London, 4to; Quarterly Review, January 1857; Athenewm, 
May 2, 1857; Literary Gazette, 1857.) 

*WORSAAE, JENS JACOB ASMUSSEN, a Danish antiquary, 
well known in England, was born at Veile, on the 14th of March 1821, 
the son of a justitsraad, or legal functionary, whose birthplace was 
Worsaae in Wendsyssel. In 1838, at the age of seventeen, he entered 
the University of Copenhagen as a student, and in the same year 
was appointed one of the assistants in the Royal Museum of Northern 
Antiquities which had been called into existence by the zeal and 
energy of C.J. Thomsen. At the university he was first a student of 
theology and afterwards of law, but he was fortunately enabled from 


his outset in life to devote himself to his favourite pursuit of anti- a 


quities. At the age of twenty-one he went on an antiquarian tour at 
the public expense through parts of Sweden and Norway, and made 
some researches which were afterwards embodied in one of his most 
interesting publications, ‘Runamo og Braavalle-slaget,’ (Rumamo and 
the Battle of Bravalla), 4to, Copenhagen, 1844, ‘The transaction to 
which this pamphlet relates is one of the most curious, and at the 
same time one of the most instructive, in the annals of antiquarianism, 
Saxo Grammaticus, the Danish historian, writing in the 12th century, 
and relating the exploits of a certain king, Harold Hildetand, who was 
killed at the battle of Bravalla, of which the date is so uncertain that 
Olaus Wormius assigned it to the 3rd century after Christ, while 
recent antiquaries place it in the 8th, records that the king caused 
the exploits of his father to be inscribed on a portion of a rocky 
path in Bleking, a district which now forms a province of Sweden, and 
that King Waldemar the Great, in whose reign Saxo Grammaticus 
lived, feeling desirous to know the meaning of the inscription, had 
sent some men to examine it, but they had been unable to make it out, 
owing to the characters being partially filled up with dirt and injured 
by the tramp of passengers. Olaus Wormius, the Danish antiquary 
of the 17th century, rediscovered what he thought to be the inscription — 


* ¢ Botanica in Originali seu Herbarium Vivum,’ by D. J. H. Kniphoff, Hale, 


Magd., 1761. 


The question had then 


ee. CO 


a. 


3 


“Copenhagen Society.’ 


ee oe 
é ¢ 


— 


817 WORSAAE, JENS JACOB ASMUSSEN. 


WOTTON, SIR HENRY. 818 


referred to at place called Runamo in Bleking, but to him it was as 
unintelligible as it had been to the emissaries of King Waldemar. 
Doubt began to arise in the 18th century and to spread in the 19th, as 
to whether the inscription was an inscription at all; a Swedish anti- 
quary named Broeman and the eccentric Danish antiquary Arendt 
maintained that the scratches and figures which were observed in the 
rocky path at Runamo were nothing more than a freak of nature, that 
Saxo Grammaticus had merely retailed an idle tradition, and that if 
King Harold Hildetand, or any one else, had wished to cut an inscrip- 
tion in that part of Bleking, he would hardly have chosen a rough 
‘horizontal rock when numerous flat perpendicular rocks were at 
hand for the purpose. The question at last excited so much interest 


that, in 1833, the Royal Danish Scientific Society determined to send a 


commission of learned men to Bleking to examine the spot. Ominously 
enough they found that the disputed marks were cut in a piece of trap- 
rock. The geologist Forchhammer did not hesitate to pronounce that 
many of the marks were to be attributed to natural causes, others he 
considered to be the work of human hands, and he carefully pointed 
out which, in his opinion, were owing to one cause and which to the 
other. Three drawings were made, one of the natural marks, another 


of the artificial, and a third of the two combined, presenting, it was 


said, a facsimile of the inscription as it appeared to the ordinary 
spectator, and the three were engraved for the ‘Transactions of the 
Finn Magnusson, the celebrated Icelandic 
scholar, who was one of the commission, found himself unable to 
decipher the mystic inscription when on the spot, and for months 
afterwards laboured at it in vain. This ignorance was destined to be 
suddenly dispelled. ‘On the 22nd of May 1834, in the afternoon,” he 
says in the great work he afterwards published on the subject, “ when 
T had been looking over the first proof of the first impression of the 
copper-plate, which represents those parts of the inscription which 
were recognised by Professor Forchhammer as cut in or punctured by 
art, the idea chanced to come across me of trying to read the inscrip- 
tion backwards, or from right to left. I immediately read off without 
the slightest difficulty the word Hiiltekinn, and the others followed 
soon after without any particular trouble by reading the letters in this 
direction, and also, according to the rules by which, in Iceland and 
other countries, what are called Binderuner (complex or entangled 
Runes), are usually deciphered.” 

The discovery produced a sensation in the antiquarian world, and 
was made known in all its bearings in the ‘ Transactions’ of the Society 
in an article which filled a quarto volume of more than seven hundred 
pages, and which was afterwards issued in a separate shape by Mag- 
nussen under the title of ‘Runamo og Runerne’ (Runamo and the 
Runes), Copenhagen, 1841. The controversy might now be supposed 
to be fairly at an end, but it revived anew, with more vigour than 
ever. Berzelius, the eminent Swedish chemist, hearing of the affair 
while on a visit to Copenhagen, made a journey to Bleking, even before 
Magnussen’s work was published, on purpose to examine the inscrip- 
tion, and entirely disagreed with Forchhammer, coming to the con- 
clusion that all the marks in the rocky road which were not produced 
by nature were produced by wheels. Nilsson of Lund, the eminent 
Swedish antiquary, coincided with Berzelius. The suspicions of 
Worsaae had been originally aroused by the great amount of curious 
facts that the inscription in Magnussen’s hands, and as read by him, 
was madeto prove. Saxo Grammaticus had been considered a retailer 
of romantic fables, but the inscription coincided to such a degree with 
his narrative as to show that this opinion must be erroneous; it also 
proved that the language now cailed Icelandic was in use in Bleking 
in the time of Harold Hildetand, and not only so, but that Icelandic 
verse of the kind called ‘ Fornyrthalag’ or ‘ Old Metre,’ the same into 
which Thorlaksson translated ‘ Paradise Lost’ in the 19th century, was 
current at least as early as the 8th. This led Worsaae to examine the 
rock of Runamo with some curiosity, first in 1842 and afterwards in 
1844, when he had with him a copy of the engravings which had been 
published by the Danish Society, ‘The first glance,” he tells us, 
‘‘showed me what my subsequent comparisons and examinations have 
brought to a complete certainty—that the representations of the trap 
at Runamo taken by Forchhammer’s direction are altogether unre- 
liable.” ‘I could not therefore have the slightest doubt,” he adds, 
“that Finn Magnussen’s whole reading and interpretation of the in- 
scription which was grounded on this drawing were completely wrong.” 
Worsaae published in his pamphlet, side by side with the old ‘ portrait 
of Runamo,’ a new portrait taken by another artist, which was entirely 
different. He contended, with a strong array of facts and arguments, 
that in his supposed discovery the Icelandic scholar must have been 
the dupe of his own imagination, and that the inscription he believed 
he had read was as unreal as the delineations which fancy often sees 
in a winter’s fire. It required no little courage in a young and com- 
paratively unknown Danish writer thus openly to assail the work of 
one of the literary magnates of the land given to the public by its 
most distinguished scientific body. But his cause was gained; the 
verdict has gone against Finn Magnussen. In his ‘Runamo og Ru- 
nerne, Magnussen had also given a translation of the inscription on 
the column at Ruthwell, which was afterwards criticised with great 
severity and effect by J. M. Kemble, It is now therefore generally 
considered that, with undeniable learning and ingenuity, and many 
merits, the great Runic scholar was not to be trusted in Runes. 

BLOG, DIV, VOL, VI, 


The other works of Worsaae are numerous, and are all marked by a 
character of sobriety and soundness. His ‘Danmarks Oldtid oplyst 
sed Oldsager,’ literally ‘Denmark’s Old Time illustrated by Old 
Things,’ (Copenhagen, 1843,) appeared in England under the title of 
‘The Primeval Antiquities of Denmark, translated and applied to the 
illustration of similar remains in England, by W. J. Thoms’ (London, 
1849), with a preface in English by the original author. The transla- 
tion, which had the benefit of his revision, was made from a German 
translation which he had also superintended, and to which a tour in 
Prussia, Austria, and Bavaria, in 1845, had given him the power of 
making additions. In 1846 and 1847 he paid a visit of some duration 
to the British islands at the expense of the Danish government, and 
the result of his journey was the volume entitled ‘Minder om de 
Danske og} Nordmendene i England, Skotland, og Irland’ (Copen- 
hagen, 1851), published in English the next year as ‘An Account of 
the Danes and Norwegians in England, Scotland, and Ireland’ (London, 
1852), The work attracted considerable attention here from the sum- 
mary which it presented of the recent researches of the Scandinavian 
antiquaries with regard to our own history, but was hardly equal to 
the expectations which had been formed of it, and contains little that 
might not have been written without a tour. An essay by Mr. Wor- 
saae on the Antiquities of Ireland and Denmark is inserted in the 
‘Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy,’ and short contributions 


‘from his pen on other archeological subjects have appeared in some 


English periodicals, He repeated his visit to England in 1852, made 
in the same year a tour in France, and in 1854 went to Germany and 
Italy. _ In his own country his merits were recognised by his appoint- 
ment, in 1847, as Inspector of Antiquarian Monuments in Denmark, 
and a member of the royal commission for the preservation of anti- 
quities, and, when two years later this commission was broken up and 
two persons recommended in its stead to discharge its duties, the two 
were Thomsen and Worsaae. In 1854 he received the honorary rank 
of professor. He is a warm patriot, and among his lesser writings 
many are in defence of Scandinavianism, on the formation of a closer 
league between the Scandinavian countries to resist the pressure of 
foreign influence, a subject on which he has been engaged in con- 
troveisy with Professor Munch, the Norwegian. [Muncu.] His most 
important recent publication is his ‘ Afbildvinger fra det kongelige 
Museum fer Nordiske Oldsager’ (Delineations from the Royal Museum 
of Northern Antiquities), Copenhagen, 1854, 

WORSLEY, SIR RICHARD, Bart., was born in 1751, in the Isle 
of Wight. His father was Sir Thomas Worsley, and Richard suc- 
ceeded to the title when he was about eighteen years of age. He soon 
afterwards travelled on the Continent, and remained a considerable 
time at Rome, where he purchased a variety of pieces of sculpture 
and other remains of ancient art. 

Sir Richard Worsley, after his return to England, sat in the House 
of Commons for many years as one of the representatives of the 
borough of Newport-in the Isle of Wight. He was comptroller of the 
royal household to George III., and also held the office of governor of 
the Isle of Wight, where he died in 1805. 

Sir Richard Worsley published a ‘ History of the Isle of Wight,’ 
4to, London, 1781, with engravings. The history is natural, civil, 
military, commercial, and antiquarian; but except in mere matters of 
historical detail, most of them dull enough. Worsley’s work was super- 
seded by Sir Hevry Englefield’s ‘Description of the Isle of Wight.’ 
Sir Richard Worsley also published ‘Museum Worsleianum; or a 
Collection of antique Basso-Relievos, Bustos, Statues, and Gems; with 
Views of Places in the Levant, taken on the spot in the years 1785, 
86, and 87,’ 2 vols. folio, London, 1794-1803. He was assisted in the 
arrangement and description of his collection by Ennio Quirino 
Visconti. It was printed by Bulmer, and at the time of its publica- 
tion was considered to be, in typography and embellishments, one of 
the most splendid works which had issued from the English press. 
Very few copies were printed; some authorities say only fifty, but 
others two hundred and fifty, and the total expense to Sir Richard 
was about 27,0007. 

WOTTON, EDWARD, was born at Oxford in 1492. He studied 
at the University of Oxford, and took his Bachelor’s degree in 1513. 
He was subsequently appointed, by Bishop Fox, Greek lecturer at 
Corpus Christi College. In this position he remained till 1520: he 
then travelled into Italy, and having visited the principal cities, he 
graduated in medicine in the University of Padua, in 1523. He took 
his degree of Doctor of Medicine at Oxford in 1525, and became a 
Fellow of the College of Physicians of London. He was afterwards 
appointed physician to Henry VIII. He devoted much attention to 
the study-of natural history, and published at Paris, in 1552, a work 
entitled ‘De Differentiis Animalium.’ This work is spoken highly of 
by Gesner. It does not contain any new matter of his own, but was 
an epitome of the natural history of his day. It is written in elegant 
Latin, He began a history of insects, but this work was never pub- 
lished. He died in 1555. 

WOTTON, SIR HENRY, was born April 9 (30th March, 0O.S.), 
1568, at Bocton Hall, “commonly,” says his biographer, Izaak Walton, 
“called Bocton or Bougton Place,” in the more modern accounts 
written Boughton Hall, in the parish of Boughton-Malherbe, in the 
county of Kent, Here his ancestors, several of whom had held dis- 


tinguished employments in the state, had been seated sage gene- 
@ 


819 WOTTON, SIR HENRY. 


WOTTON, SIR HENRY. 820 


rations. . His father, Thomas Wotton, Esq., was twice married: first, to 
Elizabeth, daughter of Sir John Rudstone, Knight, by whom he had 
three sons; Edward, knighted by Elizabeth, and in 1603 raised to the 
peerage as Baron Wotton by James I., and James and Jobn, also both 
knighted by Elizabeth ; secondly, to Eleanora, daughter of Sir William 
Finch, of Eastwell in Kent, and widow of Robert Morton, Esq., of the 
same county, by whom he had Henry, the subject of the present 
notice, 

Henry’s first teacher is stated to heve been his mother; he then 
had a resident tutor; afterwards he was sent to Winchester school ; 
thence, at the age of sixteen, he was removed to Oxford, and admitted 
a gentleman commoner of New College; finally, two years after, in 
1586, he transferred himself to Queen’s College. The first year he 
was a member of this society he composed, at the desire of the 
provost, a tragedy entitled ‘Tancredo’ (in what language is not 
stated), which, according to Walton, was greatly admired ; but it has 
not been printed. Walton says that about the twentieth year of his 
age he proceeded Master of Arts, on which occasion he read with 
great applause three lectures, in Latin, on the eye; and Wood, 
although he could not discover any record of his admission to this 
degree, notes that on the 8th of June 1588, he put up a grace or 
petition, to the university, to be admitted to the reading of any of the 
books of Aristotle’s Logic, which was granted, and was probably for 
his degree of A.B. After his optical lecture, Walton tells us, he was 
taken into the closest intimacy by the learned Italian Albericus Gen- 
tilis, then professor of the civil law at Oxford; and from him he 
acquired not only a large knowledge both of law and mathematics, 
but a complete mastery of the Italian language. In the next year, 
1589, his father died, leaving to each of his three younger sons an 
annuity of a hundred marks; and Walton intimates that this event 
prevented his remaining so long at Oxford as his friends once intended; 
afterwards adding however, “ In Oxford he stayed till about two years 
after his father’s death; at which time he was about the two and 
twentieth year of his age: .... he then laid aside his books, and 
betook himself to the useful library of travel.” But in one of his 
letters to Lord Zouch, dated 10th July 1592, he says that he had 
been then three years upon his travels. Walton goes on to state 
that he was abroad almost nine years, one of which he spent in 
France, “and most of that in Geneva,” where he became acquainted 
with Theodore Beza (then of great age), and with Isaac Casaubon (in 
whose house Walton had heard he was lodged): “ Three of the remain- 
ing eight years,” it is added, “ were spent in Germany ; the other five 
in Italy . . . . where, both in Rome, Venice, and Florence, he became 
acquainted with the most eminent men for learning and all manner 
of arts, as picture, sculpture, chemistry, architecture, and other 
manual arts, even arts of inferior nature; of all which he was a most 
dear lover, and a most excellent judge. He returned out of Italy into 
England about the thirtieth year of his age, being then noted by 
many both for his person and comportment; for indeed he was of a 
choice shape, tall of stature, and of a most persuasive behaviour,” &c. 
But, notwithstanding the particularity with which all this is related 
there must be some error. The account would make Wotton to have 
got back to England in 1598, or 1597, at the earliest ; and he was now, 
his biographer proceeds to inform us, taken into the service of the 
Earl of Essex as one of his secretaries, and “did personally attend 
the earl’s councils and employments in two voyages at sea against the 
Spaniards, and also in that (which was the earl’s last) into Ireland, 
that voyage wherein he then did so much provoke the queen to anger,” 
&e. Now Essex set out on his first expedition to Spain in June 1596, 
and on his second in August 1597 ; both dates antecedent to that at 
which Walton makes Wotton to have been taken into his service, It 
is probable that Wotton either went abroad sooner, or did not stay 
away from England so long as his biographer makes him to have done. 
Essex went to Ireland in March 1599, and returned in September of 
the same year; upon which he was immediately placed in free cus- 
tody, and although afterwards set at liberty, he was again apprehended 
in February 1601, and, having been brought to trial and convicted of 
high treason, he was executed on the 25th of that month. Wotton, 
Walton tells us, as soon as he heard of Essex’s second apprehension, 
and committal to the Tower, “did very quickly, and as privately, 
glide through Kent to Dover, without so much as looking toward his 
native and beloved Bocton; and was, by the help of favourable winds 
and liberal payment of the mariners, within sixteen hours after his 
departure from London set upon the French shore.” There is no 
reason however to suppose that Wotton was involved in the earl’s 
treason, like his brother secretary Cuffe, who was hanged. 

From France Wotton proceeded to Italy, and took up his residence 
among his old friends at Florence, whence after some stay he went on 
a visit (called his fourth) to Rome, returning to Florence, Walton says 
“about a year before the death of Queen Elizabeth,” which would be 
about March 1602, or about a year after he had left England. It 
appears to have been in this first year of his residence abroad that he 
drew up his treatise entitled ‘The State of Christendom, giving a per- 
fect and exact discovery of many political Intrigues and secret 
Mysteries of State practised in most of the Courts of Europe; with 
an Account of their several Claims, Interests, and Pretensions,’ first 
printed in folio in 1657, and again in 1677. It was immediately after 
Woitton’s return from his visit to Rome that the reiguing grand-duke 


of Tuscany, Ferdinand I., intercepted certain letters discovering a 
design to take away the life of King James of Scotland, and on the 
advice of his secretary Signor Vietta, who was an intimate friend of 
Wotton, resolved to employ Wotton to communicate the affair to 
James, and accordingly, says Walton, “ acquainted him with the seeret, 
and, being well instructed, dispatched him into Scotland with letters to 
the king; and with those letters such Italian antidotes against poison 
as the Scots till then had been strangers to.” This mission proved 
the foundation of Wotton’s after fortunes. Calling himself Octavio 
Baldi, and assuming the character of an Italian, he made his way to 
Scotland, the better to escape notice, through Norway, and found King 
James at Stirling. Having announced himself as an ambassador from 
the Duke of Tuscany, he was soon admitted to the royal presence 
through means of Bernard Lindsey, a gentleman of the bedcham 

not however without having been requested when he came to the 
presence-chamber door to lay aside his long rapier. Three or four 
lords were standing “distant in several corners of the chamber;” on 
seeing whom he hesitated ; but James desired him to be bold and 


deliver his message, for he would undertake for the secrecy of all that 
“Then,” continues the narrative, ‘‘ did Octavio Baldi 


were present. 
deliver his letters and his message to the king in Italian; which, 
when the king had graciously received, after a little pause Octavio 
Baldi steps to the table, and whispers to the king in his own language 
that he was an Englishman, beseeching him for a more private con- 
ference with his majesty, and that he might be concealed during his 
stay in that nation; which was promised, and really performed by the 
king during all his abode there, which was about three months, all 
which time was spent with much pleasantness to the king, and with as 
much to Octavio Baldi himself as that country could afford.” 

A few months after Wotton’s return to klorence news arrived of 
the death of Queen Elizabeth; upon which, by the grand-duke’s 
advice, he immediately proceeded to England, where he found that 
James had not forgotten him, but had already been making inquiry 


after him of his brother Sir Edward, afterwards Lord Wotton, whom — 


the king upon his arrival in London found holding the post of comp- 


troller of the household. Wotton immediately received the honour 
of knighthood, and the next year (1604) was sent as ambassador to — 


Venice, accompanied by Sir Albertus Morton, his nephew, as his secre- 
tary. It was while he stayed for a few days at Augsburg, on his way 
thither, that he wrote in the album of a German friend his famous 
definition of an ambassador—“ Legatus est vir bonus peregre missus 
ad mentiendum reipublice causa” (an ambassador is an honest man 


sent abroad to lie—it is commonly rendered, sent to lie abroad—for 


the good of his country) ; which eight years after was published by 
the learned but rancorous Caspar Scioppius, in a work against King 
James, as a principle of the religion professed by that king. James 
was at first very angry with Wotton, but was ultimately appeased by 


an apology addressed to himself, and another letter on the subject in 4 


violent abuse of Scioppius, which Wotton wrote to a friend, Marcus 
Velserus, one of the duumvirs of Augsburg. In his own account, it 
is observable, Wotton says nothing about the equivoque in the 
English term lie, which is made a principal point of the story as it is 
commonly told; nor indeed does it appear how he could have had 
any such double meaning in view while writing in Latin. He had 
returned from this first mission to Venice before he wrote his letter 
to Velserus, which is dated at London, 2nd December 1612. The 
writer of his life, in the ‘Biographia Britannica,’ says that he came 
home in 1610, and conceives that he was probably recalled in conse- 
quence of the publication of his unfortunate definition. Be this as it 
may, he seems to have remained four or five years from this time 
without employment. There is some reason however to suppose that 
he had a seat in the short parliament which met 5th April 1614, and 
was dissolved 5th June following. There is no printed list of the 
members of this parliament, but Sir Henry, in a letter dated a few 
days after its dissolution, speaks of the late House of Commons by the 
expression “our house.’ At last, towards the close of 1615, he was 


sent on a mission to the United Provinces, and on his return in the 


beginning of the following year he was re-appointed to the Venetian 


embassy. He resided at Venice three years, and then returned to 


England, according to the ‘ Biographia Britannica,’ in July 1619, with 
the hope of being appointed to the place of secretary of state, vacant 
by the death of Sir Ralph Winwood. But that event had taken 
place a year and nine months before; so that here again there is 
probably some mistake. According to the same authority, he was 
in 1619, and the following year, sent again abroad, first as ambassador- 
extraordinary to the Duke of Savoy, and then several times into Ger- 
many upon the affairs of the elector-palatine; “after which,” it is 
added, “ being remanded a third time to Venice, with directions to 
take the round thither through Germany, he returned not to England 
till the year of King James’s death,” that is to say, in 1625. But he 
was certainly back here by 1624 at the latest: Walton says that he 
came to London “the year before King James died ;” and even the 
account in the ‘Biographia Britannica’ proceeds, somewhat inconsis- 
tently, to inform us that “not long after his arrival, upon the death 
of Mr, Thomas Murray in 1623, he succeeded him in the provostship 
of Eton College.” Walton's narrative implies that this place was 
given him by King James, who had previously, it seems, granted him 
the reversion of the place of master of the rolls, then held by Sir 


ber, 


821 WOTTON, WILLIAM, D.D. 


WOUVVERMAN, PHILIP. 822 


Julius Cesar; but Wotton, who was in a state of great pecuniary 
necessity, required, we are told, a present support, and very gladly 
resigned his reversion upon getting a grant of the provostship, He 
was not instituted however, it appears, till 26th July 1625, some 
months after the death of James. Conceiving himself bound by the 
statutes to enter into holy orders, he had himself ordained deacon 
in 1627; and he retained his office till his death in December 1639. 
Walton has given a very interesting account of the manner in which 
he employed the leisure of his latter years; he did not neglect recrea- 
tion and society, but most of his time was dedicated to study and 
devotion, and whatever ambition of politics, power, and honours had 
formerly actuated him, seems to have been, from the time he ob- 
tained this shelter in his broken fortunes and wearied old age, 
completely extinguished. 4 

Sir Henry Wotton’s principal writings are contained in the collection 
entitled ‘Reliquiae Wottonianae,’ first published by Izaak Walton, 
with a Life of the author, in 8vo, in 1651, and afterwards, with 


. additional matter in each impression, in 1654, 1672, and 1685. The 


principal pieces of which it consists are—a treatise, long held in great 
esteem, entitled ‘ The Elements of Architecture,’ originally published 


_. in 4to, at London, in 1624; ‘A Philosophical Survey of Education, or 


Moral Architecture’ (dedicated to Charles I.); Characters of some of 
the English kings (intended as materials for a History of England); a 


~~ Latin Panegyrical Address to King Charles on his return from Scot- 


land in 1633 (first published in folio, at London, in 1633), with an 
English translation by a friend of the author; ‘A Parallel between 
the Earl of Essex and Villiers, Duke of Buckingham’ (first published 
in 4to, at London, in 1641); ‘A View of the Life and Death of the 
Duke of Buckingham’ (first published in 4to, at London, in 1642); 
some religious Meditations; and a number of Letters and Poems. 
More of his letters are in the ‘Cabala;’ and there are some poems 
attributed to him which are not in the ‘ Reliquiae.’ His ‘State of 
Christendom’ has been already mentioned. The literary reputation 
of Sir Henry Wotton rests now principally on his poetry, which, 
although consisting*?only of some short pieces, is distinguished both 
by its general correctness, and its happiest passages by a dignity of 
thought and expression scarcely attained by any of his contemporaries. 
In his lifetime he was famous for his pointed sayings; but here the 
manner, as usual, probably went as far as the matter in creating the 
impression that was produced, There seems to be nothing either very 
sharp or very deep in his favourite sentence, his authorship of which he 
directed should be recorded on his tomb, ‘ Disputandi pruritus ecclesia- 
rum scabies’ (‘The itch of disputation is the scab of the churches’). 

WOTTON, WILLIAM, D.D., chiefly remarkable as an instance of 
strength of memory, and early progress in the acquirements mainly 
dependent upon that faculty, was born 13th of August, 1666, at 
Wrentham in Suffolk, of which parish his father, the Rev. Henry 
Wotton, was rector. When a mere child he showed an extraordinary 
faculty for learning languages; and by the time he was five years of 
age he had, under the tuition of his father, who was a good scholar, 
attained considerable facility in reading and translating Latin, Greek, 
and Hebrew. Sir Philip Skippon, who knew him, in a letter written 
about this time to Ray, the naturalist, says, “He is not yet able to 
parse any language, but what he performs in turning the three learned 
tongues into English is done by strength of memory : so that he is 
ready to mistake when some words of different signification have near 
the samesound, His father hath taught him by no rules, but only uses 
the child’s memory in remembering words: some other children of his 
age seem to have as good a fancy and as quick apprehension.” In 
April 1676, some months before he was ten years old, he was admitted 
of Catherine Hall, Cambridge, where he made rapid progress, not only 
in the languages, adding the Chaldaic, Syriac, and Arabic to the Latin, 
Greek, and Hebrew, but also, it is asserted, in logic, philosophy, 
mathematics, chronology, and geography. In 1679 he took his degree 
of B.A.; and in the winter following he became the subject of general 
attention and wonder by being brought up to London on the invitation 
of Dr. Gilbert Burnet, then preacher at the Rolls, and introduced by 
him to all his learned acquaintances, Among other persons, he was in 
this way made known to Dr. William Lloyd, bishop of St. Asaph, who 
was so highly pleased with a feat of memory which Wotton per- 
formed, repeating verbatim a sermon preached by the bishop, that he 
took him down with him to St. Asaph, and rite him there for the 
summer, émploying him in drawing up a catalogue of his library. 
He then returned to Cambridge, where, by the interest of Dr. Turner, 
bishop of Ely, he obtained a fellowship in St. John’s, and where he 
took this degree of M.A. in 1683. In 1691 he commenced B.D. ; the 
same year Bishop Lloyd gave him the sinecure living of Llandrillo in 
Denbighshire ; and he was soon after made chaplain to the Earl of 
Nottingham, then secretary of state, who, in 1693, presented him to the 
rectory of Middleton Keynes in Buckinghamshire. 

In 1694 Wotton published his first and best remembered work, his 
‘Reflections on Antient and Modern Learning,’ which is a defence of 
the superiority of the ancients, in answer to Sir William Temple, who 
had shortly before, in one of his Essays, taken up the opposite side 
of the question, in arguing against Perrault’s ‘ Paralléle des Anciens et 
Modernes, which had appeared at Paris in 1687. Wotton’s per- 
formance is famous both for having called forth from Swift his 
‘Battle of the Books,’ in aid of his friend Temple, and as having also 


originated the great controversy about the so-called ‘ Epistles of Pha- 
laris:’ the authenticity of the ‘ Epistles,’ which had been assumed by 
Temple, was disputed by Wotton; and it was in an appendix to the 
second edition of the ‘Reflections,’ which appeared in 1697, that 
Bentley published the first draught of his celebrated ‘ Dissertation, 
demonstrating the spuriousness of the ‘Epistles, with a special 
reference to the edition of them brought out by the Hon. Charles 
Boyle in 1695. Wotton was distinguished for extent and variety 
rather than accuracy or profoundness of learning, and his judgment 
was of no remarkable power; the inherent value of the ‘ Reflections,’ 
accordingly, is not considerable. Nor of many other books which he 
afterwards published is there any that is now held in esteem, with the 
exception perhaps of his ‘ View of Hickes’s Archaeological Treasure of 
the Antient Northern Languages,’ which was partly drawn up by Hickes 
himself, and was published in 1708, and of which a second edition 
appeared in 1735. His edition of the-ancient Welsh laws, with a Latin 
translation, which appeared in a folio volume in 1730, after his death, 
under the title of ‘Cysreithjeu Hywel Dda, ac erail; ceu, Leges 
Wallicae Ecclesiasticae et Civiles Hoeli Boni et aliorum Walliae prin- 
cipum,’ has been lately superseded by the much more accurate and 
comprehensive publication of the Record Commission, ‘The Antient 
Laws and Institutes of Wales’ (edited by Aneurin Owen, Esq.), folio, 
London, 1841. Wotton acquired such a command of the Welsh 
language as to be able to preach in it. In 1707 he was made a D.D. 
by Archbishop Tenison. He died at Buxted in Essex, on the 13th of 
February 1726, His easy temper and entire inattention to economy 
reduced him to great difficulties in the latter part of his life. He left 
a daughter, who became the wife of the Rev. William Clarke, canon- 
residentiary of Chichester. 

WOULFE, PETER, a chemist, who lived chiefly in London, and 
died in 1806. So little is known of his history, that even the place of 
to his birth does not appear have been recorded. He was a Fellow of 
the Royal Society, and contributed four papers to its ‘ Transactions,’ 
the titles of which are—1l, ‘Experiments on the Distillation of Acids, 
Volatile Alkalies, &c,; showing how they may be condensed without 
loss, and how thereby we may avoid disagreeable and noxious 
fumes;’ 2, ‘Experiments to show the nature of Aurum Mosaicum;’ 
3, ‘Experiments on a new colouring-substance, from the Island of 
Amsterdam in the South Seas;’ 4, ‘Experiments on some Mineral 
Substances.’ 

The apparatus described in the first of these papers has saved the 
name of its inventor from oblivion, and yet the arrangement appears 
to have been first devised by Glauber, though probably unknown to 
Woulfe, and a representation of it is given at the end of the preface to 
Glauber’s works (folio, 1689). 

WOUVVERMAN, PHILIP, one of the most popular of the Dutch 
painters, was born at Haarlem in 1620, and received his first instrue- 
tions in his art from his father, Paul Wouvverman, an obscure histo- 
rical painter. He was instructed also by John Wynants of Haarlem, 
but his style was quite original, and was indebted little if at all to the 
works of his instructors. Wouvverman lived always at Haarlem, 
and he is generally considered and reported to have been one of those 
unfortunate painters who depended entirely upon the liberality of 
picture-dealers, and to have made his patrons rich while he lived in 
poverty. This does not however agree with the account of Houbraken, 
who states that Wouvverman’s pictures rose immensely in value after 
his death, but that he was nevertheless a fortunate painter; and, in 
corroboration of the latter part of this assertion, he states that he 
gave his daughter 20,000 florins (1660/.) upon her marriage with the 
painter of flowers and still life, Hendrik de Fromantjou ; but he gives 
this upon no better authority than private information. D’Argenville 
states, on the contrary, that Wouvverman was occasionally in great 
want, that he had much difficulty in supporting a large family, and 
that there can be no truth in Houbraken’s report that he gave his 
daughter 20,000 florins dowry. ; 

Wouvverman died in 1668, aged forty-eight, and he was so disgusted 
with his want of success as a painter, that he burned, shortly before 
his death, all the studies he had made during his life, for fear that a 
son who had a disposition for painting should be induced by the 
facilities they might offer to follow the same profession. This son 
afterwards entered the order of the Carthusians. Another and a less 
charitable reason assigned for this destruction is, that he feared they 
might fall into the hands of his brother Pieter Wouvverman, who 
painted similar subjects with himself; a third account is, that the 
designs and studies which he burned were not his own, but principally 
Pieter Laer’s, and that he destroyed them that it might not be known 
how much he had made use of the labours of others. None of these 
stories may be true, but they at least show that Wouvverman, like 
many other men of genius, had his foes as well as his friends. Wouv- 
verman must unquestionably be reckoned in his particular style among 
the most masterly of painters that ever lived. His subjects, though 
always treated in the same manner, present considerable variety both of 
scene and action, yet he seldom if ever chose a subject which did not 
admit of the introduction of one or more horses, animals which he 
painted with unrivalled skill in his small size. It is a common notion 
that he never painted a picture without introducing a white or a grey 
horse into it, and that he very often introduced such a horse is certainly 
true. His subjects are generally travelling, road-side, hunting, fighting, 


WRANGEL, CARL GUSTAF. 


§23 


WRAXALL, SIR NATHANIEL. | 824 


or plundering scenes ; and in ‘skies, in foliage, and in the foregrounds, 
both in composition and colouring, which is always remarkably trans- 
parent, he leaves nothing to be wished for, and has had few rivals, and 
perhaps no superiors, in the same style of works. His figures also, of 
which he was by no means sparing, are always admirably designed and 
coloured, and most appropriately introduced; they are also distin- 
guished by the same rich transparency of colouring which characterises 
the landscape part of his pictures. , ; : 

Wouvverman’s pictures are very valuable, and, notwithstanding his 
short life, are very numerous: one or more specimens are in almost, 
every good collection in the northern parts of Europe: our own 
National Gallery does not however possess one of his pictures. His 
brother Peter's pictures are often attributed to him, but though very 
similar to Philip's, they are less transparent in colouring, and their 
horses are very inferior. He had another brother, John, who was a 
good landscape-painter. John died in 1666, and Peter in 1683. 

WRANGEL, CARL GUSTAF, son of the Swedish general Her- 
mann Wrangel, governor of Livonia, who died December 10, 1644, 
and more eminent than his father as a military commander, was born 
at Skokloster on Lake Miilarn, December 13, 1613. Sent abroad at an 
early age to acquire foreign languages, he passed a whole year in 
Holland, where he gained considerable insight into nautical matters 
and ship-building, which afterwards availed him in his capacity of 
admiral. Being taken into the service of Gustavus Adolphus, he was 
at the battle of Liitzen (November 1632) and was foremost among those 
who helped to secure the victory over the Imperialists, after the fall of 
that prince. From that period his rise was rapid, and he distinguished 
himself on many important occasions, first under Banier, then under 
Torstenson, the latter of whom despatched him (1644) to the rescue 
of the Swedish admiral Clas Flemming, who was blockaded by the 
Danish fleet, after a severe engagement with them. Flemming, being 
mortally wounded, gave the command of the Swedish fleet to Wrangel, 
who conducted it in safety to Stockholm. He afterwards joined the 
Dutch, and obtained a complete naval victory over the Danes at 
Femern, made himself master of Bornholm, and would have taken 
possession of all their other islands, had not the treaty of Breemsebro 
put a stop to hostilities, It was about this time that he succeeded 
Torstenson, then disabled by his age and infirmities, in the command 
of the Swedish army in Germany, where he distinguished himself by 
a series of successes till they were terminated by the peace of West- 
phalia. These services obtained for him both honours and rewards ; 
and when Christina’s successor, Charles Gustavus, undertook an expe- 
dition against Poland, he gave the command of the fleet to Wrangel, 
who blockaded Danzig. After that he signalised himself against the 
Danes, made a descent upon Jutland, and took the fortress of Fredrik- 
sudde (1657), which action gave the Swedes a decided advantage, and 
obtained for himself the dignity of high admiral. He next took the 
castle of Cronenborg, after a siege of three weeks. In the same year 
(1658) he obtained a victory over the Dutch admiral Opdam, who had 
come to the assistance of the Danes, and took some of the Danish 
islands. On the peace of 1660 he was raised to the dignity of grand- 
marshal of Sweden, and generalissimo, and also appointed by Charles 
Gustavus one of the guardians to his son Charles XI. In 1675 he 
undertook the command of the Swedish troops in Pomerania, but 
was then so disabled by age and infirmities, that he could do very 
little personally, being the greater part of the time confined to his 
bed, and was therefore at some distance from the army during its 
reverses at Havelberg and Fehrbellin, in the June of that year. He 

accordingly retired to his estate in the isle of Riigen, where he was 
residing when an alarm being given of the approach of some enemy’s 
vessels, he could not be prevented from proceeding to the spot to 
ascertain the danger. His exertion upon that occasion cost him his 
life, for it proved too much for his bodily strength, and he died in 
consequence of “it, in July 1676, leaving the reputation of one of the 
bravest and most skilful commanders, both by sea and land, that 
Sweden had ever possessed. 

*WRANGEL, FERDINAND PETROVICH VON, a distinguished 
Arctic navigator, is descended from an old Esthonian family, and was 
born in that province about 1795. He was educated at the academy 
for naval cadets at St. Petersburg, and in 1817 served as an officer 
under Captain Golovnin in his voyage round the world in the sloop 
Kamschatka. The talent and activity he then manifested recom- 
mended him two years after to the command of a surveying and 
exploring expedition to the Russian Polar seas, in which he was en- 
gaged from 1820 to 1824, An opinion had gained ground, founded on 
rumours prevalent among the natives at Indigirka and Kolyma, that 
a large tract of land existed to the north of the Polar Sea. ‘The great 
feature of Von Wrangel’s survey consisted in two expeditions in 
search of this land made by him on the polar ice, with equal daring 
and sagacity, in sledges drawn by dogs. His first journey commenced 
in March 1822, lasted forty-six days, and brought him as far north as 
two minutes above the seventy-second degree without discovering 
land. On the second, in February 1823, he was compelled to return 
also without success from a point at 70° 51’ north, and 175° 27’ east. 
The Russians remark that his exertions on this occasion placed him 
ona level with Parry, the Rosses, and Franklin, and an account of the 
expedition, translated by Mrs. Sabine from the German of Engelhardt, 
1s accompanied with a preface by her husband, himself familiar with 


Arctic perils, in which he speaks in the highest terms of the labours 
of the Russian navigator, The account by Engelhardt, drawn up from 
Von Wrangel’s journals, and the English translation of it, published 
in 1840, had both appeared and attracted general attention before any 
Russian narrative of the expedition was given to the public. The 


omission was repaired in 1841, by the appearance of Von Wrangel’s 


own narrative, ‘ Puteshestvie po sievernuim beregam Sibiri i po ledo- 
vitomu Moryu’ (Journey on the northern coasts of Siberia and the 
Icy Sea), 2 vols., with a supplement, which, in 1843, was 

into French by Prince Emmanuel Galitzin, while in 1844 Sabine’s 
translation of Engelhardt ran to a second edition, This delay in pub- 
lication arose from the appointment of Von Wrangel in 1825 to the 
command of-a voyage round the world in the ship Krotky, which 
occupied him till 1827, and of which, we believe, no narrative has yet 
been made public. Soon after his return he was appointed governor 
of the Russian possessions on the north-west coast of America, for 
which he set out in 1829, accompanied by his wife, by the eastern 
route through Siberia and Kamschatka. After remaining in command 
for five years, he returned to Russia by the Isthmus of Panama and 
the United States, and his first published book was an account of this 
last journey, ‘ Ocherk Puti iz Sitki v S. Peterburg’ (Sketch of a Journey 
from Sitka to St. Petersburg), St. Petersburg, 1836. His ‘Statistical 
and Ethnographical Notices on the Russian possessions in America, 
were printed in German in 1839 in Baer and Helmersen’s ‘ Beitriige 
zur Kenntniss des Russischen Reiches.’ One of the principal features 
of his government of these inclement regions was his endeavour to 
promote the cultivation of potatoes. After his return home he was 


elevated to the rank of admiral, and was for some time at the head of __ 


the ship-timber department in the Russian marine, but in 1849 retired 
from the government service, and has since been a director of the 
privileged company for trading with Russian America. " 
WRAXALL, SIR NATHANIEL WILLIAM, Bart, was born at 
Bristol on the 8th of April 1751. His father wasa merchant,and 
after having received a suitable education in his native town, he 
entered the civil service of the East India Company, and proceeded to 
Bombay in 1769. In 1771 he accompanied the expeditions against 
Guzerat and Baroche as judge-advocate and paymaster. In 1772 he 
quitted India, and, returning to Europe, landed at Lisbon, where he 
remained some time, and then occupied himself during the next seven 
years in travelling over the Continent, most parts of which he visited, 
from Portugal and Italy to Lapland. For a part of this period how- 
ever, in 1774-75, he was employed, as he himself states, in a confi- 
dential mission from the Queen of Denmark, Caroline Matilda, then 
residing at Zell, to her brother, George III. The subject of his 
mission, he asserts, was very interesting, and that he was acquainted — 
with the contents of the despatches with which he was entrusted; 
that the king, through Lord North, presented him with 1000 guineas 
for his services, but vaunts of his fidelity in not making the nature of 
them public, In 1775 he published his first work, ‘ Cursory Remarks 
made in a Tour through some of the Northern Parts of Europe, par- 
ticularly through Copenhagen, Stockholm, and Petersburgh,’ and its 
light anecdotal gossipy style carried it rapidly through several 
editions. In 1777 he essayed history: ‘Memoirs of the Kings of 
France of the House of Valois, interspersed with interesting anec- 
dotes, to which is added a Tour through the Western, Southern, and 
Interior Provinces of France, in a series of Letters.’ It is a work of 
little value, either as a history or a tour; but the Tour was translated 
into French in 1784, and in 1785 a new edition was published, en-_ 
larged, with dates supplied to the events of the ‘ Memoirs,’ that title 
being changed into ‘ History.” In 1780 he became a member of parlia- — 
ment, at first as the supporter of Lord North; but voting against the 
India Bill in 1783, he afterwards was an adherent of Pitt. During his 
continuance in parliament he published nothing; but in 1795 he 
issued, in 3 vols. 4to, ‘The History of France from the Accession of 
Henry the Third to the Death of Louis the Fourteenth, preceded by a 
View of the Civil, Military, and Political State of Europe between the 
middle and the close of the Sixteenth Century,’ which reached a 
second edition in 1814, and received the approbation of Professor 
Smyth in his Cambridge lectures. In 1796 appeared what he called 
a translation of a correspondence between a traveller and a minister of 
state, of which the ‘Monthly Review’ at the time asserted that the 
letters were genuine, but no dependence can be placed on them. In 
1799 he published ‘Memoirs of the Courts of Berlin, Dresden, War- 
saw, and Vienna,’ in which are a number of anecdotes that he probably 
received on no sufficient authority. But his credulity and weakness 
of judgment were most conspicuously displayed in his ‘ Historical 
Memoirs of my own Time: part the first from 1772 to 1780; part the 
second from January 1781 to March 1782; part the third from March 
1782 to March 1784,’ in 8 vols. 8vo, published in 1815. Soon after the 
appearance of the work an action for libel was brought against him 
by Count Woronzow, the Russian ambassador, who had been accused 
of being privy to the making away with the wife of the Crown 
Prince of Wiirtemberg. He was found guilty, sentenced to pay a 
fine of 500/., and to suffer six months’ imprisonment, which punish- 
ment was however remitted after an imprisonment of about three 
months. The ‘Edinburgh Review,’ the ‘ Quarterly Review,’ and the 
‘British Critics’ also made violent attacks on the integrity of his 
representations, against which Wraxall made a very unsuccessful 


—— 
= a ae 


aes eee ee Se 


a ol 


7.) 
il ila 


825 WRAY, ROBERT BATEMAN. 


WREDE, KARL PHILIP, PRINCE. 


826 


defence in two pamphlets. Still, though no doubt he is to be mis- 
trusted where he does not rest upon authority, he had mixed so much 
in society, was so inquisitive, and to the best of his abilities observant, 
that he could not fail to bring together a mass of curious and some- 
times important matter. In 1813 he had been created a baronet, and 
after the revision of the second edition of the ‘Memoirs’ in 1816 he 
published no more; but after his death there appeared in 1836, in 

8 vols., ‘Posthumous Memoirs of his own Time.’ They include anec- 

dotes of the most distinguished political and other personages in the 

latter part of the reign of George III., coming down however only to 
the year 1789, and resemble in character the previous volumes, embit- 

tered somewhat perhaps by a remembrance of his punishment: a 

repetition of which, he says in an introduction dated in 1825, he was 

determined to avoid, though he felt such a result would be no unlikely 
consequence if they appeared during his life. He died at Dover, on 
the 7th of November 1831, while on a journey to Naples, 
WRAY, ROBERT BATEMAN, an engraver of gems, was a son of 
the Rev. William Wray, rector of Newtontony in Wiltshire, and after- 
wards vicar of Broadchalk in the same county, where Robert Bateman 
Wray was born on the 16th of March 1715. Both on the father’s and 
_the mother's side he was allied to some of the best families in the 

county. On the death of the Rev. William Wray, which happened in 
1724, the widow and her young family went to reside at Pottern in 
~ Wiltshire, where her brothers Edward and Thomas Byng then lived. 
Edward was a portrait-painter, who had been a pupil and became 
an assistant of Sir Godfrey Kneller, with whom he continued to reside 
till the death of that artist in 1723. Sir Godfrey showed his con- 
fidence in Byng’s abilities by having directed in his will that the 
portraits which his sitters had contracted for should be finished by 
Byng. 

_ During the years occupied in his education Wray learnt, under the 
tuition of his uncle Edward, to draw the human figure with grace and 
precision, and acquired such a taste for the fine arts, that when it 
became necessary for him to make choice of a profession he selected 
that of seal-engraving, an art which at that time was scarcely advanced 
beyond the delineation of heraldic figures, and was open therefore to 
great improvement, offering some encouragement to his ambition, as 
well as the promise of an honourable maintenance. To learn the 
mechanical part of the business he was placed under a seal-engraver 
named Gosset, residing in Berwick-street, Soho, where his rapid pro- 
gress excited a degree of jealousy that led to a speedy dissolution of 
the connection. Although Mr. Wray began by engraving the types of 
ancient heraldry as sculptured on the tombs and seals of the middle 
ages, his innate taste, fostered by the society of the painters whom he 
met at his uncle’s house, and stimulated by a contemplation of the 
works of the ancients, soon prompted him to a nobler field of exertion, 
and to endeavour to imitate, if he could not rival, the productions of 
the Greek masters. Thus, whilst he continued to prosecute, or at 
least to give the finishing touches to the common works required by 
his employers, his choicer hours were devoted to the delineation of 
nature, and especially of the human figure, until he had succeeded in 
representing some of the most distinguished personages of English 
history, or remains of ancient sculpture, or the ideal designs of modern 
contemporary artists. : 

Before Mr. Wray had completed his twenty-fourth year he had exe- 
cuted the front face and one of the profiles of Milton, and in another 
the second profile. Mr. Tassie, of Soho-square, who had recently 
invented a method of copying ancient engraved gems, was so much 
impressed with the merits of Mr. Wray’s works of the same kind, that 
he sold copies of them together with those of his own collection. 
Mr. Wray’s name thus became extensively known, and his original 
productions were sought after with avidity even in Italy. Ata sub- 
sequent period, when Henry, eighth Lord Arundel, visited Rome to 
collect works of art for the purpose of decorating his new mansion of 
Wardour, he was surprised to hear of the fame of a man who was 
then residing within a few miles of his own gates in England; for in 
1759, after a residence of more than than thirty years in London, 
circumstances had induced Mr. Wray to quit the metropolis, and to 
fix himself at a house in Church-street, Salisbury. To an artist of the 
celebrity which he had now acquired, locality of abode was of little 
moment, . 

It was at Salisbury that he produced some of his best works, and 
those on which his reputation with posterity will chiefly depend. The 
difficulty of engraving figures on hard stones in the manner of the 
ancient Greeks is shown by its rarity in modern times; and although 
it has been cultivated in Italy with great success, in England Wray 
has scarcely had a rival. If some of the Italians have surpassed him 
in facility of execution, and in the number of their works, none have 


been his superiors in expressing the affections, and in female grace and 


beauty. That Wray never acquired more than a decent competence 
by his talents will be easily imagined, when it is stated that the head 
of the dying Cleopatra, which he esteemed the most perfect, as it was 
the most difficult of his works, was sold to the Duke of Northumber- 
land for 20/. But in no branch of art were the labours of native 
artists very liberally rewarded in those times, except in some rare 
instances. 

The following are the most remarkable of Mr. Wray’s works, and 
they are here placed in the order in which their merit is supposed by 


some competent judges to rank:—1, Dying Cleopatra; 2, Medusa’s 
Head, a copy from the Strozzi Medusa; 3, a Magdalen; 4, Flora; 
5, Madonna ; 6, ideal female head; 7, ditto; 8, ditto; 9, Milton, front 
face; 10, Milton, profile; 11, ditto; 12, Cicero; 13, Pope; 14, Shaks- 
pere; 15, Zingara; 16, Antinous. 

Mr. Wray died at Salisbury in the year 1770, in the sixty-fifth year 
of his age. 

WREDE, KARL PHILIP, PRINCE, a field-marshal in the Bava- 
rian service, and designated by Napoleon I. as one of the ablest 
generals of his time, was born at Heidelberg, on the 29th of April 
1767. Having received a good education, in which law and the 
valuation of forest lands made part of his studies, he was appointed 
assessor to the High Court of Heidelberg, in 1792. The war between 
France and Austria having broken out soon after, he was chosen by 
Prince Hohenlohe eas civil commissioner for the palatinate, in the 
Austrian army. For several years he continued to discharge his com- 
missariat functions in the different German armies, but he had like- 
wise taken part in the military operations, as early as the age of 
twenty-six ; and he had, in 1795, risen to the rank of colonel. During 
the campaign of 1799, under the auspices of the Archduke Charles, he 
raised a corps of volunteers among his own countrymen, which he 
brought to the main army on the 14th of October, along with two 
Austrian divisions. Placed at the head of one of these regiments, he 
distinguished himself by repeated acts of daring during the campaigns 
of 1799 and 1800, and in the latter year, his conduct at the battle of 
Hohenlinden (December 3), when he covered the retreat of the 
Austrian troops, acquired him the rank of major-general. In 1804, 
the commander-in-chief of the Bavarian auxiliaries, General Deroy, 
having been compelled by his wounds to relinquish his post, it was 
conferred for the rest of the campaign upon Wrede, who had just been 
made lieutenant-general ; from which period his reputation as a brave 
and skilful general rose continually. 

The great campaign of 1805 furnished him with signal opportunities 
of obtaining new honours; but no longer in the same service. The 
policy of Napoleon had succeeded in detaching Bavaria from the 
interests of Austria, and the contingent supplied by the king, amount- 
ing to 25,000 men, formed the 10th corps of that powerful army, 
which for its numbers, its equipment and its discipline, was perhaps 
the most formidable France had ever collected. For the first time, it 
was called the ‘ grande armée:’ eight of the corps were commanded 
by eight marshals of France; the host mustered 250,000 combatants. 
This great army having reached the banks of the Rhine between the 
17th and 23rd of September 1805, General Wrede joined with Berna- 
dotte, and the united troops passed through the Prussian territory, 
and on the 7th of October, crossed the Danube. On the 13th of 
October, General Wrede led the French vanguard at the battle of 
Memmingen, pursued the retreating enemy for several miles off the field, 
and captured 1500 Austrians. In 1806, the grand cordon of the legion of 
honour was conferred on him. He was present, the following year, at 
the siege of Dantzig, which lasted from March 20th to May 27th, 1807. 
For several months during the campaigns of 1808, General Wrede 
was detached from the main army, and sent to support the authority 
of the French empire in the Tyrol. In 1809, under the Prince Royal 
of Bavaria, he was ordered to take charge of a division of the army, 
stationed in front of the capital for its defence. Here he attacked the 
enemy several times, and carried two of their best positions. At the 
battle of Abensberg, April 20th, 1809, Napoleon commanded the 
Bavarian troops in person, when they took eight standards, 12 guns, 
and 1800 prisoners. The following day, General Wrede marched on 
the Inn, in pursuit of the fugitives, and having overtaken the Austrian 
rear-guard at Laufen, on the 27th, defeated them a second time, with 
the loss of all their baggage. ‘T'wo days later, on the 29th, he repulsed 
the enemy from the position they had taken up in front of Salzburg, 
after a most obstinate resistance. 

Wrede had already taken rank by the side of the best generals in 
the French armies, when his dashing exploit, the capture of Innspruck, 
and his opportune arrival and zealous behaviour at the battle of 
Wagram, July 6th, 1809, in which he was wounded, procured him the 
grade of field-marshal, from the Bavarian government, and the title of 
count from that of France. The years 1810 and 1811 (hostilities 
being at that time suspended between France and the German States), 
were spent by the marshal in the peaceful enjoyment of domestic 
intercourse. About this juncture however he was incited to maintain 
the honour of his countrymen in a private matter, which provoked 
much contemporary scandal on the continent. A packet of official 
letters having been seized in the bags of a Swedish courier, and im- 
mediately published by Napoleon’s directions, some of the despatches 
were found to contain reflections adverse to the conduct of the 
Bavarian army. These despatches bearing the signature of Count de 
Duber, the Swedish chargé d'affaires, that nobleman was challenged 
by Wrede, and a duel fought between them, but without personal 
injury to either. 

Throughout the arduous campaign of 1812, when Napoleon invaded 
Russia, Marshal Wrede commanded the Bavarian cavalry, dividing 
with General Deroy the lead of the auxiliary force of that nation, and 
his name frequently recurs in the French bulletins. At the battle of 
Polotsk, August 22, though eventually defeated by Wittgenstein, his 
energy was conspicuous, and his companion in arms, Deroy, haying 


WREN, SIR CHRISTOPHER. 


827 


WREN, SIR CHRISTOPHER. 828 


fallen during the action, the chief command devolved upon Marshal 
Wrede. During the retreat he was frequently seen in the rear of the 
French army, assisting Marshal Ney in covering the fugitive legions. 
In that terrible retreat Wrede’s corps was one of the most severely 
visited; “the lean wreck of his cavalry was dismounted, and scarcely 
a single Bavarian horse passed out of the Russian snows.” Wrede 
was destined soon to find himself once more opposed to the general 
under whom he thus served and suffered, and once more allied to the 
army in fighting against which his chief honours had been gained. 
On the 8th of October 1813, the treaty of Reid, by which Bavaria dis- 
engaged herself from the Confederation of the Rhine, having been 
signed, Marshal Wrede, with the appointment of commander-in-chief, 
marched into Franconia, at the head of a strong Austro-Bavarian 
force. 

After twenty years’ uninterrupted service in France, Italy, Germany, 
and Russia, Wrede now for the first time saw himself placed in the 
independent command of a separate army. His instructions were to 
throw himself across the route of Napoleon, then in full retreat 
after his discomfiture at the battle of Leipsic. This was the chief 
incident in his career; it is one of the most memorable and instruc- 
tive in the career of Napoleon. The Austro-Bavarian army consisted 
of five divisions of infantry and two divisions of cavalry, the number 
of troops amounting to 56,000, with 160 guns. With this army, on 
the 30th of October 1818, he posted himself in the forest of Hanau, 
drawing his troops right across the main road; thereby blocking up 
the passage for the army of Napoleon, and shutting them out of the 
French territory near at hand. The army of Napoleon did not exceed 
80,000, when it came up to the Main after the fearful slaughter at 
Leipsic ; of these 30,000 were stragglers; so that to clear his way the 
French emperor could not rely upon more than 50,000 combatants, 
His artillery, from 800 pieces had been reduced to 200 guns, The 
battle of Hanau, in which Marshal Wrede had the honour to measure 
swords with Napoleon himself, continued for several hours, during 
which, notwithstanding the desperate efforts of Victor and Macdonald 
they were unable to force their way through the narrow opening 
between the forest and the banks of the Kinzig. At length Napo- 
leon ordered the artillery of the Guard, under Drouot, and the 
cavalry of the Guard, led by Nansouti, to force a passage. This 
mapceuvre proved successful, the allies fled towards the river, leaving 
the road to Frankfurt open to the French. Wrede withdrew the 
shattered remains of his army behind the Kinzig, under the protection 
ofthe cannon of Hanau. The army of Napoleon passedon, The town 
of Hanau was taken by Marmont on the 31st of October, and retaken 
by Wrede the following day. But this time, whilst pursuing the 
Italian rearguard towards the Kinzig he was wounded severely, and 
obliged to relinquish his command. The loss of the allies at the 
battle of Hanau amounted to 10,000 men; that of the French to 
7000. 

As soon as the campaign of 1814 had opened, Marshal Wrede, 
though scarcely convalescent, resumed the command of the Bavarian 
corps, and entered France between Basel and Strasbourg, pouring his 
battalions into the adjacent districts of Lorraine and Franche-Comté, 
In the campaign of 1814, comprising fourteen pitched battles fought 
by Napoleon in person, in the space of two months, Marshal 
Wrede was continually in action. At the battle of La Rothiére, 
February 1, 1814, Marshal Wrede drove the French out of the village 
of La Gibérie, and then carried Chaumesnil and Morvilliers. The 

next day, encountering Marmont, who was defiling with his corps 
over the bridge of Lesmont, he defeated him with great loss. On the 
14th of February he marched upen Troyes, the capital of Champagne, 
and there fixed his head-quarters. On the 27th, he defeated Marshal 
Oudinot at Bar-sur-Aube. By his impetuous assault and storming 
of the bridge over the Barse, he greatly contributed to the victory of 
La Guillotiére. Finally he took part at the battle of Arcis-sur-Aube 
on the 21st of March 1814; and he was one of the most eager advo- 
cates of the immediate advance upon Paris. 

After the evacuation of France, Marshal Wrede was raised to the 
rank of prince, receiving in addition the estate of Ellingen in Fran- 
conia, from his own sovereign, besides many marks of distinction 
from various other quarters. The prince was one of the diplomatists 
selected to m@et at the congress of Vienna, where he gave proofs of 
singular ability. When the escape of Napoleon, in February 1815, 
revived the war for a few months, Wrede penetrated into Lorraine at 
the head of the Bavarian army, crossed the Sarre on the 23rd of June, 
and took military occupation of several of the midland departments 
of France. Subsequently, his sovereign entrusted him with several 
missions of the highest importance, and on the Ist of October 1822 
created him generalissimo of the Bavarian armies, When disturbances 
began to spread through the Rhenish Bavaria in 1832, he was de- 
spatched with ample powers to the seat of the insurrection, as chief 
commissioner; where his conciliatory measures pacified the inhabi- 
tants without recourse being had to violence. 

Marshal Wrede died at his estate of Ellingen, on the 12th of Decem- 
ber 1838, aged seventy-one. His son, CHartes THEODORE WREDE, 
the inheritor of his title and domains, born on the 8th of January 
1797, is generally considered as one of the most earnest defenders of 
constitutional liberty in his native land. 

WREN, SIR CHRISTOPHER, born at East Knoyle, Wilts, Octo- 


ber 20, 1632, was of good family, being the son of Dr. Christopher 
Wren, chaplain in ordinary to Charles L, and dean of Windsor; anc 
nephew to Dr. Matthew Wren, successively bishop of Hereford, Nor- 
wich, and Ely ; and from the former of these he seems to have inheri 

a taste for scientific and literary studies, that of architecture ineluded 
That he was initiated into architecture by parental example is high! 
probable, since he was not educated professionally to the practice of 
but applied himself to it only theoretically, and might never have dis- 
tinguished himself in it if peculiar circumstances had not led to the 
exercise of his talents. 

Though in his childhood of weak bodily constitution, Wren was of — 
most precocious mind, and that too as youthful genius most rarel: 
displays itself—not in poetic fancy and feeling, but in the abstruse 
paths of science and philosophy. In fact it almost partakes of the 
marvellous when we are told that at the age of thirteen he invented 
an astronomical instrument, a pneumatic engine, and another 
ment of use in gnomonics. These inventions probably served no 
end than that of causing him to be regarded as a prodigy ; and 
fame thus acquired no doubt helped to procure for him at Ox! 
where he was entered as gentleman commoner at Wadham College 
his fourteenth year, the notice of Dr. Wilkins and Seth Wood, Savilian 
professor of astronomy. A philosopher and mathematician of the age 
of sixteen was a phenomenon ; and even before then he had been dis- 
tinguished by his proficiency in anatomy, and had been Cn z ws 


J 


Sir Charles Scarborough as his demonstrating assistant. 3 
Oxford he associated with Hooke (whom he assisted in his ‘ Micro- 
graphia’) and other scientific men, whose meetings laid the foundation 
of the future Royal Society. In 1653 he was elected a Fellow of All 
Souls’ College, Oxford. 

By the time he was twenty-four he was known to the learned of 
Europe by his various theories, inventions, and improvements, In 
August 1657, he was appointed to the professor's chair of astronomy 
at Gresham College, London, and three years after to that of the 
Savilian professor at Oxford, when he resigned the Gresham chair. On 
the establishment of the Royal Society soon after the Restoration, 
Wren contributed not a little to the reputation of that body. Thus 
far therefore he had attained to high eminence among his contempo- 
raries, but it was such that he might have remained known only toa 
few, whereas at present his celebrity as an architect has swallowed up 
all his other titles to distinction. At that time his architectural 
genius had hardly dawned, and it was probably chiefly owing to his 
general reputation for scientific skill that he was appointed b: 
Charles II., in 1661, assistant to Sir John Denham, the surveyo 
general, and was commissioned in 1663 to survey and report upon 
St. Paul’s Cathedral, with a view to its restoration, or rather the entire 
rebuilding of the body of the fabric so as to reconcile it with the — 
Corinthian colonnade added to it by Jones. This scheme met with 
considerable opposition both from the clergy and the citizens, there 
being strong prejudices amongst the latter against destroying the old 
edifice; at least earnest wishes that the tower should be still preserve 
Dissensions and protracted discussions, and delay of course, were the 
consequences, and nothing was done. But if this undertaking seemed 
likely to be postponed indefinitely, if not to fall to the ground alto- 
gether, Wren had in the meantime been employed on some other 
buildings—the Sheldonian Theatre at Oxford (1664-9), and the Library 
and Neville’s Court, at Trinity College, Cambridge. In the same 
interval, and during the discussions on the subject of St. Paul’s, he 
visited Paris (1665), where the works of the Louvre were then in 
progress, and he had begun to draw up some observations on the 
state of architecture in that capital, but he unfortunately never pub- — 
lished or completed them. i 

At the beginning of the following year he returned hame, butfound 
matters neither settled nor likely to be settled in regard to St. Paul’s. — 
At length the events and accidents by which architectural under- — 
takings are so greatly controlled, put an end to all discussion and all 
perplexity as to retaining any part of the old fabric. Politicalevents 
had frustrated Jones's plans for the Palace of Whitehall; an event of — 
a different nature, most calamitous in itself at the time, happened 
opportunely for Wren, since the ‘Great Fire’ of London not o 
decided that St. Paul’s should be entirely rebuilt as one consisten 
whole, entirely of his own idea, but also opened an extensive field for 
his talents in various other metropolitan buildin, One immediate — 
labour arising from the conflagration was to make a survey of the 
whole of the ruins, and a plan for laying out the devastated space ina — 
regular and commodious manner, with wide streets and piazzas at 
intervals. Yet so far was this plan from being adopted, that it was — 
lost sight of altogether in rebuilding the city: the new streets rose up 
in that dense and intricate maze of narrow lanes which are now but — 
slowly disappearing before modern Eo ie tik and worst of 4 
instead of the line of spacious quays along the Thames, which Wren ~ 
proposed, the river was entirely shut out from view by wharfs and — 
warehouses in such manner as to render any scheme for dete 
to any extent in regard to its banks a matter of extreme difficulty. It 
is not indeed to be wondered at that amidst such a scene of confusion, 
and under the pressure of immediate necessity, the citizens should 
have paid no regard to schemes of architectural magnificence ; still it 
is to be regretted that they did not adopt some general plan, pro- 
viding for commodiousness in the first instance, and for sinbellish- , 


829 WREN, SIR CHRISTOPHER. 


WREN, SIR CHRISTOPHER. 830 


ment to grow up afterwards by degrees and under more favourable 
circumstances. 

Thus frustrated in his idea for planning an entire city, and doomed 
to see his ‘New London’ among the things that might have been, 
Wren was compelled to confine his ambition within narrower limits, 
and to turn his attention towards individual edifices. 


OL 


ost 


Yoaz 008 


seen in the South Kensington Museum—though it would seem only 
for atime, the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul’s having only lent it to 
the government for exhibition for three years—it had fallen into a 
very dilapidated condition, but is being thoroughly repaired. 

The composition is compact and simple, forming a single general 
octagonal mass, surmounted by a cupola, and extended on its west 
side by a portico, and a short nave or vestibule within; and there is 
also a great deal of play produced by the alternate curved sides of the 
main body of the edifice. Of this design one great recommendation 
insisted upon by Wren was that there would be only a single order; 
yet though this is true as regards avoiding supercolumniation or order 
over order, there would in fact have been two ordinances (both Corin- 
thian), a larger one for the portico or west elevation, and one upon a 
smaller scale (but raised to the same level of entablature, by being 
placed on a lofty stylobate) in the side elevations, which would have 
been surmounted only by an attic and balustrade. Such a combina- 
tion of two ordinances might perhaps have been objected to by some as 
rather licentious, notwithstanding that there is ample authority for it 
in the works of Palladio and others of the Italian school; but it 
would at all events have produced picturesque variety, and the larger 
order of the portico would have appeared the more imposing by 
contrast with the other. It is further to be observed that that 
ordinance is kept distinct from the other by being confined to a sepa- 
rate elevation of the building. As to the interior, the parts are 
beautifully grouped together, so as to produce at once both regularity 
and intricacy, yet it does not seem by any means particularly well 
adapted for the Protestant service, there being no space for a collected 
congregation, except in the circular area beneath the dome, which 


could not be fitted up for such purpose without being further 
inclosed; whereby also in other respects the grandeur of the ensemble, 
as is shows itself in the plan, would have been greatly impaired. 

The comparison of that first idea with the one afterwards adopted 
makes evident almost opposite modes of treatment both as to arrange- 
ment and proportions, While the first exhibits concentration and 
uniform spaciousness, the other is more extended as to length, but 
contracted in other respects, and the diagonal vistas that would have 
been obtained in the other case are altogether lost. It may be 
observed too that thd nave, or western arm of the cross, is rendered 
apparently shorter than the eastern one, externally, being broken so as 
to form a second or western transept. 


39 


10 20°30 40 50 


The first stone of the present edifice was laid June 21, 1675; the 
choir was opened for divine service in December 1697, and the whole 
was completed in thirty-five years, the last stone on the summit of the 
lantern being laid by the architect’s son Christopher in 1710. Taken 
altogether, the present St. Paul’s is a truly glorious work—its cupola 
matchless in beauty; yet all nobleasitis, the fabric will not bear to be 
rigidly scrutinised in the spirit of captious criticism ; and of late years 
no little of such criticism has been brought to bear against it. Among 
other faults, it is alleged that its real form and construction are 
masked, the upper order of the side elevations being merely a screen 
concealing the buttresses and clerestory windows of the nave; also 
that the same is in a great measure the case with the cupola, the ex- 
ternal dome being considerably loftier than the inner one, being so 
elevated chiefly for effect:—True; and that effect is most admirably 
accomplished. The last reproach is all the more inconsistent, because 
it has, if not proceeded from, been repeated by those who, while they 
censure St. Paul’s dome as being larger than the interior actually 
required, not only tolerate but are in ecstasies with a Gothic spire—a 
feature built altogether for external effect, and quite useless as regards 
the interior of the structure, otherwise than as giving stability to the 
tower. Another charge which has now started up against Wren is 
that he was either ignorant or grossly negligent of the principles of 
ecclesiastical design—of ‘symbolism,’ ‘spiritualism,’ ‘ sacramentality,’ 
&e. But Wren simply endeavoured to adapt his churches to Protes- 
tant congregations, and so far generally showed considerable skill, but 
it must be confessed very rarely sufficient taste, or aught amounting 
to architectural character and style. Of his numerous churches in the 
city, few have any claims to notice for beauty of design. They are, 
almost without exception, in a heavy uncouth manner, chiefly marked 
by a number of large arched and small circular windows, the former 
of which appear little better than so many dismal gaps glazed in the 
most ordinary manner. There is nothing in any one of them to 
remind us of the architect of St. Paul’s—nothing in their external 
design that will bear comparison with such exquisitely beautiful bits 
in that structure as the two semicircular porticos of its transepts, 
worthy models for church fagades. Even in his campanili—the far- 
famed steeples of St. Bride’s and Bow Church, the general outline is 
what is chiefly to be admired, for they are compounds of incongruous 


831 WREN, SIR CHRISTOPHER. 


WREN, MATTHEW. 


arts oddly put together, and not particularly elegant in themselves. 
The palosiee Of St. Stephen's, Walbrook, has also, to our thinking, been 
greatly overrated. 

Without therefore specifying, one by one, Wren’s other per- 
formances, almost all of which serve rather to encumber than to add 
anything to the glory derived from St. Paul's, we annex a chronological 
list of them to this article as more convenient for reference, and 
resume our biographical notice of the architect himself. ; 

One work which would probably have not a little augmented his 
fame was a design for a magnificent mausoleum to the memory of 
Charles I.; yet though parliament voted 70,000/, for the purpose in 
1678, the design was abandoned, and the money applied more con- 
formably with the personal tastes of Charles Il. Wren had been 
thwarted in his ideas for another monument, namely, the column 
so called, which he had conceived very differently and very charac- 
teristically, the shaft being adorned with gilt flames issuing from the 
loop-holes ; but no such pattern was to be found in the ‘ five orders, 
therefore as “the impotence of indecision ever resorts to precedent, 
and iguorance takes refuge in common-place,” that design was set 
aside for the common-place affair which we now see. : 

Wren had resigned the office of Savilian Professor in 1673; he 
accepted that of President of the Royal Society in 1680, and he also 
sat several times in parliament, but his numerous and important pro- 
fessional engagements left him little leisure for other pursuits or 
duties. Enjoying the favour of successive princes, he was employed 
by Queen Mary to complete the buildings at Greenwich, to be appro- 
priated as a Royal Naval Hospital ; and Wren’s additions to that noble 
pile are well worthy of the architect of St. Paul's, although, by some 
strange caprice, less quoted as proofs of his genius than several of his 
inferior performances, In his additions to Hampton Court for 
William III. he was less fortunate—perhaps unfortunate in being 
controlled by the taste of the king. If it is not actually a blot upon 
his fame, as was his work at Windsor Castle, Hampton Court adds 
nothing to it, whereas he might perhaps have produced a piece of 
palatial architecture at Windsor had his plan for erecting a distinct 
pile of building on the south side of the Upper Ward been adopted. 
Stili palaces do not appear to have been exactly Wren’s forte, at least 
not if we judge by such specimens as he has given us in Marlborough 
House and some portions of St. James’s. 

After the death of Anne, the last of his royal patrons, Wren was 
dispossessed of his office of surveyor-general (which he had held for 
forty-nine years), very little to the credit of George I., and to the dis- 
grace of “one Benson,” the man who, by succeeding him in that capa- 
city, has preserved a name from oblivion by perpetuating it for lasting 
shame and contempt. ‘To Wren himself however this discharge from 
office must have been rather a welcome release than otherwise; for, 
verging towards ninety, he could then have little further worldly 
ambition, even had he not already amply gratified it. The close of 
his life was not so much to be pitied as to be envied, for if he passed 
the last five years of his existence in retirement and in comparative 
obscurity, he passed them in serenity of mind and placid content. 
The struggles of dissolution were spared him, for without any pre- 
vious symptoms of approaching death he was found dead, reposing in 
his chair after dinner, February 25th, 1723, in the ninety-first year of 
his age. : 

He received the tardy honour of a splendid funeral in St. Paul’s, 
where his remains were deposited in the crypt, with no other adorn- 
ment to his tomb than the inscription on it, with the sublimely 

‘eloquent legend, “Si Monumentum queris, circumspice.’’ 

Christopher, the architect's son by his first marriage, and who sat 
in parliament for Windsor about 1718, was author of a work entitled 
‘Numismatum Antiquorum Sylloge,’ 4to, 1708 ; and he composed the 
chief part of the ‘ Parentalia, or Memoirs of the Family of the Wrens,’ 
but left it unfinished at his death (1747) ; it was completed by Stephen 
Wren, Sir Christopher’s grandson, and published in 1750. This work 
must be considered rather as a mere register of dates and facts than a 
biography; for as to the last, it is dry and tedious, yet valuable as an 
authentic record, and as such it has always been referred to, All 
Souls’ Library at Oxford contains other more interesting records of 
the great architect’s professional studies, in a collection of original 
drawings by him ; and it excites not only regret, but some astonish- 
ment also, that these, or at least a selection of the most interesting of 
them, should never have been published. In fact comparatively few 
of Wren’s buildings have been fully described or described at all by 
authentic architectural delineations, or otherwise than by mere views. 
In 1842 however was published a very large and highly-finished 
engraving exhibiting all the structures erected by him brought 
together into one extensive group. This kind of graphic synopsis 
was from a composition by Mr. C. R. Cockerell, and is appropriately 
entitled a ‘Tribute to the Memory of Sir Christopher Wren.’ 


Chronological List, 
1663, Pembroke College Chapel, Cambridge. 
1664-69. Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford. 
1664. Buildings at Trinity College, Cambridge. 
1666. Library ditto ditto. 
1667. Royal Exchange, London. 
1668-77, Emmanuel College Chapel, Cambridge. 


1668. Custom House, London. : 

1670. Temple Bar. “a 

1670-74. St. Sepulchre’s, Newgate. 

1671-77. The Monument, London (202 feet high). 

1671-78. Spire and Church of St. Mary-le-Bow. ‘at 

1671-86. St. Lawrence, Jewry. Sa 

1672-79. St. Stephen’s, Walbrook, et 

1672. St. Michael’s, Cornhill. 

1672. St. Mary-at-Hill. a, 

1673. St. Bennet Fink, Threadneedle Street, dome now taken down. 

1674-98, College of Physicians, Warwick Lane (now converted into 
a market). ry 

1675. Sr. Pavt’s begun. 

1675. Royal Observatory, Greenwich. 

1680. St. Bride’s, Fleet Street. 

1680. St. Swithin’s. 

1681-82, Gateway Tower, Christchurch, Oxford. 

1682-90. Chelsea Hospital. 

1682. St. Antholine’s, Watling Street. 

1683. The Palace at Winchester, which was 
now a barracks. 

1683. Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. 

1683. Queen’s College Chapel, Oxford. 

1683. St. James’s, Westminster. a 

1683-86. St. Clement’s, Eastcheap. ‘ll 

1684. St; Martin’s, Ludgate. m 

1684. Made comptroller of works at Windsor Castle, x 

1686. St. Andrew's, Holborn. — 

1687-1704. Christ Church, Newgate. 

1690. Hampton Court. 

1692. Morden College, Blackheath. - 

1696. Greenwich Hospital. , 

1698, St. Dunstan’s in the East (tower and spire). & 

1703. Buckingham House, London (now taken down), 

1709. Marlborough House, London. 

1713. Westminster Abbey (towers of west front). 
WREN, MATTHEW, Bishop of Ely, was the eldest son of Francis 
Wren, a mercer in London, where he was born in the parish of St. 
Peter's Cheap, on the 3rd of December 1585. He was admitted of 

Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, on the 23rd of June 1601, was elected 
Fellow on the 9th of March 1605, and took his degree of M.A.on the __ 
2nd of July 1608. He entered into holy orders in 1610. In 1614 he 
was presented with the rectory of Teversham in Cambridgeshire. In 
1621 he was appointed chaplain to Prince Charles. He attended the 
prince in his strange journey into Spain in 1623, and having thus had 
opportunities possessed by scarcely any other churchman of ascertain- _ 
ing the opinions and feelings of him who was afterwards to be king, he __ 
acquired an influence with the clergy which made him one of the main 
causes of the calamities which soon afterwards overtook them. In1625 
he was made dean of Windsor and Wolverhampton, and in 1629 one 
of the judges of the Star-Chamber. He attended Charles I. on his — 
visit to Scotland in 1633, but be failed to sound the religious feelings 
of the people of that country so accurately as he had done those of his 
royal master. In the following year he was made Bishop of Hereford, __ 
and translated on the 5th of December 1635 to Norwich, and on the 
5th of May 1638 to Ely. He was employed in the construction of the 
Scottish Service-Book, or Liturgy, the reading of which in Edinburgh 
in 1637 occasioned those riots which were followed by the subscrip- 
tion of the Covenant, and finally led to the great civil war. On the 
19th of December 1640, Hampden was sent by the Commons on a 
message to the Lords to acquaint them that there were “certain infor- 
mations of a high nature” against Wren, “concerning the setting up _ 
of idolatry and superstition in divers places, and exercising some acts _ 
of it in his own person, with divers other matters of great importance; _ 
and that they have information likewise that he endeavours an escape,” 
An answer was returned, that he had been ordered to find bail in 
10,000/. to attend the judgment of parliament. According toapaper 
preserved in the ‘ Parentalia’ of his nephew, the articles of impeach- 
ment intended to be presented against him related to such charges as 
the railing in of the altar, kneeling at the sacrament, and other matters 
of ceremonial, which afterwards became part of the uniform observance — 
of the Church of England. There is no doubt however that the real 
ground of the charge against him was the despotic enforcement of his 
own views in clerical matters ; for Clarendon, who praises his learning, 
says he was a man “of severe sour nature,” and charges him with 
having so vexatiously enforced the discipline of the Church of England 
against the Flemish refugees and other dissenters, as to drive many of — 
them from his diocese. The articles of impeachment were not pursued, — 
but he remained a prisoner in the Tower till the Restoration of 1660, 
when he was replaced in his see. He framed the form of prayer used _ 
on the 29th of May in commemoration of the Restoration. He died 
on the 24th of April 1667, He built the chapel at Pembroke Hall, 
Cambridge, of which his nephew Sir Christopher Wren was the archi- 
tect. Of afew doctrinal and controversial pamphlets which he left 
behind him, the titles will be found at length in the ‘ Biographia 
Britannica.’ ; 
WREN, MATTHEW, eldest son of Bishop Wrer, was born at Cam- 
bridge in 1629. He was for some time a member of parliament. He 


left unfinished, and is 


ae 


Ee 


——— ee ES ey lle 


833 - WRIGHT, EDWARD. 


WRIGHT, JOSEPH. apt 


was also secretary to the Earl of Clarendon, and afterwards to the 
Duke of York. He died in 1672. Matthew Wren was the author of 
‘Considerations on Mr. Harrington’s Commonwealth of Oceana, re- 
strained to the first Part of the Preliminaries,’ 8vo,-London, 1757, 
published anonymously; ‘ Monarchy asserted, or the State of Monar- 
chical and Popular Government, in Vindication of the Considerations 
upon Mr, Harrington’s Oceana,’ 8vo, Oxford, 1659; 8vo, London, 
1660; ‘On the Origin and Progress of the Revolutions in England,’ in 
Gutch’s ‘ Collectanea Curiosa,’ vol. i. 1781. : 
WRIGHT, EDWARD, a mathematician, the account of whose lif 

and writings is generally so loosely given that it will be worth while 
to devote a little more space to him than his celebrity would otherwise 
demand. He was born at Garveston in Norfolk, but the date is not 
known. He was educated at Caius College, Cambridge, of which he 
became a fellow. Dr. Hutton (in the preface to bis logarithms) quotes 
a translation of what he calls ‘‘a Latin piece taken out of the annals 
of Caius College, Cambridge,” in which it is stated that Wright had 
great mechanical knowledge, and was most expert in the making of 
instruments, that he was the first inventor of the plan of bringing 
water from Ware to London (in what is now called the New River), 
but that he was prevented by trickery from bringing his plan into 
action. It is also stated by Sherburne, who gives some account of 
him in the list at the end of the translation of Manilius, that Wright 
was mechanical tutor to Prince Henry, son of James I., and that for 
this prince he caused to be made in Germany a sphere which not only 


showed the motions of the solar system, but would suffice to foretell 


eclipses for 17,100 years. This sphere was damaged in the civil 
troubles, but was recovered and repaired by Sir Jonas Moore in 1646, 
and Sherburne, who published in 1675, says that it was then at Sir 
Jonas Moore’s official residence in the Tower. But Wright’s fame 
rests entirely upon his discovery of the mode of constructing the sea- 
chart which is now in universal use under the name of Mercator’s 
Projection. When sea-charts were first made, the degrees of latitude 
were made of equal length; in fact the chart was nothing more than 
a map in which degrees of latitude and longitude were represented 
by equal parts throughout. On such a chart attempts were made to 
navigate by following the course marked out by a line on the map 
joining the port of departure with that of destination, and the error 
was considerable. Mercator [MERcATOR, GERARD] saw enough of the 
source of this error to kuow that the degrees of latitude ought to 


increase in length; and this might have been easily found out on a 


common globe, by transferring to the globe the straight line of the 
common chart, and comparing it with a rumb line approximately 
traced out. Mercator accordingly constructed rough charts (probably 
by transferring rumb lines from the globe to the chart, making them 
straight in the latter), in which the degrees of latitude increase, and in 
something like the proper manner: but there is not the slightest 
reason to suppose that he had the least idea of doing more than this, 
or that he had investigated the mathematical problem of so laying 
down the sphere on a plane as that the rumb lines should be 
straightened. But it is absurd, as some writers have done, to assert 
that Mercator borrowed his idea from Wright, since the maps of the 
former were published perhaps before the birth of the latter, cer- 
tainly thirty years before he published anything on navigation. And 
Wright himself, mentioning Mercator, says, exactly as might have 
been expected, “By occasion of that mappe of Mercator, I first 
thought of correcting so many and grosse errors, &c.’’ All that could 
have been learned by Mercator’s hint, Wright did learn: it must first 
be shown to be likely that the former had a rule before it can be 
suspected that the latter copied it. ; 

To instruct himself in practical navigation, Wright went to sea in 
1589, on a voyage to the Azores, with George, earl of Cumberland, a 
dispensation from residence in college having been granted from the 
queen. Navigation had not been long flourishing in Britain: a few 
years before Wright, many captains “ mocked them that used charts 
or cross-staves, saying they cared nothing for their sheep-skinnes, 
they could keep a better account upon a boord; and them that 
observed sunne or starres for finding the latitude, they would call 
sun-shooters and star-shooters, and ask if they had hit it.’ In this 
voyage Wright made many observations, and perhaps thought of this 
method of drawing the chart. Nothing of this however was '‘pub- 
lished until 1594, when Blundevil, in the second edition of his 
* Exercises,’ gave the mode of constructing the chart and the following 
account of it :—‘‘ Mercator hath, in his universall card or map, made 
the spaces of the parallels of latitude to be wider every one than 
another from the equinoctiall towards either of the poles, by what rule 
I know not, unlesse it be by such a table as my friend Master Wright, 
of Caius College, in Cambridge, at my request, sent me (I thanke him) 
not long since, for that purpose, which table, with his consent, I have 
here plainely set downe, together with the use thereof.” Then follows 
a rough table for the length of degrees only, and apparently not made 
from a very accurate table of secants. In 1599 Wright published his 
‘Certaine Errors in Navigation detected and corrected,’ in which he 
explains at great length the theory of his chart, and gives what he calls 
his ‘ table of latitudes,’ to minutes, being exactly what has since been 
called a table of meridional parts. He also treats on the compass and 
the cross-staff, and gives an account of his solar obseryations,.and..a 
corrected iso sbheorye ida, the,second edition, published, dm 1610, the 


BLOG, DIV, VOL, VI. 


gives a full answer to some objections raised by Stevinus. The third’ 
edition is of 1657, edited by Joseph Moxon. 

In looking at the manner in which Wright announced and used the 
remarkable discovery which is permanently connected with his name, 
and comparing it with the impression derived from the manner in 
which his successors have frequently represented that discovery, it 
seems to us as if he had hardly received his due share of credit. He 
had a full and geometrical power over his subject; nothing but the 
differential calculus could have given him more. He knew well that 
the infinitely small increments of the meridian must be inversely as the 
cosines of the latitudes, and thence formed his celebrated table by the 
sums of the secants, expressing that it would be made more exact 
the smaller the interval of the angles of those secants is made. Had 
those who have written about them studied his work, the “ geometri- 
cal conceit ” which he gives for dividing the meridian would have 
become a common and well-known illustration, and would have ap- 
peared in collections of examples, examination papers, &c. We quote 
it, as showing completely that there was nothing empirical about his 
table. Let the meridian roule upon a streight line beginning at the 
zequinoctial, the globe swelling in the meane time in such sort that 
the semidiameter thereof may be alwaies «qual to the secans of the 
angle, or arch conteined betweene the squinoctial and semidiameter 
insisting at right angles upon the foresaid streight line: The degrees, 
minutes, seconds, &c. of the meridia, noted in the streight line, as they 
come to touch the same, are the divisions of the meridian in the 
nautical planisphere. And this conceit of the meridian of the nautical 
planisphere may satisfie the curious exactnes of the geometrician; but 
for mechanical use, the table before mentioned (which heere now fol- 
loweth) may suffice.” The result of the integral calculus, namely, that 
the sums of the secants in Wright’s table are ultimately proportional 
to the logarithmic cotangents of the semi-complements of the latitudes, 
was first announced by Henry Bond in Norwood’s ‘ Epitome’ (1645), 
and more fully in his (Bond's) edition of Gunter, 1653. It was first 
demonstrated by James Gregory, in his ‘ Exercitationes Geometrice,’ 
1668, and afterwards by Halley. (‘Phil. Trans,’ 1695: see also 
‘ Miscellanea Curiosa.’) 

When the invention of logarithms became public, Wright imme- 
diately applied himself to the study of the new method, and translated 
Napier’s description of his canon. This translation was forwarded to 
Napier at Edinburgh, received his approbation and a few lines of 
addition, and was returned for publication. But Wright died soon 
after he received it back (in 1615, as appears by the college manu- 
script, and therefore not in 1618 nor 1620, nor 1624, as asserted by 
various writers), and it was published in 1616 by his son, Samuel 
Wright, also of Caius College, with a dedication to the East India 
Company, which had for some time allowed the father an annuity of 
50/., in consideration of his delivering a yearly lecture on navigation. 

Wright left other works in manuscript on the use of the sphere, on 
dialling, and on navigation, called “the haven-finding art:”’ so says 
Sherburne. But Wilson, who wrote the history of navigation attached 
to Robertson’s work on that subject, and who is a respectable autho- 
rity, says that this haven-finding art, which was a translation of 
Stevinus’s ‘Portuum Investigandorum Ratio,’ printed in Latin by 
Grotius with the above title in 1599, was printed in the same year, in 
English, by Wright, and was afterwards attached to the third edition 
of the ‘ Errors Detected.’ There is in the Royal Society’s Library an 
imperfect copy, without date, of one Edward Wright's ‘ Description 
and Use of the Sphere,’ &c. 

WRIGHT, JOSEPH, commonly called ‘ Wright of Derby,’ where 
he was born in 1734: his father was an attorney of Derby. Wright 
came to London in 1751, and placed himself with Hudson the 
portrait-painter, who was the master also of Reynolds and Mortimer. 
In 1773 he married, and soon afterwards set out for Italy, where he 
remained, chiefly in Rome, for two years. After his return to England 
in 1775 he resided two years at Bath; he then settled at Derby, where 
he remained until his death in 1797. Wright was a painter of great 
ability ; he drew and coloured well, both in figures and landscape. He 
practised for many years as a portrait-painter, but painted at the same 
time also a few historical or figure-pieces, in some of which he repre- 
sented the effect of fire-light, a style of work he always had a taste 
for, which was much strengthened by a great eruption of Mount Vesu- 
vius which he witnessed during his stay in Italy; and his pictures in 
this style are the best of any which were produced in his own time in 
England. 

In 1782 he was elected an associate of the Royal Academy, but being 
offended at Mr. Garvey’s being chosen an academician before him, he 
resigned his diploma in disgust; he continued however occasionally to 
send his works to the Academy exhibitions. In 1785 he made an exhi- 
bition of his own in a large room in the Piazza of Covent Garden, when 
he exhibited in all twenty-four pictures, among which were several illus- 
trating the effects of fire-light, the best of which was the destruction 
of the floating batteries off Gibraltar. He in the latter years of his 
life painted chiefly landscapes; and his last work, a large view of the 
head of Ullswater in Westmoreland, is spoken of as a picture of great 
merit. The following pictures are mentioned as Wright’s best histo- 
rical pieces :—‘ The Dead Soldier,’ ‘ Edwin at the Tomb, of. his Ances- 
tor,’ 4 Belshazzar's, Feast, abdgens ;and, Leander,’ the. tLady!in-Corhus} 
and the, £8torm Scene inthe ‘Winterien Laloyepainnedaior Alderman 

H 


WRIGHT, THOMAS, 


835 


WRIGHT, THOMAS. 836 


Boydell. Of his landscapes, two of the best were views of Cicero's 
Villa, and Mzcenas’ Villa at Tivoli; he painted also several other 
beautiful Italian landscapes, which have many of the beauties of 
Wilson, Of remarkable or peculiar effects of light he painted many 
popular pieces, as the ‘Blacksmith’s Forge,’ an ‘Eruption of Mount 
Vesuvius,’ the ‘Hermit, the ‘Indian Widow,’ ‘Mirwan opening the 
Tomb of one of his Ancestors,’ besides several domestic pieces in 
which striking effects of candle-light are admirably imitated: he 
painted also a picture of the Girandola, or the fireworks which are 
exhibited from the castle of St. Angelo at Rome on the eve of St. 
Peter’s day, and at other festivals of the Roman Church. 

When Wright was in Rome he made some drawings from the fres- 
coes of Michel Angelo in the Sistine Chapel, which are said to have 
preserved perfectly the character of those great works: he was an 
enthusiastic admirer of Michel Angelo. Mortimer and Wright were 
the first painters of recent times who successfully cultivated historical 
painting in England, or indeed perhaps the first Englishmen who 
excelled as historical painters. Neither Sir James Thornhill nor 
Hogarth can be corisidered as exceptions, for the former was chiefly 
an allegorist—the latter a satirist; and although both allegory and 
satire are perfectly compatible with historical painting as it is more 
strictly understood, they are not necessarily connected, and in these 
cases they were quite distinct from it. 

* WRIGHT, THOMAS, a native of the borders of Wales, but of a 
good Yorkshire family, was born on the 21st of April 1810. He was 
educated at Ludlow Grammar School, and at Trinity College, Cam- 
bridge, where he graduated B.A. and M.A. While still an under- 
graduate, he commenced his literary career by writing in ‘ Fraser’s 
Magazine,’ the ‘Foreign Quarterly Review,’ the ‘Gentleman’s Maga- 
zine,’ the ‘Literary Gazette,’ &c., to some of which he is still an 
occasional contributor. Eventually he devoted his attention specially 
to archxological studies, which he pursued with rare zeal and intelli- 
gence—not suffering his labours to be fritteréd away on a crude heap 
of miscellaneous fragments, but investigating in their principles, as 
well as minute details, the early English history, literature, popular 
opinions, and antiquarian remains, His papers on these subjects in 
the Transactions of learned societies, and still more his separate publi- 
cations, early secured him a high position among the antiquaries and 
literary men of this country, and a considerable reputation on the 
Continent. 

Mr. Wright was one of the founders of the Camden Society in 1838, 
of which he was the first honorary secretary. Subsequently he took 
an active part in the formation of other societies on a similar plan, 
as the Percy Society, of which he was for some time treasurer and 
secretary, and the Shakespeare Society. In 1845 he, in conjunction 
with Mr. Roach Smith, founded the British Archeological Association, 
and during several years edited its ‘Journal;’ but in 1849, along with 
the president (the present Lord Londesborough), and other leading 
members, he separated himself from it. He is a fellow of the Society 
of Antiquaries, to whose ‘ Archeologia’ he has been a frequent con- 
tributor. 

When the death of the Earl of Munster made a vacancy in one of 
the few places of correspondents to the Académie des Inscriptions in 
the Institute of France, Mr. Wright was elected to supply it by the 
largest majority.of votes known; he being, it is said, the youngest 
corresponding member who had been elected. His opponents were 
Mr. W. H. Hamilton (vice-president of the Society of Antiquaries), 
and Sir Gardner Wilkinson. It added to the honour that the two 
leading ministers of state (Messrs. Guizot and Thiers), M. Augustin 
Thierry (though then blind), and several other men of great literary 
reputation who rarely attended, went specially to vote for Mr. Wright. 
Many other learned societies of the Continent have also enrolled his 
name as one of their members, including the Société des Antiquaires 
de France, the Société Ethnologique of Paris, the Royal Society of 
Northern Antiquaries of Copenhagen, de Svenska Fornskrift Sillska- 
pet, Stockholm, &e. 

The following list of his separate works will sufficiently indicate the 
range of his studies and show his remarkable industry. Of the value 
of the works, it will be enough to say that, addressed as many of them 
are to the learned, they have taken their place, some of them (as the 
‘Biographia Britannica Literaria’) as admitted authorities on the 
subjects of which they treat, and others as standard editions of their 
authors :—1836, 4 small vols. of black-letter poetical tracts, edited for 
Pickering ; 1837, ‘ Galfridi de Monemuta Vita Merlini—Publié d’aprés 
les MSS. de Londres,’ 8vo, Paris; 1838, ‘Queen Elizabeth and her 
Times,’ 2 vols. 8vo; ‘Karly Mysteries, and other Latin Poems of the 
12th and 13th centuries,’ 8vo; ‘ Alliterative Poem on the Deposition 
of Richard IL.,’ post 4to (Camden Soc.) ; 1839, ‘The Political Songs of 
England, from the reign of John to that of Edward IL,’ post 4to 
(Camden Soc.) ; 1840, a new edition, with notes, of Fuller’s ‘History 
of Cambridge,’ 8vo; 1841,‘ Popular Treatises on Science written 
during the Middle Ages, in Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Norman, and English,’ 
8vo; *Reliquie Antique: scraps from ancient MSS,, illustrating 
chiefly early English Literature and the English Language,’ 2 vols. 8vo 
(edited with Mr. Halliwell); ‘The Latin Poems commonly attributed 
to: Walter Mapbss>post4te (Camden Soe.);.’ Political Ballads published 
ja England during-thie artetanane teen Bve4 Perey Sob.) 3! Spacit 
asens of)Christmias »Cayols ' from) MS. sources, poxt 8¥0(Pérey'Soei)3 


HG 


1842, ‘The Vision and the Creed of Piers Ploughman, with notes and 
a glossary,’ 2 vols, fep. 8vo; ‘A Collection of Latin Stories, illustrative 
of the History of Fiction during the Middle Ages,’ post 8vo (Perey 
Soe.) ; ‘Specimens of Lyric Poetry composed in England in the reign 
of Edward IL.,’ post 8vo (Percy Soc.); ‘Gifford’s Dialogue concer 


Witches,’ post 8vo (Percy Soc.); ‘The Autobiography of Joseph Lister,’ 


8vo; 1843, ‘Contemporary Narrative of the Proceedings against Dame 
Alice Kyteler, prosecuted for sorcery in 1324,’ post 4to (Camden Soc.); 

‘ Original Letters relating to the Dissolution of Monasteries,’ post 4to 
(Camden Soc.); ‘The Owl and the Nightingale, an early English 
poem attributed to Nicholas de Guildford,’ post 8vo (Perey Soc.) ; 
‘ The Chester Miracle Plays,’ 2 vols. 8vo (Shakespeare Soc.); 1844, ‘St. 
Patrick’s Purgatory ; an Essay on the Legends of Hell, Purgatory,’and 
Paradise, current during the Middle Ages,’ post 8vo (reprinted in 
America); ‘Anecdota Literaria: a collection of short poems in 
English, Latin, and French, illustrative of the Literature and 


of England in the 13th century, and more especially of the Condition — 


and Manners of the different classes of society, 8vo; ‘St. Brandan: 
a Medisval Legend of the Sea, in English verse and prose,’ post 8vo 
(Percy Soc.); 1845, ‘Memorials of Cambridge, plates by Le ie 
2 vols. royal 8vo; ‘The Archwxological Album, or Museum of National 
Antiquities,’ 4to; ‘The Seven Sages: a collection of Stories in Early 
English verse, from a manuscript at Cambridge, with Introduce’ 
Essay on Popular Stories,’ post 8vo (Percy Soc.); 1846, ‘ Essays on — 
the Literature, Popular Superstitions, and History of England in the 
Middle Ages,’ 2 vols. post 8vo; ‘Biographia Britannica Literaria, 
8vo: vol. i, ‘ Anglo-Saxon Period ’—vol. ii, ‘Anglo-Norman Period ;* 
‘The Religious Poems of William de Shoreham, vicar of Chart Sutton 
in Kent, temp. Edward IL,’ post 8vo (Percy Soc.) ; 1847, ‘The Canter- 
bury Tales of Chaucer, a new text with illustrative notes, 3 vols. post 


8vo (Percy Soc.) ; ‘Songs and Carols, from a MS. of the 15th century in — 
a private collection,’ post 8vo (Perey Soc.); 1848, ‘ England under the — 


House of Hanover, illustrated from the Caricatures and Satires of the 
day,’ 2 vols. 8vo; ‘Early Travels in Palestine, translated from the 
Latin, with notes,’ 12mo (Bohn’s Antiquarian Library); 1850, ‘Gualteri 
Mapes de Nugis Curialium,’ post 4to (Camden Soc.); ‘ Geoffrey 
Gaimar’s Anglo-Norman Metrical Chronicle of the Anglo-Saxon 

8vo; 1851, ‘ Narratives of Sorcery and Magic,’ 2 vols. 8vo ; 1852, ‘The 
Celt, the Roman, and the Saxon: a History of the Early Inhabitants 


of Britain, illustrated by the ancient remains brought to light by 


recent research,’ post 8vo; ‘The History of Ludlow and its Neigh- 
bourhood, forming a popular sketch of the History of the Welsh 
Border, 8vo; 1853, ‘The History of Ireland,’ 3 thick vols. in imp. 8yo, 
published in numbers, and completed in 1857; 1854, ‘ Wanderings of 
an Antiquary chiefly upon the traces of the Romans in Britain,’ fep. 8vo; 
‘The Travels of Marco Polo the Venetian—the translation of Marsden 
revised, with a selection of his notes’ 12mo (Bohn’s Antig. Lib.); 
‘Cambridge University Transactions, a collection of contemporary 
documents relating to proceedings in the University during the 
Puritan Controversies of the 16th and 17th centuries, 2 vols. 8vo; 
‘The Canterbury Tales of Geoffrey Chaucer,’ revised edition, in l vol. 
8vo; 1855, ‘The History of Fulke Fitz Warine, an outlawed Baron in 
the reign of King Jolin, edited from a manuscript preserved in the 
British Museum, with an English translation,’ post 8vo; ‘The History 
of Scotland,’ 3 thick vols. in imp. 8vo, published in numbers, and 
completed in 1857 ; ‘ Early Christianity in Arabia, an historical essay,’ 
8vo (written when the author was eighteen years of age); 1856, 
‘Johannis de Garlandia de Triumphis Heclesie libri octo. A Latin 
poem of the 13th century,’ 4to (Roxburgh Club); ‘The Vision and 
Creed of Piers Ploughman,’ revised edition, 2 vols. fep. 8vo; ‘ Songs 


and Carols, from a MS. of the 15th century in the British Museum, — 


post 8vo; 1857, ‘Dictionary of Obsolete and Provincial English,’ 


2 vols, 12mo (Bohn’s Philological Library); and ‘Miscellanea Graphica: — 


representations of Ancient, Medieval, and Renaissance remains in the 


possession of Lord Londesborough; the Historical Introduction by — 
Thomas Wright, post 4to. He has also completed ‘A Volume of — 


Vocabularies, illustrating the Condition and Manners of our Fore- 
fathers, &e., from the 10th century to the 15th, imp. 8vo; and ‘ Les 
Cent Nouvelles Nouvelles, publiées d’aprés le seul manuserit connu 
avec Introduction et Notes, par M. Thomas Wright,’ 2 vols. 12mo, 


Paris, both of which are just ready for publication; and he has in © 


progress a ‘History of France,’ imp. 8vo, which is in course of publi- — 
cation in numbers. 


* WRIGHT, THOMAS, whose praiseworthy endeavours to benefit J 
prisoners have earned for him the title of the ‘ Prison ieee 


was born in 1788. At an early age he went to work at Ormerod and 
Sons’ iron-foundry in Manchester, and continued in the same employ- 
ment for forty-seven years. His claim to public notice is the fact that 
for many years he has pursued with unremitting zeal and perseverance 
various plans for the welfare of criminals, visiting them in prison 


in Bie 4 
endeavouring to induée them to forsake an evil course of life, and — 
adopting measures to obtain employment for such discharged prisoners — 


as seemed desirous of prosecuting a course of honesty. Being fore- — 
man in one of the departments of the foundry his wages amounted to — 
81. 10s. per week; of this sum he was accustomed to give 27, to his 
wife for house expenses, devoting the remaining portion of his wages, 
antes Maen Of His time ashe could sp: 


péhdlPor prisoheis! with the Viswo 


‘ei |) 


from. a oto on 
g et OV .Vid pote 


¥ 
y 


=< =~ 


—— ee ee 


a 


837 WRIOTHESLEY, THOMAS. 


WROTTESLEY, LORD. 833 


society as possible. In the case of criminals sentenced to death, Mr. 


. Wright has been in the custom of visiting and conversing with them, 


and imparting to such as would receive it suitable religious instruction. 
These labours have been extended to prisons in London, and in many 
places throughout England and Scotland. Mr. Wright has also visited 
the hulks. Having for many years pursued this course without osten- 
tation, the attention of several influential and benevolent persons was 
at length drawn to the circumstances, and a subscription amounting 
to upwards of 3000/. was raised in 1852, chiefly in Manchester and 
Liverpool, and invested, so as to furnish a small yearly income to Mr. 
Wright, and thus enable him to devote his entire energies to his 
benevolent pursuits. Since that time he has continued to carry out 


~ his long-cherished plans on behalf of criminal outcasts; but, although 


now sixty-nine years of age, he by no means confines himself to one 
branch of effort. He has been the means of founding a Reformatory 
school for boys in Manchester, of which he is a director. He assists 
in the management of several Ragged schools, and is occasionally 
engaged on the Sabbath in preaching annual sermons on behalf of local 
Sunday schools and in aid of different religious bodies in Manchester. 
His self-denying and useful labours have secured for Mr. Wright the 
esteem of numerous persons in all parts of the empire. 

WRIOTHESLEY, THOMAS, the fourth Earl of Southampton, 
being the son of the Earl of Southampton who was engaged in Lord 
Essex’s conspiracy in the reign of Elizabeth, and the great-grandson of 
the first Earl of Southampton, Henry VIII.’s lord chancellor, was one 
of the most distinguished as well as zealous and constant supporters 
of Charles I. after the breaking out of the civil war, until that king’s 
death, and having transferred his devotion to the son, and rendered 
important services to Charles II. while in exile, was after the Resto- 
ration appointed lord high treasurer, and was, next to Lord Clarendon, 
the chief stay of the restored government until his death in 1667. 

Lord Southampton, as a member of the House of Peers, approved 
of the first proceedings of the Long Parliament, on its assembling in 
1640, in retrenching the royal prerogative: but left the popular party 
as did his friend through life, Lord Clarendon, at that time Mr. Hyde, 
in the course of the proceedings for attainting Lord Strafford. The 
connection between the father of Lord Southampton and the father 
of Lord Essex, the parliamentary commander-in-chief at the com- 
mencement of the civil war, has led Lord Clarendon to trace, in his 
eloquent sketch of Lord Southampton’s career and character, the 
early agreement and subsequent separation between the sons. “The 
great friendship that had been between their fathers made many 
believe that there was a confidence between the Earl of Essex and 
him; which was true to that degree as could be between men of so 
different natures and understandings. And when they came to the 
parliament in the year 1640, they appeared both unsatisfied with the 
prudence and politics of the court, and were not reserved in declaring 
it, when the great officers were called in question for great transgres- 
sions in their several administrations.” And then after speaking of 
Lord Southampton’s opposition to the bill of attainder against Lord 
Strafford, he proceeds :—‘ From this time he and the Earl of Essex 
were perfectly divided and separated, and seldom afterwards con- 
curred in the same opinion; but as he worthily and bravely stood in 
the gap in the defence of that great man’s (Lord Strafford’s) life, so he 
did afterwards oppose all those invasions, which were every day made 
by the House of Commons upon the rights of the crown or the pri- 
vileges of the peers, which the lords were willing to sacrifice to the 
useful humour of the other.” (‘Life,’ iii, 228.) When the king and 
parliament took up arms against one another, Lord Southampton 
zealously joined the king, by whom he was made a member of his 
privy council and a gentleman of his bedchamber. He was one of the 
king’s commissioners to treat for peace at Uxbridge, in 1645; and 
Lord Clarendon gives the following account of the zeal which he 
showed on this occasion :—“ He was naturally lazy, and indulged over- 
much ease to himself: yet as no man had a quicker apprehension or 
solider judgment in business of all kinds, so when it had a hopeful 
prospect, no man could keep his mind longer bent, and take more 
pains in it. In the treaty at Uxbridge, which was a continued fatigue 
of twenty days, he never slept four hours in a night, who had never 
used to allow himself less than ten, and at the end of the treaty was 
much more vigorous than in the beginning, which made the chan- 
cellor to tell the king when they returned to Oxford, that if he would 
have the Earl of Southampton in good health and good humour, he 
must give him good store of business to do.” After the king’s death, 
he compounded with the ruling powers and resided in England, at his 
estate near Southampton, and assisted the son of his late master, 
according both to Clarendon and Burnet, with liberal supplies of 
money. In the letters passing between Clarendon and the royalists 
in England immediately before the Restoration, there are several 
proofs of the high value set on Lord Southampton’s counsel and 
co-operation. ‘I do not undervalue any man,” says Clarendon in one 
of these letters, “when I say that my Lord Southampton is as wise 
aman as any the nation hath, as well as of honour superior to any 
temptation. I shall not need to desire you to communicate all things 
freely to him.” (‘Clarendon State Papers,’ iii., 750.) 

Immediately upon Charles II.’s return to England, while he stayed 
for two days at Canterbury on his way from Dover to London, Lord 
Southampton was made a member of his privy council: and before 


the end of the year 1660 was made lord high treasurer. Lord South- 
ampton’s high character for judgment and integrity gave a lustre to 
the administration, Ill health and the natural indolence of his dis- 
position led him to leave the business of the treasury chiefly in the 
hands of the secretary, Sir Philip Warwick. In the council he at first 
strongly advised the king stickling for a larger fixed revenue than that 
which was granted by the convention parliament, and afterwards was 
urgent in recommending economy in order to keep within the amount 
settled ; and in the House of Lords he showed himself more disposed 
to toleration of the Protestant dissenters than his friend and colleague 
Lord Clarendon. He died on the 16th of May 1667, of the stone, 
which had caused him great suffering for some years before his death. 
Mr. Pepys has the following entry in his diary, a day or two after his 
death ; “ Great talk of the good end that my Lord Treasurer made ; 
closing his own eyes, and wetting his mouth, and bidding adieu with 
the greatest content and freedom in the world: and is said to die 
with the cleanest hands that ever any lord treasurer did.” (Pepys, 
‘ Diary,’ iii,, 222.) 

Bishop Burnet has drawn the following sketch of this minister, 
whose incorruptness in an age of corruption is his chief title to be 
remembered. ‘He was a man of great virtue and of very good 
parts. He had a lively apprehension and a good judgment. He.had 
merited much by his constant adhering to the king’s interest during 
the war, and by the large supplies he had sent him every year during 
his exile; for he had a great estate, and only three daughters to 
inherit it. He was lord treasurer, but he soon grew weary of busi- 
ness, for as he was subject to the stone, which returned often and 
violently upon him, so he retained the principles of liberty, and did 
not go into the violent measures of the court. When he saw the 
king’s temper, and his way of managing, or rather of spoiling business 
he grew very uneasy, and kept himself more out of the way than was 
consistent with that high post. The king stood in some awe of him, 
and saw how popular he would grow, if put out of his service; and 
therefore he chose rather to bear with his ill-humour and contradiction 
than to dismiss him. .... Before the Restoration, the lord treasurer 
had but a small salary, with an allowance for a table; but he gave, or 
rather sold, all the subaltern places and made great profits out of the 
estate of the crown; but now, that estate being gone, and the Earl 
of Southampton disdaining to sell places, the matter was settled so 
that the lord treasurer was to have 8000/. a year, and the king was to 
name all the subaltern officers. It continued to be so all his time; 
but since that time the lord treasurer has both the 8000/. and a main 
hand in the disposing of these places.” (‘History of his Own Time,’ 
i, 173, ed. 1833.) 

Lord Southampton was married three times: first, to Rachael, 
daughter of Daniel, baron de Rouvigny, and sister to Henry, who 
was created by William’ III. Earl of Galway ; secondly, to Elizabeth, 
daughter and coheir of Francis, lord Dunsmore, afterwards Earl of 
Chichester; and thirdly, to Frances, daughter of William, duke of 
Somerset, and widow of Richard, viscount Molineux. (Banks ‘ Extinct 
Peerage,’ iii. 671.) 

*WROTTESLEY, JOHN, srconp LORD, M.A., F.R.A.S., President 
of the Royal Society. This nobleman is the eldest son of Sir John 
Wrottesley, Bart., of Wrottesley, near Wolverhampton, in Staffordshire, 
who was raised to the peerage as Baron Wrottesley. He was born on 
the 5th of August 1798, and graduated first class in mathematics at 
Oxford in 1819, being a member of Corpus Christi College. He suc- 
ceeded his father in the barony, on the 16th of March 1841. 

Taking much interest in practical astronomy, he became, as the 
Hon. John Wrottesley, an original member of the (Royal) Astronomical 
Society, and contributed various observations, chiefly of the stars, to 
its Monthly Notices and Memoirs. In the year 1829, he commenced 
the erection of an observatory at Blackheath, where he began to 
observe, assisted by Mr. John Hartnup (afterwards assistant secretary 
to the Royal Astronomical Society, and now astronomer of the obser- 
vatory at Liverpool), in the spring of 1831; having a transit-instru- 
ment by Thomas Jones, of 62 inches focal length, and clear aperture 
3% inches, and a clock by Hardy. Being provided with such means of 
making astronomical observations, he determined to fix upon some 
definite object, and steadily pursue that alone. He accordingly 
selected 1318 stars from the Astronomical Society’s Catalogue of 2881, 
being the stars of the sixth, and from that to the seventh magnitude 
inclusive, resolving to determine their right ascensions, observing, if 
possible, each star at least ten times. Having ascertained everything 
necessary to be known respecting the qualities of the instruments 
about to be employed, Mr. Wrottesley began the observation of his 
catalogue on the 9th of May 1831, and on the Ist of July 1835, the 
task was brought to a conclusion. The catalogue so produced em- 
bodies the results of 12,007 observations, exclusive of those of the 
stars required for comparison. It was read before the Royal Astro- 
nomical Society on the 11th of November 1836, and published in the 
Society’s ‘ Memoirs,’ vol. x. The council awarded the gold medal to 
the author, to whom it was presented by the president, the late Mr. F. 
Baily, at the annual general meeting of February 8, 1839, after he had 
delivered an appropriate address, in which he informed the society 
that when the requisite comparisons had been made with the positions 
of the same stars obtained at the public observatories—and every 
star in Mr, Wrottesley’s catalogue, he also stated, had undergone that 


WROTTESLEY, LORD. 


839 


WULSTAN. 840 


investigation—the result had shown that his catalogue was of first- 
rate importance, and entitled to implicit confidence. A supplemental 
catalogue of the right ascensions of fifty-five stars, also observed at 
Blackheath, appears in the 12th volume of the ‘Memoirs. At the 
annual meeting of 1841, Mr. Wrottesley was elected president, in 
which capacity, after his accession to the title of Lord Wrottesley, he 
delivered two addresses on the presentation of the gold medal to Pro- 
fessor Hansen, of Gotha, in 1842, for his researches in physical astro- 
nomy, and to Mr. F. Baily in the following year, for the experiments 
in which he virtually repeated the Cavendish experiments to determine 
the mean density of the earth. On April 29th, 1841, he had been 
elected a Fellow of the Royal Society. 

In the beginning of the year 1842, Lord Wrottesley resolved on 
erecting an observatory near his residence, Wrottesley Hall, and on 
the 29th of March in that year, the first stone was laid by his youngest 
son, the late Cameron Wrottesley, Lieut. R.E., who had distinguished 
himself by his mathematical attainments, and had begun his career as 
an astronomical observer, which was unhappily terminated by his being 
killed at the siege of Bomarsund in 1854. The observatory was 
designed to contain the transit-instrument with which the stars of the 
Blackheath catalogue had been observed, and an equatorial telescope, 
with apartments for the observer. The years which immediately 
succeeded the foundation of the Wrottesley Observatory, were employed 
in obtaining its position (N. Lat. 52° 37’ 23", Longitude West of 
Greenwich, in time, 8m. 53°57s.), and in observations with the equato- 
rial, which Lord Wrottesley communicated to the Royal Society, and 
which have been published in the ‘ Philosophical Transactions’ for 
1851. This communication is entitled ‘On the results of periodical 
observations of the positions and distances of nineteen of the Stars in 
Sir John. Herschel’s lists of the Stars favourably situated for the inves- 
tigation of Parallax contained in Part III. of the Phil. Trans. for 1826, 
and in Part I. for 1827.’ The inquiry to which it relates constitutes 
another example of the mode of doing good service to astronomy 
which Lord Wrottesley early prescribed to himself, and which he has 
steadily pursued. Sir J. F. W. Herschel had shown in the papers 
referred to, and again in his ‘Treatise on Astronomy,’ that if a star 
which is optically, though not physically, double (that is, one the 
component single stars of which appear in close proximity merely on 
account of their being nearly in the same line of sight, though at different 
distances from the eye, and not because, revolving about each other in 
orbits, they constitute a binary system), occupy a certain position with 
respect to the ecliptic, and one of the components be very much nearer 
the earth than the other, a considerable periodical and parallactic 
change will take place in their angle of position, or the angle made 
with the meridian, by a line drawn through both of them, and that the 
maximum variation from the mean position will occur at two opposite 
seasons of the year. Lord Wrottesley determined to devote his equa- 
torial to a good trial of this method of discovering parallax, and six 
years’ uninterrupted observing, from February 1843 to October 1849, 
by his assistant and himself, were given to the work. But the obser- 
vations were attended with great difficulties, and of sixty-nine double 
stars selected only forty-eight were observed, and only nineteen at 
both periods of the year. Of these again, the observations of five 
only deserved much attention, as exhibiting indications of parallax 
measurable by this method; but two of them, 32 Eridani and 95 
Herschel, Lord Wrottesley finally recommended to the notice of 
astronomers provided with adequate instruments for observing them. 

Thus the principal result of the labour and assiduity bestowed on this 
object, was the illustration of the practical difficulty of the method ; 
and it demonstrated the impolicy of further perseveratce, with the 
instrumental means of the Wrottesley Observatory, especially as in- 
struments had been erected, both at Liverpool and Oxford, pre- 
eminently suited to this class of observations. But the zeal which 
prompted the employment of so much time and force by one astro- 
nomer in the pursuit of a mode of research proposed to observers 
by another, deserves the commendation of every lover of science. 
The paper is worthy of attention in another point of view. The im- 
portance to the correction and advancement of knowledge, of recording 
failures, and imperfect success in research, has been insisted upon by 
the highest authorities; modern astronomers have been .conspicuous 
in acting on this principle, and have thus encouraged labourers in 
other departments to submit to the task so unpleasing to themselves, 
though so beneficial to their successors; and the candour with which 
Lord Wrottesley has estimated the amount of success obtained in this 
arduous inquiry, is equalled only by the devotion and skill displayed 
in making and discussing the observations. 

When the star-catalogue of the British Association appeared, he was 
anxious to perform the same office in respect to that most valuable 
publication which he had already undertaken and performed in refer- 
ence to the prior catalogue of the Astronomical Society. For this 
purpose he sélected 1009 stars, with the intention of obtaining at 
least five observations of each, being those stars which had already 
been observed at Blackheath, and had been discovered to possess 
proper motion, with others selected on various accounts. The obser- 
vations were begun on the Ist of January 1850, and concluded on the 
24th of December 1853. They were all made and computed by Lord 
Wrottesley’s assistant, Mr. Richard Philpott, an excellent transit- 
Observer, aided in the computations by his second assistant, Mr. 


Frederic Maton, who had charge of the equatorial. The results 
were communicated to the Royal Astronomical Society, read on the 
13th of January 1854, and published in vol. xxiii. of the ‘ Memoirs,’ 

On the resignation of the Earl of Rosse, Lord Wrottesley was pro- 
posed and chosen president of the Royal Society, at the anniversary — 
meeting of 1854, and has been re-elected to that office in 1855 and 
1856. Having thus been placed at the head of the most ancient and 
venerable of our British and scientific institutions, he availed himself 
of the first opportunity afforded him, according to established usage of 
addressing the Royal Society, at the Anniversary of 1855, of a 
review of some of the desiderata of science in this country, with 
respect both to the wants of the public and to the interest and 
encouragement of the nation and the government. In his address of 
1856, he resumed the consideration of the requirements and actual 
condition of scientific knowledge, in connection with the occupation of 
Burlington House by the Royal Society, in conjunction with the 
Linnean and Chemical Societies of London, to which an improved 
appreciation of science on the part of the existing administration had 
conduced. 

Lord Wrottesley married, on the 28th of July 1821, Sophia Elizabeth, 
third daughter of the late Thomas Gifford, Esq., of Chillington in 
Staffordshire ; and has had a numerous family, of whom two sons 
have lost their lives in their country’s military service, and another 
has served in the Crimea, in the late war. 

WULSTAN, otherwise WULFSTAN, or sometimes WOLSTAN. 
Of these names, which appear to be only variations the one of the 
other, there are three Anglo-Saxon ecclesiastics and writers of more or 
less celebrity. 

1. Wotsran, a monk of Winchester, of the tenth century, to whom 
all the three forms of the name are given, is the author of a Latin 
prose Life of Bishop Ethelwold, whose disciple he had been, and also 
of a work in Latin hexameter verse (with a prologue in elegiacs) on 
the miracles of St. Swithin. The former, which is a very poor com- 
position, is printed in the 5th seculum of Mabillon’s ‘ Acta Sanctorum 
Ordinis S. Benedicti,’ folio, Paris, 1685, pp»608-624. Of the latter 
only the introduction has been printed (in the same volume, pp. 628- 
635); but the whole is preserved in several manuscript copies. The 
verse, though not of much merit, has the reputation of being the best 
Latin poetry known to have been produced in England in that age. 
William of Malmesbury, who calls Wolstan a cantor of the church of 
Winchester, says that he also composed an exceedingly useful work 
on the Harmony of Tones; but that is no longer extant. Bale says 
he wrote a Life of King Ethelwulf, which is probably a mistake. 

2. WULFSTAN, who was not a monk, became archbishop of York in 
1008, holding along with that dignity the bishopric of Worcester, as 
had also been done by his two immediate predecessors, and died in 
1023. There is extant in manuscript a letter addressed by him in 
Anglo-Saxon to the people of his province; and he is supposed by 
Wanley, on probable grounds, to be the Lupus Episcopus to whom are 
attributed certain sermons or homilies of this age written in the same 
language. The most remarkable of these is printed, with a Latin 
translation and notes by William Elstob, in the ‘ Dissertatio Episto- 
laris’ contained in the third volume of Hickes’s ‘ Thesaurus,’ folio, 
1705, pp. 99-106; and there is also a separate edition of the same 
matter, published, in folio, at Oxford, in 1701. There are two pastoral 
letters in Anglo-Saxon written in the name of Wulfstan, by one (which 
one is matter of dispute) of the two Alfrics, with both of whom he 
appears to have been well acquainted: they are stated to have been 
first composed in Latin, and then, at Wulfstan’s desire, to have been 
translated into Saxon, that they might be more generally useful, 

3. WuLstan, bishop of Worcester, is stated by his biographer, 
William of Malmesbury, to have been born at Icentun in Warwick- 
shire, to a fair estate; the name of his father was Ethelstan, that of 
his mother Wulfgiva. From the age he is stated to have attained at 
his death, his birth must have happened in 1007 or 1008. He began 
his education in the monastic school of Evesham, but was afterwards 
removed to the more distinguished seminary of Peterborough. Having 
at the usual age been ordained a presbyter, he soon after became a 
monk at Worcester, and gradually rose to be at last prior of the 
monastery there. In 1062 he became bishop of Worcester on the 
nomination of Aldred, who, having been two years before removed — 
from that see to the archbishopric of York, had attempted at first, as — 
had for some time been customary, to retain both appointments, but 
was at last obliged to relinquish Worcester in consideration of only — 
being permitted to name his successor. He chose Wulstan, it is said, 
conceiving that his mild temper and simple character would prevent — 
him from offering any resistance to his patron’s appropriation of the 
estates and aggressions upon the rights of the see. But this turned 
out to be a great mistake. Wulstan proved a very dragon of a bishop, 
and, especially after the coming over of the Norman conqueror, to 
whom he very politically paid court, and who took a great fancy to 
him, he not only set Aldred at complete defiance, but even compelled 
his successor, Archbishop Thomas, to make restitution to the see of 
Worcester of sundry lands or pecuniary dues of which it had been 
despoiled by his predecessors the prelates of York. He also success- 
fully resisted the claim of the archbishop of York to a jurisdiction 
over the diocese of Worcester, and got that bishopric declared by the 
king to be in the province of Canterbury. Wulstan continued in the 


Oe a eer oe. 


41 WURMSER, COUNT OF. 


WYATT, JAMES, 842 


same favour with Rufus which he had enjoyed with his father; and in 
the beginning of the new king's reign, old as he was, he proved very 
serviceable in putting down an insurrection of the adherents of Duke 
Robert of Normandy, defending his city of Worcester against an army 
of the rebels led by Roger de Montgomery. Wulstan almost rebuilt 
the cathedral of Worcester from the foundation; and he died in that 
city, at the age of eighty-seven, on the 19th of January 1095, 
Wulstan is not known to have written anything either in Saxon or 
Latin, though William of Malmesbury states that he was a ready and 
effective speaker in the former language; but in the work entitled 
‘Ancient History, English and French, exemplified in a regular dissec- 
tion of the Saxon Chronicle,’ 12mo, London, 18380, an attempt is made 
to show that he was the author of the portion of that venerable 
record extending from 1034 a.p, to the end of the reign of William 
the Conqueror. There are two accounts of Wulstan by William of 
Malmesbury : one in his work ‘De Gestis Pontificum;’ the other a 
separate Life, in three books, which is published in the second volume 
of Wharton’s ‘ Anglia Sacra.’ 

(Wright's Biographia Britannica Literaria, vol. i.) 

WURMSER, DAGOBERT-SIGISMUND, COUNT OF, a distin- 


-guished Austrian general, was born on the 22nd of September 1724, in 


Alsace—the territory which now constitutes the French departments 
of the Upper and Lower Rhine. He commenced his military career 


in the French service, and having distinguished himself by his courage 


in the campaigns of 1745-46-47, was raised to the rank of captain in 
the cavalry. His father having resolved to settle in the Austrian 
states, and become an Austrian subject in 1750, Dagobert resigned his 
commission and accompanied him, Such emigrants from the French 
Rhine provinces were at that time far from uncommon: the Alsatians, 
though French subjects, were then unmixed Germans; indeed the 
century which has since elapsed has only stripped their character of 
its German nationality, without giving them a French one. 

Dagobert-Sigismund Wurmser was well received at Vienna. Maria 
Theresa conferred upon him the office of gentleman of the bed- 
chamber (Kammerherr), and, what he valued more, a troop of hussars, 
which he continued to command throughout the whole of the Thirty 
Years’ War. After the battle of Prague he was made Major; after that 
of Lissa, Colonel; after that of Hochkirchen, Major-general ; and after 
that of Leignitz he obtained the cross of the order of Maria Theresa. 
His kind disposition and generosity rendered him the idol of both 
the officers and men under his command. There is a story told of 
him illustrative of these features of his character. Hearing, after the 
battle of Gorlitz, that a brave but poor lieutenant of cavalry had lost 
his horse in the action, Wurmser sent him one of the best in his 
stables, with a message to the effect that, having sworn this horse 
should belong to one of the bravest men in the army, he begged his 
acceptance of it. In 1773 Wurmser became proprietary colonel of 
the regiment of hussars which subsequently bore his name; and, 
when the war broke out again in 1778, he was raised to the-rank of 
Lieutenant-general, At the head of a body of 12,000 men, he broke 
into the territory of Glatz, and on the 18th of January 1779, surprised 
the Prussians at Kubelschwerd and defeated them, taking 1200 pri- 
soners. The peace of Tetschen arrested his victorious career, and 
the collar of commander of the order of Maria Theresa was the reward 
of his exploits during that short campaign. 

In 1787 he was appointed general-commander of the province of 
Galicia, and although the inhabitants were extremely averse’to the 
Austrian yoke, he contrived to make himself a personal favourite. 
The Emperor Joseph bestowed upon him the appointment of feld- 
zeug-meister (master of the ordnance when the army was in the 
field). Wurmser was not employed in the war against the Turks 
in 1789. : 

The period of Wurmser’s career which obtained for him a European 
reputation commenced. in 1793. In February of that year he was 
ordered to draw together an army in the Breisgau. By the end of 
the month he was in a condition to advance. On the 3rd of March 
he entered Mannheim and Spire; and attacked the rear-guard of 
Custine, who retreated to Landau. Wurmser pursued him as far as 
Landau, which he summoned, but without effect. Falling back upon 
the Rhine, Wurmser joined the Prince of Condé at Spire; and having 
effected a junction with the Prussian army of observation under the 
Duke of Brunswick, he took up a position at Germersheim to assist 
in covering the siege of Mayence. After the capitulation of Mayence, 
Wurmser again pushed forward his corps to the environs of Landau; 
attacked the fort of Jocknum, and advanced to the base of the Vosges. 
On the 13th of October, in concert with the Duke of Brunswick, he 
attacked and forced the lines of Weissembourg. Wurmser pursued the 
French into his native province ; occupied Hagenau; bombarded Fort 
Louis, which capitulated on the 14th of November; took up a posi- 
tion on the Sarre; and pushed on his outposts to Wantzenau in the 
vicinity of Strassburg. The miscarriage of an attack by his right on 
the bridge hampered him considerably; and the Prussians having 
failed to take Landau, be was left entirely to his own resources. 
Pichegru, who had been placed at the head of the army of the Rhine 
in October, and who had judiciously adopted a war of outposts, sharp- 
shooters, and sudden surprises well adapted to the brave but raw 
troops under his command, when opposed to steady old disciplined 
troops, harassed him incessantly. Wurmser was obliged to retire 


within the lines which he had established on the Motter during his 
advance. The fort of Frischweiler, defended by the elector-palatine, 
was forced on the 22nd of December, and nothing prevented the 
French from overwhelming Wurmser. His men gave way in utter 
confusion at all points, and he was only able to collect the wreck of 
his army on the right bank of the Rhine. Having succeeded in the 
course of January 1794, in re-establishing something like organisation 
among them, hg hastened to Vienna, where the emperor by numerous 
marks of his esteem sought to express his conviction that Wurmser’s 
reverses were owing solely to the faults of others. 

Six months later Wurmser was again appointed to command the 
army of the Upper Rhine. An accident revealed to him the secret of 
the correspondence between the Prince of Condé and Pichegru. That 
Austria should have made no effort to turn that negociation to account 
was not surprising. In the sincerity of the republican general that 
power could have little confidence, and in the judgment of the Prince 
of Condé still less. Besides the anxiety of Condé and Pichegru to 
keep their intercourse a secret from the Austrian government was of 
itself suspicious. The conspiracy was allowed by Wurmser, the Arch- 
duke Charles, and the cabinet of Vienna to take its course, and it led 
to nothing but its very natural termination in the ruin of the general 
who had intrigued with the enemies of his country to subvert the 
government from which he held his commission. Wurmser defeated 
the French on the banks of the Neckar, on the 28th and 29th of 
October 1794, and entered Mannheim; the citadel surrendered after a 
bombardment which lasted a few days. 

On the Ist of January 1796, Wurmser received the grand cross of 
the order of Maria Theresa. Hostilities did not recommence that 
year till the month of May. On the 15th of June Wurmser gave way 
before the attack of Moreau and abandoned Frankenthal. The 
Austrian cabinet, which had relinquished the idea of assuming the 
offensive in Alsace and on the Rhine, ordered him to move thirty 
thousand of the best troops in the army under his command without 
delay upon the north of Italy. An opponent full of the impetuosity 
of youth and the resources of genius awaited the sexagenarian here. 

On the 29th of July Wurmser advanced towards Mantua, He 
drove in the French outposts on the Lago di Garda; but Bonaparte, 
having abruptly broken up the siege of Mantua to precipitate himself 
on his adversary, met and beat him at Lonato on the 8rd of August, 
at Castiglione on the 5th, then at Roveredo, and on the 8th at the 
gorges of the Brenta. The Austrian general far from despairing made 
an attempt upon Verona; but, repulsed by General Kilmaine, he 
retreated along the Adige with 5000 foot and 15,000 cavalry; and, 
after evading two French divisions detached to watch his motions, 
threw himself into Mantua. This place was vigorously and skilfully 
defended by Wurmser; but the defeat of the troops under Alvinzy, 
want of provisions, and sickness among the garrison, forced him to 
surrender on the 2nd of February 1797. Bonaparte, with that 
chivalrous spirit which marked his early career, left the veteran entire 
personal liberty, saying that he respected his years, and did not wish 
to make him the victim of the intriguers who would doubtless avail 
themselves of his absence to undermine him at Vienna. Wurmser 
repaid the generosity of the French general in kind ; having detected 
a plot. to poison Bonaparte, he put him upon his guard. 

On Wurmser’s return to Vienna, the emperor appointed him 
governor of Hungary, with a salary of 14,000 florins. He did not 
however survive to take possession of his government, dying at 
Vienna in the month of June 1797. He was never married: his 
estates and honours were inherited by a nephew. 

WYATT, JAMES, an architect, who occupies a conspicuous place 
in the history of the art in this country during the latter part of the 
18th and the beginning of the 19th century, was born in 1746, at 
Burton Constable in Staffordshire, where his father was both a farmer 
and a dealer in timber. At an early age James Wyatt was introduced 
to Lord Bagot, who, being then about to set out for Italy as ambas- 
sador to the pope, took him with him, from which it is probable that 
his lordship was struck by some symptoms of extraordinary talent, to 
take charge of a boy of fourteen in order to afford him the opportu- 
nity of pursuing studies which he could then hardly have commenced. 
Arrived at Rome, young Wyatt spent three or four years in that city, 
examining and measuring the principal monuments of ancient archi- 
tecture, but, it would seem, without imbibing any taste for its modern 
ones, since no traces of it are discoverable in his own works. On 
quitting Rome he proceeded to Venice, where he studied for two 
years more under Vincentini, an architect and painter, and then 
returned to England, after being absent altogether about six years, 
that is, till about 1766 or 1767. Whether his early patron continued 
to notice, or helped to push him in his profession, we are unable to 
say ; neither do we know with whom the scheme of the Oxford-street 
Pantheon originated, or whether Wyatt had actually executed any- 
thing previously to being employed upon that building, which was 
finished and opened in 1772; but it at once stamped his celebrity, 
and he thenceforth became the ‘fashionable’ architect of the day. 
“The Winter Ranelagh of the metropolis,” as Walpole calls it, estab- 
lished under the auspices of high fashion, and itself the fashion and 
the rage as a place of amusement, was admired of course by all who 
pretended to taste or good breeding. It was fitted up in a style of 
splendour till then unprecedented in this country, and was eminently 


843 WYATT, JAMES, 


WYATT, MATTHEW DIGBY. ‘Bit 


attractive as the resort and rendezyous of the gay world; yet how far 
it merited all the encomiums passed upon it as a work of architecture, 
it is now hardly possible to decide. Of the original structure nothing 
now remains except the front towards Oxford-street, rebuilt after the 
fire, and subsequently altered; nor, though it was esteemed a master- 
piece, has any publication of the original designs preserved to us an 
authentic memorial of Wyatt’s Pantheon. There exist indeed views 
of the great room, or ‘rotunda,’ but they are such that very little 
reliance is to be placed upon them; and even were they satisfactory 
in themselves, they furnish very imperfect information; nor 1s more 
to be obtained from description, nothing deserving to be so called 
having been written at the time. : 

Greatly as it was admired, the Pantheon did not procure for Wyatt 
a second opportunity of distinguishing himself in the metropolis by 
any other building of note, either public or private. Commissions 
poured in upon him, but all from different parts of the country, and 
chiefly for private residences, the majority of which hardly aspired to 
the character of mansions. Taken collectively, that class of his works 
affords stronger evidence of extensive practice than of superior talent. 
Considered individually, their architectural merit is of a negative kind, 
As houses they are commodious and not without a certain air of dig- 
nity ; but when looked at, they show themselves to be the works of 
an able builder rather than an architect, and exhibit far more of 
clever mannerism and of uniformly respectable mediocrity than 
of style or artist-like treatment, they being nearly all variations of the 
same design. James Wyatt was a degree or two less frivolous than 
Adam, yet hardly more dignified; nevertheless it must be acknow- 
ledged that we are greatly indebted to both of them, if not for the 
taste, for the superior accommodation and the refinement of comfort 
which they introduced into our domestic architecture. Wyatt's 
Grecian style, admired in his own day for its then almost proverbial 
‘ simplicity ’ and chasteness, now strikes us as being extremely jejune 
and bare, and not so marked by as deficient in that artistical simplicity 
which results from uniform finish throughout, perfect harmony of 
character, and unity of expression. There is more of the pretty than 
of the beautiful, of the neat than of the elegant, of the plain than of 
the simple, in his so-called Grecian or Greco-Italian style; nor could 
it perhaps be better described than as a sort of genteel commonplace. 
Probably he would have done more in his art had he been employed 
on fewer works, for the multiplicity of his professional engagements 

revented him from bestowing much study on the respective designs. 

t has been recorded of him as matter for admiration that he was in 
the habit of improvising his designs while travelling in his carriage 
to the places he was about to be employed at; no wonder therefore 
that so many of them present such sameness and poverty of ideas, and 
so very little study, being apparently little more than first hasty 
sketches, with hardly any revising. 

Accustomed to this specious commonplace and indolent fertility, 
he could scarcely rise above it on occasions which either demanded 
or afforded opportunity for achieving something really noble. His 
design for Downing College, Cambridge, where however he was not 
eventually employed, was animadyerted upon in a letter from Mr. T, 
Hope to the architect himself, as. being altogether unworthy of the 
occasion. Neither did Chiswick inspire Wyatt with any kindred 
feeling, for though the wings which he added to the house rendered 
it more commodious as a residence, they sadly marred its original 
grace as a finished gem of Palladian architecture. 

About the time of James Essex’s death (1784), the only architect 
of the period who had shown any knowledge of Gothic architecture 
‘in regard to its details, if not its principles, Wyatt began to turn his 
attention to that style, which he studied in the original examples. 
There was indeed then hardly any other course to be pursued, for 
there were no publications, as at present, to initiate the student into 
it, and facilitate his progress by exhibiting specimens of it in all its 
manifold varieties. What architects of the present day find delineated 
and measured for them on paper, and always ready for reference, 
Wyatt had to draw and measure for himself; it is therefore highly to 
his credit that under such circumstances, and amidst so many other 
ayocations, he gained the insight into it which he did; and that he 
attained to correctness in his details and individual features, though 
not to a clear perception of the spirit and true character of the style. 
Very great allowance is therefore to be made for him, and it is scarcely 
fair, poor as his designs are, to call him, as one who is himself dis- 
tinguished by his knowledge of that style has done, “James Wyatt of 
execrable memory.” 

His first essay in that style was Mr. Barrett’s at Lee near Canter- 
bury (1783), and it was for the architect as happy a hit in its way as 
the Pantheon had been, Extolled by Horace Walpole, it served to 
bring thenceforward into vogue for modern residences a style of 
Gothic comparatively admired at thé time, but what would now be 
termed ‘mongrel,’ tolerably correct in particular features and details 
~—even those however too ecclesiastical, ill applied, and put together 
without regard to propriety of character. From that time Wyatt 
became “the restorer of our ancient architecture,” and he certainly 
stood singly without rival or equal. However little merit criticism 
may now award to any of his productions of that class, we are cer- 
tainly in no small degree indebted to him for the practical revival of 
Gothic, although we now perceive that he did not adopt the best 


course. In the way of making alterations and ‘improvements’inthe : 


older edifices in that style, he was extensively employed at some 


of the colleges at Oxford and at the cathedrals of Salisbury and 


Lichfield; but his works at these places have since been considered 
rather ‘destructions’ than ‘restorations,’ and even at the time occa- 
sioned very strong remonstrances. In that splendid caprice, Fonthill — 


Abbey, erected for Mr, Beckford, and now dismantled, there was more ~ | 


of magnificence than propriety of character: instead of being palatial, 


the edifice was modelled externally after a church, and eyen assuch 


by no means happily in its general form and proportions. While en- 

gaged upon it he su Sir W. Chambers, in 1796, as surveyor- 

general, which led to his being employed at Woolwich and the House 

of Lords, and by George IIL at Windsor Castle and at Kew, where he 

began to erect for the king a castellated palace, never completed, and 

since happily entirely demolished, In 1802, on West’s retiring from 
the office of President of the Royal Academy, Wyatt became his suc- 

cessor, to the no small dissatisfaction of that body. He was how- 

ever not very long seated there, for the following year West was 

re-elected. : 

After this, scarcely any particulars have been recorded of his life, 
although materials for a full professional biography of him may 
possibly be in existence. He himself has left none by publishing 
any of his numerous designs, whereby authentic memorials would have 
been preserved to us of the Pantheon and some other works of his. 


Of Fonthill we have illustrations in two works, the one by 


Britton, 
the other and more complete one by Rutter; yet both together do 
not afford satisfactory architectural information. Wyatt died Sep- 
tember 5th, 1813, in consequence of being overturned in a ames 
while travelling from Bath to London. He left a widow, who 
vived him till January 27th 1817, and four sons, one of whom, Ben- 
jamin, was the architect of Drury Lane Theatre. We subjoin a list, 
which, though scanty and imperfect, may be found convenient as far 
as it goes, notwithstanding that several dates require to be supplied : 
1770-2, Pantheon, Oxford-street, London (burnt down, January 14th 
1792). 1778, Doric Gateway, Canterbury Court, Christchurch, Oxford. 
1783. Lee, in Kent, 1786, Observatory, Oxford. 1788. Library, 
Oriel College, Oxford : Ionic. 1789. Salisbury Cathedral: alterations. 
1789. Balliol College, Oxford: alterations. 1795. Fonthill Ab 
begun, 1796. Military Academy, Woolwich: castellated. 1797. 
Designs for alterations at Magdalen College, Oxford. 1800. Windsor 
Castle: alterations. 1800. House of Lords. 1801. Designs for 
Downing College, Cambridge. Castle Coote, Ireland: Grecian. Cashio- 
bury. Ashridge. Gothic Palace at Kew, now demolished. Mauso- 
leum at Cobham, Kent. Mausoleum at Brocklesby, Lincolnshire. 

*WYATT, MATTHEW DIGBY, architect and writer on decora- 
tive art, was born at Rowde, near Devizes, Wilts, in 1820, the son 
of Matthew Wyatt, Esq., late police magistrate of Lambeth-street 
Police Court. He was educated at Devizes until he was sixteen years 
old, when he entered the office of his brother Mr. Thomas Henry 
Wyatt, the architect, and commenced the study of his profession. 
Within a year he gained a prize given for the best essay on ‘Grecian 
Doric’ given by the Architectural Society. In 1837 he became a 
student at the Royal Academy. In 1844 he went abroad, and studied 
hard for rather more than two years, bringing home with him on his 
return nearly a thousand drawings from the principal monuments of 
architecture and decoration in France, Italy, Sicily, and Germany. 
The most elaborate of these were a series of ‘Specimens of the 
Geometrical Mosaics of the Middle Ages,’ which were published in fac- 
simile in 1848, accompanied with a ‘Historical Notice of the Art,’ 
founded upon papers read by the author before the Royal Institute of 
British Architects, the Archzological Institute, and the vrai of 
Arts. Through his connection with the last-named body, Mr. Wyatt 
became interested in the practical improvement of manufactures, and 
was led at various times to communicate -to the society the following 
papers in addition to one on mosaics ;—‘ On enamels and enamelling ;” 
‘On metal-work generally;’ ‘On the Paris Exposition of 1849;? 
and ‘An Attempt to define the Principles which should determine 
form in the Decorative Arts.’ The last-mentioned formed one of the 
series proposed by Prince Albert “On the Results of the Exhibition 
of 1851.” 

For two years after his return from abroad, Mr. Wyatt was closely 
occupied in the intervals of his professional engagements in wri 
for the press generally. In 1848 he re-arranged and decorated the 
Adelphi Theatre. In 1849 he went down to Birmingham for the 
‘Journal of Design’ to study the Exhibition of Manufactures held at 
Bingley House, the immediate precursor of the Great Exhibition. He 
was immediately afterwards despatched to Paris by the council of the 
Society of Arts to examine and report upon the Exposition held there 
in that year; he also undertook to prepare reports of it for various 
journals and periodicals, Mr, Wyatt went with Mr. Cole [Coxs, 
HENRY} to Paris, where they were joined by Mr. Francis Fuller, who, 
with Mr. John Scott Russell, had been in communication with Prince 
Albert with respect to a corresponding exhibition in England. Messrs. 
Cole and Fuller returned to England to start the scheme, find capi- 
talists, &c., leaving Mr. Wyatt to complete the materials for an 
elaborate report on French experience in the matter. 

On his return to London Mr. Wyatt was nominated as secretary, 
and Messrs. Fuller and Coles commissisoners by Prince Albert, to 


845 WYATT, MATTHEW DIGBY. 


WYATT, SIR THOMAS. 846 


ascertain the views of manufacturers and others with respect to a 
great national exhibition; and on that errand they visited and can- 


. vassed the principal seats of manufacture in the kingdom, holding 


public meetings in many, and gathering good assurances of support. 
The results of their work they carried to Balmoral, and received 
authority to commence the enterprise. In the arduous labours which 
preceded the appointment of the Royal Commission Mr. Wyatt took 
an active part, and when that issued he was formally confirmed in the 
office of secretary to the executive committee, in which capacity he 
continued to act until the building committee demanded his exclusive 
attention. His professional knowledge was found eminently useful to 
the commissioners, and he was employed to superintend the works, 


_ make all the necessary contracts, regulate accounts, &c. Work amount- 


ing in cost to upwards of 50,000/. was directed by him as architect, 
under the supervision of Sir William Cubitt. On the completion of the 
undertaking Mr. Wyatt had the honour of receiving from Prince 
Albert his private gold medal, with a letter commending his services 
from the beginning; he also received a bonus of 1000/7. in addition to 
his salary from the Royal Commissioners. For the Catalogue of the 
Exhibition Mr. Wyatt wrote a popular account of the construction of 
the building, and for the Institute of Civil Engineers (of which he is 
an Associate) a more elaborate account, for which he was rewarded 
with their Telford medal. In 1850 he formed the acquaintance of 
Mr. Brunel, who entrusted him with the duty of co-operating with 
him in designing the new station of the Great Western Railway at 
Paddington, the waiting-room for her majesty at Windsor, and various 
other works. 

On the opening of the Great Exhibition Mr. Wyatt undertook, at 
the request of Messrs, Day and Son, an important work upon its con- 
tents. This work ‘The Industrial Arts of the xixth century,’ in 2 
vols. folio, with 160 plates in chromolithography, involved no mean 
amount of labout. While carrying it on however, he found time to 
bring to a close another work, the preparation of which had been com- 
menced many years previously, and for which; while abroad, he had 
made many drawings and extensive collections: ‘ Metal Work and its 
Artistic designs,’ in 1 vol. folio, with 50 coloured plates. He also 
designed a memorial window in stained glass, erected to the memory 
of William Huskisson by his widow in the summer of 1852. About 
the same time he became actively interested in the Crystal Palace 
Company. With Sir Joseph Paxton and Mr. Owen Jones he went 
into the several questions connected with the designs, arrangement, 
&c., of the present structure, as well as the objects by which it should 
be made interesting and instructive. In August 1852 he started on a 
tour with Mr. Owen Jones to collect works of art from the principal 
museums, &¢., of Europe, and backed by a credit of 20,0002. and 
Foreign Office credentials, met with unexpected success. On his 
return, after four months’ incessant labour, he started through England 
to collect casts of medieval sculpture, &c. With Mr. Jones he then 
set to work on the Fine Art Courts and arrangements of the Crystal 
Palace, which were sufficiently completed for the opening to take 
place on the 8rd of June 1854. The principal works falling exclu- 
sively tnder Mr. Wyatt’s control were the Queen’s Screen, the 
Pompeian House, the Court of Christian Monuments, and the Byzan- 
tine, Medieval, Renaissance, and Italian Courts. To the latter four 
he prepared, in co-operation with Mr. J. B. Waring, a series of hand- 
books. For, Messrs. Day and Son he also produced a work in 4to, 
‘The Crystal Palace and Park.’ 

In the same year he received her Majesty’s commands to design a 
memorial to the late Mr. Neeld, and to restore the chancel of North 
Marston Church, Bucks. In 1855 he took charge of the department of 
English stained glass at the Paris Universal Exhibition for the Board 
of Trade; and was employed by the East India Company to design 
and superintend the arrangements of their display. On the opening 
of the Exposition he was appointed (in conjunction with the Duke of 
Hamilton) juror for class 24 (furniture and decoration), The duties 
of the office having been discharged, he was desired to report upon 
the department by the English government. The report, which was a 
somewhat detailed one, was subsequently published by the Board of 
Trade. At the close of the Exhibition Mr. Wyatt was nominated a 
chevalier of the Legion of Honour for services rendered to industry 
and the arts.” In the latter part of the year, with his brother Mr. 
Thomas Henry Wyatt, he competed for the premiums offered to all 
the world by the War Department for the best designs for barracks, 
and was fortunate enough to obtain the first premium for cavalry. 
About the same time he wrote an historical ‘Essay on Ivory carving,’ 
which was published with photographic illustrations by the Arundel 
Society, for whom he also got up an exhibition, and delivered a lecture 
at the Crystal Palace (subsequently published) on the works of Giotto 
at Padua, &e. For these services he was elected an honorary member 
of the society. 

Shortly after his return from Paris, Mr. Wyatt was applied to by 
the East India Company to co-operate with their regularly appointed 
architect in preparing designs for additional accommodation to be pro- 
vided for their museum at the India House; and on the sudden 
demise of that gentleman in 1856 Mr. Wydtt was appointed to the 
office he had held. For the Company, since that date, he has executed 
in this country many works of considerable importance, including in 
addition to the above, barracks for about 400 men ; a military hospital 


for 100; extensive drainage works, a church, a large drill shed, &c., 
and several elaborate surveys. For India he has co-operated with 
the late Mr. Rendel in the design of several great bridges, viz. the 
Saone, Keul, and the Hullohur, while for the East India Company he 
has designed an iron church with 900 sittings for Rangoon, and a 
general post-office and electric telegraph station of large extent for 
Calcutta. 

Tn the summer of 1856 Mr. Wyatt was invited to become honorary 
secretary to the Royal Institute of British Architects, to which he 
had at different times made various communications, and of which, as 
well as of the Royal Society of Antiquaries, he was a Fellow. In 
the autumn of 1856 he wrote two essays on ‘Renaissance’ and on 
‘Italian Ornament,’ for Mr. Owen Jones’s magnificent work, ‘The 
Grammar -of Ornament.’ He is now preparing a contribution on 
‘Metallic Art’ for Mr. Waring’s important publication on the Manches- 
ter Exhibition. Mr. Wyatt was an exhibitor of drawings in water- 
colours at the Universal Exhibitions both of London and Paris, gaining 
at the former a prize medal with commendation for “good taste in 
designs generally,’ and at the latter a first class medal. We have 
given a bald statement of Mr. Wyatt’s many important labours: but 
they speak so amply for themselves that any commendation of them 
would be not merely superfluous but misplaced. 

WYATT, RICHARD J., an eminent sculptor, was born in Oxford- 
street, London, on the 3rd of May 1795. Having chosen sculpture as 
his profession, he was placed as a pupil with Charles Rossi, R.A.; and 
about the same time he entered the Royal Academy as a student. 
During the seven years which he served with Rossi, he twice carried 
off medals at the Royal Academy. He afterwards worked for a short 
time in the atelier of Bosio at Paris, and he completed his professional 
education under Canova, whose acquaintance he had formed in 
London, and who kindly invited him to Rome, and offered him his 
advice and assistance in the prosecution of his studies. Inthe atelier 
of Canova, he had Gibson for a fellow-student, and the friendship here 
formed between the young students, who were ultimately to rank 
together as the first English sculptors in Rome, remained unbroken 
through life. With Canova Wyatt likewise retained the warmest 
friendship, till the death of the great Italian master. Wyatt went to 
Rome in 1821, and ke made that city his permanent abode, only once 
making a brief visit to his native country in 1841. He died suddenly 
at Rome on the 29th of May 1850, 

Wyatt was a man of singularly gentle unassuming temper, and quiet 
retiring habits. His whole life was spent in the diligent prosecution 
of his profession—at which he laboured often from dawn till near 
midnight. The number of his works is very great, and they are of a 
very unusual order of merit. He was greatest in poetic and classic 
subjects, in which he displayed a fertility and grace of invention, a 
singular elegance of thought, and a degree of finish beyond most of his 
contemporaries. He was undoubtedly one of the purest and most 
refined of our poetic sculptors. His figures, and especially his female 
figures, are beautifully modelled, always posed with grace and anima- 
tion, and always present pleasing forms from whatever side they are 
viewed. His draperies too are invariably well cast, and he expresses 
textures truly, yet without breach of sculpturesque propriety. As 
examples of his style may be mentioned his statues of ‘A Nymph 
entering the Bath’—one of the most beautiful of his many versions of 
which, was that executed for Lord Charles Townshend; ‘Nymph 
leaving the Bath;’ ‘Shepherdess with a Kid;’ ‘Shepherd Boy;’ 
*Glycera; ’ Musidore;’ ‘ Bacchus;’ and ‘Penelope,—an exquisite 
statue executed for her Majesty; and his admirable groups of the 
‘ Nymph Eucharis and Cupid ;’ ‘Ino and Bacchus ;’ * Nymph of Diana 
taking a thorn from a greyhound’s foot;’ and ‘A Huntress with a 
Leveret and Greyhound ’—his last work. He also produced many 
excellent portrait busts, some relievi, and monumental sculpture. At 
the Great Exhibition of 1851, several of his works were exhibited, 
and the medal for sculpture was awarded to him, though dead. Mr. 
Wyatt was not a member of the Royal Academy, a bye-law of that 
institution rendering artists ineligible unless resident in England. 
Casts from several of Wyatt’s works—including most of those named 
above—are in the Crystal Palace at Sydenham. 

WYATT, SIR THOMAS, called ‘the Elder,’ to distinguish him 
from his son, the subject of the next article, was born at Allington 
Castle in Kent, in the year 1503. His father, Sir Henry Wyatt, the 
representative of a family of some consequence, originally from York- 
shire, appears to have bettered his worldly fortune by attaching him- 
self to the rising fortunes of Richmond, afterwards Henry VII. He was 
imprisoned in the Tower, in the last years of Richard III., and treated 
with great severity. Immediately after the battle of Bosworth, he was 
liberated, and must have been early placed by Henry in situations of 
emolument, for in 1493 he was able to purchase the castle of Allington. 
He was one of the executors of Henry’s will, and appears to have 
enjoyed as much favour from the son as from the father. He obtained 
a grant of part of the estates of Empson, the first that were forfeited _ 
to the crown in the reign of Henry VIII. He survived till 1538. 

Nothing is known of the tenor of Thomas Wyatt's life previous to 
his being entered of St. John’s College, Cambridge, in 1515, when he 
was twelve yearsold. He took his bachelor’s degree in 1518, and pro- 
ceeded to his Master’s degree in 1520. The next incident in his life, 
the knowledge of which has been preserved, is his participation ina 


847 WYATT, SIR THOMAS. 


WYATT, SIR THOMAS. 848 


magnificent feat of arms performed before the king at Greenwich, at 
Christmas, 1525. He was then one of the gentlemen of the king’s 
bedchamber. He was married by this time to Elizabeth, daughter of 
Brook, Lord Cobham. The year of his marriage is not known, but 
his eldest son Thomas was born either in 1521 or 1523, A long 
interval of seven years, entirely barren of events, succeeds, In 1532 
he was one of Anne Boleyn’s train when she went from Dover to 
Calais a short time ‘before her marriage; and in July 1533, we find 
him officiating for his father as ewerer at her coronation. 


This meagre array of incidents merely indicates that Wyatt was a_ 


young gentleman who had been well educated; early “ settled in 
life” by marriage; and introduced at court under the auspices of a 
father who had influence enough to obtain for him appointments 
suited to his age. He had already obtained some reputation as a poet, 
for Leland, in some Latin verses addressed to him from Paris, com- 
pliments him on his compositions, In person he was strong, but 
elegant; with fine features, a penetrating eye, and a mouth of singular 
sweetness. He was dexterous in the use of arms; he sung, played 
well on the lute, and he spoke French, Italian, and Spanish with 
fluency. His readiness at repartee is a constant theme of his contem- 
porary eulogists. ; 

There is much perplexity in the accounts of the danger in which he 
was involved on account of Anne Boleyn. So contradictory are the 
statements, that it is impossible to decide at what time he was 
placed in peril, and whether as friend or foe of that lady. Fuller's 
“Sir Thomas Wyatt fell, as I have heard, into King Henry’s disfavour 
about the business of Anne Boleyn, till by his industry, innocence, and 
discretion he extricated himself”—admits of either interpretation. 
Judging by Henry’s character, it seems more probable that Wyatt 
fell into temporary disgrace from having shown his aversion to the 
match, than from his having been suspected of too much intimacy 
with the lady. Anne Boleyn, it may be observed, was executed in 
May 1536; on the 18th of March of that year Wyatt was dubbed a 
knight by the king; and in 1537 he was with the king’s sanction 
nominated high sheriff for Kent at a period of considerable danger. 

The remaining part of Wyatt’s life was passed in the toils of diplo- 
macy and anxieties of court intrigue. In April 1537, he was appointed 
to succeed Pate as Henry’s minister at the Spanish court. He re- 
mained at Madrid till the beginning of 1538. In May he was sent 
back to Spain (Bonner being joined in commission with him); in June 
he followed the emperor Charles V. to Nice on his expedition to meet 
the Pope and Francis I.; in July he was with Charles at Barcelona. 
In April 1539, he was recalled, but was detained in Spain till June. 
The principal service he performed for his king during his Spanish 
mission was keeping him informed of the intrigues of the court. The 
indifferent reception that Cardinal Pole experienced at the hands of 
Charles V. at this time was attributed to the dexterous management 
of Wyatt. He had urgently solicited to be recalled for nearly a year 
before he could obtain his wish. His desire to return to England was 
excited in part by the necessity of looking after his family concerns, 
his father having died about this time; and in part by the necessity 
of being at hand to meet the charges brought against him by Bonner. 
The distaste he entertained for Spain was probably occasioned in a 
great measure by the anxious state of his mind. All his verses written 
at this time are in a desponding tone. When not engaged in business 
he employed himself in corresponding with his son, or in superintend- 
ing the education of a young person of the name of Baker, recom- 
mended to his care by Wriothesly, or in composing verses. He mixed 
little in society; his principal associates were the ambassadors of 
Venice and Ferrara. , 

He was not allowed to remain long unemployed. Towards the close 
of 1539 the emperor began his journey through France into the 
Netherlands, and ia November Wyatt was appointed ambassador- 
extraordinary to the imperial court, with instructions to join Charles 
on his road through France. Wyatt joined the emperor at Blois, on 
the 11th of December, accompanied him to Paris, and left that city on 
the same day with him (7th January), proceeding direct to Brussels, 
there to await his arrival. He continued in attendance on the court 
at Brussels and Ghent till about the middle of May, when he returned 
to England. Wyatt had zealously seconded Cromwell in promoting 
the match between Henry and Anne of Cleves. During his residence 
in the Netherlands he consistently advocated the policy of supporting 
the duke of Cleves and the Protestant princes of the empire. By this 
course he ran counter to the inclinations of the king, and, in common 
with Cromwell, lost favour with him. 

Wyatt had grown averse to business, having been disgusted with 
the falsehood of the statesmen with whom he had to deal;! but 
prudence had also a share in his resolution to retire from his diplo- 
matic career. He was aware that Cromwell’s enemies were gaining the 
ascendancy, and knew that the fall of the minister would involve his 
own. He was not mistaken. Although Henry received him on his 
return in a manner that seemed to imply satisfaction with his conduct, 
he was arrested, towards the close of 1540 or the beginning of 1541, 
on the old charges of Bonner, which had been understood to be 
departed from. Although neither allowed to cross-examine Bonner’s 
witnesses nor produce any of his own, he was acquitted, about the 
month of June 1541. On the 10th of July following he obtained a 
grant of lands in Lambeth from the king; in 1542 he was created 


High Steward of the king’s manor of Maidstone ; and in the same year 
he received additional valuable grants. These favours would seem to 
imply that Henry was convinced of his loyalty and satisfied with his 
services. 

The brief remainder of his life was spent in retirement at Allington. 
He has himself informed us that when the season permitted he was used 
to hunt and hawk ; that in the depth of winter he was fond of shooting 
with his bow; and that when the weather confined him to the house, 
he devoted himself to study or the composition of verses. In October 
1542, he was unexpectedly summoned to attend the king, and, eager 
to show his zeal, overheated himself in his hasty journey. He was 
seized in consequence with a fever at Sherborne, and died there on 
the 11th of the month. 

Wyatt was one of the most elegant and accomplished courtiers of 
his age; and a statesman of great sagacity, dexterity, and integrity. 
There were four reasons, it is remarked by Lloyd, why men went ‘ 
dine with him :—“ first, his generous entertainment ; secondly, his free 
and knowing discourse of Spain and Germany, an insight into whose 
interests was his masterpiece, they having been studied by him for his 
own satisfaction as well as from the exigency of the times; thirdly, 
his quickness in observing, his civility in entertaining, and his 7 
ness in encouraging every man’s peculiar parts and inclinations; and 
lastly, the favour and notice with which he was honoured by the 
king.” Wyatt has left writings both in verse and prose, His amatory 
verses are, in regard to matter, much like other amatory verses. 
Their language, though less fluent than that of modern ballad-mongers, 
who have a language made rhythmical to their hand, is sufficiently 
polished to entitle him to be regarded as one of those whose works 
mark the progress of the language. His satires have more of matter 
in them, and more of nerve in the versification. The first is remark- 
able as containing the earliest English version of the Town and Country 
Mouse. Of Wyatt’s prose writings, his letters on state business show 
much shrewdness; his letters to his son exhibit a pure, elevated, and 
well disciplined mind. Taking into account the time at which he 
wrote, his prose has always struck us as more to be admired than his 
verse. 

WYATT, SIR THOMAS (the Younger), only son of the preceding, 
was born in 1520, or at the latest in January 1521. He was married 
to Jane, daughter of Sir William Hawke, of Bourne in Kent, in 1536 
or 1537, when he could not have been more than fifteen or sixteen 
years old. It has been conjectured that his father was induced to 
settle him thus early in life with a view to give greater stability to a 
character which threatened to be unsteady. The supposition is ren- 
dered plausible by the tone of two letters addressed by the father to 
the son a year or two after the marriage, which have been published 
by Mr. Nott. 

In October 1542, Wyatt succeeded to his father’s estates, and before 
little more than a year had elapsed, executed a deed (discovered by 
Mr, Cayley in the Augmentation Office), which further corroborates 


the suspicion of the wildness of his youth—an alienation of his estate 


of Tarrant in Dorsetshire in favour of Francis Wyatt, his natural son 
by the daughter of Sir Edward Dorrel, of Liddlecote. In April 1543 
he had been imprisoned for assisting the Earl of Surrey in breaking 
the windows of the citizens of London at night with stones shot from 
a crossbow. Surrey gravely said in after-life that his intention was, 
by frightening the citizens through the sudden and mysterious break- 
ing of their windows, to turn them to repentance; but this ingenious 
defence, if alleged before the privy council, availed neither himself nor 
his accomplices Wyatt and Pickering. 

After his release from the Tower, Wyatt raised a body of men at 
his own expense, and did good service with them at the siege of Land- 
recy. It appears from the statements of Churchyard that the military 
talents of Wyatt were soon acknowledged. Early in 1545 he was placed 
in command at Boulogne, and constantly employed against the French 
in that quarter. When Surrey was appointed governor of Boulogne 
in September 1545, Wyatt was made one of the council. “I assure 
your majesty,” Surrey wrote to Henry VIII. respecting Wyatt, “you 
have framed him to such towardness of knowledge in the war, that, 
none other dispraised, your majesty hath not many like him in your 
realm for hardiness, painfulness, and circumspection, and natural dis- 
position to the war.” Wyatt continued to hold his situation at Bou- 
logne after Surrey’s recall, and even, it has been assumed, till the 
place was finally given up to the French in 1550. 

During the latter part of the reign of Edward VI, Wyatt appears 
to have lived chiefly at Allington. The part he took immediately after 
the king’s death is ambiguous. Sir John Bridges subsequently re- 
proached him in words which seem to imply that he had appeared in 
arms in favour of Lady Jane Grey; but Wyatt in his defence before 
the privy council asserted that “he had served the queen against the 
Duke of Northumberland, as my lord of Arunde! can witness,” 

In the year 1554, when the Spanish match was in agitation, Wyatt 
was persuaded to take the command of the Kentish men in the rising 
concerted with the Duke of Suffolk. The other conspirators were sur- 
prised before they could proceed to action, but Wyatt with his forces 
having gained some considerable advantages over the royalists, pushed 
on to Southwark. An attempt to surprise Ludgate on the 7th of Feb- 
ruary failed, and he with one or two of his followers were separated 
from the body of his troops and takenin Fleet Street. His conduct 


az ’ at 
ee 


EE ——eEE—EEeeeEEeeeEeEeEeEE 


849 WYATVILLE, SIR JEFFRY. 


WYCHERLY, WILLIAM. 850 


at the moment of his capture, as narrated by Stow, gives him the 


' appearance of one who had completely lost his self-possession. He 


was not tried till the 15th of March, and he is accused during the 
interval of having implicated Elizabeth and others by his confessions, 
in a way neither creditable to his courage nor his fidelity. When 
however the attorney-general charged him on his trial with having 
brought the Lady Elizabeth in question, he replied, ‘‘I beseech you, 
being in this wretched state, overcharge me not, nor make me seem 
to be that Tam not. I am loth to accuse any person by name, but 
that I have written I have written.” He was executed on the 11th of 
April. 

"ir Thomas Wyatt appears to have been a zealous Protestant in 
theory, although religion does not seem to have exercised much prac- 
tical influence on his conduct. In his youth he appears to have been 
rather wild than licentious. He was possessed of strength and address, 
and that kind of courage which carries a man with éclat through a 
battle-field, but breaks down under adversity and imprisonment. His 
tone when taken prisoner at Ludgate, and on his trial, was that of a 
man bewildered and borne down by his reverses. He does not appear 
to have possessed any of his father’s literary talent. It is probable 


__ however that he had some taste for letters, or was at least capable of 
taking pride in his father’s distinction. 


The Harrington manuscript, 
quoted by Mr. Nott (‘Works of Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, and 


‘of Sir Thomas Wyatt the Elder’), contains Sir Thomas Wyatt's (the 


Elder) poems in his own handwriting, arranged into two classes, and 
numbered by his son, who had also copied into the volume two letters 
of advice which his father sent him from Spain. 

WYATVILLE, SIR JEFFRY, nephew to James Wyatt [Wryart, 
James], and son of Joseph Wyatt, was born August 3, 1766, at Bur- 
ton-upon-Trent, in Staffordshire, at the free-school of which place he 
received his education. At school he appears to have been of truant 
disposition, and was so far from displaying any predilection for studies 
connected with his future profession, that he was bent upon going to 
sea, and made two attempts to do so, the first at the age of twelve, 
the second about two years afterwards, but on both occasions he was 
pursued and brought back. At the age of seventeen he was to have 
gone out with Admiral Kempenfeldt, in the Royal George, but being 
prevented from joining the vessel in time, he escaped the fate which 
awaited it at Spithead. Thus thwarted, he betook himself to the 
metropolis in the hope of finding some opportunity of entering into 
the naval service, but as the American war had terminated, no such 
opportunity offered. 

These disappointments however were all so many turns of good- 
fortune, which reserved him for higher fortune and distinction than 
he might else have obtained. He was not left a friendless adventurer 
in the metropolis: his uncle Samuel, an architect and builder of 
some note and considerable practice (who erected the Trinity House, 
London ; Heaton House, Lancashire; Tatton Hall, &c.), took him into 
his office for seven years, At the end of that period, in the course of 
which he had become fully acquainted with the routine and business 
of his profession, he served a sort of second apprenticeship with his 


“other uncle James, and it was no doubt from him that he imbibed a 


preference for Gothic and Old English architecture. While with his 
uncle James, he was brought into contact with several persons of high 
rank and influence, and among others his future royal patron, then 
prince of Wales. 

No great encouragement however, at least no opportunities seem to 
have been held out to him at that time from that quarter; for in 
1799 he accepted the proposal made him by an eminent builder (Mr. 
John Armstrong) who had extensive government contracts, to join in 
business with him. The line of business he now engaged in was 
eminently respectable and lucrative; still it proved for about twenty 
years abar to his admission into the Royal Academy as a member of 
that body, nor perhaps altogether improperly. It did not however 
prevent his being employed very extensively as an architect by many 
noblemen and gentlemen in various parts of the country, either in 
improving and making additions to their mansions or erecting new 
ones. Nearly all his works are of this class, however varied in them- 
selves, with the exception of the new front of Sidney Sussex College, 
Cambridge (1833). He was not therefore so much known by repute 
to the public generally, as he might have been, had he been employed 
on buildings more open to notice. 

It.seems to have been unexpected by himself when he was sum- 
moned to Windsor by George IV. in 1824; and perhaps it occasioned 
some surprise in others, when it was first announced that Mr. Jeffry 
Wyatt was to be the architect employed in remodelling the Castle— 
such an opportunity for the display of talent as had not till then been 
offered to any one in the profession for fulla century. The works 
were set about immediately after the approval of the architect’s plans, 
the first stone of ‘King George IV’s Gateway ’ (forming the principal 
entrance into the quadrangle on the south side, in a direct line with 
the long walk) being laid by the king himself on the 12th of Augyst 
1824; on which occasion Wyatt was guilty of the absurdity of adding 
“by royal authority,” the silly appendage “ville” to his name, in 
order to distinguish himself from the other architects named Wyatt. 
On the king taking possession of the private apartments, December 9, 
1828, he was knighted. The completion of the alterations at Windsor 
Castle occupied him almost exclusively for the remainder of his life, 

BOG. DIV, VOL. VL 


during which he resided chiefly at Windsor, within the precincts of 
the Castle, in what is called the Wykeham Tower, at the western 
extremity of the north terrace; and where, after suffering for the last 
five years of his life under an asthmatic complaint, he died, February 
18, 1840, in his seventy-fourth year, and was buried in St. George’s 
Chapel. Sir Jeffry had been a widower thirty years, having lost his 
wife (Miss Sophia Powell) in 1810; and of their three children, 
Augusta, the youngest and favourite daughter, died at Windsor, in 
1825; and George Geoffry in 1833; Emma (Mrs, Hambly Knapp) 
alone surviving him. 

It was the architect's good fortune to behold his great work brought 
to completion by himself, at a cost of over 700,0001., and it was his 
intention to publish the designs, which he directed to be done by his 
executors, under the superintendence of Mr. H. Ashton. The work 
was accordingly brought out on a magnificent scale in two volumes, 
large folio, 1841, and forms, as regards the exterior of the Castle, one 
of the most complete and elaborate series of illustrations ever pub- 
lished of any single edifice, but is nevertheless defective, inasmuch 
as, with the exceptions of the plans, there is nothing to afford any 
information with regard: to the interior, which, if not exactly what 
Sir Jeffry wished to make it, contains much that would have been 
interesting both to professional men and the public. 

It is further to be regretted that of his other works no authentic 
illustrations have been published in any shape, not even of the princely 
seat of Chatsworth, to which he made very extensive additions during 
the last twenty years of his life. He was also employed at Longleat 
Castle, Wilts, Wollaton Hall, Notts, and completed Ashbridge, the 
seat of the earl of Bridgewater, which had been begun by James 
Wyatt; lodges and other buildings in Windsor Park; a temple at 
Kew; and alterations at Bushy for the queen dowager. 

WYCHERLY, WILLIAM, son of Daniel Wycherly, Esq., of Cleave, 
in Shropshire, was born about 1640. In his fifteenth year he was 
sent to travel in France, probably because his father's loyalist opinions 
rendered him doubtful of the universities at that time. He does not 
appear to have returned to England till a short time before the 
Restoration. He resided, during the greater part of his stay in 
France, on the banks of the Charente. The Duke of Montausier was 
at that time governor of Angouléme, and Wycherly was favourably 
received at the court of his duchess, Julia d’Angennes Rambouillet, 
celebrated in Voiture’s letters, ‘‘ This little court, learned and strict 
(savante -et prude), must,” says a French biographer, “have given 
lessons of propriety to the young Englishman, of which he made only 
an indifferent use.” At the time, the tone of that court certainly did 
exercise considerable influence on the mind of Wycherly, for during 
his residence in France hé solemnly abjured the Protestant faith, and 
was received into the bosom of the Roman Catholic Church. 

On his return to England, Wycherly was entered as a student of law 
in the Middle Temple. It would appear however, from a passage in 
Wood’s ‘ Athenz Oxonienses,’ that he was previously sent for a short 
time to Oxford to be reconciled to the Anglican Church. At that 
university he “ wore not a gown,” only lived in the lodgings of the 
provost of his college, was entered in the public library under the title 
of Philosophie Studiosus, in July 1660, being then about twenty years 
of age. He departed without being matriculated, or a degree con- 
ferred on him, having been by Dr. Barlow reconciled to the Protestant 
religion. 

It is not easy to trace with certainty Wycherly’s career from 1660 
till 1669 or 1670, when he produced his first play. The accounts of 
his favour with Charles II., intrigue with the Duchess of Cleveland, 
his introduction to Buckingham, and his intimacy with Rochester, are 
all derived from conversational gossip. It is sufficiently apparent how- 
ever that he possessed means which enabled him to mingle with the 
gay world on a footing of equality, and that, forgetful of the lessons of 
the “petite cour savante et prude,” he conformed to the manners of 
the time. Major Pack states that the family estate was worth 600/. a 
year in the time of Wycherly’s father. 

Wycherly’s first play, ‘Love in a Wood, or St. James’s Park,’ was 
produced after May 1669, and before November 1671, with a success 
which enabled him to take rank as one of the leading wits of the day. 
His three other plays were all equally fortunate. ‘The Gentleman 
Dancing-master’ appeared about the close of 1671; the ‘Plain Dealer’ 
in 1674; and the ‘Country Wife’ in 1678. The plays however 
appear to have been composed some time before they were acted—in 
1659, 1661, 1665, 1671. There is much wit in these productions, but 
more manly common-sense expressed in racy English. Their licen- 
tiousness will prevent their ever again becoming popular. The im- 
pression produced on Wycherly by the severe decorum of the Duchess 
of Montausier’s court had been completely obliterated by the licentious 
society in which he had subsequently mingled. But his intellect, 
though familiarised with impurity, had not been enervated. He had a 
strong and just perception of character, and expressed it with vigour 
and felicity. 

Several years after the appearance of ‘The Plain Dealer,’ Wycherly 
encountered the Countess of Drogheda, a young, rich, and beautiful 
widow, at Tunbridge. They met in a bookseller’s shop. The lady 
came to inquire for ‘The Plain Dealer,’ and the master of the shop 
presented Wycherly to her as the real plain dealer. This must have 
been subsequent to June 1679, when the earl died, saci were soon 

I 


851 WYCLIFFE, JOHN DE. 


WYCLIFFE, JOHN DE. i) 


after privately married. The lady was (probably not without good 
reason) distractedly jealous. Dennis relates that their lodgings were 
in Bow-street, Covent Garden, opposite the Cock Tavern, and if at any 
time he entered that place of refreshment with his friends, he was 
obliged to leave the windows open that she might see there was no 
woman in the company. Of course a pase of this disposition would 
feel considerable reluctance to trust her husband at the court. The 
unfrequency of Wycherly's appearance there gave umbrage, and lost 
him the favour of Charles. ( 

The countess did not long survive her marriage. She settled her 
whole estate upon Wycherley, but the settlement was disputed after 
her death, and, ruined in his circumstances by legal and other 
expenses, he was thrown into prison. There he lay several years. It 
is said that he was at last relieved by James IL, who, having gone to 
see ‘ The Plain Dealer’ acted, was so delighted, that he was induced to 
give orders for the payment of the author's debts and settling a pen- 
sion of 200/,a year on him, The story has an apocryphal air. It is 
certain that Wycherly in after-life returned to the Romish Church, 
and this, with some remains of court influence, is more likely to have 
attracted to him the munificence of James, . 

Wycherly did not profit by the king’s liberality to the full extent, 
for, ashamed to confess the amount of his debts, he understated them. 
His pension dropped at the Revolution. His father’s estate, to which 
he succeeded some years later, was strictly entailed, and the income 
was attached by his creditors, A more decorous, if not a more 
virtuous generation had risen up, and Wycherly’s strain of wit was no 
longer the fashion. He continued to struggle with his difficulties till 
1715, the year of his death. Eleven days before that event, in the 
eightieth year of his age, he was married to a young woman with a 
fortune of 1500. What attractions such a match could possess for 
the lady it is difficult to imagine. He contrived to spend a good deal 
of her money; but repaid her on his death-bed by the judicious 
advice, “ not to take an old man for her second husband.” 

In 1704 Wycherly published a volume of poems, to which he pre- 
fixed an engraving from his picture painted by Sir Peter Lely in the 
prime of life. Below this portrait he inserted the motto ‘Heu quan- 
tum mutatus ab illo!’ A volume of poems, and ‘moral reflections,’ 
which he had in part prepared for the press, was published post- 
humously in 1728, by Major Pack, who prefixed a very slovenly and 

“meagre memoir of the author. Wycherly’s poems are defective in 
rhythm, and have not much of what is properly called feeling in 
them; but they are not unfrequently characterised by his vigorous 
common-sense. Some of his ‘ moral reflections’ are terse and pointed. 

(Major Pack’s Memoirs of William Wycherly, Esq. ; Dennis’s Letters ; 
Biographia Britannica. Leigh Hunt's biographical notice of Wycherly 
in Moxon’s edition, and the review of the notice in the Atheneum ; 
and before drawing any conclusions from the Wycherly Letters as 
published by Pope, the literary student would do well to see what is 
said on the subject in the Athencewm for October 8, 1857.) 

WYCLIFFE or WICLIF (two of the most common among about 
twenty variations of the spelling), JOHN DE, appears to have been 
born about the year 1324, and, according to the most probable account, 
was a native of the parish of the same name, situated about six 
miles from the town of Richmond in Yorkshire. The tradition of 
the place makes him to have been a relation of a family of the name 
of Wycliffe, or De Wycliffe, who were lords of the manor and patrons 
of the rectory from the Conquest down to the year 1606, when the 
property passed by the marriage of the heiress into a family of another 
name. The earliest fact that is known respecting Wycliffe is, that he 
was one of the students first admitted at Queen’s College, Oxford, 
which was founded in 1340. He soon however removed to Merton 
College. He is said to have applied himself with diligence and success 
to the study of the civil, the canon, and even the common law ; but 
the departments of learning in which he acquired the greatest dis- 
tinction were scholastic philosophy and divinity. The chronicler 
Knighton, who on every occasion evinces and openly expresses the 
keenest aversion to Wycliffe’s doctrines and proceedings, admits that 
he was esteemed the most eminent theological and philosophical 
doctor of his time, and that in the employment of the scholastic dia- 
lectic he had no equal. 

Wycliffe’s first publication, as commonly stated, is a tract entitled 
‘The Last Age of the Church,’ which is inferred from internal 
evidence to have appeared in 1356. It was printed for the first time 
with a preface and notes by the Rev. James Henthorn Todd, D.D., 
Dublin, 16mo., 1840, from the only known manuscript in the Univer- 
sity library, Dublin, in which shape it fills thirteen or fourteen short 
pages, making altogether not much above two hundred lines, For 
anything that this performance can add to the reputation of Wycliffe, 
it might have been left in oblivion; it is an attempt to prove that the 
world would come to an end with the then current century, grounded 
principally on the prophecies attributed to the Calabrian monk 
Joachim (who lived in the 12th century, and whose own calculation 
was that the end of the present system would happen in 1260), 
and on a cabalistic computation from the letters of the Roman 
alphabet, which appears to be the writer’s own. These dreams of 
Wycliffe seem to have arisen out of the impression left by the great 
pestilence which desolated Europe in 1348. Dr. Todd however has 
ventured in his preface (pp. xii-xv., and notes, p. lxxxi,) to suggest a 


; return home, he was presented by the king to the prebend of Aust in 


doubt whether the tract can with perfect certainty be assigned to 
Wycliffe, and also whether the passage from which the date of its _ 
publication or composition has been inferred is conclusive as to that 
matter. f 

It is affirmed by all Wycliffe’s biographers that he began to dis- 
tinguish himself by his writings against the Mendicant Ordersabout 
the year 1360. The fact may be so, but the earliest testimony toit, 
we believe, is that of Anthony Wood, who may have derived his — 
knowledge from the records of the University of Oxford. There is 
nothing upon this subject among the extant writings attributed to 
Wycliffe which can be assigned to nearly so early a date. Thestate- 
ment however is in itself very probable: the contest between the 
Mendicants and the University was at its height about 1360; and — 
about the same time Wycliffe appears to have been in high fayour at — 
the university; for in 1360 or 1361 he was made warden or master of 
Balliol Hall (as Balliol College was then called), and in the 
of 1361 he was presented by that society to the rectory of Fyling- 
pan a Fillingham, a living of considerable value, in the diocese of 

incoln. 

In 1365 Wycliffe appears to have resigned the mastership of Balliol — 
for that of Canterbury Hall, then recently founded by Archbi 4 
Islep. He was put into this place by the archbishop in December — 
of that year, in the room of a monk named Henry de Wodehall, who 
had been originally appointed, but whose turbulent conduct had com- — 
pelled the founder to remove him. In 1366 however Islep was suc- — 
ceeded in the primacy by Simon Langham, who had been himself a 
monk; and then a process was commenced with the object of ejecting — 
the secular warden from Canterbury Hall, on the pretence that his — 
nomination had taken place when Islep was incapacitated by weak- — 
ness both of body and mind for the transaction of business. It 
appears that Wyeliffe’s appointment was pronounced void by thearch- 
bishop ; that a person named John de Radyngate was in the first 
instance substituted in his place; but that, within a month after, 
Wodeball was restored. Wycliffe appealed against the sentence to the — 
pope, but it was confirmed by his holiness in 1370; and in 1372it 
was further ratified by the king, Edward III. 

It is singular that Mr. Webb Le Bas (in his‘ Life of Wiclif,’ Lon., 
8vo, 1832) should in an elaborate argument entirely constructed eH ¢ 
a comparison of dates (pp. 121-123) have assumed that Wycliffe’s — 
appeal to Rome in this cause was made in 1365. It is correctly stated, 
only a few pages before (p. 117), that Archbishop Islep died in 1366, — 
and that the proceedings in the case were commenced.under his sue- 
cessor Archbishop Langham, Wyclifie’s appeal was certainly not — 
made till 1367, in the month of May of which year Wodehall was — 
restored. Instead therefore of his suit having been then two years 
pending, as Mr. Le Bas argues, it had probably not commenced when ~ 
Wycliffe was, in 1367, publicly challenged by a monk to defend the 
decision of parliament that the king should not do homage to the — 
pope; a challenge which, as is stated by Mr. Le Bas, he promptly — 
answered. His reply to the monk is printed, from a manuscript in 
the Lambeth library, by Lewis, ‘Life of Dr. John Wiclif, Papersand 
Records, No, 30. It is in Latin, being entitled‘ Determinatio quedanr 
Magistri Johannis Wyclyff de Dominio contra unum Monachum;’ and ~ 
in it the author calls himself the king’s own chaplain (‘ peculiaris _ 
regis clericus’). He protests that, as an humble and obedient son of 
the Roman church, he desires to assert nothing injurious to the said 
church, or that could reasonably offend pious ears. 3 

In 1368, while his suit at Rome was certainly depending, he ex- 
changed his living of Fillingham for that of Ludgershall, in the same 
diocese, but in the archdeaconry of Bucks, which was of less value, — 
but was recommended to him by being nearer Oxford. In 1372, 
having taken his degree of D.D., he publicly professed divinity and — 
read lectures in it in Oxford University. This “he did,” Lewis con- — 
tinues, “with very great applause, having such an authority in the 
schools that whatever he said was received as an oracle. la these 
lectures he frequently took notice of the Corporation of the g 
friars, which at first he did in a soft and gentle manner, until, i 
that his detecting their abuses was what was acceptable to his hearers, 
he proceeded to deal more plainly and openly with them.” Some of 
his treatises that survive were probably written about this time, but 
there is no positive evidence to that effect. os 

The next fact in his history that is ascertained is his appointment, — 
in July 1374, as one of the members of a legation sent by Edward III. — 
to Pope Gregory XI. then residing at Avignon, to treat with his 
holiness about the practice of papal provision and other abuses against 
which the English parliament had recently passed several laws and 
resolutions, more especially the Statutes of Provisors and Premunire = 
in 1350, The circumstance that Wycliffe’s name stands second in the 
royal commission (the first name being that of John, bishop of or) 
may be taken as attesting the high public reputation to which he ‘a 
by this time risen. The seat of the conferences was fixed at Bruges; — 
the negociation resulted in a very partial mitigation of the evils com- 
plained of ; but Wycliffe is supposed to have had his aversion to the — 
then prevalent ecclesiastical system considerably sharpened by his ex- 
perience of the papal court. In the meantime however he did not 
deem it necessary to decline what of its advantages might fall to his — 
share. Either while he was still abroad, or immediately after his — 


853 WYCLIFFE, JOHN DE. 


WYCLIFFE, JOHN DE. 854 


the Collegiate church of Westbury, in the diocese of Worcester; the 
letters-patent of ratification are dated November the 6th, 1375. And 
about the same time he appears to have been also presented to the 
rectory of Lutterworth in Leicestershire, the right of nominating to 
which had fallen for this turn to the crown, in consequence of the 
minority of Lord Henry de Ferrars of Groby, the patron. Lewis 
thinks it probable that Wycliffe now left Oxford, or at least was 
always at Lutterworth during the vacations. “Here,” he says, “as it 
appears by his sermons yet remaining in manuscript, he performed 

e office of a very diligent and edifying preacher, since he preached 
not only on Sundays, but on the several festivals of the church, and of 
a most exemplary and unwearied pastor.” There are about 300 of 


his parish sermons still extant. 


e now however began to speak his sentiments very openly on the 
subject of the pope and the church. Lewis quotes him as in one 
of his writings or lectures soon after his return to England styling the 
pope “ Antichrist, the proud worldly priest of Rome, and the most 
cursed of clippers and purse-kervers”’ (cut-purses). The consequence 
was, that in a convocation of the clergy, held on the 8rd of February, 
1377, a citation was directed to be issued for his appearance at St. 
Paul’s on the 19th of the same month, to answer the charge of holding 
and publishing certain heretical or erroneous doctrines. Lewis Earey 
tasty to be mistaken in supposing this to have happened in 1378, 
‘Wycliffe presented himself on the appointed day, accompanied by John 
of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, and the Lord Henry Percy, earl marshal ; 
a violent altercation jimmediately arose between these noblemen and 
Courtney, bishop of London ; the crowd, which was very great, broke 
out into a tumult; and the result was, that the court rose without 
having done anything. The mob seems on this occasion to have sided 
with their bishop against Gaunt and Wycliffe. 

A story told by Dr. Vaughan about a reference made to Wycliffe by 
the first parliament of Richard II., which met in October 1377, on the 
subject of the right of the kingdom to retain its treasure, when re- 

uired for its own defence, although demanded by the pope, and 
about a vindication of that right which he therefore drew up, appears 
to be indifferently supported. It rests, we believe, on no better 
authority than that of Fox’s ‘Acts and Monuments.’ Wycliffe may 
have drawn up some such paper; but probably not in answer to an 
application from the parliament. Be this however as it may, the pro- 
secution against him for his errors of doctrine was speedily renewed 
in a more formidable shape. On the 22nd of May, 1377 (not the 11th 
of June, as Mr. Le Bas translates ‘XI. Calendas Junii’), a bull was 
addressed by Pope Gregory to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the 
Bishop of London, directing them to summon Wycliffe before them, 
and others dated the same day to the king, requesting his favour and 
assistance in the matter, and to the University of Oxford, desiring 
them to withdraw their protection from the accused theologian. 
Before the bulls reached England, which they do not appear to have 
done till November, King Edward was dead; but Archbishop Sud- 
bury issued his mandate about the end of December for Wycliffe to 
present himself in the church of St. Paul’s, London, on the 30th 
court-day from that date. The accounts that have come down to us 
are very imperfect and obscure; it appears that Wycliffe did come, or 
was brought, early in the following year, 1378, before a synod assem- 
bled, not in St. Paul’s, but in the archbishop’s chapel at Lambeth. 
This new attempt to put down the reformer however was not more 
successful than the former; the Londoners now, if we are to believe 
the chronicler Walsingham, upon whom we are principally dependent 
for our information as to what took place, showed themselves disposed 
to take part with Wycliffe, and, breaking into the chapel, threw the 
synod into consternation ; and the safety of the prisoner was secured 
by the arrival of Sir Lewis Clifford with a message from the king’s 
mother positively prohibiting them from proceeding with the cause, 
He was let off with a simple admonition to abstain from repeating the 
objectionable propositions, that the laity might not be made to 
stumble by his perversions; an injunction which, says Walsingham, 
he treated with contempt, persisting in scattering about conclusions 
still more pernicious. 

The circumstance however that finally and effectually saved Wycliffe 
was the breaking out of the great schism of the West by the election 
of the two popes on the death of Gregory XI. in this same year 1378. 
This division and dissension of the Roman world so enfeebled the 
papal power in England and everywhere else, as to leave it for the 
present very little of either strength or disposition to proceed to 
extremities against its enemies where it was possible to take another 
course. Wycliffe accordingly appears to have been allowed to go on 
_ for some years preaching and writing as he chose without further dis- 
turbance. In the beginning of 1379 he was seized while at Oxford 
with a dangerous illness, from which however he recovered. Soon 
after he got well he is supposed to have published his tract entitled 
‘De Papa Romano,’ or ‘ Schisma Papa,’ still preserved in manuscript, 
in which he called upon all kings throughout Christendom to seize 
upon the opportunity sent them by Providence of bringing down the 
whole fabric of the Romish dominion, seeing that Christ had cloven 
the head of Antichrist and made the two parts fight against each other, 
This was followed by other writings, both in Latin and English, of 
which by far the most important was his translation of the whole 
Bible from the Latin Vulgate, being it is commonly believed, the first 


complete English version of the Scriptures which had appeared. 
There is reason to believe that this great work was finished, and 
several transcripts of the whole made and dispersed, some years 
before the death of Wycliffe; but it is probable that it was not all 
executed by himself, although it may have all undergone his revisal, 
Some odium seems to have been brought upon Wycliffe and his 
novel opinions by the great outbreak of the Commons, Watt T'yler’s 
insurrection, in 1381, which it was natural enough for the friends of 
the established religion to refer, in part at least, to the destruction of 
old convictions and of all reverence for authority, which he and his 
followers had laboured to produce. For Wycliffe, it is to be noted, 
while he himself remained stationary at Lutterworth or Oxford, 
preaching or lecturing there, had numbers of disciples whom, under 
the name of ‘poor priests,’ he kept itinerating over the country, in 
imitation, apparently, of the same effective system for acting upon the 
great body of the population of which the mendicant order of monks 
had already set the example. There can be no doubt that his opinions 
were thus very generally disseminated and adopted. He now besides 
took what was considered the boldest step upon which he had yet 
ventured, by attacking the doctrine of transubstantiation. This he 
did, according to Anthony Wood, in a course of divinity lectures 
which he read in the summer of 1381 at Oxford. An assembly of 
twelve doctors, summoned by the chancellor, unanimously condemned 
his conclusions, and denounced imprisonment and excommunication 
as the punishments of whoever should maintain them, Some months 
after, in May 1382, a synod of divines and doctors of law, assembled 
at the priory of the Grey Friars in London, on the summons of his 
old enemy Courtney, recently translated from the see of London to 
Canterbury, having declared ten opinions which were stated to have 
been lately publicly preached among the nobles and commons of the 
realms heretical, and other fourteen erroneous, instructions were im- 
mediately despatched to the Bishops of London and Lincoln, enjoining 
them to take the most rigorous measures for the suppression of the 
said doctrines; and upon that letters mandatory were forthwith 
issued by the Bishop of Lincoln, charging all ecclesiastical function- 
aries throughout the archdeaconry of Leicester, within which the 
rectory of Lutterworth is situated, with the execution of this order. 
Soon after also a petition to the crown by the lords spiritual in par- 
liament was answered by a royal ordinance, empowering the sheriffs 
of counties to arrest all preachers of heresy, and detain them in prison 
till they should make satisfaction to the Church. But it is remarkable 
that, although many of Wycliffe’s followers were apprehended and 
proceeded against under the powers thus granted to or assumed by 
the ecclesiastical and temporal authorities, he himself remained for a 
considerable time unmolested. He was only named, among several 
other persons notoriously suspected of heresy, in an order issued by 
the synod at the Grey Friars to the chancellor of Oxford, It is sup- 
posed that the protection of the Duke of Lancaster, which, although 
not openly avowed, was probably as notoriously suspected as his 
heresy, deterred his enemies from touching him. But having in 
November 1382, instead of appealing to the king from the sentence 
which had imposed silence upon him, as he declared at the time he 
would do, addressed a long statement of his case, under the title of a 
‘Complaint, to the king and parliament, in which he both reiterated 
in very vehement terms his general abuse of the church and the clergy, 
and avowed his continued disbelief of the doctrine of the real presence, 
which he affirmed had “been brought up by cursed hypocrites, and 
heretics, and worldly priests, unkenning in God’s law ”—he was imme- 
diately summoned before the convocation of the clergy assembled at 
Oxford to answer for these opinions. It is said that his old friend 
Lancaster, who had stood by him so long as he assailed merely the 
constitution of the hierarchy and the temporalities of the church, 
declined to go along with him now, when he had begun openly to 
attack the commonly received faith on the most sacred points of 
doctrine; and after advising him to retract, or at least to keep his 
sentiments to himself, openly withdrew his protection. The con- 
temporary accounts however of this matter are very indistinct and 
unsatisfactory. All that is certain is, that Wycliffe appeared before 
the convocation, and gave in two written confessions or defences, 
the one in English, the other in Latin, in which he explained his 
opinions on the question of transubstantiation, not apparently with- 
out a considerable anxiety to give them as little of the air of a 
deviation from the common faith as possible. The account given 
by his enemy Knighton is, that “he laid aside his audacious bear- 
ing, put on the breastplate of dotage, attempted to disclaim his 
extravagant and fantastic errors, and protested that the follies he 
was called upon to answer for were basely and falsely ascribed to 
him by the malicious ingenuity of his-enemies.” The two con- 
fessions are entirely different. His apologist and admirer, Mr. Le 
Bas, describes the one in English as “a concise and tolerably per- 
spieuous document ;” the Latin one, which is very much longer, is 
also, he admits, “very much more defective in simplicity:” it is 
fenced about with all the forms of scholastic dialectics, and is as Mr, 
Le Bas thinks unintelligible. In both Wycliffe acknowledges that the 
sacramental bread is really and truly the body of Christ; but he does 
not, he says, affirm it to be the body of Christ essentially, substantially, 
corporeally, or identically. The result appears to have been that no 
sentence was pronounced by the convocation, but that soon after 


855 WYKEHAM, WILLIAM DE, 


WYKEHAM, WILLIAM DE. £56 


letters were obtained from the king by which Wycliffe was debarred 
from teaching any longer in the university. Pie or 

Wycliffe is supposed to have spent the remainder of his life in his 

parish of: Lutterworth, where however his pen was more active than 
ever. His version of the Scriptures, the work which did perhaps more 
than anything else to undermine the influence of the Church of Rome 
in this country was probably, in part at least, published before this 
time, But the literary performances which he is commonly supposed 
to have produced after this date make an amount of composition which 
is entirely incredible in the circumstances. It is related that some 
time after he was driven from the university he was summoned to 
Rome to answer the charge of heresy by Pope Urban VI. : this appears 
to rest on nothing more than a letter of Wycliffe’s, without date, 
addressed to his holiness, published by Lewis from a manuscript in 
the Bodleian, in which he says, “If I might travel in my own person, 
I would, with God’s will, go to the pope. But Christ has needed me 
to the contrary, and taught me more obeish to God than to man.” It is 
supposed that he had had an attack of paralysis before this time. He 
recovered partially, but found it necessary to hire another priest, John 
Purneye, to assist him in his parish duties, and also to act as his 
amanuensis. At last, while he was in his church hearing mass on 
Holy Innocents’ day, the 29th of December 1384, just as the host was 
about to be elevated, he was thrown down by another violent fit of 
palsy, and he never spoke more, but died on the last day of the year. 
Forty years afterwards his doctrine was condemned by the Council of 
Constance, which also directed that his body should be exhumed and 
burnt, This was done, and the ashes were cast into the Swift, the 
little stream which flows along the foot of the hill on which the town 
of Lutterworth is built. 

As for the particular opinions which Wycliffe held, it is not easy 
to say what they really were on various points, for two reasons: first, 
they were probably different at different times of his life; secondly, 
we are by no means certain whether many of the writings attributed 
to him are really his. But generally his views appear to have re- 
sembled those of Calvin more nearly than those of any other great 
leader of the Reformation of the 16th century. To some of the more 
peculiar doctrines of the Roman church he seems to have adhered to 
the end of his life: it may be doubted, for instance, if he disapproved 
of either pilgrimages or the worship of images; purgatory he evi- 
dently believed in to the last; and, what is not very easily reconciled 
with his repeated denunciations of the papal power as Antichrist, he 
addresses Pope Urban in the letter mentioned above as the greatest of 
Christ's vicars upon earth, and in another of his treatises, supposed to 
have been written shortly before, that entitled ‘ On the truth of Scrip- 
ture,’ he describes it as being nothing less than paganism for a man to 
refuse obedience to the apostolic see. In his doctrinal theology he 
was a strong predestinarian and necessitarian, On the subject of 
church government he was an independent and voluntary of the most 
extreme description; opposed to episcopacy, opposed to establish- 
ments, opposed to endowments, holding that the clergy should be 
supported only by alms, and that every man should be as far as 
possible a church to himself. On the subject of his writings the 
reader should see what is said by Dr. Vaughan in his ‘Life of 
Wycliffe, by Dr. Todd in the preface to ‘The Last Age of the Church,’ 
and also in the preface to his edition of ‘An Apology for Lollard 
Doctrines, attributed to Wicliffe, printed from a manuscript in the 
library of Trinity College, Dublin, for the Camden Society, 4to, 
London, 1842. Most of Wycliffe’s writings, or supposed writings, still 
remain in manuscript. Of his translation of the Scriptures, the New 
Testament was printed first, by his biographer, the Rev. John Lewis, 
minister of Margate, in folio, in 1731; again in 4to, in 1810, under the 
care of the Rev. Henry Hervey Baber, of the British Museum; and, 
for the third time, in Bagster’s ‘English Hexapla,’ 4to, London, 1841. 
‘The Holy Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments with the 
Apocryphal Books, in the earliest English versions made from the 
Latin Vulgate, by John Wycliffe and his followers,’ was published by 
the University of Oxford in 1850 in 4 vols, 4to, under the editorship 
of the Rev. Josiah Forshall and Sir Frederick Madden, and contains 
the ‘elder and later versions,’ with the various readings, a very 
valuable introduction, and an excellent glossary. 

(There is an account of Wycliffe in Fox’s ‘ Martyrs,’ which is worth 
little or nothing. There are also long articles about him in the first 
edition of the ‘Biographia Britannica,’ 1766, vol. vi, part 2, pp. 4257- 
4266; in ‘ British Biography,’ 12 vols, 8vo, 1778, voli, pp. 11-52; and 
in Chalmers’s ‘ Dictionary,’ 1817, vol. xxxii., pp. 27-38. The separate 
Lives, by the Rev, John Lewis (first published in 1719; for the last 
time, at the Clarendon Press, in 1820), by Dr. Robert Vaughan (1828, 
and edition, 1831, and in a revised form, 1853), and by the Rev. Webb 
Le Bas, 1832, have been mentioned above.) 

WYKEHAM, WILLIAM, or WILLIAM DE or OF, was born at 
Wykeham or Wickham in Hampshire, in the year 1324, and, as his 
biographer Bishop Lowth has shown, some time between the 7th of 
July and the 27th of September. There is reason to believe that he 
did not take his name from his native village, the same name being 
borne by several of his relations living in his own day, who do not 
appear to have been born there. All that is certainly known about 
his father and mother is that their Christian names were John and 
Sibyl: if his father bore the name of Wykeham, he appears to have 


also passed by that of Long or Longe, and to have had an elder 
brother who was called Henry Aas. His parents are said to have been 
both, although poor, of creditable descent, as well as of reputable 
character. 

He was put to school at Winchester, not by his father, who had 
not the means, but by some wealthy patron, who is traditionally said 
to have been Nicholas Uvedale, lord of the manor of Wykeham and 
governor of Winchester Castle. The tradition further asserts that, 
after leaving school, he became secretary to Uvedale; and that he was 
secretary to the constable of Winchester Castle is stated in a written 
account compiled in his own time. Afterwards he is said to have been 
recommended by Uvedale to Edyngton, bishop of Winclrester, and 
then by those two friends to have been made known to King 
Edward III. There seems to be no reason for supposing that he ever 
studied at Oxford, as has been affirmed by some of the later writers 
of his life. It is evident indeed that he had not had a university 
education, and that he never pretended to any skill in the favourite 
scholastic learning of his age. His strength lay in his natural genius, 
in his knowledge of mankind and talent for business; and probably 
the only art and science he had much cultivated was architecture. _ 

He is said in an ancient contemporary account to have been brought 
to court when he was no more than three or four and twenty, which 
would be about the year 1348; but the earliest office which there is 
the evidence of records. for his having held is that of clerk of all the 
king’s works in his manors of Henle and Yethampsted, his patent for 
which is dated the 10th of May 1356. On the 30th of October in the 
same year he was made surveyor of the king's works at the castle and 
in the park of Windsor. It is affirmed by a contemporary writer to 
have been at his instigation that King Edward pulled down and 
rebuilt great part of Windsor Castle. Wykeham had the sole superin- 
tendence of the work. Queenborough Castle, in the Isle of Sheppy, 
was also built under his direction. : 


The king now began to reward him bountifully. He had probably — 


taken deacon’s orders at an early age; Lowth finds him des 

‘clericus,’ or clerk, in 1352. 16 was not however till the 5th of 
December 1361 that he was admitted to the order of acolyte: he was 
ordained sub-deacon on the 12th of March 1362, and priest on the 
12th of June following. Meanwhile his first ecclesiastical preferment, 
the rectory of Pulham in Norfolk, had been conferred upon him by 
the king’s presentation on the 30th of November 1357. On the Ist of 
March 1359 he was presented by the king to the prebend of Flixton, 
in the church of Lichfield. On the 16th of April following he hada 


grant of 200/.a year from the crown, over and above all his former — 


appointments, till he should get quiet possession of the chureh of 
Pulham, his induction into which living had been opposed by the 
court of Rome. On the 10th of July in the same year he was 
appointed chief warden and surveyor of the king’s castles of Windsor, 
Leeds, Dover, and Hadlam, and of the manors of Old and New Wind- 
sor, Wichemer, and sundry other castles and manors, with the parks 
belonging to them. On the 5th of May 1360 he received the king’s 
grant of the deanery of the royal free chapel or collegiate church of 
St. Martin-le-Grand, London. In October 1360 he attended upon the 
king at Calais, probably in quality of public notary, when the treaty 
of Bretigny was solemnly confirmed by the oaths of Edward and King 
John of France. Numerous additional preferfhents in the church, for 
which we must refer the reader to the elaborate detail given by Lowth, 
were heaped upon him in the course of the next three years, By June 
1363 moreover he had been appointed to the office of warden and 
justiciary of the king’s forests on this side Trent. On the 14th of 
March 1364 he had by royal grant an assignment of twenty shillings 
a day out of the exchequer. On the 11th of May 1364, he was made 
keeper of the privy seal, and soon after he is styled secretary to the 
king, or what we should now call principal secretary of state. In May 
1365 he was commissioned by the king, with the chancellor, the 
treasurer, and the Earl of Arundel, to treat of the ransom of the 
King of Scotland (David IL, taken at the battle of Neville’s Cross in 
1346), and the prolonging of the truce with the Scots; and not lo: 

after this he is designated, in a paper printed in the ‘ Foedera,’ chief 
of the privy council and governor of the great council, which phrases 
however Lowth supposes do not express titles of office, but only the 
great influence and authority which he had in those assemblies. 
“There are several other preferments, both ecclesiastical and civil,” 
adds Lowth, “‘ which he is said to have held; but I do not mention 
them because the authorities produced for them are such as I cannot 


entirely depend upon. And, as to his ecclesiastical benefices already ; 


mentioned, the practice of exchanging them was then so common 


that ’tis hard to determine precisely which of them he held altogether _ 


at any one time.” There is extant however an account given in by 
himself on occasion of the bull of Pope Urban VY, against pluralities, 


of the entire number and value of his church benefices, as the matter — 


stood in the year 1366; and from this statement, in which Wykeham 
calls himself “ Sir William of Wykeham, clerk, archdeacon of Lincoln, 
and secretary of our lord the illustrious king of England, and keeper 
of his privy seal,” it appears that the total produce of those which he 
had held when the account was demanded was 8731. 6s. 8d., and of 
those of which he remained in possession when it was given in, 842/. 
All these inferior dignities however it is to be presumed that he 


resigned when, upon the death of William de Edyngdon, on the 8th 


f 


Ls 


’ 
| 
{ 
4 

4 


ee 


eS ee 


857 WYKEHAM, WILLIAM DE. 


WYNDHAM, SIR WILLIAM. "6g 


of October 1366, he was immediately, upon the king’s earnest recom- 
mendation, elected by the prior and convent of Winchester to succeed 
him as bishop of that see. He was not consecrated till the 10th of 
October in the year following; but this delay, till an adjustment was 
effected of the conflicting pretensions of the royal authority and the 
court of Rome, was evidently occasioned, as Lowth has shown, only 
by a contention between the king and the pope as to which of them 
should have the largest share in Wykeham’s promotion, Meanwhile 
he had been appointed by the king lord high chancellor of England; 
he was confirmed in that office on the 17th of September 1367. 

He continued chancellor till the 14th of March 1371, when he 
delivered back to the king both the great and the privy seals, on the 
change of ministry made in compliance with a petition presented 


shortly before by the Lords and Commons, complaining of the mis- 


chiefs which had resulted from the government of the kingdom 
having for a long time been in the hands of men of the church, and 
praying that secular men only might be appointed to the principal 
offices both in the king’s courts and household. There is no appear- 
ance however of this complaint being specially directed against any part 
of the conduct of the Bishop of Winchester, who assisted at the cere- 
mony of constituting his successor in the chancellorship, and seems to 
have for years after this continued to retain both the favour of the 
king and the good will of the parliament, and even to have remained 
in habits of intimate and confidential connection with the Duke of 
Lancaster, to whose influence the removal of the clergy from the 
offices of state is said to have been owing. 

At this time the bishops of Winchester had no fewer than twelve 
different castles or palaces, all furnished and maintained as places of 
residence. Wykeham’s first undertaking after he found himself in 
possession of the see was to set about a thorough repair of these 
episcopal houses. This cost him above 20,000 marks. He also 
applied himself with great zeal and diligence to the reformation of 
abuses in the monasteries and religious houses of all sorts throughout 
his diocese: the ancient hospital of St. Cross, at Sparkeford, near 
Winchester, founded in 1132 by the famous Bishop Henry de Blois, 
brother to King Stephen, in particular engaged much of his attention, 
and the objects of the charity were indebted to his persevering exer- 
tions for the restoration of many rights and benefits which they had 
originally enjoyed, but of which they had been for a long time 
defrauded. But the object which from the first chiefly occupied him 
was his own great foundation of two colleges in which students might 
be educated “for the honour of God and increase of his worship, for 
the support and exaltation of the Christian faith, and for the improve- 
ment of the liberal arts and sciences.” His preparatory college or 
school at Winchester was opened in 1373; and he had before this 
purchased most of the ground in the city of Oxford upon which his 
college there, still called New College, to which that at Winchester 
was designed as a nursery, was afterwards built. 

These pious and patriotic exertions however were interrupted for a 
time by a political storm which rose against the bishop in 1376, the 
last year of the reign of Edward III. He had been appointed one of 
the council established to superintend the conduct of affairs on the 
petition of the parliament which met in April of that year; and in 
consequence became a principal object of the resentment of the Duke 
of Lancaster and his party, who, after the death of the Black Prince 
in June, and the rise of the parliament in July, took possession of the 
superannuated and dying king and proceeded to overthrow all the 
reforms that had been lately made in the government, and to effect, 
as far as they could, the ruin of all concerned inthem. By the duke’s 
contrivance eight articles were exhibited against the bishop at the 
beginning of the next Michaelmas term, charging him with various 
acts of pecuniary defalcation, oppression, and other sorts of misgovern- 
ment while he had been in office many years before as keeper of the 
privy seal and lord chancellor. He was heard in his defence, before a 
commission of bishops, peers, and privy councillors, about the middle 
of November, when judgment was given against him upon one of the 
articles, involving at the utmost a mere irregularity; and upon this, 


- under the influence that then prevailed at court, an order was imme- 


diately issued for the sequestration of the revenues of his bishopric, 
and he was at the same time forbidden, in the king’s name, to come 
within 20 miles of the court. The next parliament, which met on the 
27th of January 1377, was wholly devoted to Lancaster; and when, 
soon after, on the petition of the Commons, an act of general pardon 
was issued by the king, in consideration of its being the year of his 
jubilee, the Bishop of Winchester alone was specially excepted out of 
its provisions. All this, in the circumstances of the time, may be 
taken as the best attestation to Wykeham’s patriotism and integrity. 
His brethren of the clergy however assembled in convocation now 
took up his cause with great zeal; and, whether in consequence of 
their bold representations on the subject to the king, or for some 
other reason, it was soon deemed expedient to drop the proceedings 
againt him, and on the 18th of June his temporalities were restored to 
him, on condition of his fitting out three ships of war for the defence 
of the kingdom and maintaining them at sea for a quarter of a year. 
And even from this mulct he was released on the accession of 
Richard II., afew days after. But the loss nevertheless to which he 
had been subjected by his prosecution is said to have amounted to 
10,000 marks, 


He continued to stand high in the favour and confidence of parlia- 
ment during the minority of the new king. In 1380 he was one of 
a commission appointed on the petition of the Commons to examine 
into the state of the revenue and the kingdom, with full powers to 
call before them all persons who had been in office either during the 
current or the late reign. Again after the suppression of the insur- 
rection of Wat Tyler and his followers, in the next year, the Bishop 
of Winchester was one of the seventeen persons proposed by the 
Commons to be appointed to confer with them on the condition of the 
kingdom: and on various occasions afterwards a similar tribute was 
paid to his popularity and weight of character. As soon as he was 
released from his troubles he hastened to apply himself anew to the 
carrying forward aud completion of his new colleges. The business 
of teaching appears to have commenced both at Winchester and at 
Oxford in 13735 Pope Urban VI.’s bull of licence for founding Win- 
chester College was granted 1st June 1378; the building of the College 
at Oxford, which he called ‘St. Mary College of Winchester in Oxford,’ 
was begun in 1380, and was finished in 1386; that of the college at 
Winchester was begun in 1387 and was finished in 1393. The papal 
bull confirming the statutes of the college at Oxford is dated 19th July 
1398. And as soon as his two colleges were erected, he entered upon 
another work, which still remains a monument of his taste and muni- 
ficence ; he resolved to rebuild his cathedral in the greater part of its 
extent. This undertaking he commenced in 1395, and he just lived to 
see it brought to a close in about ten years after. 

The Bishop of Winchester was one of the fourteen persons appointed 
in 1386, on the petition of the parliament instigated by the king’s 
uncle, the Duke of Gloucester, to be a council to the king for one 
year, and in fact for that term to exercise all the powers of govern- 
ment. As soon as the parliament was dismissed, Richard made an 
attempt to break from the yoke thus imposed upon him; the com- 
mission and statute appointing the council were declared by the judges, 
on the royal command, to be illegal and null, and to have involved all 
who had been concerned in procuring them in the guilt of treason. 
Upon this the Duke of Gloucester and his friends raised an army of 
40,000 men. Having encamped before London, they sent a deputation, 
of which the Bishop of Winchester was a member, to the king; the 
deputies were graciously received, and returned with proposals for an 
accommodation ; but in the mean time a body of forces which had been 
raised for the king in Wales and Cheshire, under the command of his 
minion, the Duke of Ireland, was encountered by the Earl of Derby 
and a part of the army of the confederated lords at Radcott Bridge in 
Oxfordshire, and entirely defeated. This blow compelled Richard to 
yield for the present. But in May 1389, another revolution in the 
government was effected by the king suddenly declaring himself to be 
of age, and removing the Duke of Gloucester and his friends from the 
council-board. He did not however dispense with the services of the 
Bishop of Winchester, but, on the contrary, forced him again to 
accept the great seal. Wykeham remained chancellor till the 27th of 
September 1391, when he retired from office, Gloucester having by 
this time been restored to his place in the council, and all parties 
having been for the present again reconciled, in a great measure, it is 
probable, through the bishop’s mediation. From this date Wykeham 
appears to have taken little or no share in public affairs. In 1397, 
when the Duke of Gloucester was put to death, and several of those 
who had joined him in taking arms in 1386 were attainted for that 
treason, the Bishop of Winchester and others were, at the intercession 
of the Commons, declared by the king from the throne in parliament 
not to have been implicated in what their fellow-commissioners had 
done. Wykeham was present in the parliament held on the 30th of 
September 1399, when Richard was deposed, and also in the first par- 
liament of Henry IV., summoned a few days after; but this was the 
last which he attended.- He continued however in the active discharge 
of his episcopal duties for two or three years longer, and was able to 
transact business till within four days of his death, which took place 
at South Waltham, about eight o'clock on the morning of Saturday 
the 27th of September 1404. 

(Life, by Robert Lowth, D.D., 2nd edition, 8vo, London, 1754.) 

WYNANTS, JOHAN, one of the best of the Dutch landscape- 
painters, was born at Haarlem about the year 1600. Little is known 
about him; he is not mentioned by Houbraken; and Van Gool, who 
notices this omission of Houbraken, lived at too late a period to be 
enabled to learn any facts of his life. Waynants is supposed to have 
been the master of Wouvverman, to whom some of his pictures have 
been attributed. He was fond of amusement, and idled much of his 
time in parties of pleasure, and his pictures are accordingly few in 
number. _ He generally painted small pictures, coloured with great 
transparency : the figures and cattle in them are not painted by him- 
self; a fact, says D’Argenville, which Wynants endeavoured to keep 
asecret. These parts of his pictures were painted by several masters— 
by Van Thulden, Ostade, Wouvverman, Lingelbach, and A. Vande- 
velde, which gives an additional value to his works, In Pilkington’s 
‘Dictionary’ and some other books, 1670 is given as the date of 
Wynants’ death, but there is a picture in the gallery of Schleissheim 
by him, dated 1673: his name is also written in the painters’-com- 
pany’s book of Haarlem for the year 1677. (D’Argenville, Vies des 
Peintres; Dillis, Gemalde zw Schleissheim.) 

WYNDHAM, SIR WILLIAM, the third baronet of that name, 


859 WYNDHAM, SIR WILLIAM. 


WYON, WILLIAM. 


distinguished in the parliaments of Queen Anne and the first two 
Georges, was born in 1687. He was of an ancient family in Somerset- 
shire, and succeeded at an early age to the title and estate. He was 
educated at Eton and at Christchurch, Oxford, and afterwards 
travelled for some time abroad. On his return he was chosen to 
represent his native county in parliament, and married a daughter of 
the Duke of Somerset. He thus entered upon public life with great 
advantages, which his abilities well supported. He associated himself 
with the Tory party, and, fascinated by the talents of Lord Boling- 
broke, he joined in the pleasures as well as the politics of that 
nobleman. i 

When the Tory ministry was formed under Oxford and Bolingbroke 
in 1710, Wyndham was made master of the buckhounds, and on the 
18th June 1711, was appointed secretary-at-war. In August 1713 he 
was promoted to the office of chancellor of the exchequer, and in 
November was sworn a privy councillor, In the dissensions between 
Oxford and Bolingbroke he sided with the latter, and was entirely in 
his confidence. When the lord high treasurer was disgraced, Lord 
Bolingbroke wished to have the treasury put in commission, and pros 
posed Wyndham as one of the five commissioners; but this arrange- 
ment was defeated by the sudden appointment of the Duke of Shrews- 
bury to the vacant office, This appointment, followed by the death 
of the queen, put an end to the hopes of the Tory party. The suspi- 
cion of a treasonable correspondence with the Pretender had attached 
to many of the Tory ministers, and to none more than to Lord Boling- 
broke. Wyndham-himeelf was not free from suspicion: his intimacy 
with Lord Bolingbroke and his close friendship with other reputed 
Jacobites having pointed him out as one requiring to be watched. He 
was returned to the new parliament summoned by George L, and pro- 
tested in such strong language against the proclamation by which the 
late parliament had been dissolved, that he was only saved from im- 
prisonment in the Tower by Sir Robert Walpole, who persuaded the 
House of Commons to spare him with a reprimand from the Speaker. 
When the rebellion in favour of the Pretender broke out in 1715, in- 
telligence was brought to the privy council that Sir W. Wyndham 
was concerned in a projected rising in Somersetshire: his father-in- 
law the Duke of Somerset offered to be responsible for him, and 
desired that he might not be taken into custody; but the council 
refused to leave him at large, and sent Colonel Haske to arrest him. 
Sir William, on being taken at his own house, contrived to escape 
under pretence of making preparations for his journey to London; 
and a proclamation was immediately issued offering 10002. for his 
apprehension, For some time be eluded the vigilance of his pursuers, 
disguised as a clergyman, but finding that he had little chance of 
escape, he surrendered himself, and was committed to the Tower. 
He denied all knowledge of any plot whatever in favour of the Pre- 
tender; and, whether on account of his innocence, the failure of evi- 
dence, or the influénce of his connections, he was never brought to trial. 

He was henceforth distinguished as one of the most active and able 
members of the opposition. He opposed Sir Robert Walpole on 
almost every occasion. The most vehement and perhaps the best 
speech against Walpole’s Excise scheme was delivered by him in 1733. 
- Of all his reported speeches, that in favour of the repeal of the Sep- 
tennial Act in 1734 may be pronounced the most able and argumen- 
tative. In 1739, having been in the minority who voted against the 
address of the Spanish convention, he determined, with many others, 
to secede from parliament. In expressing this resolution he applied 
insulting terms to the majority of the House, and was indebted, for 
- the second time, to Sir Robert Walpole’s judicious forbearance for his 
escape from commitment to the Tower. Nothing could have been 
more absurdly impolitic than the retirement of the opposition from 
all further contest in the House of Commons: it had been suggested 
by Lord Bolingbroke, whose counsels were often more mischievous 
than wise; and the mistake was so evident, that the seceders all 
returned on the first day of the next session. 

The influence of Wyndham in the House of Commons was proved 
by the immediate consequences of his death in 1740. He had united 
the Tories and a considerable party of Whigs in their opposition to Sir 
Robert Walpole. At his death this union was dissolved—the opposi- 
tion was disarmed of half its power—and for some time the minister 
had little to dread either from the eloquence or the numbers of his 
opponents. He died at Wells in Somersetshire, July 17, 1740, and 
was succeeded by his son, Sir Charles Wyndham, who afterwards in- 
herited the title of Earl of Egremont from his uncle the Duke of 
Somerset. By his second wife, relict of William, Marquis of Bland- 
ford, he left no issue. ~ . 

Sir William was one of the most popular men of his day, and in 
parliament was remarkable for the force and spirit of his eloquence. 
The character of his oratory has been thus described by a great critic, 
Mr. Speaker Onslow: “‘There was much grace and dignity in his 
person, and the same in his speaking. He had no acquirements of 
learning ; but his eloquence, improved by use, was strong, full, and 
without affectation, arising chiefly from his clearness, propriety, and 
argumentation ; in the method of which last, by a sort of induction 
almost peculiar to himself, he had a foree beyond any man I ever 
heard in public debates. He had not the variety of wit and pleasantry 
in his speeches so entertaining in Daniel Pulteney; but there was a 
spirit and power in his speaking that always animated himself and his 


hearers, and, with the decoration of his manner, which was indeed 
very ornamental, produced not only the most attentive, respectful, but 
even a reverend regard to whatever he spoke.” phi 
WYNTOUN, ANDREW, a rhyming annalist, lived during the 
early part of the 15th century, and was prior of the monastery of 
St. Serf’s Inch or Island, on Loch Lomond in Scotland. Nothinghas 
been discovered as to his parentage or the periods of his birth and 
death, and he is only known as the author of ‘ The Orygynale Cronykil 
of Seotland, a work of considerable authority in Scottish reer ; 
during the interval between the commencement of the 11th and that 


of the 15th century. It is valuable also as a specimen of the eg s 
language at a time when it closely resembled the English in all but 
the Gallicisms which pervade Chaucer and Gower, and before it had 
taken that distinct provincial form which it exhibits in the tis 
poets of the latter part of the 15th and of the 16th century. Wyn 
seems to have strongly felt the difficulty under which all rude chron 
clers lie, of drawing a line of demarcation between the domestic 

the foreign. The work is divided into nine books :— : 


**In honoure of the ordrys nyne 
Of haly angelys, the quhilk dywyne 
Scripture lowys, on lyk wys 
I wylle departe now this tretis- 
In Nyne Bukis, and noucht ma ; 
- And the fyrst Buke of tha 
Sall trete fra the begynnyng 
Of the warlde,”” 


Accordingly the author is as good as his word, and, beginning at t 
Creation, he passes through the greater part of Scripture history to 
the mythological period of Greece and Rome, mingling the sacred and 
profane strangely together, and describing both the deluge of Scripture — 
and Deucalion’s flood. The early and: completely fabulous part of the — 
Scottish annals is mixed up with these widely-dispersed nicles, — 

Christ is 


Four books out of the nine are finished before the birth of 
narrated. In the printed edition of the chronicle the editor has very — 
properly given only the rhythmical titles of the chapters which donot 
refer to Scotland, and thus of these four books only afew fragments 
are printed, Wyntoun is a tedious narrator, but he is spirited in his 
descriptions ; and the stirring events he has to record, with the curious __ 
traditions of national superstition mingled with them, give the book 
considerable animation. Sir Walter Scott has been obliged to Wyntoun ~ 
for many striking incidents in his narrative poems. ros pice 
There are several manuscripts of Wyntoun’s Chronicle; one in the 
Cottonian collection, another in the Harleian, and a third in the Advo- 
cates’ Library. The best is however that in the Royal Library in the 
British Museum, from which Mr. David Macpherson edited the printed — 
edition, collating it with the others, This magnificent specimen of — 
British typography was printed in 1795, in 2 vols. 8vo. All the copies 
of it seem to have been printed on drawing-paper; at least the writer 
of this notice has never met with any copy on ordinary paper. It 
contains an introduction, notes, and a glossary. an 
WYON, WILLIAM, an engraver and designer of medals and coins, — 
was born at Birmingham in 1795, The pursuits and associations of — 
his family (of German descent) were peculiarly calculated to give — 
direction to his mind and to foster whatever natural abilities he pos- 
sessed. His grandfather, George Wyon, engraved the silver cup em- 
bossed with a design of the assassination of Julius Cesar, which was 
presented by the city of London to Wilkes. His father, Peter Wyon, — 
to whom, in 1809, William was apprenticed, was a die sinker of repu- 
tation at Birmingham, and with him was-associated William’s uncle, 
Thomas, as partner, to whom young Wyon was much indebted. The 
earliest of his productions of which we find any marked notice: ‘a 
copies of the heads of Hercules and of Ceres; the latter won the gold 
medal of the Society of Arts, and was purchased by it for distribu- — 
tion as an agricultural prize. A second gold medal from the same — 
body marked the appearance of Wyon’s group—Victory drawn by — 
Tritons. A few years later he completed a figure of Antinous, which 
so delighted his father, that he had it set in gold, and wore it con- 
stantly until his death. yer) 
Wyon came to London in 1816, and won his way through a compe- 
tition to the post of second engraver at the Mint. Sir Thomas Law- — 
rence was the umpire, and the trial piece the head of George IIL, — 
His prospects were now most favourable, and his situation altogether — 
agreeable to him—for the chief engraver, Thomas Wyon, was his friend — 
and cousin. But unexpectedly the latter died, and Mr, Pistrucci was — 
nominated in his place. The new engraver and his chief assistant 
could not agree. Pistrucci, a skilful artist, is said to have been indo- 
lent, and while reserving to himself the greater share of the honour — 
and emolument, to have left the greater amount of labour to Wyon, — 
Under a new Master of the Mint these differences were compromised — 
by an arrangement, which left Pistrucci nominally chief engraver until — 
his death, but gave half his salary to Wyon. We need not dwell on — 
the literary wars that arose out of these occurrences, further than to — 
observe that the younger man found an enthusiastic champion who — 
issued a memoir of his life, and a list of his works, then exceeding two 
hundred in number. The Royal Academy marked its opinion of t 
controversy, and of Wyon's own merits, by electing him in 1832, 
Associate, and in 1838 an Academician, the first of his depart 
who had ever obtained these honours. = 


<a  F 


_s  —— 


ee eee 
aie 


a 


a 


861 XANTHUS, 


XAVIER, FRANCIS, SAINT. £62 


Wyon’s works, may be divided into coins—pattern pieces of coins 
not used—medals, and seals. His coins include those of the later 
years of the reign of George IV., all those of William IV., and all 
those of her present Majesty which appeared in Wyon’s lifetime. He 
followed Chantrey’s models in the coins of both the kings, but was 
his own designer in the coins of Victoria. The pattern pieces include 
one of ten pounds for William IV., and one of five pounds (among 
several others) for the present Queen, which bore a figure of Una on 
the reverse. These pattern pieces did not become coins through the 
influence of the body, who, at that time, under the title of moneyers, 
were the privileged coiners of the country, and who knowing that 
increased expense would be necessary, took care of their profits, and 


did not trouble themselves about Wyon’s disappointment or the inte- 


rests of art. His medals include a great range of subjects, and were 
produced for many different and admirable objects. There are war 
medals for the Peninsular victories, for Trafalgar, for Jellalabad and 
Cabul; scientific medals for the Royal Society, Royal and London 
Tnstitutions, Geological, Geographical, and similar societies, native 
and foreign; artistic medals, as for the Royal Academy and Art 
Union; educational, as for Harrow, a gift by Sir Robert Peel; and 
testimonial, as in the case of the Brodie medal, which bore a head 


of the man in whose honour it was struck. Most of these medals 


have for their obverses heads taken from the antique, a few modern, 
and in some cases, then living personages; and the author had gene- 


‘rally aimed, as a matter of course, at a characteristic fitness betwixt 


the portrait and the accompanying circumstances. Thus, Cicero 
adorned the Peel-Harrow medal, while heads of Lord Bacon, Sir Isaac 
Newton, Dr. Wollaston, and Sir Francis Chantrey, were respectively 
and appropriately connected with the medals of the Royal Institute, 
the University of Glasgow, the Geological Society, and the Art Union. 
Many—and among them some of the best—of the reverses were from 
his own designs; while for others Wyon was indebted to Flaxman, for 
whom he had an enthusiastic veneration, Howard, and Stothard, who 
contributed the reverse to a medal of Sir Walter Scott. Weyon’s in- 
creasing eminence was shown in the various commissions he received 
from foreign countries ; we may especially mention his engagement for 
a series of Portuguese coins. 

The characteristics of Wyon are the combination of two (often 
opposing) qualities, strength and delicacy, with the indispensable 
merit of likeness in his portraitures; taken for all in all, we have had 
no such medal engraver since the days of Simon, the artist who shed 
so much lustre on this department in the days of the Commonwealth. 
Wyon died at Brighton, October 29, 1851, in his fifty-seventh year, 
leaving a son, Leonard, who having aided him in his lifetime, inherited 
much of his skill at his death. To the latter we owe the well-known 
medal of Wordsworth; and his name is honourably remembered in 


- connection with the awards of the Great Exhibition ; and is thus gra- 


tifyingly associated in art as in blood with the subject of our present 


notice, whose latest works were in commemoration of that same 
assemblage of the world's industrial and artistic fruits. 

WYTHER, GEORGE, [Wriruzr.] 

WYTTENBACH, DANIEL, was born in 1746, at Bern, where his 
father, Daniel Wyttenbach, was then pastor. His father distinguished 
himself by several theological works, and died, in 1779, being then 
professor of theology in the University of Marburg. Young Wytten- 
bach studied philology at Marburg, Gottingen, and Leyden, and in the 
last place he was one of the pupils of Ruhnken, to whom he became 
particularly attached. In1771 he was appointed professor of Greek 
and philosophy in the Atheneum of Amsterdam, which is now called 
after him the Wyttenbach Athefeoum. From Amsterdam he was 
transferred in 1779, to the chair of eloquence in the University of 
Leyden, of which he and Ruhnken were the most illustrious scholars, 
He remained in this office for a grea? number of years, until the 
infirmities of old age and blindness compelled him to withdraw from 
his functions. In 1816, at the age of seventy, he went to Heidelberg, 
where, for a short time, he abstained from literary exertions. Two 
years later he married Johanna Gallien, a woman of great acquire- 
ments and talent, who distinguished herself as a writer, and was 
created, in 1827, doctor of philosophy by the university of Marburg. 
From 1818 Wittenbach had withdrawn from all public functions, and 
weighed down by old age and the loss of his sight, he died at Oegs, on 
the 17th of January 1820. Wyttenbach was one of the. greatest 
scholars of whom the University of Leyden can boast; he possessed 
extensive and refined learning and great critical skill. He always 
wrote in Latin. His Latin composition, especially his ‘ Vita Ruhn- 
kenii,’ is among the best modern specimens of that language, both for 
purity and elegance. We are indebted to Wyttenbach for some 
excellent editions of ancient authors, The most important among 
them are :—l, The ‘ Opera Moralia’ of Plutarch, 6 vols. 4to, and 12 
vols. 8vo, Oxford, 1795-1800. This is the best and most valuable 
portion of Plutarch’s works. 2, ‘Selecta principum historicorum, 
Herodoti, Thucydidis, Xenophontis, Polybii, Plutarchi vitee Demos- 
thenis et Ciceronis, with very useful notes, 8vo, Amsterdam, 1794, 
New editions appeared in 1808, and at Leyden, 8vo, in 1829. From 
1779 to 1808 Wyttenbach edited the ‘ Bibliotheca Critica,’ 12 vols, 8vo, 
Leyden, “His smaller essays were collected after his death under the 
title ‘Opuscula varii Argumenti, Oratoria, Historica, Critica, 2 vols, 
8vo, Leyden, 1821. His Life of Ruhnken is printed in Fr. Linde- 
mann’s ‘ Vitae Duumvirorum doctrina et meritis excellentium,’ toge- 
ther with Ruhnken’s Life of Hemsterhuis, 8vo, Leipzig, 1822. Wytten- 
bach’s correspondence with the most eminent scholars of the time has 
been edited by W. F. Mahne (3 parts, 8vo, Ghent, 1829-30), who has 
also written a very good Life of Wyttenbach (‘ Vita Wyttenbachii’), 
which forms part 1 of vol. ii. of Fr. Tr. Friedemann’s ‘ Vitae Hominum 
quocunque Literarum genere eruditissimorum ab cloquentissimis Viris 
seriptae,’ 8vo, Brunswick, 1825, &c. 


xX 


XANTHUS (Zdy60s), one of the early Greek historians, was, accord- 
ing to Suidas, a son of Candaules, and born at Sardes. Strabo 
(xiii. p. 628) admits, with other writers, that Xanthus was a Lydian, 
but he says it is not known whether he was really a native of Sardes. 
As to the time in which he lived, we know, from a fragment of 
Ephorus, that he was older than Herodotus, who is even:said to have 
been induced by Xanthus to undertake his great historical work. But 
it appears that Xanthus cannot have been much older than Herodotus, 
since Dionysius of Halicarnassus mentions him among those writers 
who lived shortly before the Peloponnesian war, and from one of 
Xanthus’s own fragments it is clear that he wrote his work in the reign 
of Artaxerxes I., who reigned from before B.c. 465 to 425. The state- 
ment of Suidas, that he was born about the time of the taking of 
Sardes (by the Ionians, in B.c. 499), also agrees with these facts. 
Xanthus wrote a work on Lydia (Avdiaxd), in four books, in the Ionic 
dialect, of which however only a few fragments are extant, which are 
preserved in Strabo and other writers. The genuineness of these 
fragments has been the subject of much discussion, because Atheneeus 
(xii. p. 515) states, on the authority of Artemon of Cassandrea, that 
Dionysius surnamed Scythobrachion forged a work on Lydia under the 
name of Xanthus. But in the first place, the existence of Xanthus 
the historian cannot be doubted, and secondly, most of the fragments 
which are preserved under his name bear the strong internal evidence 
of being genuine; and lastly, there are scarcely any that can be de- 
celared spurious with certainty. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who 
appears to have had the work of Xanthus before him, speaks of it 
with high praise, and calls the author a man most intimately ac- 
quainted with the ancient mythological history, and not inferior to 
any of those who had written on Lydia. So far as we can judge from 
the extant fragments, which contain valuable information on various 
points, especially the history and geography of Asia Minor, the work 
of Xanthus seems to have been one of great merit. One Menippus, of 
uncertain date, made an abridgment of the work of Xanthus. (Diog. 
Laert., vi. 101.) The fragments of Xanthus’s Lydiaca’ are collected 


in Creuzer’s ‘Historicorum Graecorum antiquissimorum Fragmenta,’ 
p.- 191, &., and in C. and Th. Miiller’s ‘Fragmenta Historicorum 
Graecorum,’ p. 36, &e. Some ancient authors attribute to Xanthus a 
work on the Magi and the religion of Zoroaster, but the two fragments 
which are quoted from it leave no doubt that this work was the pro- 
duction of some late grammarian. 

(Museum Criticum, vol. i., pp. 80, 216; Creuzer, in the work cited 
above, p. 135, &c.; C. and Th. Miiller, p. 20, &c.; Welcker, in Seebode’s 
Archiv fiir Philol. for 1830, p. 70, &e.) 

XAVIER, FRANCIS, SAINT, was born at the castle of Xavier, in 
Navarre, the 7th of April 1506. His father, Don John de Jasso, was 
counsellor of state to the King of Navarre, and his mother, Maria 
Azpileueta, was heiress of the two illustrious houses of Azpilcueta and 
Xavier. Francis was the youngest of a large family of children, the 
eldest of whom bore the surname of Azpilcueta, and the others that 
of Xavier. Under the paternal roof he received all the advantages of 
a careful education. His devotion to study, and the talents which he 
manifested, induced his parents to send him at the age of eighteen to 
the Collége de Sainte Barbe, at Paris. It was there that he first 
became acquainted with Ignatius Loyola, and thenceforward to the 
time when he set out on his missionary labours, the history of Xavier 
is intimately blended with that of Loyola and his disciples. [LoyoLa, 
Ie@yattus. }- 

In 1588 he joined Ignatius Loyola at Rome, where he actively 
assisted him in the furtherance of his great design of associating a 
body of devoted men for the special service of the Church of Rome. 
While in that city, he exercised the functions of the ministry in the 
church of St. Lawrence in Damaso, and attracted to it large multi- 
tudes by his zeal and talents. Among them was a Portuguese of the 
name of Govea, who had been sent to Rome on a mission of import- 
ance by King John III. In his communications with the king he had 
expressed himself in terms of high commendation of the new society 
which had lately sprung up under Loyola; and had suggested the pro- 
priety of selecting missionaries from among them to plant the standard 


eee hme 


863 XAVIER, FRANCIS, SAINT. 


XAVIER, FRANCIS, SAINT. | 


of the faith in the Portuguese colonies of Asia. Influenced by these 
representations, the king despatched an order to his ambassador at 
Rome to obtain six members of that society, who might be willing to 
devote themselves to missionary labours. Two only however could 
be spared, and Simon Rodriguez, a Portuguese, and Nicholas Boba- 
dilla, a Spaniard, were selected by Loyola. As he was about to set 
out on his journey to Lisbon, Bobadilla fell sick, and Francis Xavier 
joyfully received the command of his chief to become his substitute. 
Having previously obtained the benediction of the Pope, Paul IIL., 
on himself and his holy enterprise, he left Rome in company with the 
Portuguese ambassador, on the 15th of March~1540. Their journey 
by land to Lisbon was long and tedious. As they passed through 
the town of Pampeluna, which was only eight leagues from the castle 
of Xavier, he was pressed by the ambassador to take leave of his 
mother, who was still living, dnd his other friends and relations, whom 
it was probable he might never again see. In the excess however of 
his zeal for the prosecution of the purpose to which he had devoted 
himself, he declined availing himself of the opportunity, fearing, as 
he said, that the transient pleasure of a last farewell might leave too 
lasting an impression of melancholy on his sacred enterprise, 

Xavier and his companions arrived at Lisbon towards the end of 
June. After a stay of eight months in Lisbon, on the 7th of April 
1541, Xavier embarked on board a vessel, which carried Don Martin 
Alphonso de Souza, governor of the Indies, but unaccompanied by 
Rodriguez, who had been persuaded by the king to remain in Portugal. 
After a voyage of five months, they arrived at the coast of Mozambique 
in Africa, where they wintered, and at Goa, the Portuguese seat of 
government in the East Indies, on the 6th of May 1542. 

On landing, the first visit of Xavier was to the hospital; his next to 
his spiritual superior, the Bishop of Goa, to whom he presented the 
briefs of Paul IIL, and implored his sanction and blessing on his mis- 
sionary enterprise. He had scarcely commenced it, when he made the 
painful discovery that the doctrines in which he was anxious to 
instruct the infidels, were openly contradicted by the life and 
example of the greater part of the Christian residents in Goa. To 
their spiritual reformation therefore he directed his first endeavours ; 
going from street to street, with a bell in his hand, he summoned 
every inhabitant to send him his children and slaves, in order that 
they might receive Christian instruction. Having secured his in- 
fluence over the young, he exerted himself in his ministrations to 
expose the prevailing vices, and to present the remedies which religion 
affords. From the Christians, his zeal extended itself to the infidels, 
whose temples he caused to be destroyed, and churches to be erected 
on their site. His labours were speedily rewarded in Goa by a marked 
reformation among the inhabitants. After a residence of six months 
in that town, he left it to visit the coast of the pearl fishery, which 
extends from Cape Comorin to the isle of Manar. He there found 
that, although a large proportion of fishers had been baptised in the 
Christian faith, they had, for want of instruction, retained the vices 
and superstitions of heathenism. In order to give them that instruc- 
tion, he laboured for some time most assiduously in acquiring the 
Malabar language. His first preaching among them was attended 
with extraordinary success, After a stay of fifteen months on this 
station, he returned to Goa for the purpose of procuring assistants to 
his work ; with them he returned, in 1544, to the fishers of th® pearl 
coast, and left several of them in different parts, to prosecute the 
labours which he had begun, He then proceeded to the kingdom of 
Travancore, where, in one month, as he states in his letters, he bap- 
tised ten thousand Indians. 

Xavier then visited Malacca, a place at that time of considerable 
trade, and to which merchants from every part of Asia were in the 
habit of resorting. He arrived there on the 25th of September 1545, 
and, according to his custom, took up his residence at the hospital, 
where he devoted himself to the service of the sick, without neglecting 
the principal object of his mission, which was to instruct the people. 
A large number of converts from among Mohammedans, Jews, and 
others, was the result of his labours, While at Malacca he was joined 
by three other Jesuit missionaries, whom Ignatius Loyola had sent to 
co-operate with him. In company with them, on the Ist of January 
1546, he set sail for the islands of Banda, and it is said, became the 
happy instrument of the conversion of the entire crew of the vessel 
which carried him. From thence he proceeded to the island of Am- 
boyna, where he baptised a large number of the inhabitants; he then 
preached the Gospel in other islands, and, having made a considerable 
stay in the Moluccas, he brought over great numbers to Christianity. 
Xavier then returned towards Goa, visiting on his voyage the islands 
where he had planted the faith : he arrived at Malaccain 1547. After 
leaving Malacca he made some stay at Manassar, near Cape Comorin, 
and afterwards passed over to the island of Ceylon, where he converted 
the King of Candy and several of his subjects; on the 20th of May 
1548, he returned to Goa. At Malacca, he had met with a Japanese 
exile, named Auger, of noble birth and high station in his country, 
whom he had instructed in the faith, and induced to accompany him 
to Goa. The description given by this Japanese of the state of his 
native islands determined Xavier on making them the next object of 
his missionary labours. Having baptised Auger, with two of his 
domestics, and given him the more Christian name of Paul of the 
Holy Faith, he set out with him from Goa on this difficult enterprise. 


| Chinese merchant to land him by night on some part of the coast. — 


.of March 1554. The memory of Francis Xavier was consecrated 


After making a short stay at Malacca, he embarked on board a Chinese 
vessel, and arrived on the 15th of August 1549, at Cangoxima, in the 
kingdom of Saxuma, in Japan. » 
The chief difficulty he had to overcome in this new mission was his _ 
ignorance of the Japanese language. Xavier, during his voyage, had, 
by means of his convert, acquired some little knowledge of it, which 
was increased by his stay of forty days at Cangoxima, and which was 
sufficient to enable him to translate into it the Apostles’ creed with a 
short exposition. The little progress however which he made in if 
proved a serious hindrance to his success, as appears from the letters 
he sent home. Through his companion, he was introduced to the 
king of Saxuma, who gave him a favourable reception, but declined 
hearing him on the subject of religion. In the hope of finding a 
more suitable field for his missionary exertions, he left S and 
proceeded to Firando, the capital of another small kingdém. He was — 
there allowed freely to exercise his ministry, and numerous conversions — 
were the fruits of it: in that city he baptised more infidels, in twenty 
days, than he had done at Cangoxima in a whole year. En ged 
by this success, he left these converts under the care of one of the 5 
Jesuits who had accompanied him, and set out for Meaco, the capital — 
of the whole empire and the residence of its ecclesiastical chief. On 
his way thither he visited Amanguchi, the principal town of the king- 
dom of Naugato, where he was allowed to preach in public and before 
the king and his court, but with little success. After a month’s stay 
in that city, he continued to journey towards Meaco. Though it was 
the depth of winter, and the rugged roads, difficult at all times, were — 
now rendered almost impassable by drifts of snow and mountain — 
torrents, yet, thinly clad and barefoot, he journeyed onwards, resigned 
and cheerful. He arrived at Meaco in February 1551, having been 
about two months on his journey. There his mean appearance and 
wayworn garments proved a subject of offence to the inhabitants; — 
accustomed to the gorgeous rites and pompous ceremonial of their — 
own religon, the priests, whose influence was paramount in that city, 
could not see in this humble person the ambassador of the Most — 
High. Though rejected with contumely, Xavier did not abandon his 
purpose, but returned to Amanguchi, where he provided himself with 
a rich suit and a retinue of attendants, and thus attired presented — 
himself before the court. This harmless device produced the desired 
effect ; he obtained the protection of the king, and preached with so — 
much success, that he baptised three thousand persons in that city. — 
These converts he left to the care of some Jesuits who had been the — 
companions of his journey; and, accompanied by two Japanese — 
Christians, who, rather than renounce the consolations of the religion — 
he had taught them, had cheerfully suffered the confiscation of their 
property, he departed from Amanguchi, in September 1551, and, on 
the 20th of November following, embarked to return to India, having 
remained in Japan two years and four months. This mission was, for 
upwards of a hundred years after the death of Xavier, successfully 
continued by the Jesuits. On his voyage he made some stay at Ma- 
lacca, chiefly for the purpose of concerting measures with the governor — 
of that place for the prosecution of a mission to China. - A serious — 
obstacle to it was the law which forbids strangers, on the severest 
penalties, to enter'that country. To remove it, it was agreed between 
Xavier and the governor of Malacca that an embassy should be sentin 
the name of the king of Portugal to establish a commercial treaty, 
and that Xavier should join it. On his return however to Malacca, — 
he found the new governor, who had arrived there during his absence, _ 
opposed to the projected embassy, and, after many unavailing entrea- 
ties to procure his compliance, he was obliged to embark alone for his _ 
intended mission on board a Portuguese vessel bound for the island of 
Sancian, near Macao, in China, a place where the Chinese were per- — 
mitted to traffic with the Portuguese merchants. On arriving there, 
the merchants of Sancian endeavoured to dissuade him from his design — 
of prosecuting his journey farther, and strongly represented to him — 
the danger. Xavier however was not to be deterred; he provided — 
himself with an interpreter, and entered into an agreement with a 


This plan was also frustrated by the Portuguese residents of Sancian, _ 
who feared that this attempt to infringe the laws might be visited — 
upon them by the vengeance of the Chinese authorities. While thus 
disappointed in his fondest hopes, he fell seriously sick, His suffer- 
ings, which were most acute, were aggravated by the inattention and 
want of skill of those around him; in the midst of them however he © 
displayed a cheerful countenance and a pious resignation. He died © 
on the 2nd of December 1552. His remains were brought over to 
Malacca on the 22nd of March 1553, where they were received with — 
the greatest honour; they were afterwards, transferred to Goa, and — 
deposited in the principal chapel of the church of Paul, on the 15th — 


by a ceremony known in the Church of Rome by the name of Beatifi- 
cation, by the Pope Paul V., in 1619, and he was canonised as a Saint — 
by Gregory XV. in 1622. In 1747, John V. king of Portugal, obtained 
a brief of Benedict XIV., which conferred on him the title of patron — 
and protector of the East Indies. His festival is observed by the 
Church of Rome on the 3rd of December. Ja 

The following works are all that Francis Xavier has left:—1, A 
Collection of Epistles, in five book, Paris, 1631, in 8vo; 2, A’ 
Catechism ; and, 3, ‘Opuscula,’ h 


a 


eS ee eS eee 
- 


= er ie 


865 XENOCRATES, 


XENOPHANES. £66 


* (Alban Butler, Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs, and the other principal 


Saints, vol. xii. p. 29-40, Derby, 1846; in this biography there is an 


error in the date both of his beatification and canonisation; Biographie 
Universelle, tome li. ; the article ‘Xavier’ in this work is by Léguy; 
Fabre, Continuation de Histoire Eeclésiastique de Fleury, livres cxxxv., 
exxxix.-cxli., cxliv,-cxlviii.; Lettres édifiantes et cwrieuses, écrites par 
des Missionnatres de la Compagnie de Jesus, 40 vols., Paris, 1832, vol. 
xxvii, a work of great curiosity and interest, and not sufficiently 
known in England. The Life of St. Francis Xavier has also been 
written in Latin, by Turselinus, Rome, 1594; in Italian, by Orlandino, 


Bartoli, and Maffei; and in French, by Bouhours, a work which was 


translated into English by Dryden in 1688.) 


_ XENOCRATES (Zevoxpdrns), a native of Chalcedon, was born 3,0. 


896. He was originally a pupil of Aischines, the Socratic philosopher, 
and then of Plato. The few facts of his life are chiefly known from 
the loose account of Diogenes Laertius. According to Diogenes he 
accompanied Plato to Sicily. Xenocrates was naturally of a slow 
understanding, which led Plato to say that Xenocrates required the 


spur, but Aristotle the bit. His temperance was proof against all 


temptation, and there are stories of his successfully resisting all the 
solicitations of Lais and Phryne. A story is also told of the Athenians 
allowing him to give his testimony without oath, though it was the 
universal practice to require a witness to take an oath. It does not 


seem very consistent with this story that he should have been once 


sold for a slave by the Athenians, because he could not pay the tax 
which was imposed on the metoicoi, or resident aliens. Demetrius 
Phalereus, it is said, paid the money and released him: this laudable 
act is also attributed to the orator Lycurgus. Other accounts of his 
having been sent by the Athenians as ambassador to King Philip, and 
to Antipater after the Lamian war, are hardly more credible. He suc- 
ceeded Speusippus B.C. 339 in the Academy, of which he was at the 
head for twenty-five years. He died Bc. 314. A long list of his 
writings is given by Laertius. 

_ We know little of the doctrines of Xenocrates, but it may be inferred 
that he exhibited his opinions in a systematic form, and not in dia- 
logues like his master Plato. To. him is attributed the division of 
philosophy into Logic, Ethic, and Physic (Physics). He principally 
occupied himself with attempting to reduce the ideal doctrines of 
Plato to mathematical elements. He assumed three forms of Being 
(otcia)—the sensuous, that which is perceived by the intellect, and 
that which is compounded and consists in opinion. In his doctrines 
we see the tendency of the Academy towards the Pythagorean doctrines 
of number. Unity and duality he considers as the gods which rule 
the world, and the soul as a self-moving number. Other like conceits 
are attributed to him. Xenocrates considered that the notion of the 
Deity pervades all things, and is even in the animals which we call 
irrational. He also admitted an order of demons, or something inter- 
mediate between the divine and the mortal, which he made to consist 
in the conditions of the soul. In his ethical teaching he made happi- 
ness consist not in the possession of a virtuous mind only, but also of 
all the powers that minister to it and enable it to effect its purposes. 

The dialogue ‘ Axiochus’ (On Death), which is usually assigned to 
Aischines, has been sometimes attributed to Xenocrates. 

It seems almost impossible to form out of the scattered notices of 
Xenocrates anything like a connected view of his system; and what 
we can learn of it is not calculated to make us regret the loss of his 
works. An anecdote in Laertius is pertinent, as showing that he did 
not expect a person to come to the study of philosophy without the 
necessary preparation. A man who was unacquainted with music, 
geometry, and astronomy, wished to become his pupil, but Xenocrates 
told him to be gone, for he had not yet got hold of the handles of 
philosophy. 

(Diogenes Laertius, iv., Xenocrates, and the Notes of Menage; Ritter, 
Geschichte der Philosophie, vol. ii.) 

XENOCRATES of Aphrodisias, a Greek physician, who is com- 
monly supposed to have lived in the reign of the emperor Tiberius 
(A.D, 14-87), though some critics are inclined to place him about B.o. 
40, but the only authority on this point is a passage in Galen (tom. iii., 
p. 130) which strongly supports the common opinion. Respecting the 
life and literary activity of Xenocrates we know nothing except that 
he wrote a work, ep) ris dard tay (éwy wpeActas or Tpopijs (On the 
Advantages or the Nutriment derived from Animals) ; Galen, tom. ii. 
p. 132; Clemens Alexand., ‘Stromat., i, p. 717. This work, which is 
often referred to, and must have consisted of several books, as the first 
is quoted by Galen, is now lost, but a considerable fragment of it, 
which treats of the nutriment which we derive from aquatic animals 
(Hep) tijs ard Tv évddpwr rpopijs), is still extant, and contains many 
sound observations on this branch of natural history. A Latin version 
of this fragment is contained in Oribasius (‘ Collectanea Medica,’ ii. 58) ; 
the Greek original, though not quite complete, was first published by 
Conr. Gesner, with a Latin translation by J. B. Rasarius, and Scholia, 
8vo, Ziirich, 1559. More complete manuscripts exist at Hamburg, in 
the Vatican library, and at Paris, and from them the subsequent 
editors have completed the text of the treatise. The next edition 
after that of Gesner is that of J. A. Fabricius, in his ‘ Bibliotheca 
Graeca’ (ix., p. 433, &c. of the old edition), which was followed by that 
of J. G. ’. Franz (8vo, Frankfort and Leipzig, 1774, with various read- 
ings, notes, and a glossary ; a second and improved edition appeared at 

BIOG. DIV. VOL. VI. 


Leipzig, 8vo, 1779), and that of Naples (8vo, 1794, with new various 
readings and notes by the editor Caietanus de Ancora). The best 
critical edition of the Greek text is that of A. Coray (8vo, Paris, 1814), 
which also contains Galen’s work on the same subject. It is Coray’s 
opinion that the author of the work ‘On the Nutriment derived from 
Animals’ is not the physician Xenocrates, but the philosopher 
Xenocrates, 

XENO’PHANES (Zevopdvys), a native of Colophon in Ionia. His 
period is uncertain. Diogenes says that he flourished in the 60th 
Olympiad (538 3.c.), which will bring him somewhat about the period 
of Anaximander. Cicero says that he was a little before Anaxagoras, 
Apollodorus fixes his birth in the 40th Olympiad, or about 620 3.c. 
Though it is not said that he ever resided at Elea (Velia) in Italy, yet 
this must be assumed to be so, as he is always considered the father 
of the Eleatic school. Elea was founded by the Phocaeans of Ionia, 
after they had left their country, which was invaded by the Persians 
under Cyrus (546 B.c.) The date of the foundation of Elea is fixed 
about 536 B.0.; but there is no direct evidence to the fact that Xeno- 
phanes was one of the colonists of Elea. The statement of Diogenes 
Laertius is, that, being driven from his country, he lived at Zancle and 
Catana in Sicily, which is rather vague. According to Timzus, Xeno- 
phanes was still living in the time of the first Hiero and Epicharmus, 
or about 477 B.c., which is entirely inconsistent with the statement of 
Apollodorus. His verses quoted by Diogenes Laertius make him 
ninety-two years of age at the time when they were written, and, 
according to the chronology of Apollodorus, this would be his age in 
the year 527 B.c. But according to Apollodorus he lived even till the 
time of Darius and Cyrus; and the first year of the first Darius is 521 
B.C. In all this uncertainty perhaps it is safest to adopt the opinion 
that he lived between the time of Pythagoras and Heraclitus, for he 
mentions Pythagoras and is mentioned by Heraclitus. 

Xenophanes was a poet and a philosopher. He was one of the 
elegiac poets of Greece, and his elegies are of the symposiac character. 
A pleasing fragment of one of his symposiac poems is preserved in 
Athenzous (xi., p. 462, ed. Casaub.), who has also preserved some of his 
elegiac verses (x. p. 413), in which Xenophanes exalts wisdom above 
strength, and six verses on the luxury of the Lydians (xii. 527). He 
also wrote an epic of two thousand verses on the foundation of Elea; 
and a poem on the foundation of his native city, Colophon. The 
philosophical doctrines of Xenophanes were expressed in a poetic form, 
and from the few fragments of his poetry which remain, and the brief 
notices of him by other writers, we collect what we know of his 
doctrines. He attacked Hesiod and Homer, both in hexameter verses, 
elegiacs, and iambic verses (as Diogenes states), for their representa- 
tions of the deities, to whom those poets attribute all the weakness 
and vices of mortals. He taught that God was One, unlike men either 
in form or mind. He said that men thought that the gods were pro- 
duced, and had bodies and feelings like their own; and to show the 
absurdity of likening the divine to the human, he added, that if 
animals could make representations of the deities, they would make the 
representations like themselves. Assuming that the deity is the most 
powerful of beings, he proves that he must of necessity be One, all 
alike, all endued with equal powers of seeing, comprehending, and 
hearing; he is the comprehensive unity in which all things are, or, as 
Cicero expresses it, ‘‘all things are One, and this One is unchangeable, 
and it is God, unproduced and eternal.” He is eternal, because he 
could not proceed from anything else; pure intellect and reason. His 
notions of the deity were obscurely expressed and not very logically 
maintained in his assertion that the deity is of a spherical form, neither 
limited nor unlimited, neither moving nor at rest. God rules and 
directs all, and things as they appear to us are the imperfect mani- 
festations of the One eternal. We cannot through them attain to a 
perfect knowledge of what he is, and all our inquiries into the true 
nature of things are vain. 

** No man has seen the truth, and man shall never 
Know what is truth of God and of the Universe. 
For should one chance to say what’s near to truth, 
Still he knows nought, and doubt is over all.” 

Thus God’s true nature cannot be known. Man must contemplate 
individual things as they appear, which have no real existence of 
themselves, and while he strives to reach the knowledge of God, he is 
distracted between this vain effort and the appearances to which he 
cannot assign truth. Something like this seems to be the meaning of 
his doctrines, the striking feature of which is the recognition of the 
opposition between the pure truth and the sensuous appearances. His 
physical doctrines are hardly known, except by a few vague statements, 
and it is difficult to reconstruct this part of his system. It is not 
easy to see from the extant fragments what is the connection between 
his physical and theological system, but the right conception of his 
physical system is connected with the right understanding of his 
theology. It is worth mentioning, as an isolated fact, that, according 
to Cicero, he said that the moon is inhabited, and that it contained 
many cities and mountains. Cicero remarks that his verses were not 
so good as those of Empedocles. 

It has been a matter of dispute whether the system of Xenophanes 
was Pantheistic. A modern writer (Cousin) has taken some pains to 
clear him from what he calls this accusation of Pantheism, or the 
conception of everything as the one God, The notion of — absolute 

K 


z XENOPHON. 


XENOPHON. 863 


\ 


siderable plausibility would assign the composition of the ‘Banquet, _ 
or ‘Symposium,’ and of the ‘ Hiero,’ to a period before B.o. 401. + 
There is another question in the life of Xenophon that remainsto __ 
be discussed, which is somewhat connected with the chronology of his 
own life and with that of Thucydides, Laertius states, “it issaid 
that Xenophon made known the books of Thucydides, which were _ 
then unknown, though it was in his power to appropriate them to 
himself.” There has been a difference of opinion as to the timeof 
the death of Thucydides, and Dodwell, by misunderstanding a passage 
in the history of Thucydides (iii. 116) as to the third eruption of 
A&tna, which is there mentioned, has concluded-that he was alivein 
the year 8,0. 395. But this isa mistake: the third eruption there — 
spoken of is that of the year B.c. 425, the sixth year of the Pelopon- 
nesian war, The history of Thucydides closes with the eighth book, 
and the year B.C, 411, the twenty-first year of the Peloponnesian war; _ 


unity is the necessary result of all reflection upon the nature of things ; 
the mind can conceive only one first’ cause, one power which pervades 
and sustains all things. When men first began to attempt to express 
their conceptions of the Deity and of the universe, the language of 
philosophy was unformed, and hence it is possible that their words 
may to us sometimes express what was not intended. Now some 
later writers certainly attribute expressions to Xenophanes from which 
we might infer that his doctrine was Pantheistic ; but the passages 
of the earlier writers, such as Aristotle, distinctly show that, in such 
passages at least, he speaks of God asa Being eternal and distinct from 
the visible universe. In order to bring him under the imputation of 
Pantheism, we ought, as Cousin remarks, to be able to show that he 
applied those terms to the visible universe which, according to Aris- 
totle and other good authorities, he applied to God. Xenophanes did 
form, it appears, a distinct conception of the unity of the Deity, 


but he did not reduce to any systematic form the mode in which 
the Deity must be viewed in relation to the visible phenomena. He 
speaks of the Deity as a self-existing all-powerful Being ; and he also 
speaks of all things as being God. Thus his system, so far as we can 
ascertain it, left room either for the Pantheistic interpretation or for 
the doctrine of pure Deism. Aristotle says (‘Metaph.,’ i, 5) that 
Xenophanes introduced the doctrine of the unity of the one according 
to reason and the one according to matter; but he said nothing clear 
on this subject, nor did he ascertain the nature of each, but looking at 
the whole heavens he said, the One isGod. The system of Xenophanes 
is discussed at great length by Cousin (‘ Biog. Univ.,’ art. ‘ Xenophanes’), 
and with considerable ingenuity. This article and the references at 
the end of the present article will indicate all the sources which the 
reader may wish to consult on this obscure subject. 

The work attributed to Aristotle, entitled ‘On Xenophanes, Zeno, 
and Gorgias,’ should be entitled ‘On Melissus, Xenophanes, and 
Gorgias ;’ it contains a condensed view and a criticism of the Eleatic 
philosophy. (‘Biographical Dictionary’ of the Society for the Diffu- 
sion of Useful Knowledge, art, ‘ Aristotle.’) 

The chief fragments of Xenophanes are collected in Ritter and 
Preller, ‘ Historia Philosophies Greco-Roman ex fontium locis con- 
texta,’ Hamburg, 1838; and they were edited by Simon Karsten, 
8vo, Brussels, 1830. ' 
(Diogenes Laertius, Xenophanes ; Ritter, Geschichte der Philosophie, 
vol. i. 

XE’NOPHON (Eevopdv), the son of Gryllus, an Athenian citizen, 
was a native of the Attic demus Ercheia. The only extant biography 
of Xenophon is by Diogenes Laertius, which, as usual, is carelessly 
written; but this biography and the scattered notices of ancient 
writers, combined with what may be collected from Xenophon’s own 
works, are the only materials for his life. 

There is no direct authority either for the time of Xenophon’s birth 
or death, but these dates may be approximated to with reasonable 
probability. Laertius and Strabo state that Socrates saved Xenophon’s 
life at the battle of Delium, 3.0, 424, a fact which there seems no 
reason for rejecting, and from which it may be inferred that Xenophon 
was born about 3.0, 444. In his ‘ Hellenica’ (vi. 4, 35) he mentions 
the assassination of Alexander of Phere, which took place B.c. 857, 
and Xencphon was of course alive in that year. This agrees well 
enough with Lucian’s statement that Xenophon attained the age of 
above ninety. (‘Macrob.’ 21.) Much has been said as to Xenophon’s 
age at the time of his joining the expedition of the younger Cyrus, 
B,C. 401; and the dispute turns on the point whether he was then a 
young man between twenty and thirty, or a man of forty and upwards. 
Those who make him a young man rely on the expression in the 
* Anabasis’ (ii. 1, 12), where he is called neaniscus (veavloxos), but in 
this passage, in place of ‘ Xenophon,’ the best manuscripts read ‘Theo- 
pompus:’ it is also observed that the term neaniscus was not confined 
to young men, but was sometimes applied-to men of forty at least. 
Besides this, those who contend that he was forty or upwards in the 
year B.C. 401, rely on another passage in the ‘ Anabasis’ (vii. 2, 8), 
where he is spoken of asa man who seemed old enough to havea 
marriageable daughter. On the whole there is nothing in the ‘Ana- 
basis ’ inconsistent with a date about the year B.c, 444, which may be 
assigned as that of his birth. This subject and other points in the 
chronology of Xenophon have been discussed by C. W. Kriiger (‘De 
Xenophontis Vita Questiones Criticr,’ Halle, 1822). 

According to Laertius, Xenophon became the pupil of Socrates at 
an early age. There is also a notice in Philostratus of his receiving 
lessons from Prodicus of Ceos while he was a prisoner in Boeotia, but 
there is no other evidence as to the fact of his having fallen into the 
hands of the Bosotians. In the fable of the Choice of Hercules 
(‘ Memorab.,’ ii. 1), Xenophon does not give any indication of his 
personal acquaintance with Prodicus; but nothing can be concluded 
from such an omission, Photius states that he was also a pupil of 
Isocrates, who was however younger than Xenophon. If this is true 
it is probable that he was a pupil of Isocrates before the year 3.0, 401, 
Athenzus (x. 427, ed. Casaub.) also quotes a saying of Xenophon at 
the table of Dionysius the Tyrant, but he does not say whether the 
older or younger tyrant is meant. The older tyrant reigned till 
B.C. 367, and it is more likely, if Xenophon ever went to Syracuse, 
that he went before B.c. 367 than after. It is not known if Xenophon 
wrote anything before the year B.o, 401, though Letronne with con- 


and there is no evidence to render it in the slightest degree probable 
that he ever finished it. That he intended to finish it is clear enough 
from the first chapter of the first book. The ‘Hellenics ’ of Xenophon — 
commence where the history of Thucydides breaks off, and area con- 
tinuation of the work of Thucydides. Thucydides was recalled from 
exile 3B.c, 403, but it is not known how long he survived his recall. 
The fact of his not having finished his history leads to a probable con- _ 
clusion that he did not survive the termination of the war many 


years, but such conclusion is only a moderate probability, for there 


are many reasons besides want of time why a man does not finish a 
large undertaking, J x 
Letronne assumes that Thucydides did not survive the year 
B.C. 402, but there is no evidence for fixing on this year, nme 
has been induced to do it simply in order to give to Xenophon the © 
honour of making known the books of Thucydides before the year ~ 
B.C. 401; for we are certain, he says, that Xenophon was at Athensin 


‘the year B.c. 402. But though we may admit the truth of the story, — 


that Xenophon was the first editor of Thucydides, and may even haye 
added the eighth book from the materials collected by the historian, 
there is no reason for fixing the date of this publication before the — 
year B.C. 401 rather than after. = 
In 3.0,401 Xenophon went to Sardes to Cyrus, the Persian, the 
brother of Artaxerxes Mnemon, king of Persia. He tells us himself 
(‘Anab.,’ i. 1) the circumstances of this journey. Proxenus, Xeno- — 
phon’s friend, was then with Cyrus, and he invited Xenophontocome, 
and promised to introduce him to Cyrus, Xenophon took the advice 
of Socrates, who, fearing that Xenophon might incur the displeasure of — 
the Athenians if he attached himself to Cyrus, inasmuch as Cyrus — 
was supposed to have given the Lacedsmonians aid in their recent __ 
wars against Athens, advised Xenophon to consult the oracle of Delphi. — 
Xenophon went to Delphi and asked the god (Apollo) to what gods he ~ 
should sacrifice and make his vows in order to secure success in the 
enterprise which he meditated. The god gave him his answer, but — 
Socrates blamed him for not asking whether he should undertake the - 
voyage or not. However, as he had obtained an answer from the god, — 
Socrates advised him to follow the god’s commands; and accordingly — 
Xenophon set out for Sardes, where he found Cyrus and Proxenus 
just ready to leave the city on an expedition. This story is charac- — 
teristic both of Socrates and Xenophon. { 
It was given out by Cyrus that his expedition was against the 
Pisidians, and all the Greeks in the army were deceived, except 
Clearchus, who was in the secret. The object of Cyrus was to 
dethrone his brother, and after advancing a short distance it beeame 
apparent to all the Greeks, who however, with the exception of a few, — 
determined to follow him, After a long march through Asia Minor, 
Syria, and the sandy tract east of the Euphrates, the two brothers met __ 
at Cunaxa, not far from Babylon. Cyrus fell in the almost bloodless _ 
battle that ensued, his barbarian troops were discouraged and dis- 
persed, and the Greeks were left alone in the centre of the Persian _ 
empire. Clearchus was by common consent invited to take the — 
command, but he and many of the Greek commanders were shortly 
after massacred by the treachery of Tissaphernes, the Persian satrap, — 
who was acting for the king. It was now that Xenophon came 
forward. He had hitherto merely followed the army of Cyrus, and 
had neither held a command nor even been considered asa soldier. 
He introduces himself to our notice at the beginning of the third book — 
of the ‘ Anabasis’ in that simple manner which characterises the best 
writers of antiquity. From this time Xenophon became one of the 
most active leaders, and under his guidance the Greeks effected their — 
retreat northwards across the high lands of Armenia and arrived at — 
Trapezus (Trebisond), a Greek colony on the south-east coast of the 
Black Sea. From Trapezus Xenophon conducted the Greeks to Chry-— 
sopolis, opposite to Byzantium. Both he and the army were in great 
distress, for they had lost everything in the retreat, and they were — 
therefore ready enough to accept the proposals of Seuthes, king of 
Thrace, who wished to have their aid in recovering the kingly power, — 
The Greeks performed the stipulated services, but the Thracian would — 
not pay the amount agreed on, and it was not till after some nego- 
ciations that Xenophon obtained a part of what was due to the army. 
At this time the Lacedzemonian general Thimbron was carrying on a — 


-war against Tissaphernes and Pharnabazus, and he invited the Greeks — 


under ee to join him. At the request of his soldiers Xenophon — 
conducted the troops back into Asia, and they joined the army of — 


ee ee eS ee —eor —— 
r ? . ‘ 7 


869 XENOPHON. 


XENOPHON. 870 


Thimbron (8.0. 399). Immediately before giving up the troops, Xeno- 
phon with a part of them made an expedition into the plain of the 
Caicus, for the purpose of plundering a wealthy Persian named 
Asidates. The Persian was taken, with his women, children, horses, 


-and all that he had. Xenophon received a good share of the plunder. 


(‘ Anab.,’ vii. 8, 23.). 

It is uncertain what Xenophon did after giving up the troops to 
Thimbron. He remarks (‘ Anab.,’ vii. 7, 57), just before he speaks of 
leading the troops back into Asia, that hethad not yet been banished; 
but as it is stated by various authorities that he was banished by the 


Athenians because he joined the expedition of Cyrus against the Persian 


king, who was then on friendly terms with the Athenians, it is most 


a probable that the sentence of banishment was passed against him in 


the year B.C, 399, in which Socrates was executed. It seems reason- 
able enough that the execution of Socrates should be followed or 
accompanied by the banishment of his pupil, who was adding to his 
former offence that of putting troops in the hands of the Lacedz- 
monians to act against the Persian king. Letronne assumes, in the 
absence of evidence, that he returned to Athens in B.c. 399. But it is 
much more likely that he stayed with Thimbron, and with Dercyllidas, 


the successor of Thimbron; and there are various passages in the 


* Hellenica’ which favour the conjecture. 
Agesilaus, king of Sparta, was sent with an army into Asia, B.c. 396, 


and Xenophon was with him during the whole, or part at least, of this 
_ Asiatic expedition. Agesilaus was recalled to Greece Bc. 394, and 


Xenophon accompanied him on his return (‘Anab.,’ v. 3, 6), and he 
was with Agesilaus in the battle against his own countrymen at Coro- 
neia, B.C. 394. According to Plutarch, he accompanied Agesilaus to 
Sparta after the battle of Coroneia, and shortly after settled himself at 


- Seillus and Eleia, near Olympia, on a spot which the Lacedsmonians 


ve him, and here, it is said, he was joined by his wife Philesia and 
ier children. Philesia was apparently the second wife of Xenophon, 
and he had probably married her in Asia. On the advice of Agesilaus 
he sent his sons to Sparta to be educated. Thus Xenophon had 
become an exile from his country for an act of treason, or what was 
equivalent to treason; he had received a present of land from the 
Lacedeemonians, the enemies of the Athenians, and he was educating 
his children in Spartan usages. 

From this time Xenophon took no part in public affairs. He resided 
at Scillus, where he spent his time in hunting, entertaining his friends, 
and in writing some of his later works. Diogenes Laertius states that 
he wrote here his histories, by which he must mean the ‘ Anabasis’ 
and the ‘ Hellenica,’ and probably the ‘Cyropaedia.’ During his 
residence here also he probably wrote the treatise on ‘ Hunting,’ 
and that on ‘Riding. The history of the remainder of his life is 
somewhat doubtful. Diogenes-says that the Eleians sent a force 
against Scillus, and as the Lacedsmonians did not come to the 
aid of Xenophon, they seized the place. Xenophon’s son, with 
some slaves, made their escape to Lepreum; Xenophon himself 
first went to Elis, for what purpose it is not said, and then to 
Lepreum to meet his children. At last he withdrew to Corinth, and 
he probably died there. The time of his expulsion from Scillus is 
uncertain; but it is a probable conjecture of Kriiger, that the Elcians 
took Scillus not earlier than B.¢. 371, in which year the Lacede- 
monians were defeated in the battle of Leuctra. Letronne fixes the 
date at the year B.c. 368, though there is no authority for that precise 
year; but he considers it most probable that the Eleians invaded 
Scillus at the time when the Lacedemonians were most engaged 
with the Theban war, which would be during the invasion of Laconia 
by Epaminondas. Xenophon must have lived above twenty years at 
Scillus, if the date of his expulsion from that place is not before 
the year 8.0. 371. Thesentence of banishment against Xenophon was 
revoked by a decree proposed by Eubulus ; but the date of this decree 
is uncertain. Before the battle of Mantineia, B.c, 362, the Athenians 
had joined the Spartans against the Thebans. Upon this Xenophon 
sent his two sons Gryllus and Diodorus to Athens, to fight on the 
Spartan side against the Thebans, Gryllus fell in the battle of Man- 
tineia, in which the Theban general Kpaminondas also lost his life. 
Letronne assumes that the decree for repealing the sentence of 
banishment against Xenophon must have passed before B.c. 362, 
because his two sons served in the Athenian army at the battle of 
Mantineia. But this is not conclusive. Kriiger, for other reasons, 
thinks that the sentence was repealed not later than Ol. 103, which 
would be before the battle of Mantineia. No reason is assigned by any 
ancient writer for Xenophon not returning to Athens: for in the absence 
of direct evidence as to his return, we must conclude that he did not, 

Several of his works were written or completed after the revocation 
of his sentence: the ‘Hipparchicus;’ the Epilogus to the ‘ Cyropaedia,’ 
if we assume that his sentence was revoked before B.c. 362; and the 
treatise on the ‘Revenues of Athens.’ Stesicleides, quoted by Dio- 
genes, places the death of Xenophon in B.c. 359; but there is much 
uncertainty on this matter. (Clinton, ‘Fast. Hellen.,’ B.c, 359, and 
his remarks on the death of Alexander of Phere.) Probably he died a 
few years after B.C. 359. 

The extant works of Xenophon may be distributed into four classes: 
Historical—the ‘ Anabasis,’ the ‘ Hellenica,” and the ‘Cyropaedia,’ 
which however ‘is not strictly historical, and the ‘ Life of Agesilaus ;’ 
Didactic—the ‘ Hipparchicus,’ ‘On Horsemanship,’ and ‘On Hunting;’ 


Political—the ‘ Republics of Sparta and Athens,’ and the ‘ Revenues of 
Attica ;’ Philosophical—the ‘Memorabilia of Socrates,’ the ‘(cono- 
mic,’ the ‘Symposium, or Banquet,’ the ‘ Hiero,’ and the ‘ Apology of 
Socrates.’ There are also extant certain letters attributed to Xenophon, 
but, like many other ancient productions of the same class, they are 
not genuine. The works of Xenophon as enumerated by Diogenes 
agree exactly with those which are extant, and we may therefore con- 
clude that we have at least as many works as Xenophon published, 
though all of them may not be genuine. It is true that Diogenes says 
that Xenophon wrote about forty books (f:8Ala), but he says that they 
were variously divided, from which expression, and the list that he gives, 
it is certain that by the word biblia, he intends to reckon the several 
divisions or books, as we call them, of the ‘ Anabasis,’ ‘ Hellenica,’ 
‘ Cyropaedia,’ and ‘ Memorabilia,’ as distinct biblia, and thus we have in 
the whole the number of thirty-eight, which is near enough to forty. 

The editions of the collected works of Xenophon and of the separate 
works are very numerous. The ‘ Hellenica’ was the first work that 
appeared. It was printed at Venice, folio, 1503, by the editor Aldus, 
under the title of ‘ Paralipomena,’ and as a supplement to his edition 
of Thucydides, which was printed in 1502. he first edition of the 
works of Xenophon was printed by P. Giunta, folio, Florence, 1516; 
but the Agesilaus, the Apology, the treatise on the Revenues of 
Athens, and a part of the treatise on the constitution of Athens are 
wanting. The edition of Andrea of Asola, folio, 1525, contains every- 
thing except the‘ Apology.’ The first complete edition of the works 
of Xenophon was the Giunta edition of Hall, 3 vols. 8vo, 1540, with a 
at age by Melanchthon, who also added the ‘ Apology,’ which had 

een edited by John Reuchlin (Capmo), 4to, at Hagenau, 1520. The 
Basel edition of 1545, folio, printed by Nic, Brylinger, is the first 
which contains the Greek text with the Latin version. The editions 
of Henry Stephens, 1561, 1581, contain an amended text: the edition 
of 1561 has no Latin version, but that of 1581 has. The editions 
of Stephens were the foundation of the three editions of Johann Loe- 
wenklau, 1572, commonly called Leunclavius, Basel, 1569, Frankfort, 
1594, accompanied with the Latin version. The edition of B. Weiske, 
6 vols. 8vo, Leipzig, 1798-1804, did nothing towards a new recension 
of the text, though it is corrected in many places. The most pretend- 
ing edition of all the works of Xenophon is that of Gail, on which it is 
fair to take the opinion of his own countryman Letronne. This edition 
is entitled “‘(iuvres complétes de Xénophon traduites en Francais, 
accompagnées du texte, de la version Latine, et de notes critiques,’ 6 
vols. 4to, 1797-1804. There is a seventh volume, in three parts, one 
of which (1808) contains the various readings of three manuscripts; a 
second (1814) contains the notices of the manuscripts, and observations, 
literary and critical; and the third an Atlas of maps and plans, 
Gail has kept to the old text, and has made no use of his various 
readings for improving it. His literary and critical observations, in 
which he discusses certain difficult passages, are more useful for the 
understanding of Xenophon than for the correction of the text. The 
convenient division into paragraphs has unfortunately been only 
adopted in the last volume, which contains the ‘Memorabilia,’ the 
treatise on Hunting, and the *(iconomic.’ The Latin version is 
that of Leunclavius, which is corrected in some passages. The French 
version is only new in parts. The author acknowledges that he has 
taken those of the ‘Cyropaedia,’ the ‘ Memorabilia,’ and the ‘ Anabasis,’ 
by Dacier, Levéque, and Larcher, with some few alterations, made, as 
he says, for the following reason :—‘I was induced to copy these 
three versions; but the publisher of one of these three versions 
having given me notice of certain claims of his own (des prétentions), 
to avoid all discussion, I made some alterations,’ There are indexes of 
the contents of each volume, except the first, which has only a title of 
the chapters, and that very insufficient,” &c. This is very moderate 
praise, but it is quite as much as Gail’s pompous edition deserves. 
Zeune published an edition of the various works of Xenophon, except 
the ‘ Hellenica,’ between 1778 and 1785, in 5 vols. 8vo. Schneider 
revised this edition: he published the ‘ Hellenica’ in 1791; the ‘ Me- 
morabilia’ in 1790 and 1801; the ‘Cyropaedia’ in 1800; the ‘ Oeco- 
nomic’ and the ‘ Agesilaus’ in 1805; the ‘ Anabasis’ in 1806; and 
the Political minor works in 1815. 

The ‘ Anabasis’ (’Ava8acis), in seven books, is the work by which 
Xenophon is best known. It contains the history of the expedition of 
the younger Cyrus against his brother Artaxerxes Mnemon, and the 
retreat of the Greeks who accompanied him. ‘The first book contains 
the march of Cyrus to the neighbourhood of Babylon, and ends with 
his death at the battle of Cunaxa. The remaining six books contain 
the account of the retreat of the Ten Thousand, as the Greek army 
is often called. The work is written in an easy agreeable style, and 
is full of interest as being a minute detail by an eye-witness of the 
hazards and adventures of the army in their difficult march through 
an unknown and hostile country. The impression which it makes is 
favourable to the writer’s veracity and his practical good sense; but 
as a history of military operations, it is‘as much inferior to the only 
work of antiquity with which it can be compared, the ‘Commentaries 
of Cesar, as the writer himself falls short of the lofty genius of the 
great Roman commander. There are numerous editions of the ‘ Ana- 
basis,’ which have merit enough so far as concerns the critical handling 
of the text, but not one of them contains a sufficient commentary. 
The work of Major Rennell is still the best commentary, ‘ Illustrations 


871 XENOPHON, 


XENOPHON, 872 


chiefly geographical, of the History of the Expedition of Cyrus,’ &c., 
4to, London, 1807. There are several English translations, of which 
that of Spelman is the best known. i 

The authorship of the ‘Anabasis’ is not quite free from doubt, 
owing to a passage in the third book of the *Hellenica’ (iii. 1,1), 
where the author refers to a work of Themistogenes of Syracuse for 
the history of the expedition of Cyrus and the retreat of the Greek 
army to the Euxine. This however is not a complete description of 
the contents of the ‘Anabasis’ of Xenophon, whose narrative also 
conducts the army from Trapezus on the Euxine to Byzantium. Still 
the retreat may fairly be considered as having terminated when the 
army reached a Greek colony on the Euxine, and so indeed it is 
viewed in the ‘Anabasis’ (v. 1, 1). There is then perhaps no doubt 
that Xenophon does refer to the ‘Anabasis’ which we have; and if 
this be admitted, the difficulty is not easy of solution. Plutarch (‘De 
Glor. Athen.’) supposes that Xenophon attributed the work to Themis- 
togenes, in order that people might have more confidence in what was 
said of himself. But this is not satisfactory. Others suppose that 
there was a work by Themistogenes which gave the history of the 
retreat as far as Trapezus, and that Xenophon published his .‘ Hel- 
lenica’ in two parts, and that he first continued the history of the 
Peloponnesian war to the capture of Athens, which would complete 
the history of Thucydides, and also carried it to the year B.c, 399, 
This is the conjecture of Letronne, who connects it with the assump- 
tion of Xenophon returning to Athens in B.c. 399, as to which there 
is noevidence. The history up to the year B.c. 899 comprehends the 
first two books of the ‘ Hellenica,’ and the first paragraph of the third 
book, in which Themistogenes is mentioned. Letronne assumes that 
this first part was begun before Xenophon joined the expedition of 
Cyrus, and was finished either in the interval of his assumed return 
from Asia and his departure to join.the army of Agesilaus, or in the 
early part of his retreat at Scillus, at which time it is further assumed 
that he had not yet written the ‘ Anabasis,’ and was obliged to refer 
to the ‘Anabasis’ of Themistogenes, which, it is still further assumed, 
was already published and known. The rest of the ‘ Hellenica,’ it is 
assumed, was written later, and perhaps not published till after the 
death of Xenophon, by his son Diodorus or his grandson Gryllus. If 
all this assumption is necessary to explain the fact of Xenophon re- 
ferring to the work of Themistogenes on the ‘Anabasis,’ we may as 
well assume that there was no such work of Themistogenes, for we 
know nothing of it from any other quarter, and that Xenophon for 
some unknown reason spoke of his own work as if it were written by 
another person. In reading the ‘Anabasis,’ it is difficult to resist the 
conviction that it is by Xenophon, especially when we turn to such 
passages as that in the fifth book where he speaks of his residence at 
Scillus, and other passages in which he speaks of his dreams, his 
thoughts, and other matters which could only be known to himself. 

The ‘ Hellenica’ (‘EAAnvixd), in seven books, comprehend a period 
of forty-eight years, from the time when the history of Thucydides 
ends, B.C. 411, to the battle of Mantineia, B.c. 362. They record how- 
ever, as already observed, the assassination of Alexander of Phere, 
which took place B.c. 8357. The hypothesis that this history consists 
properly of two works or parts has been mentioned. This is Niebuhr’s 
opinion. [TaucypipEs.] ‘The ‘ Hellenica’ have little merit as a his- 
tory. The author was altogether deficient in that power of reflection 
and of penetrating to the motives of action which characterise the 
great work of Thucydides. It is generally a dry narrative of events, 
and contains little to move or affect, with the exception of a few 
incidents which are given with more than the usual detail. The 
parts also are not treated in their due proportions, and many import- 
ant events are passed over briefly. This, the only proper historical 
work of Xenophon, does not entitle him to the praise of being a good 
historical writer. It may be urged that the work was only a kind of 
‘ Mémoires pour servir,’ as some have supposed; but if it is to be 
taken as a continuation of Thucydides, it is a history, and as such it 
has been considered both in ancient and modern times. There is an 
English translation of the ‘ Hellenica’ by W. Smith, the translator of 
Thucydides. 

The ‘ Cyropaedia’ (Kupou wa:Sela) is not an historical but a political 
work, in which the ethical element prevails. Its object is to show 
how citizens can be formed to be virtuous and brave, and to exhibit 
also a model of a wise and good governor. Xenophon chooses for his 
exemplar Cyrus, the founder of the Persian empire, and the Persians 
are his models of men who are brought up in a true discipline. The 
work has no authority whatever as a history, nor is it even authority for 
the usages of the Persians, some of which we know from other writers to 
be different from what they are represented to be by Xenophon. Xeno- 
phon borrowed his materials from the Grecian states, and especially 
from Lacedemon; and the ‘Cyropaedia’ is one of the many proofs 
of his aversion to the usages and the political constitution of his native 
‘city. The genuineness of the epilogus, or conclusion of the work, has 
been doubted by some critics. Its object is to show that the Persians 
had greatly degenerated since the time of Cyrus. The ‘Cyropaedia’ 
is one of the most laboured of Xenophon’s works, and contains his 
views on the training of youth, and of the character of a perfect 
prince. It is an agreeable exposition of principles under the form of 
a history, and, like Xenophon’s other treatises, it contains more of 
plain practical precepts, founded on observation and supported by 


good sense, than any profound views. The dying speech of Cyrus is 
worthy of a pupil of Socrates. There is an English translation of the 
‘Cyropaedia’ by Maurice Ashley Cowper. i 
The ‘ Agesilaus’ (AynoiAaos) is a panegyric on Xenophon’s friend, __ 
the Lacedemonian king, another evidence of his Laconism or Spartan 
predilections. Cicero (‘Ad Fam.,’ v. 12) says that he has in this pane- 
gyric surpassed all the statues that have been raised in honour of 
kings. Many modern critics have passed an unfavourable judgment 
on this work, and some maintain that it is the work of a sophist or 
orator of a later age. It has been described as a kind of cento made — 
up of passages copied literally from the ‘ Hellenica’ and other works 
of Xenophon. ts 
The ‘ Hipparchicus’ (‘Imrapxucdés) is a treatise on the commandof 
the cavalry, in which Xenophon gives instructions for the choice of 
cavalry men, and remarks on the duty of a commander of cavalry. 
There is internal evidence that this treatise was written at Athens, 
but there are different opinions as to the time when it was composed. — 
The treatise on ‘Horsemanship’ (‘Immu4) was written after the 
‘ Hipparchicus,’ to which reference is made at the end of this treatise. 
The author says that he has had much experience as a horseman, and 
is therefore qualified to give instruction to others. He speaks at the 
beginning of a work on the subject by Simon, in whose opinionshe 
coincides, and he professes to supply some of his omissions. | oy 
work is translated into English, and was printed by Henry Denham, 
4to, London, 1584. ;, 
The ‘ Cynegeticus’ (Kuvyyerixds) is a treatise on Hunting, a sport of 
which the author was very fond. It contains many excellent remarks 
on dogs, on the various kinds of game, and the mode of taking it. 
[ARRIAN,] a 
The treatises on the Republics of Sparta and Athens were not always 
recognised as genuine works of Xenophon, even by the ancients; and 
some modern writers have adopted this opinion, But there is nothing 
in them which can be urged against Xenophon’s authorship. They 
show his attachment to Spartan institutions, and his dislike of demo- 
eracy. There is an English translation of the ‘Republic of Athens,’ 
by James Morris, 8vo, London, 1794. x 
The treatise on the ‘Revenues of Athens’ (dépo: 4 ep) mpooddwy) 
has for its object to show how the revenues of Athens, and especially 
those derived from the mines, may be improved by better manage- 
ment, and be made sufficient for the maintenance of the poor citizens _ 
and all other purposes, without requiring contributions from the allies _ 
and subject states. The matter of this treatise is discussed by Boeckh, _ 
in his work on the ‘Public Economy of Athens.’ This treatise was — 
translated into English by Walter Moyle, 8vo, 1697, and reprinted in 
Moyle’s whole works. 
The ‘Memorabilia of Socrates,’ in four books (Amouynuoveduata — 
Swxpdrovs), is the chief philosophical work of Xenophon. He defends ~ 
his master against the charges of irreligion and corrupting the youth 
of Athens, and in a series of conversations he introduces Socrates 
after his fashion as developing and inculcating various moral truths, — 
The tendency of the work is entirely practical, and it may be true,as 
some writers maintain, that Xenophon has exhibited the teaching of 
Socrates in a manner more conformable to his own notions than in 
the fuil sense and spirit of the Socratic method. But Xenophon was 
a hearer of Socrates, lived for a long time on terms of intimacy with 
him, and as he was anxious to defend the memory of his master, and 
certainly had no pretensions to originality himself as a thinker, we 
may assume that the matter of the ‘Memorabilia’ is genuine, thatthe 
author has exhibited a portion of the moral and intellectual character _ 
of Socrates, such part as he was able to appreciate, or such as suited 
his taste; and that we have in this work as genuine a picture of 
Socrates as his pupil Xenophon could make. ‘There is an English 
translation of the ‘Memorabilia’ and the ‘Apology for Socrates,’ by 
Sarah Fielding. The ‘Apology’ (AmoAoyla Zwxpdrous mpds rods Aucag- 
tds) is not, as the title imports, the defence which Socrates made on 
his trial, but it contains the reasons which determined him to prefer — 
death rather than to humble himself to ask for his life from his pre- 
judiced judges. Valcknaer and others do not allow this to be Xeno- 
phon’s work, because they consider it to be unworthy of him: but if 
a man is to lose the discredit of a bad work simply because he has 
written better, many persons may disown their own books. The 
‘ Apology’ is indeed a trivial performance, but Xenophon did writean 
‘ Apology,’ according to Laertius, and this may be it. i 
The ‘Symposium,’ or ‘Banquet of the Philosophers’ (Svurdciov), 
has for its object the delineation of the character of Socrates. Itis 
in the form of a dialogue between Socrates, Antisthenes, Critobulus, 
and others, at the house of Callias. It contains the opinions of — 
Socrates on the subject of love and friendship. It is an ancient 
tradition that Xenophon wrote this work after the ‘Symposium’ of 
Plato, and that he designed to correct the view of Socrates which is 
there given by Plato.- Boeckh thinks that Plato wrote his ‘Sympo- _ 
sium’ after reading that of Xenophon, and that his purpose wasto _ 
exhibit the ideal of a wise man in the person of Socrates, Ast is of 
the same opinion, and thinks that the ‘Symposium’ is a juvenile 
work, The ‘Banquet’ was translated by James Wellwood, M.D., — 
1710, and reprinted in 1750. . 9 
The ‘ Hiero’ (‘Iépwy 7) rupavvucds) is a dialogue between Hiero, tyrant 
of Syracuse, and the poet Simonides. The tyrant describes the 


———— en 


a ee eS 


VW 


a 


a 


873 XENOPHON. 


XERXES I. 


874 


dangers and véxations incident to the possession of power, and con- 
trasts the tyrant’s condition with the tranquillity of a private man. 
The poet shows that the tyrant has it in his power to oblige persons 
more than private individuals can, and he offers some suggestions as 
to the best mode of using power and making the people happy. It 
has been already stated that there is one brief notice of Xenophon 


’ making a voyage to Sicily, and Letronne conjectures that the composi- 


tion of this little treatise may have been suggested by what Xenophon 
saw of a tyrant’s life at the court of Dionysius. This little piece has 
considerable artistic merit, and it is justly observed that it savours of 


_ the school of Isocrates more than any other of Xenophon’s works. 


There is a translation of this work attributed to Queen Elizabeth, but 


we do not know on what authority. It first appeared in 1743, 8vo, in 


* Miscellaneous Correspondence,’ No. 11, with the title ‘A Translation 
of a Dialogue out of Xenophon in Greek, between Hiero, a king, yet 
some tyme a private person, and Simonides, a poet, as touching the 
life of the prince man. By Elizabeth, Queen of England.’ A trans- 
lation also appeared in 1793, 8vo, which is attributed to the Rev. R. 
Graves, who translated Marcus Antoninus. 

The ‘C&conomic’ (Oikovoyuxds) is a discourse on the management 
of a household and on agriculture, between Socrates and Critobulus. 
‘Tn the fourth chapter Socrates speaks of Cyrus the Younger, and his 
love of horticulture. This passage was written after the death of 

s, and the whole work probably belongs to a late period of Xeno- 
phon’s life, though Socrates is introduced as pronouncing the panegyric 
of Cyrus. Itis a confirmation of the authorship of the ‘Anabasis’ being 
rightly assigned to Xenophon, that he speaks of Cyrus, his character, 
and death in the same manner, and almost in the same words which are 
used in the ‘ Anabasis’ (‘ Oeconom.,’ c, 4; ‘ Anab,,’i. 8,9). The seventh 
chapter contains a charming conversation between Ischomachus and 
his wife, on the duty of a good wife, which consists in the proper 
management of the interior of the house; it is the husband’s business 
to labour out of doors and to provide that which the house requires; 
it is the wife’s business to take care of what the husband produces, 
and to apply it to the uses of the house. The husband’s employment, 


' as here represented, is agriculture in a country where slaves are the 


labourers; but the picture of married life will suit every condition, 
and modern wives might learn from this excellent treatise that their 
employment is at home; that the object of marriage is the happiness 
of the husband and wife, the procreation of children, and their proper 
nurture and education. Fidelity to her husband, frugal management 
of his substance, and the care of his children are the wife’s duties, 
which are incompatible with gadding abroad. This is one of the best 
treatises of Xenophon. It was translated into Latin by Cicero, There 
are several English translations. The first is by Gentian Hervet, 
London, 8vo, 1534, which has been reprinted several times. ‘There is 
also a translation by Robert Bradley, F.R.S., London, 8vo, 1727. 
‘The general character of Xenophon may be estimated from this 
brief sketch of his life and writings. Before we heap upon him all 
the abuse which some modern writers have done, we ought to have 
the facts of his life with sufficient minuteness to enable us to judge of 
every part of it. He did not like the democracy of his native city, 
and he may have been glad of the opportunity of leaving Athens 
which the invitation of Proxenus offered. If his own statement is 
true, he was not to blame for joining the expedition of Cyrus, though 
it is very probable that he was blamed for it at Athens, and supposed 
to have been well acquainted with the design of Cyrus from the first, 
The fact of his delivering up the troops to Thimbron, the Lacedemo- 
nian, after the campaign in Thrace, was well calculated to add to the 
jealousy of the Athenians, and his native city cannot be.charged with 
more than her usual severity in banishing him for his part in the 
expedition of Cyrus and the subsequent events. So far there is 
nothing which will justify us in attaching any serious imputation on 
Xenophon. Though a man is born in a democracy, he may not like 
it ; and nobody would blame him for leaving it for some other country 
that he liked better. Xenophon’s presence at the battle of Coroneia 
cannot be so satisfactorily explained; but it may be that he did not 
take part in it; and after having joined Agesilaus in Asia, it is very 
probable that he could not safely avoid accompanying him back to 
Europe. Being banished from Athens, his only safety was in keeping 
with his friends the Lacedzemonians. One step in a man’s life often 
decides all the rest, and involves him in a train of circumstances which 
he could not foresee, and which leave his character not free from impu- 
tation. This was, in Xenophon’s case, his joining the expedition of 
Cyrus. There is no proof of his active hostility against Athens after 
his banishment: there is proof enough that he preferred Sparta and 
Spartan constitutions ; and if that is blame, he deserves enough of it. 
Xenophon appears to have been humane and gentle in his character. 
He evidently liked quiet. He was fond of farming, hunting, and rural 
occupations generally. His talents would have suited him for admin- 
istration in a well-ordered community, but he was not fitted for the 
turbulence of Athenian democracy. He was a religious man, or, as 
we are now pleased to term it, a superstitious man. He believed in 
the religion of his country, and was scrupulous in performing and 
enforcing the observance of the usual ceremonies. He had faith in 
dreams, and looked upon them as manifestations of the deity. His 
philosophy was the practical: it had reference to actual life, and in all 
practical matters and everything that concerns the ordinary conduct 


of human life he shows good sense and honourable feeling. He was 
in understanding a plain sensible man, who could express with pro- 
priety and in an agreeable manner whatever he had to say. Asa 
writer he deserves the praise of perspicuity and ease, and for these 
qualities he has in all ages been justly admired. As an historical 
writer he is infinitely below Thucydides: he had no depth of re- 
flection, no great insight into the fundamental principles of society. 
His ‘ Hellenica,’ his only historical effort, would not have preserved 
his name, except for the importance of the facts which this work 
contains and the deficiency of other historical records. His * Ana- 
basis’ derives its interest from the circumstances of that memorable 
retreat, and the name of Xenophon is thus connected with an event 
which exposed to the Greeks the weakness of the Persian empire, and 
prepared the way for the future campaigns of Agesilaus and the 
triumphs of Alexander. The narrative of the retreat may be com- 
pared with Herodotus for the minute detail of well-selected facts, the 
simplicity of the narration, and the general clearness of the whole. 
Some difficulties may be owing to corruption of the text, and in some 
cases the author’s memory or his notes may have deceived him. The 
‘ Anabasis’ is a work of the kind which few men have had the oppor- 
tunity of writing, and there is no work in any language in which 
personal adventure and the conduct of a great undertaking are more 
harmoniously and agreeably combined. 

The works of Xenophon which are called philosophical should be 
entitled treatises on practical ethic and ceconomic. Philosophy to 
him never was known as a science : the character of his mind and his 
writings do not allow him to be compared in any way either with 
Plato or with Aristotle, the two great exemplars of philosophy among 
the Greeks. Yet the Memoirs of Socrates and the treatise entitled 
(Economic have a great charm, both from the representation which 
they give of the personal character of Socrates, and the easy agreeable 
form in which his lessons are inculeated. These two works and the 
‘ Anabasis’ are the best works for giving a young student a knowledge 
of the Greek language; and if the ‘Memorabilia’ and ‘conomic’ 
cannot be considered an introduction to Greek philosophy, they will 
at least teach nothing erroneous, and they will lead the student to the 
contemplation of the Greeks in their domestic relations and their 
moral habitudes. 

The following books will enable the reader to find nearly all that 
has been said of Xenophon and his writings: Fabricius, ‘ Bibliotheca 
Greca;’ Schoell, ‘Geschichte der Griechischen Literatur, German 
edition; ‘Biog. Univ.,’ art, ‘Xenophon, by Letronne; Hoffmann, 
‘Lexicon Bibliographicum,—Xenophon, which contains a list of all 
the editions up to the date of its publication, of the separate works, of 
the translations into English and other languages not here mentioned, 
and of the works which have been written in illustration of Xeno- 
phon’s writings. More recent editions of Xenophon’s separate writings 
in the original are too numerous to mention here. An English version 
of the whole works of Xenophon (chiefly by the Rev. J. S. Watson) is 
contained in 3 volumes of Bohn’s ‘ Classical Library,’ 

XENOPHON OF EPHESUS. There is extant a Greek romance 
entitled ‘ Ephesiaca, or a History of Anthiaand Abrocomas’ (Egecian& 
Ta KaTd AvOlay kal *ABpoxdunv). The author calls himself Xenophon 
of Ephesus. We know nothing of his life, and there is no evidence as 
to the period when he lived. From indications in the work itself, 
Locella places him in the age of the Antonines, and others in the 4th 
or 5th century of our era. Peerlkamp, the last editor, considers him 
the oldest of all the Greek writers of romances. The style of the work 
is simple, and the narrative is concise, clear, and free from confusion, 
though many persons are introduced. The incidents are not multi- 
plied beyond the limits of propriety and probability. Suidas is the 
only person who mentions the author of the ‘ Ephesiaca,’ and he says 
that there are ten books; but there are only five now, and apparently 
the work is complete, or nearly so. Only one manuscript of the work 
exists. The first edition of this work, accompanied with a Latin trans. 
lation, was by Ant. Cocchi, London, 8vo and 4to, 1726. This edition 
is printed from a very incorrect transcript of the original manuscript. 
The Baron A. E. de Locella brought out at Vienna, 4to, 1796, a good 
critical edition, founded on a careful examination of the manuscript. 
This edition contains a new translation and a commentary. The latest 
edition is by P. Hoffmann Peerlkamp, Haarlem, 4to, 1818. There 
are German, French, and Italian translations of this romance. An 
English version, by Rooke, appeared at London, 8yvo, 1727. 

XERXES I. (Zepéns), king of Persia, succeeded his father Darius, 
the son of Hystaspes, B.c.485. Before he was raised to the throne, 
Darius had three sons by his wife, a daughter of Gobryas, of whom 
the eldest was Artabanes. After he became. king, he had four sons 
by Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus, of whom Xerxes was the eldest. 
Darius appointed Xerxes his successor. 

Darius died during his preparations for war against the Egyptians 
and the Athenians. In the second year after his father’s death, 
Xerxes marched against Egypt, which had revolted in the time of 
Darius. He reduced the country to obedience, and gave the adminis- 
tration to his brother Achemenes, He next employed himself for 
four full years in making preparations for his Greek expedition. The 
immense force which was assembled for this purpose was collected 
from every part of the Persian. dominions. The fleet was supplied 


from Egypt, Phoenicia, Cyprus, Cilicia, and other maritime parts 


875 XERXES I. 


XYLANDER, GULIELMUS. 


which were within the limits of the Persian government. Xerxes 
also entered into negociations with the Carthaginians, who engaged to 
attack the Greek cities of Sicily and Italy, while the Persian king 
invaded Greece. é . 

In the autumn of 8.0. 481 Xerxes arrived at Sardis, the capital of 
the Persians in the west, and he wintered there. In the spring he 
advanced to the Hellespont with his forces, and crossed at Abydos by 
a bridge of boats. The first bridge that was made was destroyed by a 
storm, on which the king ordered that 800 blows of the lash should 
be inflicted on the rebellious Hellespont. The superintendents of the 
work had their heads cut off for their pains. A new bridge was con- 
structed, the form of which is minutely described by Herodotus (vii. 
86). The army was seven whole days and nights-in crossing the bridge 
from Abydos on the Asiatic to the European shore. The march was 
continued from the Hellespont through the Thracian Chersonese. 
The fleet did not enter the Hellespont, but took a western course 
along the Thracian coast. On arriving at the plain of Doriscus, which 
is near the sea, and is traversed by the river Hebrus, Xerxes num- 
bered his force. The ships took their station close by Doriscus. The 
infantry amounted to 1,700,000 men, The number was ascertained 
not by tale but by measure: an enclosufe was formed large enough to 
contain 10,000 men, and it was filled and emptied till the whole army 
was meted. (Herod., vii. 60.) After being measured the forces were 
arranged according to nations. Herodotus has left one of the most 
curious historical records that exists in his description of the various 
nations that composed this mighty force, and of their military equip- 
ment (vii. 61, &c.). The cavalry amounted to 80,000, besides camels 
and chariots. The war-ships (tpijpes) were 1207. Herodotus has 
enumerated the several nations which supplied and manned the ships 
(vii. 89). From Doriscus Xerxes continued his march through Thrace. 
Herodotus, who had certainly gone over the ground, has described the 
route of the army with great distinctness. On reaching the isthmus 
which connects the mountain peninsula of Athos with the main land, 
the fleet avoided the circumnavigation which had proved so dangerous 
to Mardonius in B.c. 492, by passing through the canal of Athos. This 
canal had been constructed by order of Xerxes, It is described by 
Herodotus (vii. 22). From Acanthus, near the isthmus of Athos, the 
army marched to Therme, afterwards called Thessalonica (now Salo- 
niki), on the Axius. The fleet at last reached Sepias on the coast of 
Magnesia, in Thessaly, and the army reached the pass of Thermopyle. 
So far, says Herodotus, they had sustained no harm, and the numbers 
of thé army and of the navy were then as follow (Herod., vii. 184) :— 
The whole number of men in the 1207 ships was 277,610, reckoning 
for each ship 200 men of the country to which each ship belonged, 
and also 30 for Persians, Medes, and Sac in each of them. The 
penteconters (mevrndyrepot), which Herodotus had not included in his 
former enumeration, were 3000, and, reckoning 80 to each, there 
would be 240,000 men in them. Thus the whole naval force would 
amount to 517,610; and the whole armament, both military and naval, 
would amount to 2,317,610 men, which includes 20,000 men not before 
enumerated, camel-drivers, and drivers of Libyan chariots. This is the 
amount of the force which passed over from Asia, and it does not 
include the camp-followers, the vessels that carried provisions, and 
the men on board these vessels, To this must be added 120 European 
vessels, containing 24,000 men, that joined the navy of Xerxes. The 
forces supplied by the Thracian tribes, the Macedonians, Magnesians, 
and others, amounted to 300,000 men: thus the whole number of 
fighting men was 2,641,610. Herodotus considers that all the followers 

_and those in the provision vessels would be more than the fighting 
men, but we will suppose them to be equal. Thus the sum total is 
5,283,220; and Xerxes, says Herodotus, conducted so many as far as 
Sepias and Thermopyle. As to the number of women who followed 
to cook the provisions, aid of concubines and eunuchs, no one could 
tell the amount, nor that of the beasts of burden. The first calamity 
that befel this mighty host was a storm in the neighbourhood of 
Sepias, which caused great loss. At Artemisium there was an 
encounter between some of the Persian ships and those of the Greeks, 
in which the Greeks were victorious. The army, after passing through 
Thessaly, found itself stopped at the narrow pass of Thermopyle by 
Leonidas and his gallant band. The Persians sustained a heavy loss 
in endeavouring to force the pass, and they could not effect it till 
Epialtes, a Melian, showed the Persians a tract over the mountains of 
(ta, which brought them on the rear of Leonidas [Lzonrpas], who 
fell with his brave men after an obstinate conflict. 

In the sea-fights off Artemisium the Persians again sustained loss 
(Herod., viii. 11, &c.). The Persian army now advanced through 
Phocis, burning and destroying all before them. On entering Bootia 
they were joined by the Beeotians. A detachment was sent by Xerxes 
to attack the temple of Delphi, but the invaders sustained a signal 
defeat, and those who survived escaped into Bosotia. In the mean 
time the Grecian fleet moved from Artemisium to the island of 
Salamis, off the coast of Attica. (Herod., viii. 40.) The Athenians 
sent their females and slaves to Troezen, Aigina, and Salamis, and left 
their city to the mercy of the Persians, who, after burning Thespia 
and Platea, the only towns in Bootia that did not join them, entered 
Athens and destroyed it also. The Persians had occupied three 
months in their progress from the Hellespont to Athens. The fleet of 
Xerxes sailed from Histi#a in Eubea through the channel of the 


Euripus, and in three days reached Phalerum in Attica. Notwith- 


standing the losses of the Persians, Herodotus considers that the land 
and sea force which reached Attica was as large as that which had 


reached Sepias and Thermopyle. The Grecian fleet was collected — 
about the island of Salamis and in the narrow passage between 
Salamis and the mainland. Xerxes, having resolved on an 


ment, took his station on the shore of the mainland under ount 


Aijgaleos, opposite to Salamis; and here he had the misfortune to see 


his mighty armament defeated and dispersed [THEMISTOCLES], B.0.480. 


Shortly after the battle he retreated by land to the Hellespont, which — 


he reached in forty-five days, and crossed over into A 


(Herod., viii. 126.) Mardonius, who was left in Greece with the AG 


was defeated in the following year, B.C. 479, at Platea in Bocotiaby 


the combined Greeks, and on the same day the Greeks gained another 
victory over the Persians at Mycale in Ionia. This was 


followed by — 
the siege and capture of Sestos on the Hellespont (B.c, 478), an event — 


with which the history of Herodotus ends, It was repo: 3 
Herodotus (viii. 166), that on the very day of the battle of mis 
Gelon and Theron defeated, in Sicily, Hamilcar and his Cart nian 
af Thus the Greeks were successful both in the east and the west, 
GELON. | ; 
The Greeks continued the war against the Persians after the captu 


Artaxerxes, called by the Greeks the ‘ Long-handed.’ 


understanding. The great event of his reign is the invasion of Greece — 


with his enormous army and fleet, of which we have in Herodotus 


(books vii.-ix.) a most minute account. The historian lived 


enough after the event to be able to collect trustworthy materials, ps a 


that he spared no pains is evident from his work. Much has been said 
on the large numbers of the army and navy of Xerxes, as stated by 
Herodotus; but, incredible as they seem at first sight, an attentive 


consideration of the whole narrative of the historian will remove 
much of the doubt; at any rate, if the numbers are exaggerated, it is 
clear that Herodotus only followed his authorities. 


XERXES IL, King of Persia, succeeded his father Artaxerxes, the 


Long-handed, 3c. 425. He was assassinated after a short reign of a 
year, or, according to some accounts, two months, by Sogdianus, who 
succeeded him. X 

XIME’/NEZ, CARDINAL. ([CrsnEros.] 

XIPHILINUS, JOANNES (E:@idivos), Patriarch of Constantinople, 
was of anoble family of Trebizond. In 1066 he was made patriarch 
of Constantinople : he died in 1075.. This Xiphilinus has often been 
confounded with his nephew. He is the author of an ‘ Oration on the 
Adoration of the Cross,’ which was first published, in Greek and with © 
a Latin version, in Gretser’s work on the Cross, fol., Ingolstadt, 1616. 
Some other works of less importance are attributed to him, among 
which are three Constitutions on matters of ecclesiastical discipline, 
two of which refer to betrothment, and are in the ‘Jus Greco- 
Romanum’ of Leunclavius. — 

XIPHILYNUS, JOANNES, of Trapezus (Trebizond), was the 
nephew of the Patriarch Xiphilinus. At the command of the Em- 
peror Michael Ducas, whose reign ended a.pD. 1070, he made an 
Epitome of the history of Dion Cassius. The Epitome, as we now 
have it, commences at the thirty-fifth book, and goes down to the 
death of Alexander Severus, a.D. 235. His work is not distributed 
like the original, but is divided into sections (tujuara), each of which 
comprises the history of an emperor. We can judge of his work by 
comparing it with those parts of Dion which are extant, He ge 
keeps to the expression of his author, but he omits what he considers 
not essential to the narrative. He has also generally omitted to 


mention the consuls, who are always recorded in the extant books of - — 


Dion, and thus he has done much towards confusing the chro 
of the period, Like all other epitomes, it destroys the character of 
the original work ; and it is worthless except as supplying the main 
historical facts of the large part of Dion which is lost. Xiphilinus was 
a Christian. The first edition of Xiphilinus was by R. Stephens, 4to, . 
Paris, 1551; and in the same year Stephens printed the Latin version 
of G. Blane. The edition of H. Stephens appeared in fol., 1592, with 
Blane’s translation, revised by Xylander. There is am English trans- 
lation by Manning, 8vo, London, 1704, of the ‘ Epitome’ of Xiphilinus. 
. XYLANDER, GULIELMUS. Xylander’s real name was Holz. 
mann (Woodman), which, after the fashion of the scholars of the 
day, he changed into the equivalent Greek form of Xylander, He 


was born at Augsburg, December 26, 1532, of poor parents. He ob- 


tained the patronage of Wolffgang Relinger, a patrician of Augsburg, 
who procured for him the necessary means for prosecuting his studies 
till he was received into the College of Augsburg, where he had a 
certain allowance, which was appropriated to a limited number of 
pupils. From this we must infer that asa boy he had shown great 
talent. In 1549 he went to Tiibingen, and in 1556 to Basel, His 
studies were the mathematics and Greek and Latin literature. After 
the death of J. Micyllus, in 1558, he was made Greek professor at 
Heidelberg, but he was still very poor, and was obliged to add to his 
means by his pen. He died in February 1576, having shortened his 


life by RA 


He was 
attended as far as the Hellespont by Artabazus with 60,000 men, — 


re 

of Sestos. Little more is known of the personal history of Xerxes. 
He was murdered (z,.c. 465) by Artabanus, and succeeded by hisson 
Xerxes, as he 
is represented by Herodotus, was cruel, vain, cowardly, and of feeble 


"rs 


excessive labour, and, according to some accounts, by.drink- _ . 


§ 


“ 
a. 


‘ 
g 


ig 
i 


E 
oo 


— 


. 


7, a ee eee 


~_—_ ew 


a a 


877 


YALDEN, THOMAS. 


YARRELL, WILLIAM, 878 


ing. It is the statement of Jécher that his salary as professor was 
insufficient for his maintenance, and that he was therefore obliged to 
work for the booksellers; but in the ‘Biographie Universelle’ (art, 
*Xylander,’ by Weiss) it is maintained that his salary was sufficient, 
Tf he was drunken and extravagant, it may very well have happened 
that he was always poor and glad to work for money, In the elegiac 


verses prefixed to his translation of Dion Cassius, and placed at the 


end of dedicatory epistle, he complains of his poverty. This dedi- 
cation is dated November 1, 1557, and in the following year he was 
appointed professor at Heidelberg. The greater part of his works 
appeared after his appointment at Heidelberg. Xylander was also 


‘named by the elector palatine Frederic, secretary to the convocation 
_ at Maulbrunn, which was held for the settlement of some differences 


among the Protestants. He is said to have received money for his 
services from this prince, and also from the Duke of Wiirtemberg. 
It seems probable therefore that, with all these means and what he 
received for his literary labours, if he was poor after he went to Heidel- 
berg, it must have been through his own improvidence. 
Xylander’s works are very numerous, A large part of them consists 


of translations from Greek and Latin authors. His translations into 


Latin are—1, Plutarch’s Works, Basel, 1561-70. 2, Strabo, accom- 
panied with the Greek text, fol., Basel, 1571. 3,‘ The Chronicle of 
Cedrenus,’ with the Greek text, fol., Basel, 1565. 4, Tryphiodorus, in 
Latin verse; he is said to have made this version when he was sixteen 
ha of age. 4, The work of Michael Psellus, ‘De Quatuor Disciplinis 

athematicis,’ with notes, 8vo, Basel, 1556. 5, ‘The History of Dion 
Cassius,’ fol., Basel, 1558, with the Latin translation of Xiphilinus by 
W. Blane, which he corrected. [Xi1puininus.] 6, ‘The Meditations of 
the Emperor Marcus Aurelius,’ 8vo, Ziirich, 1558; 12mo, Lyon, 1559 ; 
Greek and Latin, 8vo, Basel, 1568. To this last and corrected edition 
Xylander added the versions of Antoninus Liberalis, the work gene- 
rally attributed to Apollonius Dyscolus, and which here appears under 
the Latin title of * Historia Commentitie;’ Phlegon Trallianus, and 
Antigonus Carystius ‘De Mirabilibus’ (‘Ioropiyv Mapaddtwv Suvvaywyn). 
7, Diophantus, with the Greek text, fol., Basel, 1575. This work was 
dedivated to the Duke of Wiirtemberg, who made him a present of 
500 reichsthaler on the occasion. Though the translation is not free 
from faults, it is acknowledged to have great merit, considering the 


difficulty of the subject and the haste with which it was made. 
8, Xylander made the first German translation of the first six books 
of Euclid, Basel, 1562. This is a very rare work: the seventh, eighth, 
and ninth books had been already translated into German by Johann 
Scheybel, 4to, Tiibingen, 1555. 9, Polybius, into German. 10, The 
New Testament, into German. 

Xylander commenced an edition of Pausanias, which was completed 
by Sylburg, and published in 1583. The Greek text of the edition of 
Stephanus Byzantinus, printed by Oporinus, fol., at Basel, 1568, was 
amended by Xylander, but, as it appears, without the aid of manu- 
scripts. He also superintended the edition of Theocritus, 8vo, Basel, 
1558, which contains the Greek scholia and notes by Xylander; and 
the edition of Horace, 8vo, Heidelberg, 1575. 

Among his other labours, he drew up ‘ Institutiones Aphoristicze 
Logioe Aristotelis, ita scripte ut adolescentibus proponi commode, 
eorumque ad Aristotelea percipienda acuere ingenium et memoriam 
juvare possint,’ a work intended for the instruction of youth and as an 
introduction to the study of Aristotle, 4to, Heidelberg, 1577. The 
writer of this article has never seen the ‘ Institutiones, and can only 
conjecture that it somewhat resembles in plan and design Trendelen- 
burg’s ‘ Elementa Logices Aristotelic,’ 2nd ed., Berlin, 1842. Tren- 
delenburg however has not mentioned Xylander’s work in his preface, 
from which we conclude that he was either unacquainted with it, or 
that it is not exactly what we might conjecture it to be, 

There are other works of Xylander, but the above are the principal. 
The Life of this laborious scholar deserves and requires to be written 
with more care than it has been yet. The ordinary accounts are at 
variance with one another: some of them attribute to him works that 
he had either little to do with or perhaps nothing at all ; and some 
omit several works that are undoubtedly his. Xylander was a man of 
great ability, well versed in Greek and Roman literature, both as to 
the matter and the language. He wrote Latin with great ease and 
correctness, and his versions are generally correct, 

(Jécher, Aligem. Gelehrten Lexicon, probably not very accurate; 
Bayle, Dict., art. ‘Xylander,’ a very insufficient article; Biog. Univ., 
art. §Xylander, by Weiss, is a much better and more complete article, 
and it contains the references to the original authorities for Xylander’s 
Life and Works.) 


Y 


ALDEN, THOMAS, was, according to Jacob, in his ‘Lives of the 

- Poets,’ the ‘ Biographia Britannica, and Dr. Johnson, in his ‘ Lives 
of the Poets,’ the youngest of the six sons of Mr. John Yalden, of 
Sussex, and was born in the city of Exeter in 1671. Anthony Wood 
however, who calls him not Yalden, but Youlding, gives a very differ- 
ent account: in his ‘ Athens Oxonienses’ (iv. 601), that writer says, 
“ Thomas Youlding, a younger son of John Youlding, sometime a page 
of the presence and groom of the chamber to Prince Charles, after- 
wards a sufferer for his cause, and an exciseman in Oxon, after the 
restoration of King Charles II., was born in the parish of St. John 
Baptist, in Oxon, on the 2nd day of January 1669 (in which parish I 
myself also received my first breath).” This account, though it has 
not been genérally adopted, appears to derive some confirmation from 
the existence in the ante-chapel of Merton College of an epitaph 
recording the interment there of “John Youlding, gentleman, who 
was page,” &c., as in Wood: he is stated to have died on the 25th of 
July 1670, in his fifty-ninth year. Thomas Yalden, or Youlding, was 
admitted of Magdalen College, Oxford, in 1690; and among his con- 
temporaries there were Sacheverell and Addison, with both of whom 
he continued to live in friendship ever afterwards. Yalden made his 
first public appearance as a poet in an ‘ Ode to St. Cecilia’s Day,’ which 
was published, set to music by Purcell, in 1693. This was followed in 
1695 by another performance, entitled ‘On the Conquest of Namur, a 
Pindaric Ode inscribed to his most sacred and victorious Majesty.’ 
He had taken his degree of M.A. with great applause in 1694, and 
having then entered into holy orders, he succeeded Atterbury in 1698, 
as lecturer at Bridewell Hospital. In 1700 he published a poem enti- 
tled ‘The Temple of Fame,’ on the death of the Duke of Gloucester, 
and was the same year made Fellow of his college. Soon after this he 
was presented by the college to a living in Warwickshire, which admit- 
ted of being held along with his fellowship, and he was also elected 
moral philosophy reader, “ an office,” says the ‘ Biographia Britannica,’ 
“ for life, endowed with a handsome stipend and peculiar privileges.” 
On the accession of Queen Anne, he wrote another poem, in celebra- 
tion of that event ; and from this time he is said to have unreservedly 
sided with the high church party. In 1706 he was taken into the 
family of the Duke of Beaufort ; and the following year he took his 
degree of D.D. Some time after this he was presented to the adjoin- 
ing rectories of Chalton and Cleanville in Hertfordshire; and he is 
said to have also enjoyed the sinecure prebends of Deans, Harris, and 
Pendles, in Devonshire. Upon the discovery of what is called Bishop 
Atterbury’s plot, in 1722, Yalden was taken up, and his papers were 
seized f but it soon appeared that although he was intimate with Kelly, 
the bishop's secretary, and in the habit of corresponding with him, the 


treason, if it existed, was certainly in no part of his concoction or 
privity. All that is further related of him is, that he died on the 16th 
of July 1736, having to the end of his life, as Dr. Johnson expresses 
it, “ retained the friendship and frequented the conversation of a very 
numerous and splendid set of acquaintance.” Besides the two early 
poems that have been mentioned, he published, in 1702, a collection 
of fables in verse, under the title of ‘ Ausop at Court,’ which is reprinted 
in the fourth volume of Nichols’s Collection, pp. 198-226; ‘An Essay 
on the Character of Sir Willoughby Ashton, a poem,’ folio, 1704; ‘On 
the Mines of Carbery Price, a poem ;’ ‘ A Hymn to Darkness,’ in imi- 
tation or emulation of Cowley, which Johnson considers to be his best 
performance, and to be “imagined with great vigour, and expressed 
with great propriety ;” ‘A Hymn to Light,’ which, in the estimation 
of the same authority, “is not equal to the other;” a translation of 
the second book of Ovid’s ‘ Art of Love;’ and many other translations 
and short original pieces. Many of Yalden’s productions in verse are 
printed in the third and fourth volumes of Dryden’s (or Tonson’s) col- 
lection of ‘ Miscellany Poems;’ a number of them are also given in 
the more recent collections of the ‘ English Poets,’ by Johnson and 
A. Chalmers; but some appear to be lost, or at least they eluded the 
research of Mr. Nichols (see his Collection, iii, 167, and iv. 198). 
Yalden, who had considerable humour, is the author of a paper in 
prose, entitled ‘ Squire Bickerstaff detected, or the Astrological Impos- 
tor Convicted ;’ it is a pretended answer to Swift's attacks on Par- 
tridge, the astrologer, which he drew up on Partridge’s application, 
and which that person is said to have printed and published without 
any perception of the joke. It is printed in most of the editions of 
Swift’s works. 

YARRELL, WILLIAM, a celebrated British naturalist, was born in 
Duke-street, St. James’s, Westminster, in June 1784. His father was 
a newspaper agent, and to his business his son succeeded, and continued 
in it till nearly the close of his life. When young he was fond of 
field-sports and was not only the first shot, but the first angler of his 
day. The accurate habit indicated by his superiority in these sports, 
was the prevailing character of his mind. He was not only the first 
shot in London but for many years the first sporting authority upon 
all that had to do with the habits, locality, and appearance of British 
birds. It was the same with fish. Not satisfied with obtaining his 
prey, he examined it, preserved it, and described it, and thus became 
a naturalist. At the age of forty he became a Fellow of the Linnean 
Society, and from this time he gave up the gun and rod for the pen, 
From 1825 to the year of his death 1856, he became a constant con- 
tributor to the Transactions of the Linnean Society and the various 
Journals devoted to natural history literature. His earlier papers 


YORCK VON WARTENBURG. 


879 


YORK, HOUSE OF. 


were devoted to birds, as the following titles of some of his first 
scientific contributions show :—‘On the Change in the Plumage of 
some Hen-Pheasants’ (‘ Philosophical Transactions,’ 117); ‘On the Oc- 
currence. of some rare British Birds’ (‘Zool. Journal,’ IL.) ; ‘On the 
small horny appendage to the upper mandible in very young chickens 

(Ibid.) ; ‘On the Anatomy of Birds of Prey’ (‘ Zool. Journal,’ III.) ; ‘On 
the Structure of the Beak and its Muscles in the Crossbill’ (‘ Zool. 
Journal,’ 1V.). He was one of the first members of the Zoological 
Society and contributed many papers to the Proceedings of the Com- 
mittee of that body. In the first volume of papers published by the 
Society, Mr, Yarrell contributed no less than seventeen. They exhibit 
a wide and accurate knowledge of the forms not only of birds but of 
fishes and mammals. In these papers his dissections are very nume- 
rous, and they are very accurate. This is the more remarkable as Mr. 
Yarrell had not the benefit of a medical education nor any further 
means of instruction than those supplied by his own industry. It 
was in these earlier papers that he demonstrated the true nature of 
White Bait, and showed that this pet morsel of the London epicure is 
a true species of fish and not the young of the Shad, the Herring, or 
any other species of fish as had been supposed up to his time. He 
did not however confine himself to British zoology, many of his 
papers being devoted to foreign animals, as the following :—‘On the 
Anatomy of the Lesser American Flying Squirrel ;’ ‘On the Woolly 


and Hairy Penguins of Dr. Latham; ’ ‘ On the Trachea of the Stanley 


Crane;’ the subjects of his research being in this case the animals 
dying in the menagerie of the Zoological Society in Regent’s Park. He 
was always an active fellow of the Society and one of its vice-presi- 
dents at the time of his death. He took a deep interest in the pro- 
gress and development of the Gardens, as well as in the diffusion 
amongst the people of a taste for his favourite science. His various 
papers amounting to upwards of seventy, the names of which are 
given in the ‘Zoological Bibliography of the Ray Society,’ prepared him 
for the two great works of his life, the histories of British Birds and 
British Fishes. The ‘History of British Fishes’ appeared in two 
vols. 8vo in 1836. It contained original descriptions with an account 
of the habits and a wood-engraving of every British fish. It was in 
every way an admirable work, containing accounts of several new 
fishes, with such descriptions as enabled the naturalist to distinguish 
them, whilst they were rendered by the agreeable style in which they 
were written attractive to the dullest of anglers, A second edition 
of this work appeared in 1851. ‘The History of British Birds’ 
appeared in 1843. It was on the same plan as that of the fishes. The 
illustrations in wood were accurate and beautiful and highly creditable 
to the enterprise and taste of his publisher Mr. Van Voorst. No 
work on this subject since the time of Bewick’s ‘ Birds’ have been so 
popular. In many of his details, especially his picturesque tail-pieces, 
he imitated his great predecessor, but in point of accuracy of description 
and the homely truthfulness of his account of the habits of birds Mr, 
Yarrell has had no equal. At the time of his death Mr. Yarrell was 
treasurer of the Linnean Society, and had been elected vice-president 
during the presidency of Robert Brown. Although one of his earliest 
papers was published in the ‘Philosophical Transactions’ Mr. Yarrell 
was never made a Fellow of the Royal Society. He was once proposed, 
but some unworthy objections having been made to his admission he 
withdrew his certificate, and although in the latter part of his life, the 
Royal Society would have gladly admitted him amongst its fellows, and 
his certificate was signed, it was too late, he positively refused. In 
August 1856 he was attacked with paralysis, but although he suffi- 
ciently recovered to make a voyage to Yarmouth, he was seized with 
another fit on the evening of his arrival and died on the morning of 
September 1st, 1856. He was interred at Bayford in Hertfordshire. 
YORCK VON WARTENBURG, HANS DAVID LUDWIG, GRAF, 
was born on the 26th of September 1759, at Konigsberg, in East 
Prussia, of an old English family which had settled in Pomerania, 
In 1772 he entered the Prussian military service, and after having 
suffered imprisonment on account of a duel, he entered that of Hol- 
land in 1782. After serving in the Dutch East Indian colonies in 
1783-4, and attaining the rank of captain, he re-entered the Prussian 
service, and in 1806 became captain of a jager corps. In the campaign 
of this year he commanded first the advance-guard and then the rear- 
guard of the army under the Duke of Saxe-Weimar, whose passage of 
the Elbe, after his defeat on the Saale, he covered with great skill and 
prudence, At the storming of the little town of Wahren in Mecklen- 
burg he was wounded and taken prisoner, but was soon after liberated 
on exchange, at the same time with Bliicher. In 1807 hé was advanced 
_to the rank of major-general. In 1808, on the re-organisation of the 
Prussian army, he was promoted to the command of the West Prussian 
division ; and in 1810 entrusted with the inspection of the whole of 
the light troops. In the Russian campaign of 1812 he commanded 
the Prussian auxiliary corps under General Grawert, on whose sick- 
ness he succeeded to the chief command. This corps formed part of 
the tenth division of the French army under Marshal Macdonald, and 
his position became a critical one when Bonaparte ordered the tenth 
division to retreat to Memel. Yorck’s corps formed the third column, 
and brought up the rear. On December 20, 1812, he quitted Mitau, 
followed by Wittgenstein, whose advanced troops reached Memel on 
December 27. It was perhaps not so much a sense of his critical 
situation, as a keen perception of the state of political affairs, that led 


Yorck, on his own responsibility, to enter into the convention of 
Tauroggen on December 30, by which he agreed to withdraw his 
forces from the French army, and as an independent force agreed to 
remain neuter. The king of Prussia, straitened as he was in his poli- 
tical relations, could not avoid at first publicly avowing his displeasure, 
but subsequently testified his perfect satisfaction with his conduct. 
The step certainly displayed his sagacity and strength of character, — 
and was the first bold measure by which the independence of Prussia — 
was secured. As soon as the Prussian army, which at the command 
of Napoleon had been rendered insignificant, had been re-organisedand 
armed, he conducted it to the Elbe, where, at Dannekow, he defeated, _ 
on April 5, 1813, the French army under Murat, which had been 
forced to evacuate Magdeburg. On May 19 he fought at Weissig — 
against the greatly superior force under Sebastiani, maintaining his — 
position with skill and firmness, and then took part in the battle of 
Bautzen. During a truce which followed he strengthened his army 
considerably, and then joined the Silesian army under Bliicher, taking _ 
a decided part in the victory on the Katzbach on August 26. On — 


¥ 


pressed the flying foe in their passage over the Unstrutt near Freiberg. — 
When the allied army had entered France as victors, Yorck found an 
opportunity of displaying his military skill, On February 11, 1814, 
General Sacken had too hastily engaged in battle with Napoleon at 
Montmirail, and would have been totally defeated had not Yorck come — 
to his assistance, by which he was enabled, though with considerable 
loss, to effect an orderly retreat. He likewise distinguished himself at _ 
the battle of Laon on March 9, where, in conjunction with General — 
Kleist, he conducted the night attack’on the right wing of the French — 
army, which caused the dispersion of the corps under Marmont and 
Arrighi. After the capture of Paris he accompanied his sovereign to — 
London, was created a count with a considerable revenue, and ap- — 
pointed to the command of the army in Silesia and Posen, On the 
return of Bonaparte from Elba he was nominated to the command of — 
the army assembled on the Elbe and Saale, but as it was not called — 
into action, he did not actually assume it. On July 1, 1815, his only 
son, an officer in the Brandenberg hussars, was killed in a skirmish at — 
Versailles; the loss greatly affected him, and he applied for and 
obtained permission to retire from the service. He afterwards lived — 
in retirement on his estate at Klein-Ols in Silesia, where he died on — 
October 4, 1830, after having been created a field-marshal in 1821. i 
YORK, HOUSE OF. Otho, afterwards Otho IV., emperor of Ger- — 
many, son of Henry V., surnamed the Lion, duke of Bavaria, by Maud, ~ 
eldest daughter of Henry II. of England, is said to have been created ~ 
Earl of York by his relation King Richard I. But, with this excep- — 
tion (if it be one), the peerage distinguished by the title of York has 
always been a dukedom, and has never been conferred except ona — 
son, brother, or uncle of the reigning king. The first Duke of York 
was Edmund Plantagenet, surnamed De Langley, the fifth and youngest 
son of Edward IIL., who, having been made Earl of Cambridge by his 
father in 1362 on reaching his majority, was afterwards created Duke © 
of York in 1385 by his nephew Richard IJ. From him sprung the 
line known in our history as the House of York, in which the right — 
of succession to the throne eventually came to reside, so far as it 
depended upon descent or birth. The right came into thisline by 
the marriage of Richard Earl of Cambridge, second son of the first 
duke, to Anne Mortimer, daughter of Roger Mortimer, Earl of March, _ 
who, by virtue of her descent from Lionel, Duke of Clarence, third 
son of Edward III., whose great-granddaughter she was, inherited or — 
conveyed to her issue, after the death of her brother Edmund Mor- — 
timer, Earl of March, in 1424, the true representation of Edward IIL, — 
after the failure of the line of that king’s eldest son on the death of — 
Richard II. in 1399. The reigning king Henry VI. and his two imme- — 
diate predecessors, Henry IV. and Henry V., were descended only 
from John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, the fourth son of Edward Ill, _ 
The son of the Earl of Cambridge and of Anne Mortimer was Richard 
Plantagenet, who became the third Duke of York, on the death with- — 
out issue of his uncle Edward, the second duke, slain at Agincourt in _ 
1415. To him therefore fell the true title by descent to the throne — 
after the death of his brother. He was slain at the battle of Wake- 
field, in December 1460; on which the title of Duke of York came to 
his eldest son Edward, who ascended the throne as Edward IY. in © 
March the following year. After the death of Edward V. and his — 
brother, some time in 1483, the representation of Edward IV. rested 
in his eldest daughter Elizabeth, who married Henry VIL, and — 
became by him the mother of Henry VIII., and also, through her — 
eldest daughter Margaret, who married James IV. of Scotland, the 
ancestress of James I., who, in virtue of that descent, succeeded to 
the throne of England, on the failure of the line of Henry VIIL, in 
1603. The present royal family is descended from Elizabeth, the 
eldest daughter of James I., the line of his son Charles (with the ex- 
ception only of Mary and Anne, the daughters of James IL, neither of — 
whom left any issue) having been expelled from the throne at the — 
Revolution of 1688. {3 
Since the time of Edward IV. the title of Duke of York has been 


=< - 


a 


' with an explanatory memoir. 


* $81 _ YORKE, PHILIP. 


YOUNG, ARTHUR. 832 


borne by Richard Plantagenet, the second son of that king, upon 
whom it was conferred in 1474, and who was murdered, along with 
his elder brother Edward V., in 1483; by Henry Tudor, second son 
of Henry VIL, who was created Duke of York in 1491, and who 
became Prince of Wales on the death of his elder brother Arthur in 
1503, and ascended the throne as Henry VIII. in 1509; by Charles 
Stuart, second son of James I., upon whom it was conferred in 1604, 
and who became Duke of Cornwall on the death of his elder brother 
Henry in 1612, was created Prince of Wales in 1616, and ascended 
the throne as Charles I. in 1625; by James Stuart, second son of 
Charles [., upon whom it was conferred in 1648, and who ascended 
the throne as James II. in 1685; by Ernest Augustus, fifth brother 
of King George I., who was created Duke of York and Albany in 1716, 


~ and died without issue in 1728; by Edward Augustus, next brother 


of George III., who was created Duke of York and Albany in 1760, 
and died without issue in 1767; and by Frederick, next. brother of 
George I1V., who was created Duke of York and Albany in 1784, and 
died without issue in 1827, 

YORKE, PHILIP. [Harpwioxs, Isr Eart or.] 

YORKE, CHARLES, second son of the first Lord Hardwicke, was 
born 30th December 1722. He was entered at Ben’et (now called 
Corpus Christi) College, Cambridge, on the 13th of June 1739, and 
called to the bar in 1753, He was a member of Lincoln's Inn. While 

at Cambridge he assisted his elder brother Philip, the second Lord 
Hardwicke, and some other friends, in the composition of ‘ Athenian 
Letters, or the epistolary Correspondence of an Agent of the King of 
Persia residing at Athens during the Peloponnesian War,’ . The idea 
of the work was taken from Barthelemi’s ‘ Travels of Anacharsis.’ A 
few copies were printed in 1741; a reprint of 100 copies was brought 
out in 1782 ; and in 1798 the second Earl of Hardwicke published it 
The young authors are therein said to 
have composed the Letters as a preparatory trial of their strength, 
and as the best method of imprinting some subjects of their academi- 
cal studies on their memories. The letters to which the initial C is 
appended were the composition of Charles Yorke, In February 1744- 
45, he published ‘Some Considerations on the Law of Forfeiture for 
High Treason, occasioned by a clause in the late Act for making it 
‘treason to correspond with the Pretender’s sons or any of their agents.’ 
The ‘late act’ is the act 17 Geo. II. c. 29. A‘ Short Review’ of 
Yorke’s work was published in 1746, by Thomas Gordon. Enlarged 
and corrected editions of the ‘Considerations’ were published in 1746 
and 1748. These two latter editions contain, in an appendix, remarks 
on the operation of the act 7 Anne, ec. 21, on the law of forfeiture in 
Scotland. The work bears marks of its author’s youth, but indicates 
considerable talent for defining technical words and phrases, and for 
stating a legal argument. In 1747 Charles succeeded his elder brother, 
who was in that year elected M.P. for the county of Cambridge, in the 
representation of the borough of Ryegate. He married on the 19th of 
May 1755, Catherine Freeman, daughter of a country gentleman of 
Hertfordshire, by whom he had one son, Philip, afterwards the third 
Earl Hardwicke. After her death he married (30th December 1762) 
Agneta Johnston, also daughter of a Hertfordshire landowner, by 
whom he had three children. 

By family influence or his own abilities Charles Yorke was first 
solicitor-general and then attorney-general. The latter office he re- 
signed in 1764, on account of some discontent with the ministry, but 
was induced to resume it in 1765. In 1770 he accepted the seals, at 
the urgent request of the king, upon the resignation of Lord Camden, 
but died suddenly (it was reported) on the 20th of January, while the 
patent for his peerage was making out, under the title of Baron 
Morden. His death was reported to have been caused by the rupture 
of some internal vessel, but it is now generally believed by his own 
hand. (See Earl Stanhope’s ‘ Hist. of Eng.,’ b. v., ¢. xlviii.) 

(Biographia Britannica (Appendix); Annual Register for 1770; 
Burke’s Dictionary of the Peerage and Baronetage ; the Preface to the 
Athenian Letters, edition of 1798; the manuscript Note by Dr. Birch, 
in his presentation copy of the Considerations on the Law of Forfeiture, 
now in the library of the British Museum.) 

YOUNG, ARTHUR. Few men have acquired such celebrity as 
agricultural writers as Arthur Young. His name is perhaps more 
generally known all over the Continent than even in England ; his 
situation as secretary to the Board of Agriculture gave him a most 


extensive correspondence, and his zeal for the improvement of agricul- 


ture all over the world made him publish many works, in which every 
new experiment and every theory suggested was examined and dis- 
cussed. ‘ Tothe works of Arthur Young,” says Kirwan (‘ Irish Trans- 
_ actions,’ vol. v.), “the world is more indebted for the diffusion of 
agricultural knowledge than to any writer who has yet appeared. If 
great zeal, indefatigable exertions, and an unsparing expense in making 
‘experiments can give a man a claim to the gratitude of agriculturists, 
Arthur Young deserved it more than most men. We will not assert 
that in all cases his conclusions were correct, or his judgment unim- 
peachable ; but even his blunders, if he committed any, have tended to 
~ the benefit of agriculture, by exciting discussion and criticism.”’ 
Arthur Young was born on the 7th of September 1741. His father 
was a Doctor of Divinity, a prebendary of Canterbury, and chaplain 
to Arthur Onslow, Speaker of the House of Commons. The subject 
of this memoir was his third son. He was educated at Lavenham 
BIOG, DIV, VOL, VI, 


school, where he went in 1748. He showed considerable talents at 
school, where he remained till 1758, when he was apprenticed to the 
mercantile house of Mr. Robinson at Lynn, in the hopes of bis becom- 
ing in time a thriving merchant; but he had no genius for this pro- 
fession, and the money, as he often lamented, which this apprentice- 
ship cost, would have maintained him at college, and he might have 
become qualified to hold the rectory of Bradfield, which was then held 
by his father. As the rector of a large agricultural parish, there is 
every reason to suppose that his latent love of agriculture would have 
been fostered. He would probably have been equally zealous in this 
pursuit, without so great pecuniary sacrifices as he was called on by 
circumstances to make in the improvement of the several farms he 
oceupied; but it is most likely that he would not have been able to 
extend his investigations over so wide an area, or have been induced 
to give the results so largely to the world. 

Having no taste for business, he took to reading at Lynn, and read 
every book he could procure. At seventeen years of age he wrote a 
political pamphlet, entitled ‘The Theatre of the present War in North 
America,’ for which he got 10/. worth of books from the publisher— 
to him a great treasure. After his father’s death, whieh happened in 
1759, he was much tempted, by the offer of a pair of colours, to enter 
the army; but his mother would not hear of it, and like a good son he 
gave up all thoughts of it. He began a periodical work, called the 
‘Universal Museum,’ but dropped it after the sixth number, by the 
advice of Dr, Samuel Johnson. His whole fortune then consisted of a 
copyhold estate of 20 acres, worth annually as many pounds. His 
mother had a lease of a farm of 80 acres at Bradfield; and on her 
renewing the lease, she gave him the management, and he commenced 
practical farmer, without any real practical knowledge of farming, and 
his head full of wild notions of improvement, as he afterwards himself 
confessed. In the following year he became a contributor to the 
‘Museum Rusticum,’ the first agricultural work he tried his pen in. 
He married in the same year (1765) Miss Martha Allen of Lynn; but 
from some peculiarities on both sides, this union was not very happy. 
In 1767 he undertook the management, on his own account, of a farm 
called Samford Hall, in Essex, consisting of 300 acres of land. There 
he was in his element, making experiments and carefully noting them 
down for five years, when he published the results in two thick vols. 
4to, under the title of ‘A Course of Experimental Agriculture, con- 
taining an exact Register of the business transacted during five years 
on near 300 acres of various soils, Dodsley, 1770. The style in 
which this book, which, after all, is by no means instructive, was 
brought out—on fine paper, large type, and wide margin—proves that 
either the public were beginning to have a taste for agricultural works, 
or that Arthur Young had too favourable an idea of the value of his 
experiments. But this work was published after his ‘ Tour through 
the Southern Countiés of England,’ a work which became very popular, 
aud of which several editions were sold. Young was a keen observer, 
and had a ready and lively mode of communicating his observations ; 
if he was sometimes rather hasty in his conclusions, or superficial in 
his remarks, hé had the talent of enlivening them by an easy and 
sometimes imaginative style. An account of proceedings and experi- 
ments on a poor farm, not always very judiciously planned or executed, 
could not be very entertaining or instructive. After five years, in 
which he suffered great losses and disappointments, he was glad to 
give 100/. to a practical farmer to take the lease off his hands. Where 
the literary and scientific farmer had failed entirely, the plain practical 
cultivator saved a little fortune. It is amusing to read Young’s invec- 
tives against the soil, climate, and everything about this horrid farm ; 
but when it is considered that he only saw it from Saturday till Mon- 
day, and was occupied as a parliamentary reporter the remainder of 
the week, the wonder will cease, and the only surprise excited will be 
caused by the fact of his finding time to note down the results of his 
experiments so as to form two quarto volumes. 

In the year 1768 he was induced by the success of his ‘Six Weeks’ 
Tour,’ to take another in the north of England, of which he published 
a minute account in 4 vols. 8vo, which had a very rapid sale. The 
activity of his mind could not be concentrated in agricultural writings, 
but embraced subjects of general political economy; and the next 
year he published a work on the expediency of a free importation of 
corn, which met with great approbation in a high quarter. In 1770 
he undertook his Eastern Tour, and published his observations in 4 
vols. 8vo. These tours of Arthur Young excited the liveliest inte:est 
in all those who were connected with agriculture, either as proprietors 
or tenants; and there is no doubt that his works, if they did not 
kindle the rising zeal for agricultural improvements, gave it a strong 
impetus, and blew it into a vivid flame. Many tours had been made 
through every part of Britain, and many lively descriptions of places 
had been published: but in none were the agricultural and political 
circumstances of different districts accurately recorded. Wherever he 
went he was received by proprietors and farmers with the greatest 
frankness and hospitality. In his discussions on their different modes 
of cultivating the soil, he acquired extensive practical knowledge, and 
also imparted it to his hosts: by placing before them the more rational 
and economical courses adopted in other districts, he led them to 
make experiments; and if these, somewhat hastily conducted, did not 
always give a favourable result, they always tended to make men 
reflect and compare, and often led them to see their ee 5 manage: 


883 YOUNG, ARTHUR, 


YOUNG, ARTHUR. 884 


ment. By means of his publications distant parts of the country 
became acquainted with practices which were entirely unknown beyond 
the small circle in which they had been gradually adopted. Even the 
failures, occasioned by adopting systems and rotations not suited to 
every soil, gave useful lessons, and pointed out the principles on 
which the most advantageous systems for different soils were founded. 
Wherever Young met with the cultivation of any peculiar plant, 
whether for the use of man or beast, and observed more than ordinary 
luxuriance in its growth, he became an enthusiastic admirer of it, and 
recommended it for trial to agriculturists. Of these lucerne was justly 
a great favourite, and he recommended its cultivation on every oppor- 
tunity. Another plant which drew his attention was wild chicory 
(Cichorium intybus), the feeding qualities of which he much exagge- 
rated, thinking it so important, that in the questions sent round by 
the Board of Agriculture, when he was secretary, in order ‘to ascertain 
the state of agriculture in all parts of the kingdom, one of the 
questions was, *‘Do you sow chicory?” whereas this plant had only 
been tried by a few individuals, and soon lost its momentary reputa- 
tion. We mention this circumstance to show how warmly he took up 
any apparent improvement and endeavoured to promote its general 
adoption. This zeal in the cause gave a charm to his works, which 
were written in a lively and even imaginative style, on a subject 
where before nothing was met with but dry details. In 1771 he pub- 
lished that useful and well-known work entitled ‘The Farmer’s 
Calendar,’ which has gone through innumerable editions, and is still a 
standard agricultural work. At the same time, as if to show the ver- 
satility of his genius, he published ‘Political Essays on the present 
State of the British Empire,’ and ‘ Observations on the present State of 
Waste Lands,’ In order to increase his income, which, notwithstand- 
ing the profits of his publications, did not suffice for his expenses and 
experiments, he had become a parliamentary reporter for the ‘Morning 
Post,’ in which arduous task he was engaged for several years, much to 
the detriment of his farming operations, which he could only occa- 
sionally superintend. 

In 1774 he published ‘Political Arithmetic,” which work was soon 
translated into several foreign languages. In 1775 and 1776 he made 
his tour through Ireland, one of those which greatly increased his 
knowledge, if not of the perfections of farming, certainly of its most 
glaring defects in that fertile country. His decided disapprobation of 
the bounty then paid by the government on the land-carriage of corn 
to Dublin drew the serious attention of the ruling powers to this 
subject. In the next session of parliament this bounty was reduced 
one-half, and soon after entirely abolished. For this essential service 
to the prosperity of Ireland, Mr. Young only received the cold thanks 
of the Dublin Society. He warmly supported the claims of the 
Roman Catholics to the removal of every political disability owing to 
difference of religion, showing that the penal laws then in force were 
laws against the industry of the country. 

In 1777 Mr. Young received a medal from the Salford Agricultural 
Society, inscribed “‘ For his Services to the Public.” After this he 
undertook the management of the estates of Lord Kingsbury at 
Micheltown, in the county of Cork, where he resided for two years in 
a house built on purpose for him, In 1779 be returned to his mother 
at Bradfield: it was then that he had the project of emigrating to 
America, which he relinquished in consequence of the objections of his 
mother. He therefore betook himself with renewed zeal to the prac- 
tice of husbandry, ploughing with his own hands; while his head was 
occupied in scientific pursuits, analysing soils, and making numerous 
experiments, for which he obtained the gold medal of the Society of 
Arts. In 1782 he entered into a warm controversy with Mr. Capel 
Loft upon the expediency of the county of Suffolk presenting the 
government with a 74-gun ship. This was carried on some time in 
the ‘ Bury Post,’ and drew the attention of the public to that paper. 

The fame of Arthur Young had now spread far and wide, and 
reached even the frozen regions of the North. The Empress Catherine 
of Russia sent three young Russians to be instructed by him in agricul- 
ture, and in the following year sent him a magnificent golden snuff- 
box, and two rich ermine cloaks for his wife and daughter. 

In 1784 he began the publication of his ‘Annals of Agriculture, 
which he continued till the work extended to 45 vols. 8vo, cotitaining 
a great fund of agricultural information. In this work all the contri- 
butions have the names of their authors annexed, which adds much 
to its authority, even King George III. condescending to send Mr. 
Young an account of the farm of Mr. Ducket, at Petersham, under the 
signature of Ralph Robinson. Among other important communica- 
tions may be noticed the ‘ Letters on the present state of Agriculture 
in Italy,’ by Dr, Symonds, then Professor of Modern History in the 
University of Cambridge. In 1785 Mr. Young’s mother died; he 
always entertained the warmest affection for her, and in several 
instances, as we have seen, gave up favourite schemes in deference to 
her wishes, ; 

In the spring of 1787 he received a pressing invitation to visit 
France, and to accompany the Comte de la Rochefoucauld to the 
Pyrenees, which he accepted with joy, and returned to England in the 
following winter. At this time a discussion took place about the 
Wool Bill, and the farmers of Suffolk deputed Mr. Young to support a 
petition against it. He was joined in this affair by Sir J. oseph Banks, 
who was deputed from Lincolnshire for the same purpose. They did 


not however meet with complete success, but they caused some of the 
most obnoxious clauses of the bill to be modified. The manufacturers, 
for whose advantage it had been brought in, burned Arthur Young in 
effigy at Norwich for his opposition to their interest, while he was 
complimented by the landed proprietors and farmers. Thomas Day. 
Esq., the author of a well-known little work called ‘Sandford aid 
Merton,’ addressed a pamphlet to Mr. Young, which was highly com- 
plimentary to his exertions. > 

The next summer he travelled of horseback through a great part of 
France, and composed his ‘ Agricultural Survey’ of that country, 
which the French agricultural writers acknowledge to have opened 
their éyes to the imperfections of their systems of husbandry. He did 
not however publish it till he had made a third tour through that 
extensive kingdom. During the interval of the last two tours he was 
occupied in introducing the collecting of grass seeds by hand, for the 
purpose of producing artificial meadows, and, among many other use- 
ful grasses, introduced the cocksfoot (Dactylus gome and 
crested dog-tailed grass (Cynoswrus cristatus). The style of this 
tour is lively, and his descriptions amusing as well as in ng: > 
remarks on the condition of the people and on political subjects—the 
tour being made so short a time before the outbreak of the French 
revolution—are also both interesting and valuable. 

About this time he entered into a correspondence with General 
Washington, which was afterwards published in a pamphlet. Another 
circumstance on which he dwelt with pride and complacency, was a 
present he received from the king of a Merino ram. In 1793 he Bib 
lished a pamphlet, which met with great success, entitled ‘ | 
Example of France a Warning to Britain.’ He received the thanks o 
several patriotic associations, while the opposite party accused him o 
apostacy, as he had hitherto been rather inclined to favour the liberal 
party and approve of the French revolution, but the horrors which it 
brought forth entirely disgusted him. In this pamphlet Mr. youn 
first recommended a horse militia, which afterwards was establish 
under the name of the yeomanry cavalry, and in which he himself 
served as a private in the ranks, under Lord Broome, afterwards 
Marquis Cornwallis. ‘ 

In order to put into practice his various schemes for the improvement 
of waste lands, he purchased 4400 acres of uncultivated land in York- 
shire; but luckily for his purse, which would probably have suffered 
much in the experiment, the Board of Agriculture was establish 
and the office of secretary was offered to him. This was exact 
suited to his taste and activity, and the salary of 400/. per annum, 
with a house rent-free, made the situation desirable on the score 0 
income. : 

A great compliment was paid to Arthur Young, in 1801, by the 
French Directory, who ordered all his agricult works to be trans- 
lated and published at Paris, in 20 vols, 8vo., under the title of ‘Le 
Cultivateur Anglais ;’ and in the same year M. Du Pradt dedicated to 
him his work called ‘ De l’Etat de la Culture en France.’ sees 

At the desire of the Board of Agriculture he drew up the County 
Reports, beginning with that of Suffolk, to which were added, in suc- 
cession, Lincoln, Norfolk, Hertford, Essex, and Oxford. In 1795 he 
published two political pamphlets, entitled ‘The Constitution safe 
without Reform,’ and ‘An Idea of the present State of France’ __ 

The death of his daughter, which took place in 1797, of a decline, 
had a great influence on Mr. Young’s mind. He began to turn his 
attention to religious subjects, which in the bustle of his secular 
occupations had not occupied much of his thoughts before. 2 
began now to read and examine, and to satisfy himself.as to the mos 
important tenets of religion. This did not prevent his other pursuits, 
and in 1798 he published a letter to Mr. Wilberforce, ‘On the State of 
the Public Mind,’ and, in 1800, a pamphlet ‘On the Question of 
Scarcity.’ In 1804 the Bath and West of England Society rey 
their Bedfordian medal to him for an essay ‘On the Nature and P1 
perties of Manures.’ In the same year he received the present of a 
snuff-box from Count Rostopchin, governor of Moscow, which was 
turned by himself out of a block of oak, and richly studded with 
diamonds, with the motto in Russian, ‘From a Pupil to his Master, : 
NAb 2 mY — were three cornucopie in burnished gold, forming the 
cipher A, Y. , 

En 1805, at the request of the Russian Ambassador, Mr. Young sent 
his son to Russia, to make a survey of the government of Moscow, and 
draw up a report, for which he was liberally remunerated ; and with 
the sum he received he purchased an estate of 10,000 acres of very 
rich land in the Crimea, and settled there. ; 

In 1808 Mr. Young received a gold medal from the Board of Agri- 
culture “for long and faithful services in agriculture,” soon after — 
which his exertions were much checked by the loss of his sight. No 
longer able to take his usual exercise, his digestion became impaired, 
which no doubt led to the disease which terminated his useful earthly 
career. His disease was not suspected till about a week before his 
death. He had always had a great dread of blindness, and of the — 
stone in the bladder: the latter was the cause of his death, but he 
never was aware of it, and by the care of his medical attendants his 
sufferings were alleviated, and he was spared those acute pains of 
which he hadsuch a dread. He died on the 12th April 1820, in the 
eightieth year of his age. He was buried at Bradfield, in a vault in 
the churchyard, s 


Le eR ee 


YOUNG, BRIGHAM. 


885 


YOUNG, BRIGHAM, 


&85 


Few men have acquired so great a reputation in the pursuit of the 
useful arts, especially in agriculture, as Arthur Young. He began as 
a scholar and became a master. If he was sometimes led on by a 
sanguine disposition and lively imagination into doubtful theories, he 
corrected this by the faithful details of his experiments. He cannot 
be said to have founded any new system of agriculture, but he has 
collected and brought forward all the improvements made by different 
individuals, and thus diffused an immense mass of practical knowledge, 
which before was scattered and isolated. 

* YOUNG, BRIGHAM, the president and ‘prophet’ of the Mor- 
mons or Latter Day Saints. In our notice of thé founder of Mormon- 
ism [Smiru, Josxpu, vol. y., col. 551.) we gave a brief sketch of the 


progress of the system to Smith’s death, and referred the reader to 


the present article for an account of “its subsequent development and 
present state:” this we shall now endeavour briefly to supply. 

Of Brigham Young himself we have few authentic particulars. He 
was born about 1800, and was for some years the trusted friend and 

eague of Joseph Smith. On the murder of Smith (June 27, 1844) 
oung was elected his successor as president of the society, or 
‘prophet and revelator.” The measures he adopted fully justified 
the choice. He saw that a contest with the people of Illinois, backed 
by the state, and perhaps by the federal government, would be utterly 
hopeless, and he not only applied himself to calm the excited minds 
of the community, but as soon as it became clear that the Mormonites 
would not be permitted to remain in Nauvoo, he took the bold resolu- 
tion of persuading them to emigrate to an entirely new and unap- 
propriated country far beyond the settlements of the most adventurous 
of his countrymen, and separated from them by a vast desert tract 
and the almost impassable Rocky Mountains. Having obtained the 
promise of a short respite for the main body of his people, Young 
sent forth in February 1846 the first band of ‘ pioneers, to prepare a 
way across the dreary wilderness. The perils and sufferings of this 
bold band were of the most dreadful kind; but they struggled on 
bravely, planting crops and by various means smoothing the way for 
the brethren, who were to follow. It was not till July 1847 that the 
pioneers reached their destination—the Valley of the Great Salt Lake 
—then a nearly sterile tract inhabited only by a few scattered Indians. 
The main body of emigrants had to endure less than the hardy 
pioneers, but their sufferings were very great, and a large number died 
on the way. 

In the article Uran in the Geographical Division of the English 
Cyclopedia an ample description is given of the country, and an 
account of the settlement; &c.; here therefore it will only be necessary 
to state that immediately on their arrival the elders proceeded to lay 
out their city to which they gave the name of the ‘City of the Great 
Salt Lake’ (but which is now usually called Salt Lake City), and to 
organise a government, at the head of which they placed Brigham 
Young. The country was a part of the northern provinces of Mexico, 
and still nominally belonged to that republic; but it was in February 
1848 formally ceded to the United States of North America, As soon 
as the cession was made the Mormons proposed to form their country 
into a state, drew up a constitution and a body of laws, elected the 
usual state officers, Brigham Young being governor, and formally 
applied for admission into the Union as the sovereign state of Deseret, 
Congress however refused the prayer, and ‘remanded’ the state back 
to a territorial condition, entitling it the ‘Territory of Utah.’ By the 
Federal Constitution the appointment of territorial officers is vested in 
the President of the Union. President Fillmore however waived his 
right, or so used it as not to interfere with the proceedings of the 
‘Saints.’ Young was continued governor, and the entire authority, 
civil as well as ecclesiastical, became vested in him. Armed with this 
double authority he devoted himself to the firm establishment of the 
settlement, the extension of the church, and the consolidation of the 
system. 

The valley of the Salt Lake was, as we have said, chosen for the 

‘earthly Zion of the Saints,’ because of its distance from any civilised 
settlement, and because there the community would be, as it were, 
naturally separated from every other people by the physical confor- 
mation of the country—a valley or series of valleys surrounded by 
almost impassable mountains and wide deserts. Young felt that his 
only chance of building up such a theocracy as his predecessor had 
conceived lay in keeping his people beyond the observation and the 
reach of any community who held any form of Christian creed or 
established polity. Once firmly settled he doubted not that he should 
be able to keep out any ‘Gentile’ intruders. But, happily as Utah 
seemed chosen for his purpose, a circumstance occurred which to a 
great extent overturned his calculations, The discovery of gold in 
California led to an immediate rush of immigrants to that country, 
and the City of the Salt Lake lay in the direct line of the overland 
route. It was of course impossible to arrest or to divert the stream. 
After some futile attempts to prevent intercourse, the elders seem to 
have decided to make the best of what could not be avoided, and a 
profitable trade was established with the travellers. The prosperity 
of Utah has, there can be no doubt, been greatly increased by this 
traffic, but it has led to the settlement of numerous ‘ Gentiles’ in the 
territory, and otherwise been a constant source of vexation and 
perplexity to the authorities. 

Brigham Young was not continued in his office as governor by 


Fillmore’s successor in the presidency; but for some time no very 
serious consequences ensued from the changes which were made, the 
officers sent acting willingly with the Mormon authorities. But later 
in Pierce’s presidency, judges were appointed who were dissatisfied at 
seeing their judgments, where ‘Saints ’ were concerned, virtually set 
aside by the superior authority of the prophet. Young moreover, 
when the time for the election of a new president approached, took 
a decided part in opposition to Mr. Buchanan. Charges of various 
kinds were accumulated against him by the federal officials, who 
at last in a body withdrew and laid their complaints before the 
president. Mr. Buchanan has, it appears, determined on the adoption 
of decided measures, A body of federal troops, it is said 2,500 in 
number, has been despatched to Utah to restore there the federal 
authority, Onthe other hand Young and the legislative assembly of 
Utah profess on behalf of the Mormons the utmost loyalty to the 
Union, and their readiness to receive such officers as may be content 
to attend to their own duties,” but assert their firm determination 
to resist the intrusion of any ‘outside’ officials who shall be thrust 
upon them “in defiance of their constitutional rights.’ What precise 
form the dispute may take, and whether it will be permitted to pro- 
ceed to extremities, or Young as before, at the last moment, counsel 
submission to constituted authority, or a new migration, remains of 
course in the future. Meanwhile the Mormons are everywhere watch- 
ing with intense anxiety; and it may be noticed as an illustration of 
the serious phase which the proceedings have assumed, that after con- 
tinually urging emigration, the Mormon authorities in England have 
suddenly put a peremptory stop to it. In the ‘Millenial Star’ of 
October 17, 1857, they announce that “In view of the difficulties 
which are now threatening the Saints we deem it wisdom to stop all 
emigration to the States.and Utah for the present.” 

Young has been singularly successful in maintaining his influence, 
Despite of opposition and reproach, the attachment of his followers 
has been growing deeper and stronger, till he now seems to hold as 
firm a sway as ever did Joseph Smith himself. Mr. Chandless, an 
English traveller, who spent the autumn and winter of 1855 in Salt 
Lake City, describes Young as ‘fa portly man of middle height, appa- - 
rently about fifty-four; his face bespeaks common sense, and when 
in the prayer he was spoken of as the ‘prophet and revelator,’ I tried 
—pbut in vain—to discover any sign of contempt in his countenance. 
. «.. He never flatters the people, nor apes the supposed mien and 
language of a prophet. .... He rather affects coarse and common 
language. .... He is in shrewdness and energy well fitted to be the 
head, though by no means the most intellectual or most eloquent in 
the ‘Church.’” This character, drawn by an intelligent observer, is 
borne out by what is known of his general conduct and by his printed 
‘discourses.’ In these (which are published by the authorised re- 
porter, Elder G. D. Watt, ‘Journal of Discourses by Brigham Young, 
President of the Church of Jesus of Latter Day Saints, his two Coun- 
sellors, the Twelve Apostles, and others,’ and which is the authori- 
tative “exposition of the views and policy of the Church”’) we have 
the best illustration of the character of the man, and the clearest 
insight into his doctrines. In one of these discourses he says: “Do 
you ask who brother Brigham is? He is an humble instrument in 
the hands of God, to keep His people in the path which He has 
marked out through the instrumentality of his servant Joseph; and 
to travel in which is all I ask of them. I said some time since on 
this stand, if I was not a Prophet I certainly have been profitable to 
this people. I know I have, by the blessing of the Lord, been suc- 
cessful in profiting them. The Lord has done it through me.” But 
besides this plain, blunt, almost jocular style, which he uses when 
reproving as well as when advising, there is another which shows how 
tightly he holds the reins, and the means by which he keeps in check a 
people who look up to him as their divinely appointed ruler. In his ‘ Dis- 
course delivered in the Bowery, Great Salt Lake City, June 15, 1856, 
for instance, we come upon such a passage as this (‘ Discourses,’ iii. 
p. 337), ** You recollect that last Sabbath, and two weeks ago to-day, 
I told the people that it would be for their good to go and perform a 
certain piece of work, which was just as much revelation to you as 
would be teachings upon the subject of getting your endowment [a 
higher kind of initiation]. It was life, and was upon the principles of 
eternal lives. I recollect telling you when you lift your hands to 
heaven like that {raising his hands], and say that you will perform © 
thus and so, and do not, that such a course would damn you, as sure as 
you are now liying..... I am almost constrained by the power that 
is within me to draw the dividing line in the midst of this people, and 
to cut many from the Church, but I plead for mercy. I have merey 
for the people, and I ask God to bear with the wickedness there is in 
their midst, which can hardly be borne with by the spirit and power 
of the Holy Ghost.” And not only does he thus hold out to the people 
that he possesses the power of cutting them off from eternal life, but 
he claims the gifts of foreknowledge, and of something approaching 
omnipresence—at least, we find him declaring (October 6, 1854) “ lt 
is a hard matter for a man to hide himself from me in this territory; 
the birds of the air they- say carry news, and if they do not I have 
plenty of sources of information.” It is easy to understand that 
among a people who receive such teaching, there is likely to be little 
opposition, as there can be little inquiry. But interference of any 
kind with the government is systematically discouraged by him. 


YOUNG, BRIGHAM. 


837 


YOUNG, EDWARD. 


888 


The burden of his teaching is, ‘‘Do your duty and leave us to do ours; 
cleave to the truth,—and let the brethren come and pay their labour 
tithings.” ‘ Do those things which are necessary to be done, and let 
those alorie that are not necessary, and we shall accomplish more than 
we do now;” or, a3 he condensed it in what is printed at the head of 
the ‘Mormon’ as “ the Mormon’s creed "—*“ Mind your own business.” 

Mormonism owes its present shape to the genius of Brigham Young. 
Taking the latest official ‘ Account of the Faith and Doctrines of the 
Church,’ as we find it in the ‘Mormon’ of May 9, 1857, there appears 
little more than a somewhat obscure expansion of the creed as left by 
Joseph Smith, which we gave in vol. v., col. 556. But it contains the 
express declaration, “we believe that God will continue to give reve- 
lations by visions, by the ministry of angels, and by the inspiration of 
the Holy Ghost, until the Saints are guided into all truth ;” and with 
this assertion of continuous revelation, it must be remembered that 
Young is the ‘prophet and revelator’ through whom all revelation 
must proceed or be sanctioned. The creed and even the ‘sacred’ 
writings of such a sect must, it is evident, be only of secondary 
importance; and accordingly, the Book of Mormon seems to be now 
by general consent seldom referred to: Young’s revelations have in 
fact superseded it. Among the more important deviations from the 
received doctrines of Christianity which have become primary articles 
of Mormon faith under Young's revelations are—that the Supreme 
Deity is a material being, having the form in the likeness of which he 
made man; that there “are Gods many ” of an inferior order; that 
man pre-existed in a spirit world; and that for the building up of the 
church Saints are, as in the first dispensation, to have ‘sealed’ to them 
“plural wives.” This last, from its contradiction to the very spirit of 
Christianity and the whole tenor of modern civilisation, and the 
importance which Mormons themselves attach to it, has come to be 
very naturally regarded as the distinctive feature of the system. It 
may not therefore—as it is to Brigham Young that its adoption by 
the body (if not its introduction) is undoubtedly due, and as we 
referred to this article for information on the subject—be out of place 
to show exactly how he teaches it. The doctrine itself of the duty of 
the Saints to take a “ plurality of wives” he declares was not his own 
invention or his own seeking. It was revealed to him by Joseph 
Smith, and he received it with the deepest grief. “I was not desirous,” 
he says (‘Journal of Discourses,’ iii. 266), “of shrinking from any 
duty, nor of failing in the least to do as was commanded, but it was 
the first time in my life I had desired the grave, and I could hardly 
get over it fora long time. And when I saw a funeral, I felt to envy 
the corpse its situation, and to regret that I was not in the coffin,” &c. 
Having received the revelation however he did not “shrink from the 
duty,” and he is said to have seyeral wives and numerous children. 
He himself, in a speech delivered at the Bowery, Salt Lake City, 
July 14, 1855 (reported in ‘Journ. of Disc.,’ iii. 265), says, “ Suppose 
that I had had the privilege of having only one wife, I should have 
had only three sons, for these are all that my first wife bore; whereas 
I now have buried five sons and have thirteen living.” The doctrine 
is however not for the outside world, but only for the Saints. He says, 
“This law was never given of the Lord for any but his faithful 
children ; and it is not for the ungodly at all. No man has a right to 
a wife or wives unless he honours the Priesthood and magnifies his 
calling before God.” But it is a doctrine which must not be gainsaid. 
In his discourse on ‘ Marriage Relations’ he has the hardihood to 
declare—‘ Now, if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and 
continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned; and I will go 
still further, and say, take this revelation, or any other revelation that 
the Lord has given, and deny it in your feelings, and I:promise that 
you will be damned.” This ‘plurality of wives’ is however only a 
part of what he calls the doctrine of ‘ marriage relations,’ which is the 
very life of the system; but we have neither space nor desire to pur- 
sue the subject further. The importance he attaches to it may be seen 
from a brief quotation :—* The whole subject of the marriage relation 
is not in my reach, nor in any other man’s reach on the earth. It is 
without beginning of days or end of years; it is a hard matter to 
reach. We can tell some things with regard to it: it lays the founda- 
tion for worlds, for angels, and for the Gods; for intelligent beings 
to be crowned with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. In fact it is 
the thread which runs from the beginning to the end of the holy 
Gospel of salvation—of the Gospel of the Son of God—it is from 
eternity to eternity.” 

It would probably be a mistake, notwithstanding all that has been 
said on the subject, to suppose that the practice of polygamy is general 
in Utah, ‘Plural wives,’ as we have seen, can only be sealed to 
Saints; and as the maintenance of families is expensive in Utah, and 
by law a separate room must be provided for each wife, it will be 
obvious that prudential considerations will in some measure keep 
down the practice—a fact indeed which Young himself laments in 
one of his addresses. Moreover at the Census of 1850 there wasa 
considerable Majority of adult males, and the disparity of the sexes 
has gone on increasing since. It is probable therefore that the practice 
chiefly prevails among (if it is not confined to) the ‘ rjper saints’ and 
persons in comparatively affluent circumstances. Mr. Chandless, an 
acute observer and an impartial writer, says, “Judging from those 
families with which I have been more or less acquainted, and also 
from the build of the houses (which last, though of course uncertain, 


is a better test than might be supposed), I should conjecture the 
polygamist households throughout the city to be in a decided 
minority.” Of the tendency of the system to lower the tone of 
domestic morality and to degrade female character, and of its evil 
consequences in every respect, there can, we suppose, be no doubt; 
but it is only just to say that the accounts in popular works of fiction 
of its leading to gross and open profligacy are contradicted by the 
testimony of all trustworthy witnesses. On this writers like Stans- 
bury, Gunnison, Carvalho, and Chandless are agreed, however they 
may differ in opinion as to the tendency of particular portions of the 
system and the character of the leaders. It must be remembered too 
in connection with this point, that the Mormons hold that, along with 
the doctrine which they profess to receive as it was received under the 
‘ first dispensation, they must adopt in spirit, and as soon as permitted 
in letter also, the safeguards with which the ‘ marriage relation’ was 
fenced about by the laws of Moses, and that punishment by death ought 
inevitably to follow any infraction of them ; and, as shown in a noted 
instance, of which the particulars have been published by authority, 
where the injured individual under the present “imperfect civil law” 
takes the law in his own hands, no jury in Utah would do otherwise 
than declare him innocent. 
Since the arrival of the Mormons in Utah, Brigham Young appears 
only to have quitted the territory once, when he came on a mission to 
the Saints in England, He has continued in reality the sole ruler 
and law-giver of the people—directing the movements of the society ; 
the establishment of new settlements, which he constantly visits to 
advise or reprove the brethren, as may be necessary (and he has a 
sharp tongue); deciding in cases of ultimate appeal all disputes among — 
the brethren, who are enjoined not to carry their differences before 
‘gentile’ judges; and he is always accessible to individuals who may 


require advice on their spiritual or temporal concerns. Under his 


energetic guidance settlements have extended “ more or less thickly in 
a line from north to south of 300 miles, along a string of valleys from 
rim to rim of the basin.” In these are included several ‘ cities,’ but 
they are all, except Salt Lake City, mere collections of ill-connected 
adobe dwellings, and Salt Lake City itself has few stone buildings. 
There are however large places of amusement in it—dancing being 
almost a religious institution—mills, &c. The temple, which is 
intended to surpass the famous temple of Nauvoo in splendour as 
well as in size (it is 180 feet by 120), is built up to the basement, One 
of the chief buildings in Salt Lake City is Brigham Young’s house, 
which is large, and has “another building almost detached—a sort of 
harem—just completed in the orthodox gothic style.” (Chandless.) 
Of the population of the territory there has been no census pub- 
lished since that of 1850, which was confessedly imperfect, when the 
number returned was 11,380, It has since greatly increased, and in 
the ‘ Millenial Star’ for October 1857 it is, on the authority of informa- 
tion received from Salt Lake City, August 1857, estimated at 80,000, 
of whom 60,000 are Mormons: but these numbers are probably in 
excess. The population of Salt Lake City was estimated by Mr. — 
Chandless in 1855 at “nearly 15,000:” in 1850 it was about 5000. 
The Mormons have been “ gathered from all parts of the earth,” and 
it has been frequently stated in American newspapers that the majority 
are English, But there can be little doubt that the majority are 
Americans. At the Census of 1850, of 11,380, the entire population, 
only 2044 were “born in foreign countries,” and there is no reason to 
suppose that the proportions have since been materially altered. It 
must however be confessed that Mormonism has taken hold of a large 
number of our people. Mormon preachers and Mormon meeting- 
houses are to be found throughout England, and Mormon publications 
have a considerable circulation. Still more numerous comparatively 
are the converts in Wales, and to what extent Mormon ideas are being 
circulated there may be imagined when we say that we have before us 
a list of 44 Mormon publications in the Welsh language. Of the 
‘trains’ of Mormon emigrants who leave this country for Utah, a — 
large proportion are always Welsh; it is stated that they are forming 
distinct settlements in some of the smaller valleys, where they retain 
their old habits and speak almost exclusively the language of the — 
Principality. Atthe Census of 1851 there were in England and Wales 
“222 places of worship belonging to this body, most of them however 
being merely rooms. ...... The attendance on the Census Sunday 
was—morning, 7517; afternoon, 11,481; evening, 16,628.” The Mor- © 
mon authorities stated their numbers in 1853 at upwards of 30,000, 
but we have no adequate means of judging of their subsequent 
increase or decrease. This country however is not the only one from 
which disciples are drawn. Missionaries are constantly sent to 
all parts of Europe, to India, Australia, and even to the Sandwich — 
Islands. Among the Saints in Utah are many Danes and Germans, — 
and some Frenchmen and Italians. All the brethren on entering Utah 
have to present to the Church a tithe of their property, and subse- — 
quently to contribute a tithe of their income, and also a ‘labour 
tithing,’ but for the last they may provide a substitute. > 

YOUNG, EDWARD, was born in 1684 (and not in 1681, as is said — 
by Herbert, Croft, Chalmers, and other authorities) at Upham, a 
village about eight miles from the city of Winchester, in Hampshire. 
His father, the Rev. Edward Young, was born in 1643, was educated 
at Winchester College, of which he became a Fellow, was rector of © 
Upham, was collated in 1682 to the prebend of Gillingham Minor in — 


OO a ee ee eee a ee eee eee eee ee ee ee 
ol a ‘ ° . - a . 


$s -— ——— 


889 YOUNG, EDWARD. 


YOUNG, EDWARD. 890 


the cathedral of Salisbury, was afterwards appointed chaplain to 
William and Mary, and Was finally preferred to the deanery of Salis- 
bury. Dean Young died at Salisbury in 1705. He published a 
collection of his sermons in 1702, ‘Sermons on several Occasions,’ 
2 vols. 8vo, of which a second edition was printed in 1706, 

Edward Young, author of the ‘Night Thoughts,’ was placed by his 
father on the foundation at Winchester College, where he remained 
till he was nineteen without having been elected to a fellowship in 
New College, Oxford, which he entered as an independent member, 
October 13, 1703 (‘fat the age of nineteen” according to the Univer- 
sity Register). A few months afterwards, on the death of the warden, 
who was a friend of his father, and with whom he resided, he removed 


_. to Corpus Christi College on the invitation of the president, who was 


also one of his father’s friends. In 1708 he was nominated by Arch- 
bishop Tenison to a law fellowship in All Souls College, where he 
seems to have devoted himself to poetry in preference to law, and to 
have adopted those decidedly religious principles which he retained 
through life. Tindal, who frequently visited All Souls, speaking of 


_ him, says, “The other boys I can always answer, because I know 


whence they have their arguments, which I have read a hundred 
times ; but that fellow Young is always pestering me with something 


of his own.” 


Young published, in 1713, a poetical ‘Epistle to George, Lord 


-Lansdowne,’ who was one of the twelve peers created by Queen Anne 


in 1712. He also published, in 1713, ‘The Last Day’ and ‘ The Force 
of Religion, or Vanquished Love;’ both of which are poems of con- 
siderable length. ‘The Last Day’ is in three books, and part of it 
was printed in ‘The Tatler,’ in 1710; so that he had been writing 
poetry for some years before he published any. 

On the 23rd of April 1714, Young took the degree of B.C.L., and in 
the same year published a ‘Poem on the Death of Queen Anne,’ 
London, folio. He was probably in some estimation for his learning 
as well as his poetry, for when the foundation of the Codrington 
Library was laid, he was appointed to deliver the Latin oration, 
which he published, ‘ Oratio habita in Coll. Omnium Animarum cum 
jacta sunt Fundamenta Bibliothecws Chickleio-Codringtoniane,’ Oxon., 


_ 8vo, 1716. 


On the 10th of June 1719, he took the degree of D.C.L. In the 


- game year his tragedy of ‘ Busiris’ was acted at Drury Lane with con- 


siderable success; and he published a ‘Paraphrase on Part of the 
Book of Job,’ 4to ; and a poetical ‘ Letter to Mr. Tickell, occasioned by 
the Death of the Right Hon. Joseph Addison,’ folio, 

Young had been tutor to Lord Burleigh, son of the Earl of Exeter, 
but having become acquainted with the Duke of Wharton, he was, in 
1719, induced by that nobleman to relinquish this situation. This fact 
was proved in the case Stiles v. Attorney-General (Atkyns, ‘Chan, 
Rep., vol. 2, 1740), in which Lord-Chancellor Hardwicke was re- 
quired to decide whether two annuities, granted to Young by the 
Duke of Wharton, were for legal considerations. The deed for the 
first annuity was dated March 24, 1719; in the preamble of which the 
duke states, that, “ Considering that the public good is advanced by 
the encouragement of learning and the polite arts, and being pleased 
therein with the attempts of Dr. Young, in consideration thereof and 
of the love I bear him,” &c: Lord Hardwicke decided that this was 
not a legal consideration. The annuity was 100/. for life; but the 
payments having fallen into arrear to the amount of 350/., the duke, 
in lieu of this debt, gave him a second annuity of 100/. in addition to 
the first : the deed for the second was dated July 10, 1722, and the 
duke afterwards charged both as one annuity of 200/. a year for life on 
certain property. The duke died in 1731, in Spain, in great poverty, 
his property had been in trust some years before his death, and the 
other creditors resisted Young’s claims, Young stated in his examina- 
tion before the Master, February 4, 1730, that he had been offered an 
annuity of 1000. for life if he would continue tutor to Lord Burleigh, 
but that he refused it in consequence of the Duke of Wharton having 
promised to provide for him in a much more ample manner. Lord 
Hardwicke decided that his refusal of this offer and the debt on the 
first annuity were both legal considerations, and he directed the 200J, 
annuities to be paid out of the trust-estates. It also appeared that, 
besides these two annuities, the duke gave him a bond; dated March 
15, 1721, to remunerate him for the expense which he had incurred in 
standing, at the duke’s request, a contested election for Cirencester, in 
which he was defeated. No doubt the duke thought that he had 
talents to qualify him for an orator, and in fact he’afterwards became 
an eloquent preacher. Lord Hardwicke decided that this bond was 
not for legal consideration, and it was not_ordered to be paid. 

The tragedy of ‘The Revenge’ was brought out at Drury Lane in 
1721, with less success than ‘ Busiris.’ His Satires were published 
separately in folio, with the title of ‘The Universal Passion,’ which 
was afterwards expanded into‘The Love of Fame, the Universal 
Fassicn.’ The first four, which are on men, were published in 1725-6; 
the two last, on women, in 1727-8, They were extremely successful. 
Herbert Croft says that Young acquired 3000/. by them, but leaves it 
uncertain how the whole sum was obtained, by stating, on the autho- 
rity of Spence, that the Duke of Grafton gave him 2000/. for them. In 
1726 he published ‘The Instalment,’ on Sir Robert Walpole being 
made a knight of the Garter. 

In 1727 Young took orders, and was nominated one of the royal 


In 1727 he published 
‘Cynthio, an Ode on the Death of the Marquis of Carnarvon ;’ in 1728, 
‘Ocean, an Ode, with a Discourse on Lyric Poetry,’ to which was 
prefixed an ‘ Ode to the King, Pater Patriz,’ and‘ A True Estimate of 
Human Life ;’ in 1729, a Sermon, preached before the House of Com- 
mons, entitled ‘An Apology for Princes, or the Reverence due to 
Government.’ 

On the 30th of July, 1730, the college of All Souls presented him 
with the rectory of Welwyn in Hertfordshire, valued at 300/. a year, 
and to which the lordship of the manor was attached. In this year he 
published ‘Imperium Pelago, a Naval Lyric;’ ‘ Two Poetical Epistles 
to Mr. Pope, concerning the Authors of the Age ;’ and ‘ A Sea-Piece,’ 
addressed to Voltaire, with whom he seems to have been on terms of 
familiarity when Voltaire was in England. 

In 1731 Young married Lady Elizabeth Lee, widow of Colonel Lee, 
and daughter of the Earl of Lichfield. By Lady Elizabeth Young he 
had a son, Frederic, who was born in 1733. Lady Young had a 
daughter by her former husband, who was married in 1735 to Mr. 
Temple, son of Lord Palmerston. Mrs. Temple died of consumption 
in 1736, at Lyon, on her way to Nice. She was accompanied by 
Young, and probably by her husband and Lady Young; for Croft 
says that “after her death, the rest of the party passed the ensuing 
winter at Nice,’ Mr. Temple died in 1740. Lady Elizabeth Young 
herself died in 1741. The Philander and Narcissa of the ‘ Night 
Thoughts’ have been supposed to represent Mr. and Mrs. Temple. 
The authorities at Lyon refused to allow Mrs. Temple to be buried in 
consecrated ground, and this fact accords with Young’s description of 
the funeral of Narcissa; but the dates just stated are inconsistent 
with the third of the following lines :— 


** Insatiate archer! could not one suffice ? 
Thy shaft flew thrice, and thrice my peace was slain, 
And thrice ere thrice yon moon had filled her horn.’? 


Lady Young’s name in the poem seems to be Lucia. The Lorenzo 
could not have been Young’s son, as has often been stated; for 
Frederic Young, having been born in 1733, was under ten years of 
age when the first books of the ‘ Night Thoughts’ were published, 
while Lorenzo is represented as having been married to a lady whose 
name in the poem is Clarissa, and who died in childbed, leaving a son, 
Florello. 

Young seems to have begun the ‘ Night Thoughts’ soon after the 
death of his wife. They were published in London, 1742-46. In 1753 
he brought out his tragedy of ‘ The Brothers,’ the profits of which he 
intended to give to the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, but 
the play having been unsuccessful, he gave the Society 1000/. His 
prose work, ‘The Centaur not Fabulous, in Six Letters on the Life in 
Vogue,’ was published in 1758. There is a letter from Secker to 
Young, dated July 8, 1758. Secker was then Archbishop of Canter- 
bury, and Young, at that time seventy-four years of age, had been 
soliciting the archbishop to use his influence with the king to obtain 
some preferment for him. Secker’s letter is characteristic. He excuses 
himself by saying, ‘‘ No encouragement hath ever been given me to 
mention things of this nature to his majesty;” and concludes by 
observing, “‘ Your fortune and your reputation set you above the need 
of advancement, and your sentiments above that concern for it, on 
your own account, which, on that of the public, is sincerely felt by,” 
&c. Young would understand, if he did not feel, Secker’s allusion to 
the inconsistency between his ‘sentiments’ and his solicitations for 
worldly advancement. His ‘Thoughts on Original Composition’ 
were published in 1759. At last, on the 4th of January 1761, his 
ruling passion received a slight gratification—he succeeded Dr. Stephen 
Hales as clerk of the closet to the Princess Dowager of Wales. 

His poem called ‘ Resignation’ was published in 1762, and in the 
same year he published a collected edition of his Works, 4 vols. 12mo, 
from which he excluded some of his dedications, as well as two or 
three of the smaller works. He died on the 12th of April 1765. He 
had performed no public duty for two or three years, but retained his 
faculties to the last. 

Young’s son Frederic was educated at Winchester, whence he went 
to New College, Oxford, and then to Balliol College, from which, 
according to the ‘ Biographia Britannica,’ he was expelled for misbe- 
haviour, According to the same authority, Young was so much 
incensed at his son’s misconduct that he refused to see him, even on 
his death-bed, but left him the bulk of his fortune, which was con- 
siderable. He left 1000/. to his housekeeper, and added a codicil, in 
which he requested that she would destroy all his manuscripts after 
his death, “ which would greatly oblige her deceased friend.” He had 
left another 10001. “to his friend Henry Stevens, a hatter near the 
Temple Gate,” but Stevens died before him. Young’s son erected a 
monument “ pio et gratissimo animo ” to his father and mother. 

Young, from the commencement of his career as a writer almost to 
the termination of his long life, displayed an eager desire for place and 
preferment, and seems never to have let slip an opportunity of paying 
his court to those who had them at their disposal. Every work, 
whether in prose or verse, each separate satire of ‘The Love of Fame,’ 
and each separate book of the ‘ Night Thoughts,’ was addressed to 
some person of distinction, including Queen Anne, George I., and 


891 YOUNG, EDWARD. 


YOUNG, MATTHEW, D.D. eg 


George II., and generally in language of the most unscrupulous adula- 
tion. Place, after all, he never obtained, and, except the offices of 
royal chaplain and clerk of the closet, the only preferment which he 
ever reached was the rectory of Welwyn, and that was given to him 
by his own college of All Souls. i: 

Young's private character has not been minutely described. Croft 
went to the residence of his housekeeper in order to obtain informa- 
tion from her, but she had died just before his arrival. After his 
marriage he lived much in retirement at Welwyn, “the world forget- 
ting,” and long enough to be almost “by the world forgot.” He 
seems to have been visited by few, but Count Tscharner, a foreigner, 
who spent four days with him when he was very old, says that every- 
thing about him was very neat, his manners very polite, and his con- 
versation lively and entertaining. He was strict in the performance 
of his religious duties, domestic as well as public. His accustomed 
walk of meditation was among the tombs of his own churchyard, but 
he does not appear to have been severe or gloomy; be was fond of 
gardening, and his parishioners were obliged to him for a bowling- 
green and an assembly-room. 

The distinguishing characteristic of Young's intellect was the fer- 
tility of his fancy; but the imagery with which it was supplied and 
the manner in which that imagery was combined, were such as to 
qualify him for a wit rather than for a poet. He has apparently no 
taste for the beauties of external nature, but he has metaphors, 
similes, and laboured comparisons drawn from all kinds of sources, in 
extraordinary abundance. Thecombinations are always original, often 
beautiful, sometimes brilliantly acute, but too frequently introduced 
merely as ornaments, unnecessary for illustration and unsuitable to 
the circumstances in which they are used or the effect which he 
intended to produce. This want of skill in the adaptation of means 
to the production of a specific effect was perhaps the leading defect 
of his poetical character. But he has another defect, which, though 
ef much less consequence, would have disqualified him from ever 
becoming a great poet. His versification is that of a versifier, not of 
a poet; correct in the adjustment of feet, but broken up into couplets, 
lines, and half-lines, and almost utterly devoid of the melody of 
rhythm. His favourite form of language is antithesis, which may be 
suitable enough for the wit, but is little suited to the poet. It must 
be admitted however that his language is often very compact, and his 
lines have frequently a pregnant brevity which gives point and force 
to his illustrations. 

‘The Last Day’ consists of a series of descriptions of the wonders 
which are to attend the destruction of the universe, of the terrors of 
the wicked, and the raptures of the virtuous. Sublimity is generally 
aimed at, but never reached; there is much of violence and extra- 
vagance instead of it. The versification is elaborately correct, yet 
not musical, and the effect of the whole is tedious. ‘The Force of 
Religion’ is a poetical dialogue between Lord Guildford and Lady 
Jane Grey previous to her execution. The pathetic is evidently 
aimed at in this poem, but pathos was never at the command of 
Young. Lady Jane is too heroic, and the thoughts and language too 
much unlike real feeling, to produce either interest or pity. ‘The 
Paraphrase on a Part of the Book of Job’ appears as if it had been 
written by a man of genius out of his senses, The Eastern imagery 
of the original is strong enough for most European tastes, but is tame 
compared with Young's paraphrase. The descriptions, when wrought 
out in detail, as they are by Young, instead of being, as no doubt he 
intended, specimens of magnificent imagery, are extravagant to a degree 
_ of absurdity which is absolutely without parallel in English poetry. 

‘The Love of Fame,’ being a series of satires, required a species of 
composition much better suited to the peculiarity of Young's talents 
than anything he had hitherto attempted. They have been described 
as (a series of epigrams, and so they are, but epigrams so connected 
with character and manners, as to have an interest which never 
belongs to isolated epigrams, such as those of Martial. They display 
no deep insight into character, no investigation of motives, but exhibit 
the surface of life by a series of sketches, often slight and generally 
superficial, but true, and spirited, and sparkling with illustrative 
touches; and though much of the manners which they deseribe hds 
passed away, they are still perfectly intelligible and very amusing. In 
poems of this kind, even Young's peculiar taste for antithesis, and 
his short and broken style of versification, can hardly be regarded as 
objectionable. 

The ‘Night Thoughts’ are a series of argumentative poems in 
blank verse, in proof of the immortality of the soul afd the truth of 
Christianity, and, as a consequence, the necessity of religious and 
moral conduct. Young's exhibitions of life are those of a man who 
had mixed with the world, and had observed it well ; and though they 
are generally somewhat gloomy, and touched with the exaggerating 
pencil of the satirist, they abound in important truths. There is no 
narrative, or next to none, but a slight degree of interest is given by 
the allusions to Narcissa and Philander and Lucia, and by the intro- 
duction of Lorenzo, who seems to be the poet's personification of the 
accomplished man of the world, whose infidelity was to be silenced 
by argument, and the erroneousness of whose conduct was to be made 
manifest by contrast with that of the Christian. In the descriptions, 
the false sublime is of much more frequent occurrence than the true. 
The blank verse is generally broken up into short sentences, and 


seldom satisfies the ear. The poem would have little attraction for 
the general reader if it were not for the abundance, superabundance, 
we may say, of its illustrative ornaments. 

‘The Centaur not Fabulous’ is a satire in prose, an e | 
display of the life ‘ in vogue,’ as he expresses it, The ‘ Remarks on 
Original Composition’ were addressed in a letter to Richardson the 
novelist, and though written when Young was very old, they are oat = 
only full of good sense, but sparkle with illustrations as much as if 
they had been written in the prime of life; they are rather gossiping _ 
perhaps, but yery entertaining. Le 

Young wrote several Odes, some expressly ‘in imitation of Pindar’s 
manner.” They are all signal failures. He has discarded his ornam =, 
illustrations, probably as unsuitable to the dignity of the ode, and he 
has nothing in the place of them. The thoughts are either commor 
or bombastic, and the versification is only fit for nursery rhymes. T 
last of his poems, ‘ Resignation,’ consists of a series of verses written 
a familiar style, and though subdued in tone, indicates no decay o 

owers. 

The three tragedies are all of the heroic class. The characters 
above nature or out of it, and their thoughts and language being a 
unknown to ordinary humanity, they excite no sympathy. ‘The 
Revenge’ however still keeps possession of the stage whenever 
actor appears who is capable of displaying the exaggerated but 
ficent passion of Zanga. The plot is an imitation of that of O 
it has more incident than either of the other tragedies, 
thoughts and language are nearer to those of actual life. 


+ 


and the 
YOUNG, MATTHEW, D.D., Bishop of Clonfert, anda distiegniahan ‘ ‘ 


mathematician of Ireland, was born in 1750, in the county of ose 
mon, and he prosecuted his studies at Trinity College, Dublin, 


which he was admitted in 1766. While a student he applied himself — 
diligently to the ancient and modern languages, to divinity, and, in a 
particular manner, to mathematics and natural philosophy. The — 
‘Principia’ of Newton constituted at that time the chief text- 
for the latter subject in the British universities, and Mr. Yo 
a considerable portion of his life in illustrating it, with the view of — 
diminishing for students the difficulties arising from the extreme con- 
ciseness of the investigations. He entered info holy orders, and in 
1775 he was elected a Fellow of the college, after an examination in 
which he distinguished himself by his profound knowledge of the 
important work just mentioned: the degree of Doctor in Divinity was — 
subsequently conferred upon him. chy 
In 1786, the professorship of natural philosophy becoming vacant, 
Dr. Young was immediately appointed to hold the office, and he © 
applied himself zealously to the fulfilment of its duties. He greatly 
extended the course of instruction in that branch of science, availing 
himself, for the purposes of illustration in his lectures, of a valuable 
apparatus which had then been recently purchased for his college, a 
Dr. Young is said to have taken great pleasure in the society of — 
literary and scientific persons; and early in life he became connected — 
with several other young men who, like himself, were students at the — 
university, for mutual improvement in theology. Subsequently a 
more numerous society was formed, chiefly by his exertions, and this 
became the nucleus of the Royal Irish Academy, the members | 
which professed to have for their object the advancement of arts and. 
sciences as well as polite literature and antiquities. They began in 
1782 to hold weekly meetings for the purpose of reading essays on 
these different subjects; and the first volume of their ‘ ions, 
which is for the year 1787, was published in 1788. The yolumes haye — 
since come out regularly, and several of the earliest contain the * 
mathematical and philosophical papers which were contributed by 
Dr. Young. iu 
The reputation acquired through his literary and scientific attain: 
ments was the cause that Dr. Young was, without solicitation, — 
appointed by Lord Cornwallis (the lord-lieutenant) to the see of Clon- 
fert and Kilmacduach when it became vacant. A commentary on the ~ 
‘Principia’ of Newton, which the doctor had been long preparing in 
English, and which he afterwards, on the representations of his fri : 
translated into Latin, was completed a short time before he was raised 
to the episcopal bench; the publication was however unavoidably 
delayed on aecount of the new duties arising from this appointment, 
and before the bishop had leisure to carry out his intention a cancer — 
began to form on his tongue. Under this painful malady he languished — 
during fifteen months, and he died November 28, 1800, being then ab 
Whitworth in Lancashire. y wt 
The principal contribution made by Dr. Young to the ‘Transactions. 4 
of the Royal Irish Academy’ is a paper on the velocities of effluent 
fluids, which is published in the seventh volume. In this paper itis 
shown that when a tube of any length, open at both ends, is inserted oa 
vertically in a vessel so as to terminate on its bottom, and the vesselis 
filled with water to any level above the top of the tube, the velocity 
of the effluent water is increased, when compared with that of water 
issuing from the vessel through a simple orifice of equal diameter in 
the bottom, nearly with the square root of the length of the tube, the 
depth of water in the vessel being equal; and the cause of this 
remarkable cireumstance is ascribed to the excess of the pressure 
downwards above the pressure upwards, within the tube, being greater 
than it is at equal depths of water when no tube is employed. Thus, — 
a lamina of water at the top of the tube is pressed downwards by the 


> ww 


893 YOUNG, PATRICK. 


YOUNG, THOMAS, M.D. 894 


weight of the atmosphere, together with that of the column of water 
above it, and upwards by the equal pressure of the atmosphere at the 
lower end of the tube, diminished by the weight of the column of 
water in the tube; therefore the resulting pressure on that lamina 
downwards is equal to the weight of a column of water whose height 
is equal to the entire depth of the water in the vessel. All the fluid 


' in the tube descends with the same velocity ; whereas, with a simple 


orifice at the bottom, each lamina of water in the vessel descends with 
a-velocity depending merely on the weight of the column of fluid 
above it: the sides also of the tube prevent the lateral particles of 


water from converging towards the orifice, by which the discharge of 


the fluid through a simple orifice is diminished, 

In the department of pure mathematics Dr. Young contributed a 
paper containing a demonstration of the rule for the quadrature of 
simple curves by infinite series; and one on the extraction of roots in 
general; this is printed in the first volume of the ‘Transactions ;’ and 
in the same volume there is a paper by him containing a collection of 
ancient Gaelic poems. An interesting paper by Dr. Young on the 
*Origin and Theory of the Gothie Arch,’ is published in the third 
volume. In this paper the writer offers an opinion that the Gothic 
architects were induced to employ pointed arches in their buildings 
from a knowledge of their mathematical properties: from an investi- 
pation of their strength, on scientific principles, he comes to the con- 
clusion that a pointed arch whose radius of curvature is equal to the 
span, or the distance between the supporting pillars, is the weakest of 
the kind, and also that the strength increases as the radius of the 
curve becomes, within certain limits, either less or greater than the 
span. In comparing low Gothic arches with arches of a semicircular 
form, he proves that, when the radius of the former is equal to three- 
fourths of the span, the strength is to that of a semicircular arch of 
equal span as 1000 to 1257 ; and when the radius is two-thirds of the 
span, as 1000 to 1210. In the fourth volume of the ‘ Transactions’ 
there is a paper by Dr. Young containing demonstrations of Newton's 
theorems for the correction of the spherical aberration in the object- 
lenses of telescopes. 

Besides these contributions to the Academy, Dr. Young published 
separately ‘An Essay on the Phenomena of Sounds and Musical 
Strings,’ 8vo, 1784. He subsequently published a short essay on the 
primitive colours in solar light, and one on the precession of the equi- 
noxes. His last work was that which he entitled ‘ Principles of Natural 
Philosophy,’ 8vo, 1800, and which contains the substance of the 
lectures which he had delivered at the university. 

YOUNG, PATRICK, Latinised Patricius Junius, the son of Peter 
Young, was born on his father’s estate at Seton in East Lothian, N.B., 
on the 29th of August 1584. He studied at the University of St. 
Andrews, where he took the degree of A.M. in 1603. He lived for 
some time with Dr. Lloyd, bishop of Chester, by whom his love of 
study was appreciated and encouraged. It was probably through’ 
the influence of Lloyd and other patrons that, in 1605, he was by 
special favour incorporated in the degree of M.A. at Oxford, without 
having followed any course of study in England. He took deacon’s 
orders, and was chosen chaplain of New College. He afterwards went 
to London with the view of trying his fortune at the court of King 
James, and through the influence of Montague, the bishop of Bath 
and Wells, he obtained a pension of 50/.a year. He was appointed 
keeper of the king’s library, and occupied himself for some time in 
classifying and cataloguing the books, In 1617 he went to France 
and other neighbouring states, partly with the view of making collec- 
tions for the library. He carried with him recommendations from 
Camden, and being able to speak several languages, he soon formed 
an intimate acquaintance with a large circle of learned men. His 
biographer Smith has collected such incidental notices of his person, 
or of his works, as are afforded by contemporary continental writers, 
and the collection shows his circle of admirers to have been both 
extensive and illustrious. From a very early age if had been his 
ambition to be a master of Greek, and he carried on a considerable 
portion of his correspondence with his learned contemporaries in that 
tongue. His enthusiastic admiration of ancient Greece extended 
itself to the modern inhabitants of that country, among whom he 
seems to have been anxious to resuscitate a knowlege of the literature 
of their ancestors. He made the personal acquaintance of several 
Greeks, whom he invited to England, supporting them there by his 
own funds, and the subscriptions of friends who sympathised in his 
views. It does not appear that more than one of these ever fulfilled 
by his subsequent exertions for the regeneration of his countrymen, 
the views of his enlightened patron. Young has not left behind him 
many literary memorials of his high reputation for scholarship. He 
appears to have been an indolent man, and not anxious for literary 
fame. Seldon dedicates to him the ‘Marmora Arundeliana’ in very 
flattering terms, describing himself, in drawing up that work, as doing 
little more than collect and arrange the elucidations which Young had 
the merit of suggesting. He assisted his countryman Thomas Reid 
in translating into Latin the works of King James, On the arrival in 
1628 of the Alexandrine Manuscript of the Bible in the royal library 
of which he had charge, he commenced a critical examination of its 
contents, with the view of publishing an edition of the whole contents 
of the manuscript. Of his exertions however in pursuance of this 
project he left behind him only a few vestiges. Among these there is 


a collection of notes down to the fifteenth chapter of Numbers, which 
are published in the sixth volume of Walton’s Polyglot Bible, under 
the title ‘Patricii Junii Annotationes quas paraverat ad MS, Alexan- 
drini Editionem, in quibus Codicem illum antiquissimum cum Textu 
Hebraico et veteribus Ecclesie Scriptoribus, aliisque Grecis Editio- 
nibus confert.’ He published, in 1633, an edition of the Epistles of 
Clemens Romanus, from the same manuscript, which will be found 
in the first volume of the ‘Sacrosancta Concilia’ of Labbeus and Cos- 
sartus. In 1638 he published and dedicated to Bishop Juxon an 
‘ Exposition of Solomon’s Song,’ written by Gilbert Foliot, bishop of 
London, in the time of Henry II. It is said that he was in the course 
of applying the treasures of the royal library to several other literary 
undertakings, when the supremacy of the parliamentary party de- 
prived him of his appointment in that institution. In 1649 he retired 
to Bromfield in Essex, where he lived with his son-in-law Mr. Atwood. 
He died on the 7th of September 1652, according to a monumental 
inscription preserved in Bromfield church. (Smithius, Vite guorun- 
dam eruditissimorum et ilustrium Virorum: Biographia Britannica.) 

YOUNG, SIR PETER, Latinised Petrus Junius, is said to have 
been born in Forfarshire in Scotland, on the 15th of August 1544. He 
studied at Geneva and Lausanne, and became intimate with Beza, to 
whom his uncle Henry Scrimgeur made him known, Returning home 
in 1569, he was appointed co-tutor, along with Buchanan, of the young 
prince of Scotland, afterwards James I. of England. When the prince 
took the administration of the government, Young became a mem- 
ber of the privy council. In 1586 he was sent as ambassador to 
Frederic II. of Denmark, to conduct the negociations as to the pos- 
session of the Orkney Isles. He afterwards attended James on his 
romantic journey to Denmark to bring home his queen, and was 
employed on-various missions to that and the neighbouring states. 
He ranks among the vindicators of Queen Mary. He prepared a short 
narrative of that queen’s life and death, with the view of meeting 
some opinions expressed against her by David Chytreus. This little 
work is incorporated with his Life by Smith. He settled in England, 
where he was knighted in 1614, and received a pension of 300/, In 
1620 he retired to an estate which he possessed in Scotland, where he 
died on the 7th of January 1628. (Smithius, Vite quorundam Lrudi- 
tissimorum et Illustrium Virorum.) : 

YOUNG, THOMAS, M.D., was born June 13, 1773, at Milverton, in 
Somersetshire. He was the eldest of ten children of Thomas and 
Sarah Young, who were both Quakers. In 1780 he was placed ata 
boarding-school at Stapleton, near Bristol, and in 1782 was sent to the 
school of Mr. Thompson, at Compton in Dorsetshire, where he re- 
mained nearly four years. During this period he studied, besides 
Latin and Greek, the French, Italian, and Hebrew languages. After 
his return home he devoted himself almost entirely to the study of 
Hebrew, and to the practice of turning and telescope-making, which 
he had been taught by an usher of Compton school. In 1787 he 
accepted, in conjunction with Mr. Hodgkin, an engagement as private 
tutor to Hudson Gurney, grandson of Mr. David Barclay, of Youngs- 
bury, near Ware, in Hertfordshire. There he remained till 1792, 
devoting his leisure hours to the prosecution of his studies in Greek, 
Latin, and modern languages, Oriental as well as European, and also 
to mathematics, algebra, fluxions, natural philosophy, and the ‘ Prin- 
cipia’ and ‘Optics’ of Newton. Mr. Hodgkin in 1793 published 
‘Calligraphia Graeca,’ which he dedicated to Young, who had suggested 
the work, and furnished the writing. ' 

In the autumn of 1792 Thomas Young removed to London, in 
order to study medicine by the advice and on the invitation of Dr. 
Brocklesby, an eminent physician, who was his maternal uncle. Young 
was by him introduced to Mr. Burke, Sir Joshua Reynolds, and other 
distinguished men; and he attended the lectures of Drs. Baillie, 
Cruikshank, and John Hunter. In the autumn of 1793 he entered 
himself a pupil at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, and in October 1794 
proceeded to Edinburgh, still further to prosecute his medical studies. 
Before quitting London for Edinburgh, he had resolved to give up some 
of the external characteristics of the Quakers ; but the change of habits 
and associations in a short time led to a total and permanent separa- 
tion from them. He mixed largely in society, began the study of 
music and took lessons on the flute, and also private lessons in dancing, 
and frequently attended performances at the theatre. In the summer 
of 1795 he made a tour in the Highlands of Scotland. 

In October 1795 he left London, in order to make a tour on the 
continent. He took a doctor's degree at the university of Gottingen, 
and prosecuted his studies there during nine months. In May 1796 
he made a tour to the Harz Mountains, ascended the Brocken, and 
descended some of the deepest mines. After leaving Gottingen, he 
visited Gotha, Erfurt, Weimar, Jena, Leipzig, Dresden, and Berlin, 
and returned to England in February 1797. 

Almost immediately after his return Thomas Young was admitted a 
Fellow Commoner of Emmanuel College, Cambridge. Dr. Brocklesby 
died December 13, 1797. He had fostered the promising talents of 
his nephew, had provided for the completion of his general and pro- 
fessional education, and now left him by will about 10,0002, and his 
house in London, with furniture, library, and a choice collection of 
pictures, mostly selected by Sir Joshua Reynolds. After this, Young 
resided sometimes at Cambridge, and sometimes at Bath, Worthing, 
and elsewhere. : 


—— an 


895 YRIARTE, JUAN DE. 


YRIARTE, JUAN DB. 896 


Having, in 1799, completed his last term of residence at Cambridge, 

in 1800 he settled in London, ‘and commenced the profession of 
medicine. His practice however was never large, so that he was 
enabled to devote much of his time to his favourite literary and 
scientific pursuits. Several years were then required to elapse between 
the date of admission of a student at Cambridge and the granting of 
his degrees in medicine, so that Young did not obtain his degree of 
M.B. till 1803, nor that of M.D. till 1807. As early as 1799 he had 
written his memoir, ‘Outlines and Experiments respecting Sound 
and Light,’ which was read before the Royal Society, and printed in 
their ‘ Transactions.” Other papers ‘On the Theory of Light and 
Colours’ followed, which the Council of the Royal Society selected 
for the Bakerian lectures. si ; 

In 1801 he accepted the office of Professor of Natural Philosophy 
at the Royal Institution, which had been established the year preced- 
ing. His first lecture was delivered January 20, 1802, His lectures 
were not popular. His matter was too much compressed and his 
style too laconic. In 1802 he was appointed Foreign Secretary to the 
Royal Society, an office which he held during the remainder of his 
life, and for which he was well qualified by his knowledge of the prin- 
cipal languages of Europe. He married June 14, 1804, After ful- 
filling for two years the duties of Professor of Natural Philosophy to 
the Royal Institution he resigned the appointment. 

During his connection with the Royal Institution he delivered sixty 
lectures, which form the substance of his great work, which was pub- 
lished in 1807, and entitled ‘A Course of Lectures on Natural Philo- 
sophy and Mechanical Arts,’ 2 vols. 4to. This work includes also his 
optical and other memoirs, and a classed catalogue of scientific pub- 
lications. A new edition was published in 1845, ‘ with References and 
Notes, by the Rev. P. Kelland, M.A., F.R.S., &c., illustrated by numer- 
ous Engravings on Copper,’ 8vo, These lectures embody a complete 
system of natural and mechanical philosophy, drawn from original 
sources; and are distinguished not only by extent of learning and 
accuracy of statement, but by the beauty and originality of the 
theoretical principles. One of these is the principle of interferences 

.in the undulatory theory of light. “This discovery alone,” says Sir 
John Herschel, “ would have sufficed to have placed its author in the 
highest rank of scientific immortality, even were his other almost 
innumerable claims to such a distinction disregarded.” The first 
reception however of Dr. Young's investigations on light was very 
unfavourable. The novel theory of undulation especially was attacked 
in the ‘ Edinburgh Review,’ and Dr. Young wrote a pamphlet in reply, 
of which only one copy was sold. He communicated frequently with 
the French philosopher Fresnel, who entertained views similar to his 
own on the nature of light. The undulatory theory is now generally 
received in place of the molecular or emanatory theory. Among the 
other difficult matters of investigation in which Dr. Young was 
engaged was that of the Egyptian hieroglyphics, in which in fact he 
preceded Champollion. [Cuampo.tion, J. F. 

In 1809 and 1810 Dr. Young delivered at the Middlesex Hospital a 
series of lectures on the elements of medical science and practice. In 
January 1811 he was elected one of the pbysicians of St. George’s 
Hospital, a situation which he retained for the remainder of his life. 
His practice there, as elsewhere, is stated to have been eminently suc- 
cessful, but he never became popular. In 1813 he published § An 
Introduction to Medical Literature, including a System of Practical 
Nosology, intended as a Guide to Students and an Assistant to Prac- 
titioners, 8vo. In 1816 Dr. Young was appointed secretary to a com- 
mission for ascertaining the length of the seconds’ pendulum, for 
comparing the French and English standards with each other, and for 
establishing in the British empire a more uniform system of weights 
and measures. He drew up the three reports, 1819, 1820, 1821. In 
1818 Dr. Young was appointed secretary to the Board of Longitude, 
and on the dissolution of that body he became sole conductor of the 
* Nautical Almanac,’ 

Dr. Young at various times contributed eighteen articles to the 
‘Quarterly Review,’ of which nine were on scientific subjects—the rest 
on medicine, languages, and criticism. Between 1816 and 1823 he 
wrote 63 articles for the ‘Supplement to the Encyclopedia Britan- 
nica,’ of which 46 were biographical. In 1821 he made ashort tour 
in Italy in company with his wife. In August 1827 he was elected one 
of the eight foreign associates of the Academy of Sciences at Paris, in 
place of Volta, who died in 1826. Dr. Young died May 10, 1829, and 
was buried in the vault of his wife’s family at Farnborough, Kent. 

In 1855 was published a ‘ Life of Thomas Young, M.D., F.R.S., &e., 
by George Peacock, D.D., F.R.S., &c., Dean of Ely,’ 8vo, In the same 
year was published ‘ Miscellaneous Works of the late Thomas Young, 
M.D., F.R.S.,’ &e,: vols, i. and ii. including his Scientific Memoirs, &c., 
edited by George Peacock, D.D., F.R.S., &c., dean of Ely, 8vo, 1855 ; 
vol. iii, Hieroglyphical Essays and Correspondence, &¢., edited by 
John Leitch. These volumes contain all Dr. Young's contributions to 
the ‘ Transactions’ of the Royal Society; the principal articles fur- 
nished for the ‘Supplement to the Encyclopedia Britannica ;’ many 
essays from Nicholson’s ‘Journal’ and Brande’s ‘Journal;’ some 
reviews on scientific subjects from the ‘ Quarterly Review ;’ and 
several essays either separately published or dispersed in different 
publications. 

YRIARTE, JUAN DE, was born at Orotava, in the island of Tene- 


riffe, on the 15th of December 1702. His father was a native of 
Navarre, and held a commission in the troops stationed in the Canaries. 
His mother was a native of Orotava. Juan was the first-born of a- 
family of five sons and three daughters. . 

When Juan had barely completed his eleventh year, his father, who 
entertained a high opinion of French seminaries, sent him to France, 
under the charge of Pedro de Hely, French consul in the Canaries, — 
who was returning to his native country. He sailed from Orotaya on 
the 18th of December 1713, and did not return to the Canaries till 
1724, The year 1714 was spent in attendance at the public schools of 
Paris; in April 1715 Hely transferred his residence to Rouen, whither 
his ward accompanied him. At what time Yriarte returned to Paris — 
does not clearly appear; but he spent eight years in the college of Louis _ 
le Grand, where he distinguished himself by his acquirements in the 
classical languages and in the mathematics. Before returning to — 
Teneriffe he visited London, apparently with a view to make himself 
master of the English language. His stay there was short: the intel- 
ligence of his father’s declining health precipitated his departure, : 

On his arrival at Orotava, some time in 1724, he found his father 
already dead. It bad been his wish that Juan should proceed from 
the Canaries to Spain, and study law in some of the Spanish universi- 
ties. The young man remained some months at Orotava, seemingly 
irresolute to follow out the career designed for him by his father, and 
during this time he was busy extending the knowledge of the English 
language acquired during his short residence in London. At last he — 
resolved to comply with the wishes of his deceased parent, and sailed 
for Spain about the end of 1724. 

The reputation of the royal library induced him to visit Ma 
and the facilities afforded him by that institution for indulging his 
passion for reading detained him longer in that capital than he 


intended. The frequency of bis visits and the class of works he used 


attracted the notice of the principal librarian, Don Juan de Ferraras, 
and of the king’s confessor, Father Guillermo Clarke, who was director 
of the royal printing-office. The terms in which these officials spoke 
of the acquirements of the young stranger induced the Duke de Béjar 
to engage Yriarte as tutor for his son. Yriarte succeeded so well in 
this charge that he was successively engaged to give lessons to the son ~ 
of the Duke of Alba and to the Infante Dom Manuel of Portugal, who 
visited Madrid about that time. His leisure hours were spent in the 
royal library, in which his first patrons at length procured him an ~ 
appointment. On the 19th of April 1729, Yriarte was appointed secre- 
tary to the royal prihting-office; and on the 4th of January 1732 a 
librarian in the royal library. 

His extensive knowledge of languages and his passionate love of 
books alike qualified him for filling the latter post. During the thirty- 
nine years that he continued librarian he added two thousand mauu- 
scripts and upwards of ten thousand printed volumes to the collection. 
In 1729 he had published a catalogue of the geographical and chrono- 


logical works contained in the library; in 1730, a catalogue of the — 


mathematical works; in 1769 he published the first volume of a cata- 
logue of the Greek manuscripts in the royal library, illustrated with — 
notes, indices, and-anecdotes. A second volume was promised, but 
never appeared, ? 
The linguistic attainments of the librarian were frequently put in 
request by the government officers; and so valuable were they found, 
that on the 21st of February 1740 he was appointed official translator 
to the principal secretary of state. The secresy observed iv a ministe- 
rial cabinet renders it impossible to learn with certainty the exact 
qualifications he showed himself to be possessed of for this office ; but 
during the whole twenty-nine years that he continued to fill it, he 
enjoyed a high reputation among Spanish statesmen for method, pune- 
tuality, and severe integrity. “nial 
The laborious duties of the librarian and official translator did not 
occupy the whole time of Yriarte. In 1743 he was elected a member 
of the Royal Academy, and continued till his death to take an active 
part in its labours. The chief labour of devising an improved system 
of orthography, punctuation, and accentuation for the Spanish langua 
fell upon Yriarte: he was ordered by the king to compile a Spanish- 
Latin Dictionary, in which however he proceeded no further than the 
letter A; and he published a Latin grammar in Castilian verse. He 
had also a hand in revising and improving the ‘Hispania Nova’ of — 
Nicolas Antonio, and the ‘ Biblioteca Arabico-Hispana Escurialense’ of 
Casiri, and was of material assistance to Abreu in his ‘Coleccion de — 
Tratados de Paz d’Espaiia.’ 
Yriarte composed elegantly in verse, both in Spanish and Latin. — 
A collection of Spanish proverbs rendered into Latin verse, of epi- — 
grams in Latin, of translations from Martial, and of occasional verses 
both in Latin and Spanish, was published by subscription after his 
death. Juan Yriarte died at Madrid on the 23rd of August 1771, in 
the sixty-ninth year of his age. In addition to the works already 
mentioned, he left in manuscript ‘Historia de las Islas de Canaria, and 
‘ Paléografia Griega.’ He also contributed largely to the ‘ Diario de 
los Literatos de Espaiia.’ ‘ 
Three brothers of the name of Yriarte, nephews of Don Juan, have 
distinguished themselves in the public service, and in the literature of — 
their country, but the materials for their biography are very scanty. 
They appear to have been all born in Teneriffe; it is probable therefore 
that their parents were setiled there, and that the prosperous fortunes — 


q 
P 
i 
, 


_ Egremont, and other distinguished persons. 
here for several years, and it was thus that he became critically 
-acquainted with the language, literature, and state of science in this 


897 ZACH, BARON VON. 


ZACH, BARON VON. £093 


of Juan de Yriarte induced his nephews to try their fortunes in the 
mother-country. 

BERNARDO YRIARTE, the eldest, appears to have been born about 
1734. He rose to be a member of the Council of State, and of the 
Council of the Indies, and was created a knight of the order of 
Charles III. He was a member of the Royal Academy of St, Ferdi- 
nand, and nominated its patron by Charles IV. in March 1792. When 
the French took possession of Spain in 1808, Bernardo Yriarte was 
appointed a councillor of state by Joseph Bonaparte. On the return 
of Ferdinand VII., Yriarte fled to France, and died at Bordeaux on the 
11th of July 1814. 

Dominco Yrrartez, the second brother, was born in 1746, and 


entered the diplomatic service at an early age. After a prolonged 
residence, first at Vienna, and then at Paris, as secretary to the 


embassy and chargé d'affaires, he was’ sent as minister plenipotentiary 
to the king and republic of Poland. On the 22nd of July 1795 he 
signed, along with Barthélemy, the peace concluded at Baile between 
the king of Spain and the French republic. Returning thence to 
Spain in bad health, he died at Girona on the 22nd of November 
of the same year, just after he had been appointed ambassador to 


France. 


Tomas YRIARTE, the youngest, but most distinguished of the 
brothers, was born about 1750. Under the direction of his uncle 


‘Juan he made rapid progress in the ancient and modern languages, 


and was appointed chief archivist in the office of the principal secre- 
tary of state. This appointment left him ample leisure for literary 
pursuits, and the approbation which his first essays met with procured 
for him the editorship of the ‘Madrid Mercury,’ This journal, which 
was previously little more than a translation of the ‘ Hague Gazette, 
became in his hands a useful and amusing publication. 

In 1769 a new theatre was opened in Madrid; and in the course of 
that and the three succeeding years a number of translations from the 
French drama by Yriarte were performed on its boards with consider- 
able success. In 1778 an original comedy by Yriarte, ‘ El Sefiorito 
mimado’ (The Spoiled Child), was favourably received by the Madrid 
public. In 1779 a poem in five books, entitled ‘ La Musica,’ appeared 
from the pen of Yriarte ; it is upon this work and his fables that his 


reputation is most likely to rest. * La Musica’ has run through five 
editions, and has been translated into most European languages. In 
1781 he was a competitor for the prize awarded to the best idyl by 
the Spanish Academy, but the poem of Juan Melendez Valdez was 
preferred, Yriarte vented his spleen in a severe criticism of his rival’s 
work in the ‘ Mercury.’ ‘Fabulas Literarias’ was published in 1782, 
Of these fables Bouterweck remarks that their style is pure, and their 
versification elegant, and that they are characterised by.a graceful 
naiveté that reminds the reader of Fontaine, but without conveying 
any suspicion of imitation. In addition to these works Yriarte pub- 
lished epistles in verse, sonnets, critical miscellanies, a translation in 
verse of the first four books of the ‘ Alneid,’ and of Horace’s * Art of 
Poetry. He published a collection of his works in 1782, and an 
enlarged edition in 1787. His taste for French literature, or some 
other cause, occasioned suspicions of his orthodoxy; in 1786 he was 
subjected to an examination by the Inquisition, and his replies were 
so little satisfactory that he was laid under a quasi arrest—confined 
within the walls of the city. Ultimately he was allowed to do penance 
privately, and was absolved. He did not long survive: he was at- 
one by epilepsy, and died of an inflammatory attack in 1790 or 

91. 
~ A painter of the name of Yriarte, who was born in Biscay in 1635, 
and who died at Seville in 1685, was considered the best landscape- 
painter of his age. 

Francisco DrgGo DE AINSAY YRIARTE, a native of Huesca, published 
in 1612, ‘ Translacion de las Reliquias de San Orencio, Obispo de Aux ;’ 
and in 1619, ‘ Fundacion, Eccelencias, Grandezas, &c., de la antiquisima 
Ciudad de Huesca.’ Antonio mentions that he was master of the 
grammar-school of Huesca, and died young, but without mentioning 
the year of his death. 

(Noticia de la Vida y Literatura de Don Juan de Yriarte, prefixed 
to the collection of his works published at Madrid in 1774 ; the Prefaces 
to the Collected Works of Tomas de Yriarte, published at Madrid in 
1787; Antonio, Bibliotheca de Hispania Nova ; Biographie Universelle. 
Pignatelli published a eulogistic Narrative, and Joly a Notice of the 
Life of Tomas de Yriarte, in the Repertoire de Littérature, neither of 
which we have seen.) 


Z 


ZACH FRANCIS XAVIER, BARON VON, an eminent astronomer, 

director of the Ducal Observatory at Seeberg, was born at Pesth 
in Hungary, on the 14th of June 1754. He was a member of a noble 
and distinguished family, and was encouraged from his childhood in 
an ardent pursuit after knowledge, which, aided by a strong constitu- 
tion and great mental power, he continued to the day of his death, 
The striking phenomenon of the transit of Venus over the disc of the 
sun in 1769—a memorable event, which made more than one important 
convert to the science of astronomy—together with the appearance of 
a comet in the same year, directed his attention towards that science 
and the branches of knowledge most connected with it. Having com- 
pleted his education, he was anxious to visit the various seats of learn- 
ing and science in other countries, and, after travelling with this view 
on the continent of Europe, he arrived in England, and was received 
in a flattering manner by George O’Brien Wyndham, third Earl of 
He continued to reside 


country. He also acquired, for our manners and institutions an 
attachment which continued throughout his life. { 

After his return to Germany, a permament employment being 
desirable, Von Zach prevailed on the reigning Duke of Saxe-Gotha to 
erect a substantial observatory for him in 1786 at Seeberg, where a 
series of observations, a Catalogue of 381 Stars, a Catalogue of 1830 
Zodiacal Stars, his Solar Tables,—and those on Nutation and Aberra- 
tion, to which we shall return,—evinced an indefatigable observer and 
able computor, and placed his name in the first rank of German astrono- 
mers. He became secretary to an association of them for the purpose 
of searching for a planet between Mars and Jupiter, which his own 
hypothetical computations had mainly led them to form. When 
the new planet Ceres was lost sight of (after its first discovery, quite 
in accordance with his views, though not by a member of the asso- 
ciation) he was so persuaded of its planetary rather than cometary 
nature, that he persisted in searching for it, till his endeavours were 
crowned with success, and he thereby laid the foundation for detecting 
the three other small planets which were added to the system in the 
early part of the century. This was accomplished while he was also 
completing a map of Thuringia, from an actual survey, for the King 
of Prussia. These labours however had not altogether absorbed his 
active mind, Struck with the advantages of a correspondence which 
might in some degree unite the astronomers and mathematicians of 
all countries, he determined, in 1798, to edit an Ephemeris at Weimar, 
which in a couple of years ripened into the well-known periodical 
work entitled ‘Monatliche Correspondenz.’ This valuable journal 
contained records of the progress of astronomy, derived from the 

BIOG, DIV. VOL, VI. ¥ ; 


extensive and laborious correspondence of the editor with the prin- 
cipal astronomers of Europe, which he continued to maintain through- 
out his long life, and contributed more than any other publication to 
the great impulse given for many years to the cultivation of astrono- 
mical science in Germany. 

In the early part of the present century, before astronomers had 
devised any general method having for its object to facilitate the 
reduction of observations of the heavenly bodies, by combining 
together in one homogeneous system of calculation, as far as was 
practicable, the separate processes for determining the various inequali- 
ties which affect their apparent positions, Von Zach took a useful 
and honourable part in the production of tables designed to abbreviate 
the toilsome calculations attendant on this operation of reduction. In 
1807 he produced tables to facilitate the computation of aberration 
and nutation. They were attached to a catalogue of 1830 zodiacal 
stars; but their application was confined to 494 of the principal stars 
in the catalogue. This number however was equal to that in the only 
two sets of tables for the purpose that were or had been produced by 
other astronomers, those of the French in the ‘ Connoissance des 
Temps, and those of Cagnoli, published at Modena simultaneously 
with his own. In 1812 Von Zach gave an important extension to his 
previous Jabours by the publication of similar tables adapted to a 
catalogue of 1440 stars. But his tables were not distinguished from 
those of his predecessors and contemporaries by supplying the omis- 
sion, common to them all, of the solar nutation—a defect which it was 
reserved for the refinement of a subsequent period to remedy. 

In the year 1813 he removed to the south of France, and subse- 
quently accompanied the Duchess of Saxe-Gotha into Italy, where he 
made numerous celestial observations, and settled for some years in a 
delightful villa in the eastern suburb of Genoa. Here his first care 
was to raise a small observatory, and to re-commence publishing his 
‘Correspondence,’ which had been intermitted. In order that it 
might be still more widely available than before, he now printed it in 
the French language, and gave considerable extension to its objects. 
In its new form it embraced astronomy, geodesy and geography, 
hydrography, and statistics; and although conducted with the lively 
discursive freedom characteristic of Von Zach, the discussions it 
includes lead to many points of the most abstruse and transcendental 
inquiry ; and, the editor being fully aware himself of the necessity of 
explicit detail on such subjects, it had the merit of submitting the 
whole type of mathematical analysis in every case of its application, 
instead of abruptly giving mere conclusions—the fault of so many 
scientific journals. ‘The astronomical and geodetical desiderata of 
seamen and surveyors were also from time to time carefully provided, ; 

In 1814 Baron Von Zach published his ‘ Attraction ee 


ZACHARIAE, JUST FRIEDRICH, 


890 ad 


ZACHARIAE, KARL SALOMON, 900 


in which he endeavoured to determine the effects of attraction on the 
plumb-line by means of a series of astronomical and geodetical ope- 
rations, which he had carried on at Marseille in the preceding year. 

In 1826 he unexpectedly removed from Genoa, and astronomy 
guffered a general loss by the cessation of his work. For many of the 
later years of his life he suffered severely from the stone, and at length 
the constant care of Dr. Civiale of Paris became so absolutely neces- 
sary that he took up his abode in that city in order to receive it. 
Experiencing relief by the operation of lithotrity, he enjoyed such 
intervals of comparative ease that he even entertained thoughts of 
re-visiting England, when he was suddenly attacked by cholera on its 
first modern visitation of Europe, and died on the 2nd of September 
1832, after an illness of only twenty hours, He was a man of warm 
and ardent affections, of the most lively and agreeable manners— 
rapid, and sqmetimes hasty in his conclusions, but of indefatigable 
industry. There have been few persons of the present century whose 
loss has been more sensibly felt by the friends of astronomy in every 
country in Europe. he 
_ Baron Von Zach was a member of most of the scientific societies in 
Europe, a counsellor of state and chamberlain of the court of Saxe- 
Gotha, where he had the military rank of colonel, and was a knight 
of the royal order of the Black Eagle of Prussia. He had been 
elected a foreign member of the Royal Society of London on the 12th 
of April 1804, at the same time with Gauss, Olbers, and Piazzi. His 
only contribution to the ‘Philosophical Transactions’ consisted of 
‘ Astronomical Observations, in Two Letters,’ addressed to Tiberius 
Cavallo, F.R.S. These are dated Lyons, April 4 and May 4, 1783, but 
were not read before the society until December 23 in the following 
year, and were printed in the volume for 1785, This is noted because 
certain irregularities formerly practised, or errors committed in the 
reading, dating, and publication of papers by the Royal Society, have 
led to serious difficulties in unravelling the history of discoveries— 
of the discovery of the composition of water for example, The delay 
in the present instance is probably referable simply to the tardy 
communication of Cavallo, 

Von Zach’s name appears in the first list of the (Royal) Astrono- 
mical Society, dated February 8, 1822, as an associate, or foreign 
member. To the ‘Memoirs’ of that society he communicated the 
following papers :—‘ Remarks on Captain David Thomson’s Method 
and Tables for working a Lunar Observation made at Sea,’ vol. iv. ; 
‘A New Method of Reducing the apparent distance of the Moon from 
a Star to the true distance,’ to which is annexed a Demonstration of 
the process, by A. De Morgan, Sec. R.A.S., vol. v.; ‘On the Geogra- 
phical Latitude and Longitude of a place on the Terrestrial Spheroid, 
the Geodetic distances of which from the meridian and perpendicular 
of a given point are known,’ vol. vi.: the method which the author 
reproduced, with some simplifications, in this paper, had been origi- 
nally published by him in his ‘Correspondence’ in the year 1815. 
Not long afterwards, formule for the solution of the same problem, 
practically identical with his own, were devised by Oriani of Milan, 
whose method was afterwards employed by Captain Kater in his 
determination of the difference of longitude between the observatories 
of Paris and Greenwich, in preference to any other, as the most com- 
modious and expeditious. On this account, Von Zach, as the particular 
formule he had constructed had not been noticed, thus communicated 
them to the society shortly before his decease. 

ZACHARIAE, JUST FRIEDRICH WILHELM, a German poet, 
was born on the 1st of May 1726, at Frankenhausen in Thuringia, 
where his father was employed in the service of the Prince of Schwarz- 
burg. After the completion of his preparatory education, he went, in 
1743, to the University of Leipzig, professedly to study the law; but 
he devoted himself almost exclusively to belles-lettres, an inclination 
which had been cherished by his father, who had himself some name 
as a poet in his native place. Zachariae’s first attempt at poetical 
composition created considerable sensation at Leipzig, and attracted 
the attention of Gottsched, then the critical oracle in matters of taste 
in Northern Germany, who induced the young poet, in 1744, to pub- 
lish his comic epic ‘ Der Renommist’ (The Brawler) in the ‘ Belustigun- 
gen des Witzes und Verstandes,’ a periodical edited by Gottsched 
himself. This poem was the first of its kind in German literature. 
The author had taken Pope’s ‘Rape of the Lock’ for his model, but 
his imitation was not a very successful one. Zachariae, like all young 
men who had power and originality, soon emancipated himself from 
the pedantic tyranny of Gottsched, and in 1744 he joined the society 
of Zoung men then assembled at Leipzig, who prepared a better taste 
in German literature by insisting upon the necessity of studying the 
ancient Greeks and Romans, the early German poets, and especially 
the literature of England. The great success which the ‘ Renommist’ 
had met with induced Zachariae successively to publish a series 
of comic epics, among which we may mention ‘ Phaeton, ‘ Das 
Schnupftuch,’ ‘Murner in der Holle,’ the last two of which are the best 
among them. In 1747 he went to Gittingen, where he formed con- 
nections with men of congenial minds. In the following year he was 
appointed teacher at the gymnasium (Carolinum) of Brunswick, and 
the beneficial influence which he exercised there on the development 
of the talents and tastes of his pupils induced the Duke of Brunswick, 
in 1761, to appoint him professor of poetry at the Carolinum. In 
addition to this office he was appointed, in 1762, to the superintendence 


of the printing and publishing establishments connected with the orphan 
asylum (Waisenhaus) of Brunswick, and of the Brunswick ‘ Intelligenz- 
blatt,’ to which he himself contributed a series of interesting and use- 
ful papers, In 1764 he resigned the superintendence of those estab- — 
ments, which had prospered very much under his management, and 
confined himself to the duties of his professorship. From 1768 
to 1774 he edited the ‘Neue Braunschweiger Zeitung’ (the New 
Brunswick Gazette), for which he himself wrote nearly all the literary 
articles and reviews. He died on the 30th of January-1777. 

Zachariae was one of the best poets of his time, and in the comic 
epic he has scarcely been me taiil by any more recent German poet. 
He is less successful in descriptive poetry. He also wrote a number 
of songs in a light and pleasing style, and he himself set many of them 
to music, He made a German translation of Milton’s ‘ Paradise Lost,’ 
in hexameter verse (4to, Altona, 1760; a second and improved edition 
appeared in 1762), but the translation is weak, and not always fait 
to the original. His ‘Fabeln und Erziiblungen in Burkard Waldi 
Manier’ belong to his best poetical productions, His style is clear, 
plain, and correct. For the purpose of Ligases study of the 
early German poets, Zachariae began to publish a collection of the best 
specimens of the best German poets from the time of Opitz (‘ Auserle- 
sene Stiicke der besten Deutschen Dichter von Opitz bis auf gegen- 
wirtige Zeiten,’ 2 vols, 8vo, 1766-71). This undertaking was continued 
after Zachariae’s.death, by Eschenburg, who published a third yolume 
(1778, 8vo), The first complete collection of Zachariae’s works ap- 
peared, in 9 vols, 8vo, at Brunswick, in 1763-65, A second and 
cheaper edition, in which the translations from foreign languages 
omitted, was published in 1772, in 2 vols. 8vo, and was pee i 
in 1777. After his death, Eschenburg published a supplementary 
volume, which also contains a Life of Zachariae. . 

ZACHARIAH, KARL SALOMON, a celebrated German jurist and 
political writer, was born at Meissen, on the 14th of September 1769, 
and received his early education in the great public school (Fiirsten- 
schule) of his native place. In 1787 he went to the university of 
Leipzig, where at first he devoted himself almost exclusively to phil 
logical and philosophical studies, but afterwards he took up the study 
of jurisprudence. He left Leipzig in the spring of 1792, and, bola 
recommended by persons of distinction, he obtained the situation o: 
tutor to the young count Zur Lippe, whom he accompanied to the 
university of Wittenberg, where he continued his studies for two. 
years longer. When the count entered upon his military career, 
Zachariae, in 1795, carried into effect his favourite plan of becoming 
an academical teacher. He had not been privatdocent for more than 
two years before he was appointed professor extraordinary, and in 
1802 he was raised to the ordinary professorship of jurisprudence in 
the University of Wittenberg. He had distinguished himself as an 
author long before this time, and had acquired considerable reputation 
as a philosophical and political writer. In 1807 he received an invita- 
tion to a professorship in the University of Heidelberg, which he 
accepted because in his situation at Wittenberg his leisure time was 
almost wholly occupied with the practical administration of justice, 
which formed part of his office, and thus he had little time left for literary 
pursuits. At Heidelberg, he lectured on law in all its departments, 
among which we may mention the public law of Germany, canon law, 
feudal law, and comparative jurisprudence, He always treated his 
subject in a philosophical spirit. His merits were rewarded by the 
title of Geheimer Rath of the grand-duchy of Baden, and by other dis- 
tinctions. For a time he was drawn away from his scientific and 
literary pursuits by being elected a member of the first and afterwards 
of the second chamber of the grand-duchy of Baden. In the ca 
of deputy he has been charged with being an advocate of apy 
or at least with the desire to throw more power into the hands of the 
government than it ought to have; but as far as his writings show, 
from which alone we are enabled to judge of him, he was a liberal 
royalist, with a strong leaning towards aristocratic principles. During 
his active career in the university of Heidelberg, he received two very 
honourable invitations, the one to Géttingen and the other to Leipzig 
both of which he declined. He remained at Heidelberg until his d 
on the 27th of March 1848, having shortly before been raised to the 
rank of nobility under the name of Baron Zachariae von Lingenthal. 
Zachariae was one of the ablest and most philosophical writers on law 
and politics in Germany, and few continental men have possessed a 
more comprehensive knowledge of the legal and political institutions 
of the various states of modern Europe than he did. 

The following list contains his principal works :—1, ‘ Handbuch des 
Kursiichsischen Lehnrechts,’ 8vo, Leipzig, 1796; a second edition was 
published by Ch. E. Weisse and F, A. Langenn, 8vo, Leipzig, 1823. 2, 
‘Die Einheit des Staats und der Kirche,’ 8vo, Leipzig, 1797 ; a sort of 
appendix to this work is his ‘ Nachtrag iiber die evangelische Briider- 
gemeine,’ 8vo, Leipzig, 1798. 3, ‘Handbuch des Franzésischen Civil- 
rechts,’ of which the third edition appeared in 4 vols. 8vo, at Heidelberg, 
1827, &c. 4, ‘Vierzig Biicher vom Staate,’ 5 vols. 8vo, Stuti 1 
1820-32: a new and much enlarged edition of this work was begun in 
1839, and completed in 1843, in 7 vols. 8vo; it is by far the best work 
on political philosophy in the German language. 5, ‘Lucius Cornelius 
Sulla, als Ordner des Rémischen Freistaates,’ in two parts, 8vo, Heidel- 
berg, 1884, is a very admirable treatise, the only fault of which 
perhaps is, that he assigns greater merits to the political reforms of 


a, 


| 
| 
: 


revolutionary state. 


ee eae 
" ca 7 oe 


901 ZACHARIAH. 


ZAGOSKIN, MIKHAIL NIKOLAEVICH, 902 


Sulla than they deserve. He also contributed many valuable papers 
to the periodical which he edited conjointly with Mittermaier, entitled 
*Kritische Zeitschrift fiir Rechtswissenschaft und Gesetzgebung des 
Auslandes,’ and to the ‘ Heidelberger Jahrbiicher.’ 

ZACHARIAH, son of Jeroboam II, was king of Israel: in 2 Kings 
xiv., he is said to have succeeded his father, in the 16th year of the 
reign of Uzziah, king of Judah, B.c. 793. Historians have generally 
interposed an interregnum, Hales and his followers of twenty-two 
oo (B.c, 793 to 771), Blair and Jahn for eleven and twelve years. 

is is not recorded in the Holy Scriptures; but in 2 Kings xv. it is 
said that in the 88th year of Uzziah (3.0. 771), Zachariah reigned 
“over Israel in Samaria for six months.’ But Jeroboam began to 
reign in the 15th of Amaziah, who reigned twenty-nine years, that is, 
till the 14th of Jeroboam ; if there was an interregnum on account of 
Uzziah’s youth till the 27th of Jeroboam IL, when according to 
2 Kings xv. 1, Uzziah began to reign, it must have been of thirteen 
years, and not of eleven as stated by Blair. Uzziah is recorded 
to have reigned fifty-two years, and in his 38th year Zachariah 
“reigned six months,” which would leave an interregnum of twenty- 
four years. Uzziah however, like Zachariah, is stated to have suc- 


ceeded his father, and no mention is made of any interregnum beyond 


what is derived from the statement as to the reign of the contem- 
porary king. There is little doubt however that the land was in a 
Hosea, who flourished during the whole of this 
period says, “ for the children of Israel shall abide many days without 
a king, and without a prince.’ Zachariah may have been young at 
his father’s death, or his authority may have been contested ; but all 
that is positively stated in 2 Kings xv., is that, like his fathers, he also 
did that which “ was evil in the sight of the Lord ;” consequently, his 
government had no effect in restraining the corruption of the kingdom. 
In B.c. 771 Shallum conspired against him, and slew him. Neither 
tradition nor history has harded anything down to us concerning his 
acts. He was the fourth and last of the race of Jehu, and thus was 


- fulfilled the prophecy of Elijah. 


ZACHARIAS. ([Zecwarian.] 

ZACHARI’AS, a native of Greece, succeeded Gregory III. in the 
see of Rome, A.D. 741. Liutprand, king of the Longobards, was then 
at open hostility with the duchy of Rome, in consequence of the 
support which the Romans and Pope Gregory had given to Trasmund, 
duke of Spoletum, and Gotteschalk, duke of Beneventum, who had 
revolted against Liutprand. Zacharias took a different course of 
policy: he used his influence with the patrician Stephen, who was 
duke of Rome, and with the leading men of that city, to induce them 
to give up the alliance of the rebellious dukes, and he sent messengers 
to Liutprand to sue for peace, which Liutprand willingly granted. 
The Romans then joined their militia with the troops of Liutprand, 
who invaded the duchy of Spoletum, and obliged Trasmund to sur- 
render to the king, who ordered him to take clerical orders, and 
appointed Ansprand in his place. Zacharias, in his letters to King 
Liutprand, urged him to restore several towns or villages belonging to 
the duchy of Rome, which the king had seized during the former hostili- 
ties, and as Liutprand delayed the restitution, Zacharias went to meet 
him at Terni, when the king received him with great honours, and not 
only restored the towns in question to the duchy of Rome, but gave to 
the Roman see a patrimonium or estate in the Sabinum, and other 
estates in the districts of Ancona, Osimo, Numana, and other parts. 


“The peace between the Longobards and Rome was confirmed for 


twenty years, and Liutprand restored all the Roman prisoners without 
ransom, 

In the following year, 742, Liutprand attacked the exarch of 
Ravenna with a powerful force. The exarch, unable to make head 
against him, applied to the pope for his mediation. Zacharias pro- 
ceeded to Ravenna, from whence he wrote to Liutprand, announcing 
to him his intention to visit him in his own capital, Pavia. This was 
a novelty in the relations between the popes and the kings of the 
Longobards, and the ministers of Liutprand endeavoured to prevent 
its being carried into effect. Zacharias however proceeded to Pavia, 
where he was received by Liutprand with great respect, and, after 
some debate, the king yielded to the request of the pontiff, and re- 
stored to the Greek empire certain territories which he had seized 
from the exarch. The pope then returned to Rome, being honourably 
escorted, by order of Liutprand, as far as the Po. In the following 
year Liutprand died, and was succeeded by his nephew Hildebrand, 
who, being deposed after a few months for his ill conduct, Ratchis, 
duke of Friuli, was proclaimed king in 744. Ratchis confirmed the 
treaty of peace with the duchy of Rome and with the exarch, but in 
749, for some cause which is not stated, he laid siege to the city of 
Perugia, and threatened the other possessions of the Kastern emperor 
in the Pentapolis. Zacharias, who was anxious for the peace of Italy, 
hastened to the king’s camp, and succeeded not only in making him 
desist from his attack, but, by his exhortations and remonstrances 
about the vanity of earthly greatness, he made such an impression on 
the mind of Ratchis, that the king soon after abdicated the crown, 
and repaired to Rome with his wife and daughter, where, at their own 
request, they received the monastic habit from the hands of the pope. 
Ratchis retired to Monte Casino, and his wife and daughter founded a 
nunnery in the neighbourhood of that convent. About the same time 
Carloman, duke of Austrasia, and second son of Charles Martel, 


renounced his office in favour of his brother Pepin, proceeded to Rome, 
where he became a monk, and founded a convent on Mount Soracte. 

Pope Zacharias, being informed that the Venetian traders used to 
purchase Christian slaves in Italy, and even at Rome, whom they sold 
to the Saracens in the Levant, forbade that traffic under heavy eccle- 
siastical censures, and ransomed many of those who had been sold, 
and restored them to liberty. 

About 750, Pepin, who governed France, with the title of Maire of 
the Palace, in the name of King Childeric III., sent ambassadors to 
Rome to represent to the pope that Childeric was unfit to reign, and 
had never been king except in name; that it was desirable for the 
Frankish nation to have a king capable of managing the affairs of the 
state; and that the leading men of France wished to proclaim him, 
Pepin, as their king, if the pope would release them from their oath of 
allegiance to Childeric. Zacharias is said to have answered that it 
was meet that he who had already the real power and the government 
of the state should be king, upon which the Frankish leaders and 
prelates in a general assembly deposed Childeric, had his head shaved, 
and obliged him to become a monk in the monastery of Sithieu, 
known afterwards as the abbey of St. Bertin, in the diocese of St. 
Omer. Childeric’s son Thierry was likewise shut up in the monastery 
of Fontenelle in Normandy. Pepin was consecrated king of the 
Franks by Boniface, Archbishop of Mainz, in 751. The assent of 
Zacharias (for the assent is certain, though the particulars of it are 
obscure) to this violent change of dynasty is the only questionable act 
that we know of this pope, who in other respects appears to have 
been a lover of peace and justice, Pepin himself felt uneasy in his 
conscience till he received absolution from Stephen IL, the successor 
of Zacharias, and was crowned again by him at Paris. Pope Zacharias 
died in 752. He issaid to have been very generous towards the clergy 
and the people of Rome; he repaired the Basilica of the Lateran, and 
built several churches. He translated into Greek the dialogues of 
Pope Gregory L, or the Great, for the benefit of his countrymen. 
His epistolary correspondence with Boniface, archbishop of Mainz, is 
found in Harduin’s ‘ Collection of Councils.’ 

(Platina e Panvinio, Vite dei Pontefici ; Muratori, Annali d [taliae) 

ZACHTLEVEN, CORNELIUS and HERMAN, brothers. Their 
name is sometimes written Saftleven. Cornelius was born at Rotter- 
dam in 1600: he excelled in pictures of boors and soldiers, in the 
style of Teniers and Brouwer. His scenes, which were always sketched 
from nature, are full of truth and character, but as paintings they want 
that brilliancy and transparency of colouring which distinguish the 
works of many of his countrymen. He painted also landscapes, and 
made many spirited etchings after his own designs. Some of Corne- 
lius's foregrounds are particularly clever, being groups of various 
utensils or implements, characteristic of the occupations of the charac- 
ters of the picture. The year of his death is not known, according to 
the Dutch writers, but in Pilkington’s Dictionary 1673 is given. 

Herman Zachtleven was an excellent landscape-painter. He was 
born at Rotterdam in 1609, and was the pupil of J. Van Goyen; but 
he lived the greater part of his life at Utrecht, where he died in 1685. 
Herman’s landscapes, which consist generally of views iri the vicinity 
of Utrecht and of the Rhine, are distinguished by great transparency, 
and in the distances are coloured like those of Wouverman. His 
earliest pictures are such simple views of nature as the various sites 
afforded, but in his later works he generally selected various pictu- 
resque points, which he composed into one picture; he sometimes 
introduced many small figures into his works. Herman made many 
studies from nature in black chalk, which are much valued by 
collectors : he executed also a few spirited etchings. D’Argenville 
says that Herman Zachtleven visited Italy, and spent some years 
there, but Houbraken makes no mention of any such visit, and a still 
greater reason for supposing the statement to be incorrect is that 
there are no traces of Italy in any of his studies or pictures. 

ZAGOSKIN, MIKHAIL NIKOLAEVICH, a Russian dramatist 
and novelist, was descended from a Tartar family, and was born on 
the 14th of July (0.8.) 1789, at the village of Ramzay, in the government 
of Penza. He remained in his native village till the age of fourteen, 
receiving but a slender education, and learning no language but 
Russian, but was early remarkable for his literary tastes, reading all 
he could obtain, and composing a tale at the age of eleven. At 
fourteen he was sent to St. Petersburg as a clerk in a government 
office, and continued in that kind of employment till the outbreak of 
the war of 1812, when he became an officer in the St. Petersburg 
Opolchenie or Militia, took part in the campaign against the French, 
was wounded at the battle of Polotzk, and before the close of the war 
rose to be adjutant to General Lewis at the siege of Danzig. By this 
time he had acquired some knowledge of French and German, his 
long dormant literary tastes revived, and not long after he had taken 
leave of a military life he sent anonymously a comedy, called ‘ Pro- 
kaznik’ or, ‘The Wag,’ to Prince Shakhovsky (SHaKHovsky], direc- 
tor of the St. Petersburg theatre, who had himself just returned 
to the duties of management, from the command of a regiment of 
Cossaks. The reply was so unexpectedly favourable, that Zagoskin 
at once made himself known, and Shakhovsky even procured for him 
a post connected with the theatre, and another as an honorary librarian 
at the Imperial library, where we are told that for his services in 
assisting to arrange the books and to catalogue the Russian ones, he 


ZAHRTMANN, VICE-ADMIRAL, 


903 


ee, 


ZALEUCUS. 904 


received the Order of St. Anne of the third class. This was the com- 
mencement of his career as a dramatist, which he pursued first at St. 
Petersburg and after 1820 at Moscow, to which city he was transferred 
as director of the theatre. He wrote altogether seventeen original 
comedies, some in verse and some in prose, several of which met 
with distinguished success, and none failed except the last. The best 
are ‘Mr. Bogatonov, or the Country Gentleman in the Metropolis ; 
‘Bogatonov the Second, or the “Metropolitan in the Country;’ ‘A 
Romance on the Highroad,’ and ‘The Journey Abroad.’ It is worthy 
of remark that till beyond his thirtieth year Zagoskin had not 
written a line of verse, his ear being singularly insensible to cadence 
and metre, and that in 1821, on some of his friends laughing at him 
for pretending to give his opinion on poetry when he laboured under 
this deficiency, he was piqued into saying that he would show he could 
write verses after all; and setting doggedly to work, and making 
progress at the rate of four lines a day, correcting the metre on his 
fingers, he produced some verses that were not only rhythmically 
correct, but remarkable for their grace and freedom, After this he 
frequently wrote in verse, but detested the occupation ; and when he 
determined to write a romance in imitation of Walter Scott, one chief 
inducement was to enjoy a double freedom from the trammels -of 
rhyme and the rules of the drama, The tale he produced, ‘ Yurii Milo- 
slavsky ili Ruskie v 1612 Godu’ (George Miloslavsky, or the Russians 
in 1612), 3 vols., Moscow, 1829, delineates the state of Russia at the 
time that it was nearly conquered by the Poles. The success it met 
with was prodigious. “The appearance of this romance,” says 
Zagoskin’s biographer Aksakov, “ made an epoch both in the literary 
and social career of Zagoskin. The enthusiasm was universal and 
unanimous; few indeed were there who did not fully share it. The 
public of both the capitals, and after them, or rather with them, the 
public of all the provincial towns, fell into raptures. Up to this day 
(in 1852) * George Miloslavsky’ is read by all Russia that can read, 
and not without cause; the Russian mind and soul, and even the 
Russian way of speaking, were for the first time represented in Russia 
in this romance.” An English translation of it appeared in London 
in 1834 under the title of ‘The Young Muscovite, or the Poles in 
Russia, edited by Captain Frederic Chamier, R.N.,’ and was said in the 
preface to be ‘edited’ from a manuscript translation of the book 
made into English “by a Russian lady of high rank and her two amiable 
daughters,” to which the editors, for it appears there were more than 
one, took the liberty of adding “an underplot by which the characters 
of the chief actors are further developed.” Although of course these 
alterations detract from the value of the book as a picture of Russian 
life and character, stamped by native approbation as correct, they are 
not so extensive as to spoil it. Speaking of it from a full perusal of 
the original, we should say that ‘ George Miloslavsky’ was an amusing 
third-rate tale, rather unequal in its progress, and falling off sadly 
towards the end. Zagoskin was hailed as the Russian Walter Scott. 
For his next tale ‘ Rostavley,’ a story of Russia in 1812, in which he 
introduced some of his own adventures, there was an unheard-of com- 
petition in the Russian publishing world, 4800 copies were printed, and 
an enormous price given for the copyright, but it was far from attain- 
ing the success of its predecessor, Zagoskin went on writing novels 
‘and romances, and in generai founding a play on each after it appeared; 
but the merit and popularity of his works went on diminishing, and 
none of his subsequent productions was considered to rival ‘ Yurii 
Miloslaysky,’ or even ‘ Rostavley.’ He continued to reside at Moscow, 
where he enjoyed the additional appointment of director of the 
Armoury of the Kremlin, and was a well-known and popular member 
of the best society, which his never-failing good-humour and disposi- 
tion to merriment qualified him both to enlivenand to enjoy. Almost 
his only work besides his plays and novels was a collection of essays 
entitled ‘Moskva i Moskvichi’ (Moscow and the Moscowers), which 
ran to three or four volumes, After a tedious illness, originating in 
gout, which he combated by homeopathy, he suddenly expired at 
Moscow on the 23rd of June (0.s.) 1852. Soon after his death a life 
of him by Aksakov appeared in the ‘ Moskvitianin,’ from which the 
foregoing particulars have chiefly been taken. His best works have 
an interest both to the native and foreigner from the purely Russian 
tone of their language and spirit, as indeed in every country the most 
popular national romance is a valuable clue to the knowledge of 
national character, 

ZAHRTMANN, VICE-ADMIRAL CHRISTIAN CHRISTOPHER, 
Hydographer to the Danish Admiralty, entered the naval service of his 
country as a cadet in the year 1805, and afterwards served as a 
lieutenant in many arduous and perilous undertakings during the war 
which terminated in 1815; acquiring the character of being one of the 
most able and accomplished officers of the Danish navy. At the 
general peace he betook himself entirely to geodetical and hydro- 
graphical labours ; among which he assisted the late Professor Schu- 
macher in the measurement of the Danish are of the meridian. After 
a cruise to the West Indies, during which he made a chart of a 
portion of their seas, and set up an observatory on the island of St. 
Thomas, he was appointed successor to Admiral Lévernérn as director 
of the Hydrographic Office at Copenhagen, In this capacity, notwith- 
standing much prejudice respecting the publication of documents, he 
brought the labours of his department in an available form before the 
world, and with the highest degree of finish and exactness, The 


works, so important to the navigators of all nations, on which his 
fame rests, are the charts of the coasts of Denmark, with accurate 
soundings between the numerous islands, accompanied by determina- 
tions of the currents and trigonometrical surveys of the coast. His 
chart of the North Sea (1843) was indeed the greatest boon to all 
seamen, and to those of Britain in particular; whilst the ‘ Danske 


surrounding Denmark, has been found so useful that it has been 
translated, under the direction of Admiral Sir Francis Beaufort, F.R.S., 


French languages, He was also master-general of the naval ordnance 
of Denmark, inspector of the chronometer bureau of Cope 


the order of Dannebrog and Dannebrogsman, and a knight of four 
foreign orders, Russian, Prussian, French, and Greek, : 
Admiral Zahrimann died suddenly on the 15th of April 1853, in 
the sixtieth year of his age. The estimation in which he was held by 
his countrymen was evinced by the attendance at his funeral of the 
princes of the royal family, the ministers of state, the corps diploma- 
tique, and many officers of the naval, military, and civil services. _ 
He was an honorary member of the Royal Geographical Society of 
London, and communicated to that society, in 1830, shortly after its 
foundation, an account of Danish discoveries on the East Coast of 


which, sent to the Geographical Society of Paris, appears in the first 
volume of the Journal of the former society. In the same work, vol. 
v., is an elaborate paper by him entitled ‘ Remarks on the Voyages to 


these voyages, at least in the main points, are mere fabrications. 
ZALEUCUS (ZdAcvios), the celebrated legislator of the Epizephy- 

rian Locrians in Southern Italy, is said to have been the first Greek 

that drew up a code of written laws. (Marcian Heracleot., 313 ; Clemens 


posed that the statement of the Locrians having had the first written 
laws among the Greeks must be limited to the Greeks of Italy, since 
it is stated that Zaleucus derived many of his laws from the Cretans, 
Lacedzemonians, and the Areopagus of Athens; but as it cannot be 
proved that the Cretans and Lacedeemonians, had any written laws at 
that time, we must acquiesce in the common traditions that Zaleucus 
was the first of all the Greeks who composed a code of written laws. 
He lived in all probability about B.c, 660, but his history, like that of 
all the early legislators, is mixed with fable. According to Suidas, 
who describes him as a native of Thurii, Zaleucus was originally a 
slave and a shepherd; whereas Diodorus (xii. 20) calls him a man 
of good family. He is-further said to have been called upon by 


Locrians applied to the oracle about the means of getting rid of their 
political disturbances, they received a command to legislate for them- 
selves. When Zaleucus announced to them his dream, he was eman- 
cipated, and drew up a code of laws for them, (Suidas; Scholiast ad 
Pindar. ‘ Olymp.,’ x. 17; Valer. Maxim., i, 2 ; Ext. 4; Aristotle, apud 
Clem, Alexandr, ‘Strom.,’ i. p. 352.) A great portion of his laws was 
derived from the customs of other Greek states, but he was the first 
who fixed punishments for the crimes enumerated in his code ; whereas 
before his time the punishment had always been left to the discretion 
of the judges. His laws, of which several specimens are still extant, 


but the Locrians observed them for a long period, during which th 
are called the “ most observant of law and order” («ivoudraror) of 
the Greeks. (Zenobius, iv. 10; Diogenianus, iv. 94; Apostolius, ‘Pro- 
verb.,’ x. 50; Marcian Heracleot., 345, &c.) 

The code: of Zaleucus embraced the religious and moral as well as 
the civil and political duties of the people, and entered so much into 
the details of private life that it regulated even the dress by which 


lived before the time of Pythagoras; both Suidasand Diodorus call 


the desire of the ancients to trace all practical wisdom to Pythagoras, 
as in the case of the Roman king Numa Pompilius, who is likewise 
called a disciple of Pythagoras. The common story about the death 
of Zaleucus is as follows:—One of his laws forbade the citizens of 
Locri to enter the senate-house in arms; but on one occasion, while 


to him that he was violating his own law, Zaleucus threw himself on 
his sword, and thus punished himself, (Hustathius ad Hom, ‘Iliad,’ 
i. p. 62.) But the same story is related by others of Charondas, with 
whom Zaleucus is frequently confounded by the ancients themselves 
(Valer. Max., vi. 5, Ext. 4; Diodor., xii. 20); and Suidas states that 
Zaleucus fell fighting for his country, The contradictions and fables 
which occur in the history of Zaleucus led some sceptical writers 


ever existed. (Cicero, ‘De Legib.,’ ii. 6: ‘Ad Atticum,’ vi. 1.) 
(Fabricius, Bibliotheca Gree. ii p. 1, &c.; Bentley, Dissertation 
wpon the Epistles of Phalaris, p. 241, &c.; Heyne, Opuscula Academica, 


Lods’ (Danish Pilot), which is a complete description of all the seas — { 
late Hydrographer to the British Admiralty, into both the English and _ 


and a chamberlain of his sovereign, as well as a knight grand cross of 


Greenland in the preceding year: a translation of his official report on — P 


the Northern Hemisphere, ascribed to the Zeni of Venice;’ in which, — 
communicated to the society in 1835, he arrives at the conclusion that 


Alexandr., ‘Stromat.,’ i p. 8309; Strabo, vi. p. 259.) It has been sup- 


Minerva in a dream to legislate for the Locrians; and when the 


were according to the unanimous opinion of the ancients very severe, 


free women should be distinguished from other females, Although 
Zaleucus, as has been shown incontrovertibly by Bentley, must have 


him a disciple of that philosopher, an anachronism which arose out of - 


they were at war, Zaleucus, forgetting his own law, entered the senate- __ 
house as a warrior ; and when one of the persons assembled called out — 


among the ancients, such as Timmus, to deny that a legislator Zaleucus 


a 


| vol. ii, where the fragments of the laws of Zaleucus are collected.) ’ 


— a 


a 


. 


aa 


a ee a 


—— TCC 
3 ov 


905 ZALUSKI, JOZEF ANDRZEJ. 


ZAMOYSKI. 906 


ZALUSKI, JOZEF ANDRZEJ, or JOSEPH ANDREW, the 
founder of the great Zaluski library, the largest collection ever formed 
at private expense, was born in 1701, and was the son of a Polish 
nobleman, who was Waywode of Rawa. The family gave several 
dignitaries to the church; Joseph’s uncle, Andrzej Chrysostom, 
author of a series of letters often quoted by Polish historians, the 


' £Epistole Zaluscianz,’ published in four folio volumes, was bishop 


of Warmia; his elder brother, Andrzej Stanislaw, was bishop of 
Cracow; he himself became bishop of Kiev. The chief business of 
his life was the collection of books, Even when a young man it was 
seen, with surprise, that he stinted his table to enrich his library, and 
after a frugal dinner supped on “a morsel of bread and cheese.” 


' The position of his uncle, who was chancellor to King Augustus IT. 


of Saxony and Poland, introduced the nephew to early favour at 
court, but when, on the death of Augustus, the contest for the accession 
arose between his son Augustus III. and Stanislaus Leszezynski, 
Zaluski espoused the cause of Stanislaus, who sent him to Rome as his 
ambassador to the pope. From Rome he repaired, after three years, 
to the court of the expelled Stanislaus in Lorraine; but, after a time, 
made his peace with the possessor of the throne, and returned to 
Poland. Here, in conjunction with his brother the Bishop of Cracow, 
he exerted himself to form a library, such as Poland had never seen, 
and fully succeeded. He spared no expense, and, according to Le- 
Jewel, the historian of Polish libraries, he hardly shrunk from any 
means to accomplish his purpose, and finally, almost all that was valu- 
able in the scattered monastic and other libraries of Poland, became 
concentrated in the great collection of Zaluski. His aims were gene- 
rous; the two brothers opened their library to the public in 1748, in 
a separate building, fitted up at their expense at Warsaw. The Bishop 
of Cracow died in 1758; the surviving brother continued to devote his 
fortune and his cares to the augmentation of the library, in which 
he spent most of his time as areader. In 1767 he was deprived of 
even this pleasure, Taking part in a demonstration made by some 
of the Polish bishops at the Diet against the Dissidents, whom they 
denounced in a spirit as impolitic as it was uncharitable, Zaluski was 
seized by order of the Russian ambassador Repnin, and sent to 
Kaluga, where he remained on compulsion for some years. He was 
allowed as an indulgence by the Russian government to purchase 3000 
volumes from Holland to console him in his solitude ; but his thoughts 
still dwelt on his own library, and he employed part of his time in 
drawing up a bibliographical work from memory on the authors whom 
it contained who treated of Polish matters, When, at length, in 1773, 
he was allowed to return to Warsaw, he.declared that he was nearly 
killed by grief by the state in which he found his cherished collection. 
The librarian, Janocki, a very eminent bibliographer, had become nearly 
blind; a sub-librarian, who had been appointed to assist him, had 
plundered the institution by selling the books, and everything was in a 
state of decay. Harly the next year, on the 9th of January 1774, 
Zaluski died. The fate of his library was as remote as possible from 
his desires, He had provided by his will in 1761 that the Jesuits 
should have the management of it after his decease, but the Jesuits 
were suppressed before his death, and it fell under the jurisdiction 
of a new committee of education. By his expenses in acquiring it he 
had burdened his estates with a debt of 400,000 florins; the heirs of 
his property applied to the state for an equitable compensation, and 
their claim was admitted to be reasonable, but, in the then state of 
Poland it is not surprising that no compensation was ever paid. 
Some of the monastic libraries from which he had acquired valuable 
books complained that they had not received a proper return, and 
were only quieted by being presented with some of the duplicates. 
No funds being allotted to the library it received no augmentations 
after Zaluski’s death. In the year following that event, the unfortunate 
Janocki became completely blind, and for some years that followed 
while he was at the head of the library, plunder was carried on 
on a large scale, A bull which Zaluski had procured from the pope 
to excommunicate any one who removed a book, appeared to be worse 
than useless. Finally came the great misfortune of all. At the par- 
tition of Poland in 1795, Russia seized on the Zaluski library as the 
property of the state, and it was conveyed in a mass to St. Petersburg, 
Much of it, it is said, was lost on the way, but when what arrived 


- was counted it was found to amount to the enormous mass of 262,640 


volumes, and about 25,000 engravings. It is curious to remark that 
among all these books only 25 were in the Russian language, and that 
in the great library of Poland the number in Polish (4051) was less 
than the number in English (4368). The great mass was in Latin, 
French, and German, and more than 80,000 of the volumes were on 
theology. At the time of Zaluski’s death in 1774, this library, amassed 
by a private individual, was of much more than twice the extent of 
the library of the British Museum—the national collection of England. 
_ When, however, in 1814 the Emperor Alexander went over the Museum 
Library, and remarked, as he then well might, on its scantiness, the 
librarian Planta is said to have replied that if small it had at all events 
been honestly acquired, and the emperor was silent. For many years 
after its transfer the Zaluski library, or as it is now called ‘The 
Imperial Library at St, Petersburg,’ continued to remain unaugmented, 
and the first accessions of importance it received were from the con- 
fiscated Polish libraries of Prince Czartoryski at Pulawy, and the 
‘Friends of Science’ at Warsaw. Of late it has received large addi- 


tions by purchase, and now takes a high position in Europe, but it is 
a collection on which however splendid it may become, no Russian 
can ever look with a feeling of legitimate pride. 

As an author, the name of Zaluski does not stand high, and indeed, 
when it is considered that he was a man of very extensive reading, and 
in early life had travelled in Italy, France, and England, the character 
of his writings excites our surprise. One which has been already 
referred to as composed at Kaluga, the ‘ Biblioteka Historykow Pols- 
kich,’ or Library of Polish Historians, was first published under the 
editorship of Muczkowski at Cracow in 1832, This bibliographical 
work, strange to say, is composed in a species of blank verse. One 
chapter is on English writers in Poland, and commences thus :— 


** Anonim pod tytulem ‘ New Account’ relacja 
O Polsce, Litwie, wydal i to co sie dzialo 
Od smierci Krola Jana,” &e, 
Under the title of the ‘ New Account? 
An author, name unknown, published a book 
On Poland and on Lithuania too, &c, 


The contents of the whole volume are of a similar cast. Another 
book by Zaluski is a sort of autobiography in verse of the dryest 
description. He ventured to translate some plays from Metastasio 
and Voltaire ; but these efforts are spoken of as of a piece with the 
‘Biblioteka. Some pamphlets against the Dissidents, a short history 
of the noble house of Jablonowski, &c., are the most conspicuous 
of his other publications, 

ZAMOYSKI, or ZAMOSC, The Polish house of this name occupies 
a distinguished place in the annals of this nation. It is a branch of 
the family of Saryusz, and has given three eminently distinguished 
men to Poland. 

JOHN-SARIUS-ZAMOYSKI, grand-chancellor of Poland, was born at 
Skokow, of which his father was castellan, in the palatinate of Culm, 
on the 1st of April 1541, John was sent to Paris to prosecute his 
studies, at the age of twelve years, and on his first arrival was received 
into the service of the dauphin, afterwards Francis II, Finding how- 
ever that the duties of this appointment interfered with his studies, 
Zamoyski quitted the court, and went, to use his own expression, to 
hide himself in the ‘pays Latin.’ His favourite pursuits in the upi- 
versity of Paris were mathematics, philosophy, and jurisprudence. At 
the request of his father he subsequently repaired to the university of 
Strasbourg to perfect himself in the study of Greek, and to Padua to 
complete his legal studies. 

At Padua the study of the canon law led him to pay considerable 
attention to the writings of the Fathers, and this pursuit is believed 
to have confirmed his devotion to the Romish Church, to which his 
father’s allegiance had been shaken. While at Padua he published 
several works, which were favourably received at the time, and have 
maintained their reputation. In 1562 he published the funeral ora- 
tion which he delivered on the celebrated Faloppio. In 1563 he pub- 
lished an essay on the constitution of the Roman Senate, ‘ De Senatu 
Romano Libri II.,’ so learned and critical, that De Thou attributed it 
to Zamoyski’s teacher Sigonius, and Graevius has inserted it in his 
‘Thesaurus Antiquitatum Romanarum.’ Having been elected rector 
of the university in 1564, Zamoyski caused a collection of its privileges 
to be made, and published a digest of them under the title ‘De Con- 
stitutionibus et Immunitatibus almae Universitatis Paduae.’ In the 
same year he published a treatise on the duties of the magisterial 
office, entitled ‘De Perfecto Senatore syntagma.’ 

The reputation which he carried back with him into his native 
country obtained for him speedy preferment. Sigismund Augustus, 
then king, after admitting the young scholar to several private inter- 
views, placed him under the direction of the chancellor, in order that 
he might be instructed in the practical details of public business. 
About 1569 he was employed to arrange the documents in the public 
archives, which had fallen into great confusion after the departure of 
Cromer. This laborious task engrossed his whole time for nearly 
three years; but the notes which he made, while deciphering and 
arranging the ancient manuscripts with a view to the compilation of a 
catalogue, were afterwards of inestimable service to him in his public 
career. In 1572 Zamoyski married a daughter of the powerful head 
of the Osselinski family; but his wife did not long survive their 
union, and his father died about the same time. The king, who had 
not long before bestowed one of the crown domains upon the bereaved 
husband as a mark of his satisfaction, expressed much sympathy with 
him, promised to be to him in lieu of a parent, and appointed him 
starost of Bielsk, an appointment which had been held by his father. 
But Sigismund did not live long to fulfil his promise, and with his 
death (7th July 1572) commences the political life of Zamoyski—a 
long and chequered career of more than thirty years. 

The General Diet for the election of a king was not summoned to 
meet at Warsaw till the commencement of 1573. In the mean time 
the equestrian order had organised itself with a view to counterbalance 
the influence of the senate by its union, Zamoyski was by common 
consent regarded as leader of this confederation. He caused the choice 
of the Diet to fall upon Henri of Anjou, and his reasons were not 
devoid of weight. Iwan IV., czar of Moscovy, was his first choice, 
but that prince having refused to solicit for the crown, on the ground 
that his election was a matter of more consequences to the Poles than 


907 ZAMOYSKI. 


ZAMOYSEI, 903 


to him, Zamoyski, fearing the consequences of crowning such a proud | upon the national mind was not materially weakened. The 


spirit, turned his eyes to the other competitors. He wasaverse to the 
Emperor Maximilian I. for two reasons: because the Imperial policy 
would have involved Poland in a war with the Turks; and because 
the Austrian pride was insupportable to the Polish nobles. Henri, on 
the contrary, was of a nation which cultivated a good understanding 
with the Porte, and was remarkable for urbanity, and could not bring 
a French force to act against the Poles so easily as their Austrian 
neighbour. Zamoyski’s familiarity with the archives of the kingdom 
enabled him to be of great use in suggesting precedents for the formal 
conditions upon which the crown was offered to Henri; and he was 
placed at the head of the deputation sent to Paris to intimate the 
result of the election to the new king. The speech he made on the 
occasion has been much praised for the justice of its ideas, the elegance 
of its style, and the delicacy with which the speaker praised Henri 
without disparaging his competitors. It was published at Rome in 
1574. The new king appointed Zamoyski grand-chamberlain and 
starost of Kryszyn. Great discontent was excited by Henri’s refusing 
to confirm the pacta conventa presented to him by the Dissidents 
before his coronation; and Zamoyski’s popularity with his order was 
shaken for a time by his defending the conduct of Henri on this occa- 
sion. He regained it however before the precipitate retreat of Henri 
from Poland, 

Zamoyski and the equestrian order now turned their eyes to Stephen 
Bathori as the only candidate likely to counterbalance the influence of 
the House of Austria. The crown was offered to Bathori on the con- 
dition of his marrying Anne, sister of Sigismund Augustus, the assent 
of that princess to the arrangement having been previously obtained. 
The Diet was convoked on the 14th of January 1546; Bathori was 
proclaimed king, and while the Austrians hesitated what course to 
adopt, he advanced by a rapid march to Krakau, and was crowned 
there. He testified his gratitude to Zamoyaki by nominating him 
grand-chaneellor, a choice so agreeable to the equestrian order that 
they rose in a body and approached the throne to thank the king. 

During the greater part of the ten years’ reign of Bathori, Zamoyski 
was his chief and confidential councillor. By his advice Bathori's first 
cares were directed to replenish his empty treasury and re-unite the 
provinces of his distracted kingdom. With this view overtures of 
peace were made to Austria, and envoys despatched to Rome to per- 
suade the noble political emigrants who had sought refuge there to 
return. To the hostile indications from the Muscovites and Tartars, 
a sedulous care to avoid furnishing them with a pretext for hostilities 
was opposed. Bathori marched against Danzig, which he forced to 
capitulate: Zamoyski dictated the conditions, 

In 1579 the storm from the side of Muscovy broke in upon Livonia. 
Bathori convened the Diet, and exhorted its members to avenge the 
insult. Some deputies were of opinion that hostilities should be com- 
menced against the Tartars also; but Zamoyski’s prudent advice to 
finish with the Russians before they engaged with another enemy, 
backed by his representations that by attacking the hordes dependent 
on the Porte they would brivg that power also upon them, carried 
the day. The necessary subsidies were voted, and the campaign 
commenced. The address of Zamoyski also obtained from this Diet 
its sanction of a new judicial organisation of the kingdom, in con- 
sequence of which courts of appeal were established at Lublin and 
Petrikau. 

The campaign was successful; Bathori conducting the military 
operations, and Zamoyski, who accompanied him everywhere, relieving 
him of the load of civil affairs. The Diet of 1580 was a stormy one: 
the enemies of Zamoyski, irritated by his favour with the king, endea- 
voured to thwart his policy. At last the subsidies were granted, and 
military operations resumed with success. In 1580 Bathori undertook 
the siege of Ploskow, leaving Zamoyski at the head of the main army 
with the title of Hetman, The soldiers murmured at being placed 
under one whom they considered a mere scholar and civilian; and 
perhaps the severe discipline which the fastidious morality of the 
scholar induced Zamoyski to enforce rendered a considerable degree 
of discontent unavoidable. He remained however at the head of the 
army till the conclusion of a peace, in January 1582, the negociations 
of which were left entirely to his management. 

By that treaty the czar ceded Livonia, Esthland, and Novogorod. 
Zamoyski set his troops in motion as soon as the treaty was signed. 
The Swedes had already entered Livonia, but his prompt measures 
frustrated their intentions. At the Diet which was held in October 
1582, Tartar envoys appeared to demand tribute: the Poles replied 
by despatching Zamoyski to the frontier, which he placed in a state of 
defence, and thus awed the enemy into inaction. On his return to 
Krakau he received in marriage a niece of the king: the nuptials were 
celebrated by a magnificence almost regal. 

From this time however till the death of Bathori, Zamoyski took 
comparatively little ostensible part in public affairs. He retired to 
his native place, Skokow, and busied himself in colonising his estates 
and instituting colleges and printing-presses. This retirement has been 
plausibly enough said to have been prolonged by the odium he incurred 
through the active part he took in urging on the execution of Samuel 
Zborowski (May 25, 1584). 

After the death of Bathori however (December 18, 1586) it became 
manifest that though Zamoyski’s enemies were powerful, his hold 


of Zborowski mustered, it is true, in such force at the Diet as to force 
that body to remove him from the command of the army. By the 
advice of his friends he fled secretly at the moment, but only to collect 
troops, and to encamp on the 30th of June (the day appointed forthe 
election), at the head of 10,000 horsemen, on the right ber the 
Vistula, directly opposite Warsaw. The Zborowski mustered in force — 
on the opposite bank; but Zamoyski prevailed, and his can om 
Sigismund IIL, was chosen. The Zborowski protested against the — 
election, and sent deputies to their candidate, the Archduke Maxi- — 
milian, brother of the Emperor Rudolph, inviting him to assert his — 
claims by force of arms. -* ee 
The Ring of Sweden hesitated to hazard his son in so anarchical 
kingdom as Poland; but the prince himself, at the invitation of ri 
Zamoyski, accepted the offered crown. On landing at Danzig he was 
met by messengers, who brought news of the defeat of Maximilian in — 
the neighbourhood of Krakau by Zamoyski, and urgent eer a 
from the grand-chancellor to hasten his march. Sigismund en’ ae 
Krakau on the 29th of December 1586, and was presented by Zamoyski 
to his victorious army as their king. After this ceremony oyski 
marched in pursuit of Maximilian, who had retreated into Silesia. 
The archduke was obliged to surrender; and the Diet of 1687 decreed 
that he should be retained as a hostage until his brother the emperor 
became security for his renouncing the Polish throne. The pope — 
interfered in the affair, but the negociations were protracted. At last — 
Maximilian consented to relinquish his pretensions, was set at liberty, — 
and conducted to the Austrian frontier, which he no sooner crossed — 
than he announced his resolution not to keep the promises he had — 
made while a prisoner. This breach of faith elicited a pamphlet from 
Zamoyski, published in 1590, with the title ‘ Pacificationis inter 
Domum Austriacam ac Regem Poloniae et Ordines Regui Tractatae, — 
Scripta aliquot.’ ae 
The next seven years of Zamoyski’s life were consumed in a double — 
struggle between foreign foes, against whom he had to make head, — 
and domestic factions, from whom he had to wring a reluctant sup- 
port. The king was not his friend, for Zamoyski thwarted his wishes” 
on many occasions, but could not dispense with him. Amid all there — 
difficulties the grand-chancellor baffled the Ottoman army in 1591-92; — 
barred the retreat through Poland to the Tartars, who had madea 
predatory incursion into Hungary, in 1593; defeated the Turks in — 
Wallachia in 1595, and again in 1596; and the Swedes in 1597. After — 
the last campaign, conscious that his physical powers were giving wey, q 
he resigned the command of the army to his lieutenant, John les 
Chodkiewicz. From this time till 1605 Zamoyski remained in retire-— 
ment, occupied with his colonies and literary pursuits. The fruits — 
of the latter were given to the world under the title ‘ Dialectica — 
Chrysippea.’ . ae 
He emerged from his retreat in 1605 to attend the Diet, and there ~ 
is a wild grandeur about this the closing scene of his public life. The — 
first wife of Sigismund III., an Austrian princess, was dead, and he 
was bent upon marrying her sister. Zamoyski, who had opposed the — 
first marriage, ‘was still more hostile to this: he was firmly convinced 
that the interests of Poland required an intermarriage with the royal 
family of Russia. The debate became violent. The grand-chancellor, — 
laden with years and infirmities, had resolved to take no in it, — 
but the contagious excitement of the scene rendered him incapable of 
adhering to his resolution. He caused his seat to be placed near the 
throne, and after apologising for this liberty on account of his debility, 
presumed to address the king in a strain that has rarely been heard by — 
princes. He declared his opinion that the king should concentrate his , 
attention on the Swedish war with a view to terminate it; hereminded 
him that he had often before sacrificed the interests of the state to his” 
own private ends; he protested against the marriage with an Austrian — 
princess as likely to be fatal to Poland. Nor did he stop here: ae 


accused the king of intending to secure the crown for son in 
violation of the constitution, and of corresponding clandestinely ; 
foreign powers; and he reminded him in a tone of increasin rity — 
that the Poles had ere then deposed and banished kings with whom — 
they were offended. Sigismund, irritated by such hig 
with equal violence, and at the conclusion of his speech laid his hand 
on his sword. At this the senate and deputies quitted their seats ina — 
body with threatening murmurs; but the voice of the old chancellor 
was heard above all the din—* Withdraw your hand from your sword, 
prince ; do not oblige history to record that we were Brutuses and you — 
a, Coesar.” a 
At the close of the Diet Zamoyski retired again to his estates. On — 
the 3rd of July 1605 his attendants, who had fancied him sunk in ~ 
meditation, found on approaching his chair that he was dead. a 
Zamoyski was an elegant scholar, an accomplished diplomatist, and 
a successful general, That he should have been able to keep himself 
at the head of affairs during a period of nearly thirty years, in so 
turbulent a state as Poland, is of itself a guarantee of the power and — 
energy of his character. His writings, even.at this distance of ee 
are ealculated to please by their elegance, and by the knowledge of — 
human nature that they display. His stern stoicism was the necessary 
consequence of a highly-cultivated mind forced to combat during the ] 
better part of his life with the factions of a fierce oligarchical state. — 
The part of his career upon which the mind feels most pleasure in 


a 
— 


- their provincial assemblies before it was submitted to the Diet, 


900 ZAMOYSKI, 


ZANOTTI, GIAMPIETRO CAVAZZONI. 910 


dwelling consists of the occasional retirements from public business 
during which he devoted himself to colonising his estates and pro- 
moting literary institutions, About 1585 he laid the foundations of 
Nowy Zamose, distant about two miles from Stary Zamose (old 
Zamose), He encouraged manufactures there, and fortified it so 
Strongly that it came to be regarded as one of the chief defences 
against the Tartars. He established a printing-press, which became 
celebrated for the beauty of its impressions. On the 15th of May he 
opened the University of Zamose, to which he attracted the most emi- 
nent scholars of the nation, with a solemn and inaugural oration. He 
ted lands in perpetuity to some of his vassals, and encouraged the 
adoption of improved methods of agriculture. 
Interesting particulars respecting these labours of Zamoyski are 


contained in the narrative of two journeys made by Father Vanozzi to 


Poland to visit Zamoyski, published by J. W. Niemcewicz at Warsaw 
in 1822, from a manuscript in the Albani Library at Rome. 

_Joun Zamoyskr II., born in 1626, was the grandson of the pre- 
A He was created, soon after he obtained his majority, castellan 
of Kalisch, and was present in that capacity, in 1649, at the coronation 
of John Casimir. He accompanied that king in his campaign against 
the Cossaks in 1651, and earned by his bravery the appointment of 
palatine of Sandomir. He distinguished himself equally in the disas- 
trous War of Succession, when Poland was devastated by Swedish 
armies: he stood a long siege in his hereditary fortress, Zamosc; and 
it was to his vigilant keeping, as commandant of Warsaw, that Marshal 
Wittemberg, President yon Ersk, and other important prisoners were 
intrusted. In 1659 he commanded the army raised to oppose the 
encroachments of the czar in the Ukraine. In 1663 he was one of the 
nobles who remained faithful to John Casimir, and was mainly instru- 
mental in allaying the discontent of the insurgents under Chwiederski, 
John Zamoyski died suddenly at Warsaw, on the 2nd of April 1665, 
while attending the Diet at Warsaw. He left no family by his wife, 
daughter of the Marquis de la Grange d’Arquin, and called in Poland 


‘La belle Frangaise,’ who afterwards married the great Sobieski. 


Zamoyski dying without heirs of his body, his estates passed to his 
two sisters, 

ANDREW ZAMOYSKI, a younger son of a descendant of these two 
sisters, who had inherited the fief of Zamosc, was born at Biezun in 
1716. He received his education in the college of the Jesuits at 
Thorn, where he remained till 1732. In 1785 his father died, and 
Andrew left Poland to visit foreign universities, He passed two years 
in the University of Liegnitz in Silesia; in 1739 he visited Paris, 
where his favourite studies were mathematics and jurisprudence ; and 
he returned home in 1740. Finding his brothers engaged in litigation 
about the division of their inheritance, he reconciled them by giving 
up his share, and entered the service of Saxony. In 1745 he obtained 
the command of Prince Albert’s regiment. In 1754 he quitted the 
army and returned to Poland with the rank of major-general, He was 
appointed marshal of the palatinate of Smolensko, an office which put 
it in his power to reform many abuses which had crept into the judicial 
administration of the province. In 1760 he emancipated all his serfs : 
a few noblemen imitated his example, but the greater number declaimed 
fiercely against the innovation. 

At the first Dict held after the death of Augustus III. (1763) 
Zamoyski contributed much to the passing of a law for the reform of 
administrative abuses. In 1764 the new king, Stanislaus Augustus, 
made him keeper of the great seal. The influence which this appoint- 
ment enabled him to exercise over every branch of administration, he 
employed in giving a better organisation to the army and the educa- 
tional institutions of the kingdom. When the partisans of Russia, in 


_ the Diet of 1767, procured the banishment of Gaetan Soltyk and 


Zaluski, bishops of Krakau and Kiew, along with some other nobles, to 
Siberia, Zamoyski resigned the seals in disgust, declaring he would 
never receive them back till those illustrious victims were restored to 
their native country. 

In his retirement he employed himself in promoting education, and 
completing the code he had undertaken to digest at the request of the 
Diet of 1776. He completed the work in less than two years. The 
matter is arranged under three heads: the first treats of persons; the 
second, of things; and the third, of courts of law and actions. It was 
printed at Warsaw, in Polish, in 1778: a German translation by 
Godfrey Nikisz appeared at Dresden in 1780. The code, when printed, 
was sent to all the palatinates, in order that it might be discussed = 
The 
provision for a general measure of emancipation excited an almost 
universal hostility against it. The deputies were without exception 
instructed to oppose it in the Diet of 1780. When the marshal, as 
president of that assembly, named the reading of the new laws, he 
was met by a burst of opposition from all parts of the hall. It was 
decided that they should not evén be read; some went so far as to 
propose a resolution that they should not be presented to any future 
Diet, Casimir Poniatowski, the king’s brother, was the only member 
of the Diet who ventured to say a word in vindication of them. 

Zamoyski, who had attained his seventieth year when his code met 
with this rude reception, withdrew himself in consequence of it still 
more from public affairs. In 1790 he undertook a journey to Italy. 
At Bologna he received the intelligence that the Poles had proclaimed 
the constitution of the 3rd May, 1791, and adopted his code. He made 


haste to return to Poland, but did not survive long to enjoy his 
triumph, dying at Zamose on the 10th of February 1792, in the 
seventy-sixth year of his age, His widow, a princess Czartoryska, 
deservedly celebrated for her active benevolence, died at Vienna on 
the 19th of February 1796. 

(Bursius, Vita et Dicta magni Joannis Zamoscii ; Moslowski, Vie de 
Jean Zamoyski, Chancelier et Grand-Hetman de la Cowronne de Po- 
logne; Thuanus, Historia sui Temporis; Moreri, Dictionnaire Histo- 
wique ; Jocher, Allgem. Gelehrten Lexicon ; Biographie Universelle) 

ZAMPIE’/RI DOMENICO, [Domentcurno.] 

ZANCHI, a family of Bergamo, in Lombardy, which produced 
several men of learning in the 16th century. Paolo Zanchi was a 
distinguished jurist, and,also an antiquary, and a collector of ancient 
inscriptions. Three of his sons, Basilio, Gian Grisostomo, and Dionigi 
entered the order of the Regular Canons of the Lateran. 

Basttio ZANCHI, born in 1501, went to Rome under Leo X., and 
was noticed at that court as an elegant Latin poet. After Leo’s death 
he returned to Bergamo, and applied himself to theological studies, 
and entered the order of the Regular Canons in 1524, He wrote 
comments on the Bible, which are published. He was also well 
versed in Greek. His end was unfortunate. It appears that he had 
made free use of the liberty, then frequent among members of the 
monastic orders, of living out of his convent, and travelling about 
Italy. Pope Paul IV., in 1558, issued an order commanding all such 
persons to return to their respective convents under severe penalties, 
Zanchi having endeavoured to elude the order, was put in prison at 
Rome, in which city he then was, and he died in prison at the end of 
that year. Serassi has written a good biography of Basilio Zanchi, 
which he has prefixed to the edition of his Latin poems in eight books, 
*Zanchii Poemata,’ Bergamo, 1747. Among other poems there is one 
entitled ‘ De Horto Sophia,’ in which the author explains the principal 
dogmas of the Christian religion. Zanchi wrote also ‘ Latinorum Ver- 
borum ex variis auctoribus Epitome.’ 

G1IAN GkIsostomo ZANCHI, his brother, published a work on the 
ancient history of his country: ‘De Orobiorum sive Cenomanorum 
Origine,’ in three books, Venice, 1531, which he dedicated to Pietro 
Bembo, The work is deficient in historical criticism, but it may be 
useful on account of the numerous inscriptions of the town and terri- 
tory of Bergamo which it contains. Gian Grisostomo, after filling the 
first dignities of his order, died in Bergamo, in 1566. : 

GIROLAMO ZANCHI, a cousin of the preceding, was born in 1516, 
at Alzano in the province of Bergamo; he likewise entered the order 
of the Regular Canons of the Lateran, in which he lived for many 
years, and was a fellow-student of Celso Martinenghi of Brescia, a 
brother of his order. When the léarned Pietro Martire Vermigli, 
who was a dignitary of the same order, embraced the doctrines of the 
Reformation, and was in consequence obliged to fly from Italy to 
Switzerland, in 1542, Zanchi and Martinenghi, who had become secretly 
imbued with the same doctrines, thought it prudent to emigrate. also. 
Martinenghi was the first to leave Italy, and he went to Geneva, where 
he was put at the head of the Italian Reformed congregation. Zanchi 
followed his friend’s example, and after several vicissitudes he went to 
Heidelberg, where he taught divinity. He acquired so much reputa- 
tion for theological science, that it was said by the learned John 
Sturm, that if Zanchi alone could be sent to dispute with the Roman 
Catholic divines assembled at Trent, he should not be afraid of the 
result. The papal nuncio Zaccaria Delfino had private conferences 
with Zanchi in 1561, for the purpose of reclaiming him to Catholicism, 
in which however he failed. Zanchi’s theological and controversial 
works were published in eight volumes after his death ; ‘ Zanchii Opera,’ 
Geneva, 1619, and they contain two books of letters, in which are 
particulars of his life. He died at Heidelberg in 1590, G. Gallizoli of 
Bergamo has written a biography of Girolamo Zanchi, published at 
Bergarmo in 1785. 

Francesco Zanchi, father of Girolamo and first cousin of Paolo 
Zanchi above mentioned, wrote a small historical work, ‘ Commenta- 
rius de Rebus & Georgio Hemo preclare gestis in primo adversus Maxi- 
milianum Romanorum Regem Bello a Venetis suscepto.’ 

ZANOTTI, GIAMPIE’TRO CAVAZZO’NI, distinguished alike for 
his paintings and his writings, was born of Italian parents at Paris, in 
1674. He was however removed in his tenth year to Bologna, where 
he ,was placed in the school of Lorenzo Pasinelli, then one of the 
first painters of that city, Zanotti soon displayed great talent, and 
there are still several fine works by him at Bologna, in public and 
private buildings; he is however better known for his writings upon 
art, and few, says Lanzi, have ever handled pen and pencil so well as 
Zanotti. He published several poems, but the following are his prin- 
cipal works ;—1, Letters in Defence of Malvasia—‘ Lettere Familiari 
scritte ad un Amico in Difesa del Conte Carlo Cesare Malvasia, Autore 
della Felsina Pittrice, 8vo, Bologna, 1705. 2, Life of L. Pasinelli— 
‘Nuovo Fregio di Gloria a Felsina sempre pittrice nella Vita di 
Lorenzo Pasinelli, Pittore Bolognese, 4to, Bologna, 1708, 38, History 
of the Clementine Academy of Bologna—‘Storia dell’ Academia 
Clementina di Bologna aggregata all’ Instituto delle Scienze e dell’ 
Arti,’ vol, 2, fol, Bol. 1739. 4, Hints to a young Painter— Avverti- 
mento per lo Incamminamento di un Giovine alla Pittura,’ 8vo, Bol., 
1756. 5. Works of P. Tibaldi and N. Abbati in the Institute of 


| Bologna, &¢,—‘ Descrizione ed Ilustrazione delle Pitture di Pellegring 


ZARLINO, GIOSEFFO. 


ll 


ZEDEKIAH. 912 


Tibaldi e Niccold Abbati, esistenti nell’ Instituto delle Scienze,’ &c., 
fol., Venezia, 1756. x 

He wrote also a Life of Eustachio Manfredi, and several voiumes of 
poems by him were published at different periods in Bologna. He 
was secretary to the Institute of Bologna, in which his brother F’. M. 
Zanotti held the chair of philosophy. Giampietro has written his own 
life in his history of the Academia Clementina, He died at Bologna, 
in 1755, aged ninety-one, and was buried in the church of Santa Maria 
Maddelena, where there is a monument to his memory, with an 
inseription beginning as follows:—‘Joanni Petro Zanotto, Pictori 
egregio, Poets longe clarissimo,’ &e. ; es ‘ 

(Zanotti, Academia Clementina, &c. ; Fantuzzi, Scrittort Bolognesi.) 

ZARLI’NO, GIOSEFFO, the most celebrated of all the Italian 
writers on the speculative and practical theory of music, and in yolu- 
minousness exceeding all, of whatever age or country, who have 
treated on this-subject, Mersenne and Kircher excepted,—was born at 
Chioggia, an episcopal city in the Venetian States, in 1519, and little 
more is known of his personal history. Judging from his erudition 
and mathematical knowledge, it would appear that, though entered as 
a boy-chorister at St. Mark’s, Venice, he was educated for one of the 
learned professions, and the reverendo prefixed to his name, which 
seems to have escaped the observation of musical historians, shows 
that he was of the ecclesiastical order. It is stated by Sir John 
Hawkins, as an established fact, though he does not name his autho- 
rity, that Willaert, his master in the cathedral, prevailed on him to 
devote himself chiefly to music, which information he most likely 
found in Salinas. He is styled, in the best edition of his works, that 
of 1589, “‘ Maestro di Capella della Serenissima Signoria de Venetia ;” 
or, in other words, he was director of the music and organist of the 
- gtate church, St. Mark’s, at Venice, in which office he succeeded 
Willaert. Bayle therefore, in his translation of this title, is not in 
error, as Hawkins alleges. 

Zarlino published his first work, ‘ L’Istitutioni Harmoniche,’ in 
1558, from which period, Dr. Burney tells us (who however is in this 
instance incorrect in his dates), “he was continually revising and 
augmenting his works.” The same author further remarks, that, 
“the musical science (i. e, its practical part) of Zarlino may be traced 
in a right line from the Netherlands, as his master, Willaert, the 
founder of the Venetian school, was a disciple of John Mouton, who 
was a scholar of the great Josquin.” [WintaERt.] The works of 
Zarlino, in the edition before mentioned, are in four volumes or parts 
(quattro volumi), bound up in one thick folio, of which upwards of a 
thousand pages are devoted to music, and one hundred and forty to 
the essays. Their titles are—1, ‘ L’Istitutioni Harmoniche,’ divided 
into four parts. 2, ‘Le Demonstrationi Harmoniche,’ contained in 
five dialogues, 3, ‘I Sopplimenti Musicali,’ in eight books. 4. ‘Un 
Trattato della Patienza, &c.: A Treatise on Patience, most useful to 
such as would lead a Christian life. ‘Un Discorso, &c.: A Discourse 
on the true year and day of the death of Jesus Christ. ‘ Un’ Informa- 
tione della origine dei R. P. Capuccini:’ Information relative to the 
* origin of the order of Capuchins. ‘ Le Risolutioni d’afcuni Dubij,’ &c. : 
All doubts removed concerning the correction of the Julian year, as 
made by Pope Gregory XIII. 

It is evident that Zarlino supplied all subsequent writers on the 
subject of ancient music with very valuable materials. He was most 
laborious and indefatigable in his researches, and successful in their 
results. But it must be admitted that he was ostentatious of his 
learning, and might have compressed his three first volumes into half 
the space, with great advantage to himself and his readers. His pro- 
lixity has, no doubt, deterred many from proceeding far with him; 
nevertheless, an experienced person, one who knows how to make the 
best use of a well-informed but verbose and tedious writer, will not 
ae having looked through, and occasionally studied, the works of 

arlino. 

ZECHARI’AH, or ZACHARI’AS (Zaxapias), the son of Berechiah, 
the son of Iddo, was one of the twelve minor Hebrew prophets. 
He was contemporary with Haggai, and prophesied at the time of 
the rebuilding of the Temple at Jerusalem. His first prophecy is 
dated in the eighth month of the second year of Darius (Hystaspes), 
just two months later than the first prophecy of Haggai (B.c. 520-519; 
chap. i.v. 1). He is mentioned in conjunction with Haggai in the 
Book of Ezra (v. 1; vi. 14), where, according to a common Hebrew 
usage, he is called the son of Iddo. We learn from the above passages 
in Ezra, that the rebuilding of the Temple, which had been suspended 
for two years through the opposition of the Syrians, was resumed in 
the second year of Darius, in consequence of the exhortations of the 
prophets Haggai and Zechariah ; a decree was obtained from Darius to 
forward the work; “And the elders of the Jews builded, and they 
prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zecha- 
riah the son of Iddo.” Of Zechariah’s personal history nothing more 
is known, except that he was a young man when he was called to the 
prophetic office, and this circumstance confirms the internal evidence 
of the book itself, to show that his ministry extended over a con- 
siderable space of time. The idea that he was the martyr mentioned 
in Matthew xxiii. 35, seems quite unfounded. The person there 
meant is evidently Zechariah the son of Jehoiada, whose martyrdom, 
under the circumstances referred to in the passage of Matthew, is 
related in 2 Chronicles xxiv, 20, 21, though in Matthew he is called 


the son of Barachias, probably by the error of a transcriber, who 
supposed him to be the same person as the prophet Zechariah. 
The Book of Zechariah naturally divides itself into two parts. 
first part (chaps. i-viii.) is devoted to the encouragement of the Jews 
in rebuilding the Temple, by exhortations and by promises, both direct 
and symbolical. The remainder of the book (chaps. ix.-xiv.) contains 
predictions relating to the whole future course of time, and more 
especially to the conquest of the Persian empire by Alexander; the — 
successful revolt of the Jews under the Maccabees from the 
kings of Syria (chaps. ix.x.); the rejection of the Messiah and the — 
destruction of Jerusalem (chap. xi.); and the conversion and restora- 
tion of the Jews, and the destruction of their enemies in the last days — 
(chaps. xii-xiv.) Itis agreed by almost all commentators that I 
of the latter part of this prophecy is still to be fulfilled, ea 
The genuineness of the second part (chaps. ix.-xiv.) of the Book of — 
Zechariah has been questioned, but upon grounds so slight, that it is _ 
sufficient to refer those who desire to investigate the subject to 
the works mentioned below. The only argument worth noticing is 
drawn from a diversity of style, which can easily be explained bythe 
different periods of life at which the prophet wrote the two eg <4 
of his book. The genuineness and canonical authority of the are 
otherwise undisputed. 
Bishop Lowth remarks on the style of Zechariah, that the greater 
part of his prophecy is prosaic: “ Towards the conclusion of the pro- 
phecy there are some poetical passages, and those highly ornamented ; 
they are also perspicuous, considering that they are the production of © 
the most obscure of all the prophetic writers.” The obscurity of — 
Zechariah is found chiefly in the images contained in the prt Boo of 
his prophecy, which are drawn from familiar objects, deseribed so — 
generally as to leave much for the reader’s imagination to supply, and 
accompanied only by slight hints for their explanation, and sometimes — 
left altogether unexplained. A list of commentators of Zechariah 
is given in the Appendix to the second volume of Horne’s ‘Intro- 
duction.’ on 
(E. F. C. Rosenmiiller, Scholia in Vetus Testamentum, Prowm. im 
Zech. ; The ‘ Introductions’ of Eichhorn, Jahn, De Wette, and Horne.) 
ZEDEKIAH, whose original name was Mattaniah, was the son of 
Josiah, king of Judah, and uncle of Jehoiachin, When Nebuchad- 
nezzar took Jerusalem the second time, he dethroned Jehoiachin, and 
placed Mattaniah upon the throne, changing his name to Zedekiah, as 
was customary when a tributary king was appointed, and was probably 
intended asa mark of submission. Zedekiah was twenty-one years of 
age (B.0, 597) when he was set on the throne, and governed the king- 
dom for eleven years (597 to 586), “and he did that which was evil in 
the sight of the Lord his God.” Wholly swayed by the counsels of 
his evil advisers, Zedekiah was induced to rebel against. Nebuchad- 
nezzar, to whose leniency he owed both his life and his throne; and — 
allied himself with Pharaoh-Hophra, king of Egypt—whom most — 
writers agree in saying was the Apries and Vaphres of profane authors _ 
—who had been successful in several warlike expeditions, Nebuchad- 
nezzar on learning the revolt, marched an army into Juda, and 
besieged Jerusalem. At this crisis Zedekiah sent for Jeremiah, to 
consult him as to what course he should pursue. Jeremiah counselled 
him to save the city and his life by timely submission to the Chal- 
deans. Notwithstanding the predictions of the prophet, he did not 
follow his advice; but continued the defence of the city, in hopes 
that his Egyptian ally would march to its relief. His ally came, the 
siege was raised, and Nebuchadnezzar advanced against the Egyptians 
to give them battle, but they retreated into Egypt, and no battle was 
fought. Nebuchadnezzar continued the siege. When the city had 
been beleaguered for a considerable time, a famine ensued, and the 
inhabitants were reduced to the utmost extremities, After a siege 
of nineteen months the city was taken (B.C. 586) by assault during the — 
night-time. As soon asthe king of Judah saw that the Babylonian 
forces had entered the city, he fled “by the gate betwixt the two — 
walls.” These walls are supposed to be two parallel walls which encircled 
the citadel. Mr. Kitto, in a note to the xxxix. chap. of Jeremiahin 
‘The Pictorial Bible,’ says that it is likely that the “king went out of — 
the citadel on Mount Zion, between the two walls, and passedfrom 
the exterior wall by a way which led through the king’s gardens, and 
which was perhaps a private subterraneous passage. TheJews indeed — 
have a fable that there was a subterraneous way, extending from the © 
king’s abode to Jericho, and that by this he endeavoured to escape.” 
He was however seen, pursued, and taken by the Chaldeans, who — 
carried him to Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah, there to have judgment 
passed upon him. The king of Babylon inflicted on him the most 
horrible punishment. He ordered Zedekiah’s sons to be slain before — 
his face, so as to leave him no hopes of reigning by them; and the 
agonising sight of the death-throes of his sons was destined to be his 
last; for he had his eyes then scooped out, which disqualified him for — 
ever reigning again in person. The king of Judah was then bound © 
with fetters of brass, taken to Babylon, and there imprisoned for the — 
remainder of his life. Thus were fulfilled the prophecies of the 
prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel concerning Zedekiah. Josephus tells 
us that Zedekiah thought these prophecies contradictory to each 
other, and therefore believed neither of them. But both turned out 
to be true. Jeremiah in xxxii., 4, says, “He shall surely be delivered 
into the hands of the king of Babylon, and shall speak to him mouth 


ers 


one res 


es 


17th century, 


913 ZEEMAN, REMIGIUS. 


ZENI. 014 


to mouth, and his eyes shall behold his eyes.” This was fulfilled, for 
Zedekiah was carried to Riblah, and there he saw and spoke to 
Nebuchadnezzar, but he was also blinded at Riblah; and although he 
lived at Babylon, and died there, yet he never saw it: thus was fulfilled 
the prophecy of Ezekiel when he said (xii. 13), “My net also will I 
spread upon him, and he shall be taken in my snare; and I will 
bring him to Babylon to the land of the Chaldeans, yet shall he not 
see it, though he die there.” The Temple and the wall of the city 
were destroyed, a great part of the inhabitants were removed, none 
but the poorest being left. Thus ended the kingdom of Judah, and 


from this time begins the long Captivity. 


ZEEMAN, REMI’GIUS, a clever Dutch marine painter, born, 


according to Pilkington (ed. 1829), at Amsterdam in 1612, His real 


name was Remigius Nooms, but he received the name of Zeeman, 
says Heineken, from his painting pictures of marine subjects; he was 


however originally a common sailor by profession, and he acquired 


this name probably as much from that circumstance, as his style of 
painting. He lived some years in Berlin, where, in the royal palaces, 
there are many of his works; there are some in this country, but they 
are not common. There are likewise several etchings by him of 
marine subjects and shipping. He died in the latter part of the 
(Heineken, Nachrichten von Kiinstlern und Kunst- 
sachen.) 

ZEGERS, or SEGERS, HERCULES, a clever Dutch landscape- 


‘painter and etcher, of Amsterdam, of the 17th century, remarkable 


for his want of success. He was a painter of great ability and great 
imagination ; some of his landscapes exhibit a surprising extent of 
country, and are set off by judiciously chosen groups of trees and 
well-diversified foregrounds. He was however very unsuccessful in 
disposing of his pictures, and he tried his fortune in etching, but in 
this branch, though equally clever, he was equally unfortunate. He at 
last tried his utmost upon a large plate, but when he took it to a pub- 
lisher for sale, the man offered him merely the value of the copper for 
it. This so incensed Zegers, that, having told the printseller that the 
day would come when each print from it would be worth more than 
he had offered for the plate, he had a few impressions taken from it, 
and then destroyed it. His prophecy came true, for even in Hou- 
bracken’s time a print from that plate sold for sixteen ducats. Zegers, 
broken-hearted at his bad fortune, took to drinking, and, in returning 
home one night intoxicated, he fell, and died in consequence of the 
fall. Houbraken, who quotes S. van Hoogstraten in the account of 
Zegers, states that he cannot give either the year of his birth or death; 
in Pilkington’s ‘ Dictionary’ however (ed. 1829) the dates 1629 and 
1675 respectively are given. Zegers invented a method of printing 
landscapes in colours upon calico, but his invention was not taken up 
by any one. 

ZELOTTI, BATTISTA, a distinguished Italian painter, and one 
of the best of the native painters of Verona, where he was born in 
1532. He was the scholar of Antonio Badile, but he is said by Vasari 
to have studied also some time with Titian. Zelotti was the rival of 
Paul Veronese, at Verona, and he assisted him in some of his frescoes; 
he surpassed him as a practical fresco-painter, and he is considered by 
some to have been superior to Paul, both in warmth of colouring and in 
correctness of design, but he was inferior to him in the beauty of his 
heads, and in the general grace and variety of his compositions, The 
invention of Zelotti was fertile, and his compositions full of power, but 
his reputation was always below his merits, from the circumstance of 
his being chiefly employed in fresco in the smaller towns and villages 
or at the villas of noblemen, whence his works were less seen and less 
known than they deserved to be. One of his greatest works is at 
Cataio, formerly the villa of the Marquis Obizzi, now of the Duke of 
Modena, where, about 1570, Zelotti painted a series of frescoes illus- 
trating the services of the Obizzifamily. He painted also some excel- 
lent works in the cathedral of Vicenza, which have been mistaken by 
many for works of Paul Veronese. Zelotti died about 1592, after a 
life of much labour for others, but little profit to himself. (Vasari 
Vite dé Pittori, &c.; Ridolfi, Le Maraviglie dell? Arte, &c. ; Dal Pozzo, 
Vite dé Pittori, &c. Veronesi ; Zanetti; Lanzi.) 

ZELTER, CARL-FRIEDRICH, by profession an architect, or, as 
he modestly designated himself, a master-builder—though somewhat 
late in life he devoted himself entirely to music—was born at Berlin, 
in 1758. He received a liberal education ; and at the age of seventeen 
he was articled to his father, a Saxon, and a builder. After a long 
illness from which he suffered in his eighteenth year, an extraordinary 
passion for music snddenly sprung up in him; but as his time was 
almost wholly occupied in his professional pursuits, he could indulge 
only in an evening in his favourite study. In 1783, having completed 
his probationary architectural drawing, he was admitted as a master- 
builder, by which more is meant in Germany than in England. And 
now for the first time he received instructions in counterpoint, from 
Fasch, to whom he acknowledges himself indebted for whatever merit 
his compositions possess. He also diligently attended his master’s 
singing academy, a government establishment, and became one of its 
active members, whereof, in 1797, Fasch having become aged and infirm, 
he took the management. In 1809 Zelter was appointed, by the king, 
professor of music to the University and the Royal Institute of Berlin. 
At the commencement of the same year too, a new society was formed 
at Berlin, under the title of ‘Die Liedertafel’ (the Vocal Club), and 

BioG, DIV. VOL, VI. 


lord of Padua. 


Zelter was named the president. This was, in fact, a revival, in a 
much improved form, of the guild of the old German Meister-Siinger, 
— hs Say an establishment of even national importance. He died 
in . 

Zelter’s compositions are spoken of in high terms by German 
writers, but they are little known beyond his own country. But 
while his musical works seem to have been for the most part con- 
fined to the place of their birth, his name is become familiar to all 
who take much interest in German literature. His correspondence 
with Géthe, published a few years ago, exhibits him as a philosophical, 
acute musical critic ; as a man of general knowledge, of strong mind, 
and refined taste; and the friendship of the great poet with whom he 
was in such constant communication, which is so clearly evinced in 
Géthe’s letters, is in itself a guarantee of the intellectual merits of 
him who enjoyed the intimacy and confidence of one of the most 
celebrated persons of the present age. 

ZEMAUN-SHAH, ([SHan-Zemaun.] 

ZENI. NicoLtd Zeno and Antonio Zeno were two brothers, the 
published accounts of whose voyages have occasioned much contro- 
versy. They were Venetians. The word employed to designate the 
family is Zen, or Zena; to designate a single individual of that family, 
Zeno; to designate two or more individuals, Zeni. The Zena is one 
of the oldest of the patrician families of the mainland territories of 
Venice. Its first distinguished member, Marin Zeno, lived about the 
year 1200. The posterity of Antonio Zeno survived the republic, and 
opened, in 1818, the family archives to the researches of Cardinal 
Zurla. But for the most part, when ‘the Zeni’ are spoken of, the 
brothers Nicold and Antonio are meant. Their adventures, and the 
controversies to which they have given rise, shall therefore be first 
disposed of in the present article, although others of the name, having 
attained to some notoriety, must be noticed in the sequel. 

Nicold Zeno and Antonio Zeno were sons of Pietro Zeno, surnamed 
Dragone, and brothers of Carlo Zeno, commander of the Venetian fleet 
against the Genoese in the war of Chioggia. Their mother’s name 
was Agnes Dandolo. The dates of the births of both brothers are 
known only from conjecture. Their parents married in 1326, and had 
in all ten children. Carlo was born about 1334, of whom it is known 
that his mother died when he was so young as scarcely to be able to 
remember her. This necessarily places the births of Nicold and 
Antonio between the years 1326 and 1340. 

The name of Nicold appears frequently in the annals of Venice from 
1365 to 1888. In 1365 he took a prominent part in the election of the 
doge Marco Cornaro; in 1367 he was one of the deputies sent to Mar- 
seille by the senate of Venice to convey the pope to Rome; he served 
during the war of Chioggia, in which he commanded a galley, in 
1879 ; he is mentioned as having been considered one of the richest 
patricians in 1381; in 1382 he was one of the electors who nominated 
the doge Michelo Morosini, and in the course of the same year he was 
sent as ambassador to Ferrara; towards the close of 1388 he was sent, 
along with two other nobles, to receive the cession of Treviso from the 
After this his name disappears from public history : 
his subsequent career is only known through a small work published 
by one of his descendants in 1558. 

According to this work, Nicold Zeno, having embarked on board a 
vessel of his own to visit England and Flanders, was driven out of his 
course by a storm, and shipwrecked on the ‘ island’ of Frisland. Here 
he and his companions were rescued from wreckers by a prince of the 
name of Zichmni, into whose service Zeno entered in the capacity of 
pilot, and remained with him one or two years. At the close of that 
period, having been advanced by Zichmni to wealth and honours for 
services in war, he invited his brother Antonio to join him, which he 
did. Nicold survived his brother’s arrival four years, and died in 
Frisland, It is impossible to ascertain with certainty either the year 
in which he quitted Venice, or how many years elapsed from his 
departure to his being joined by Antonio. The year 1380, the date 
assigned to his shipwreck by his descendant, is evidently an error, for 
in November 1388, he was still in Italy. Most probably he sailed in 
1889; two years at the least must have elapsed before his brother 
joined him; and he survived that event four years. This brings us 
down to 1395 asthe year of his death. Itis certain that he was dead 
in ‘1398, for the family register, making mention of his son Tomaso 
in that year, describes him as the son of the “ quondam Nicol.” 

Of Antonio Zeno’s history previous to his setting out to join his 
brother in Frisland, nothing appears to be known, except that he was 
married in 1884. According to the conjectures above stated, he must 
have arrived in Frisland about the year 1391. He remained there four- 
teen ‘years in the service of Zichmni, having succeeded at his brother's 
death to his property and employments. At the end of that time 
(say 1405) he returned to Venice, where it is probable that he died in 
the same year; for the passage in the family annals which notices the 
marriage of his son Dracone in 1406, speaks of him as “ quondam Ser 
Antonio,” - 

The controversy alluded to in the outset of this article relates to the 
countries visited by the Zeni, and whether their voyages extended to 
America. In attempting to form an opinion on these questions, it is 
necessary to keep in view the nature and amount of the information 
we have respecting those voyages ; and with this view we shall set aside 


all that has been said by commentators, until we a 
N 


ons ZENI. 


a =< 


ZENI. 916 


> 


what the text really says. All that we know is compressed in twenty- 
seven pages of a very small and not Mig Mes 4 printed quarto 
volume, printed at Venice, by Francesco Mareolini, in 1558. The 
narrative purports to have been compiled about that time by a younger 
Nicold Zeno, who died in 1565, from the papers of Antonio Zeno. The 
materials in the possession of Nicold the younger, at the time he wrote 
his book, appear to have been only two letters from Antonio Zeno to 
his brother Carlo, both written after the death of Nicold. In one of 
these Antonio mentions that he composed a work descriptive of the 
countries he had visited or heard of, and their customs, a Life of his 
brother Nicold, and a Life of Zichmni. But this book and a number 
of letters from Antonio had been destroyed by Nicold the younger 
when a boy :—“These letters (the letters quoted in the book) were 
written by Messer Antonio to Messer Carlo, his brother ; and it grieves 
me that the book and many other writings on the same subject have 
rished wretchedly, I scarce kuow how ; for having come into my 
Bands when I was quite a boy, I tore and dispersed them, as boys will 
do (‘come fanno i fanciulli, le squarciai e mandai tutte male’), as I 
cannot now remember without much sorrow.” Our knowledge of the 
voyages of the Zeni therefore rests upon a book compiled about 150 
years aftet the death of the longest liver of the two, from two of 
Antonio's letters, and such vague recollection as the writer retained of 
the contents of some manuscripts which had come into his hands and 
been destroyed by him when a boy. He states, it is trae, that the 
map which accompanies his book was copied from an old and faded 
map (“marica e yecchia”) in the family archives; but he does not 
assert that it was made by either of the brothers, or even that it was 
made about their time. From this review it must be apparent how 
little we know of the voyages of the Zeni, and how much that little 
has in all probability been disfigured. 
- Down to the death of Nicold the elder, his descendant tells the 
story in his own person: this part of tle book relates the Vikingar 
expeditions, in which Nicold served under Zichmni, ‘The rest of the 
book consists in great part of a letter from Antonio to Carlo, in which 
he rehearses the story of a fishertmau who had been shipwrecked on 
some far western land, and detained there many years, and adds an 
account of an expedition, fitted out by Zichmni, to visit that country, 
in which he had accompanied him. The last two pages are occupied 
with a fragment of another letter from Antonio to Carlo, ia which 
he mentions the book or books he has composed, and adds that he will 
write no more, as he hopes soon to communicate with him by word of 
mouth. 

The part of the narrative which relates to Nicold contains the 
history of three campaigns. In the first Frisland is subdued by 
Zichmni, who commands the land forces, while Nicold Zeno co-operates 
with the flect. Zichmni was lord of the island of Porland, halfa day’s 
sail from Frisland, which he had wrested the previous year from the 
king of Norway; and of the duchy (‘duchea’) of Sorano on the 
mainland (‘fra terra’) on the side next Scotland.. Frisland was an 
island rather larger than Ireland. From the part of the coast where 
Nicold was wrecked, he conducted the fleet of Zichmni to the west, 
and, after conquering several small islands, turned into a gulf called 
*Sudero,’ and captured in a port called ‘ Sanestol’ some ships loaded 
with salt-fish. Here he was joined by Zichmni, who had marched 
over-land. Zeno again seb sail to the west, and reached the opposite 
headland of the gulf: the sea, it is remarked, was full of shallows. He 
next returns to a part of Frisland named Bondendon, where he learns 
that Zichmni has conquered the whole island. He sails thence to 
Frisland, “the capital of the island, situated in a gulf on the south- 
- east, of which there are many in the island, in which fish are taken in 
such abundance that many ships are laden with them, and Flanders, 
Bretagne, England, Scotland, Norway, and Denmark send there for 
supplies, and are much enriched.” In all this part of the narrative 
the only hint given of the position of the countries is that Sorano 
“‘on the main” is on the side opposite Scotland. Were it not for the 
epithet ‘island,’ applied to Frisland, there is nothing incompatible 
with the notion of the country so named being the Friesland of the 
present day. There are even some points that coincide with it. 
Sailing westward from the part of Frisland which he was thrown 
upon, Zeno turns into the Gulf of Zudero (the Zuyder Zee?); and 
the capital of Frisland is situated within a gulf to the south-east (the 
Dollart?). The Zuyder Zee is full of shallows (“ pieno di seccagne”’), 
The bays of Friesland were at that time frequented by vessels from all 
the countries enumerated, seeking for cargoes of fish, There are small 
= (‘isolette’) in abundance between the Texel and the mouth of 
the Ems. 

The second campaign was undertaken by Zichmni against Estland, 
which is between Frisland and Norway (“ sopra la costa tra Frislanda 
e Norwegia”). The expedition does not reach Estland, but is driven 
by a storm upon Grisland, a large but uninhabited island. No men- 
tion is made of the relative position of Grisland to any of the other 
countries mentioned, nor of its distance from them. From Grisland 
an expedition is made against the islands and Island (“le islande” and 
“ Tslanda che medesimamente con l’altre era sotto il Re di N orwegia”) 
to the north. The expedition fails, but seven other islands in the same 
narrow seas (“negli stessi canali l’altre isole, dette islande, che sono 
sette”) are conquered, a fortress erected in one of them, named Bres, 
and Nicold Zeno left to winter there. Zichmni returns to Frisland. 


Our indications are here still fainter. Proceeding on the supposition 
that the Frisland of the Zeni may have been the country then and still 
so called, Estland (the land to the east), between Frisland and Nor- 
way, may have been the Danish peninsula. ‘Islanda’ and ‘islande’ 
appear to be merely the Beane and plural of the Teutonie word 
island: the one cannot, and t 
Iceland, Bres approximates to Bressay, the name of one of the 
Bar aug ae pea sien of drtens a j k.- 
The t cam of Nico no was a voyage of di 

undertook from Bree He set out in the moat Of July, Rigth oA 
the north (or north-west) till he reached Engroneland, The distance 
not given, but the whole description of Engroneland applies to 
and is applicable to no other country. There are, the yoleano; the 
springs; the brief summer; the early introduction of Christianity anc 
the Latin language; the commerce with Norway—“ Vengono molt 
navigli dal capo di sopra Norvegia e dal Treadon” (Drontheim?). The 
greater part of the priests we are told are “delle Islande”’—from th 
islands; another corroboration of the opinion that Islanda, ag used ii 
this narrative, is not the proper name of any one country. These 
indications are extremely vague; but there is nothing in them 
incompatible with the notion that Frisland is Friesland; . 


land, Iceland: and the intermediate Bress, the Bressay of the Shetland 


group. etal 
There remain—Antonio Zeno's report of the story of the Moe 


wrecked fisherman, and his account of Zichmni’s expedition in seareh — 


of the lands described by the fisherman, Anal 
The fisherman’s story need not be minutely examined here. Anto- 
nio’s version of it is sufficiently near the truth to show that it is 
an imperfect account of one of the many accidental or premedita 
visits paid by the Northmen of Europe, in these early ages, to the 
northern regions of America; but it is too suecinct and disfigured to 
add anything to our knowledge of these expeditions: its only import- 
ance is derived from its having beén the motive to Zichmni’s voyage of 
discovery to the west. 1h 
This expedition, after labouring for many days among the islands 
and shallows which were the scene of Nicold Zeno’s first campaign 
pushed out into “the deep sea” in the beginning of July, Scareely 
was the voyage fairly begun, when a tempest broke loose and tos 
the vessels about for eight days, swamping some of them, and leaving 
the surviving crews entirely ignorant of their whereabout. On the 
return of good weather, Zichmni steered to the west, and reached an 
island which Zeno calls Icari, adding, that the inhabitants said the 
name was derived from their first king, a son of Dedalus, king of 
Scotland. Every attempt to make good a landing on the territory of 
the Scotch colony having proved unavailing, Zichmni contin his 
voyage to the west for six days, at the termination of which he was 
assailed by another tempest, and forced to scud before the. wind till 
he was driven to a land unknown to all on board. Here, as in the 
western voyage of Nicold Zeno, the presence of a volcano appears to 
indicate Iceland, but the adventurer had no intercourse with the 
inhabitants, who are described as being of small stature, and inhabiting 
caves, Here Zichmni resolved to winter, and Antonio was sent to 
Frisland with some mutineers who refused to remain. A voyage of 
twenty days in an easterly and eight in a southerly course brought 
him to Frisland.. The only indication in this voyage that aids us in 
conjecturing the places named is the volcano, which points to Iceland. 
If we assume Iceland to be its western termination, there is nothing 
in the narrative incompatible with the assumption that Friesland was 
the point of departure; and the bearings and the time occupied, as far 
as they are given, rather favour this view. | 24 
Confining ourselves to the narrative of Nicol} Zeno the younger, 
leaving out of view all that has been written by controversialists on 
the subject, we have found nothing inconsistent with the idea that the 
Frisland of the elder Nicold may have been the Friesland generally 
known by that name, except that it is called an island; and consider- 
ing that the Zeni appear to have been acquainted only with a limite 
portion of its shores, there is nothing extraordinary in their having 
taken it for an island. We have paid no attention to the map pub- 
lished along with the narrative of the younger Nicold, for two reasons : 
in the first place, it is impossible to look at it without feeling con- 
vinced that its projection could not have been made so early as the 
time of the Zeni; in the second place, it is in parts inconsistent with 
the narrative. In his first eampaign Nicold Zeno is expressly said to 
have sailed first from east to west, and then from west to east; accord- 
ing to the map he must have sailed from north to south, and from 
south to north, There seems little doubt that the map is the compila- 
tion of some later cosmographer. 2oue 
If we may assuine Frisland to have been the country between the 
Zuyder Zee and the Ems, the Estland between it and Norway would 
naturally appear to indicate the more easterly Danish peninsula; ‘le 
islande,’ the different island groups north of Scotland, of which 
alone seems recognisable; and the Engroneland of Nicolo, and the 
nameless island of Antonio Zeno, each with its voleano, Iceland. . 
corroboration of this view may be recalled—first, the time and bearings 
of Antonio Zeno’s voyage from the island to Frisland; second, the 
Scotch colony in the first island reached by Zichmni; third, the resort 
of vessels to Frisland from France, England, and the Netherlands for 
fish; fourth, the commercial intercourse between Engroneland and 


bets} + 


he 


he other does not necessarily son 


6 ik 


5 


certain: the materials do not admit of certainty. 


917 ZENIT, 


s 


ZENIL 918 


Norway—specially it would appear with Drontheim. The state of 
Friesland towards the end of the 14th century affords an additional 
corroboration ; it was a rude country, intermediate between the Hans 
towns and the trading towns of the Netherlands, where the ‘ strand- 
reeht’ (privilege of wreckers) was in full force, and where pirates 
found shelter and purchasers of their plunder. Zeno’s account of 
Zichmni conveys the idea of the chief of a band of rovers. who wrested 
a small island near Friesland from the king of Norway, and thence 
made piratical excursions in every direction. Zeno’s narrative would 
lead to the inference that his band were but indifferent seamen, and 
previously unacquainted with the countries they visited. 
This view of the scene of the Zeni’s wanderings is not put forth as 
2€ If it is not tenable, 
where is Frisland to be found? Somo later writers have felt so strongly 
the impossibility of answering this question, that they have been obliged 
to assume that Frisland has since been submerged in the sea. Their 
culties appear to have arisen from the predetermination of earlier 
writers to convey the Zeni as far west as Greenland. Walckenaer, 
seeing the impossibility of this, has fixed the most westerly terminus 
of their voyages on the south-east of Iceland, te which he may have 
been led by the striking coincidence of the coast of Engroneland on 
the map of Nicold Zeno the younger, and the south-east coast of Ice- 
land. Walckenaer however seeks for the Frisland of- the Zeni in the 
‘northern parts of Iceland. The data are too scanty to warrant any 
‘approach to dogmatism on the subject, but on the whole we incline to 
adhere to the conclusions we have arrived at: first, because we see no 


/ impossibility in the Frisland of the Zeni being the country generally 


so called; second, because the relative positions and distances of the 
different places and the state of society appear to correspond with that 
assumption, 

. The other members of the Zena family who appear to require notice 
we will take in chronological order. 

_ Canto Zeno, grand-admiral of Venice, brother of Nicold and Anto- 
nio, was born about 1334. While yet quite a child the pope presented 
him to a prebendal benefice at Patras. At the University of Padua, 
some debts he contracted at play obliged him to abscond, and for five 

ears he served as 2 soldier in different parts of Italy. Returning 
ome, he found the republic engaged in a war with the Turks, and 

repaired to Patras for the double purpose of taking possession of his 
benefice and serving his country in a military capacity. In Greece he 
got involved in a duel, and this forced him at last to resign all views 
to an ecclesiastical career. He married a rich Greek widow, who how- 
ever did not long survive their marriage. On his return to Venice he 
took for his second wife a lady of the Giustiniani family. Unable to 
remain at rest, he repaired to Constantinople in prosecution of com- 
mercial speculations, which kept him seven years engaged. His trans- 
actions brought him into connection with the emperor John Paleologus, 
and enabled him to bring toa conclusion the negociation by which 
that prince ceded Tenedos to the Venetians. This occurred in 1376, 
and is the first event in the life of Zeno of which we have been able to 
ascertain the date so nearly. This acquisition on the part of the 
republic was the commencement of the war of Chioggia, in which the 
Genoese, the Hungarians, and the Lord of Padua were leagued against 
Venice. ‘The defence of Treviso against the Hungarians was intrusted 
‘to Carlo Zeno. He'maintained that frontier post till 1379, when the 
Venetian government, after the loss of the sea-fight of Pola, recalled 
him to take the command of a fleet. With eight galleys he sailed from 
Venice, and broke through the Genoese fleet without losing a vessel. 
He took a number of the enemy’s ships in the Sicilian waters, and 
negociated a peace with Joan of Naples. He then sailed northward, 
me made the victorious Genoese tremble for the security of their own 
coasts. After scourging the north-eastern shores of Italy he set sail 
for the Archipelago, where he received reinforcements. With his fleet 
‘augmented to fourteen galleys he steered to Beirout to offer convoy to 
the stores of Venetian merchandise which had accumulated during 
the war. He appeared with his rich fleet at the mouth of the lagoons 
on the Ist of January 1380. Venice was at that moment reduced to 
the last extremity. The Genoese had taken Chioggia and penetrated 
into the lagoons with a fleet of double the number of vessels that the 
grand-admiral Pisani had to oppose to them. The arrival of Zeno 
completely changed the face of affairs. He broke the Genoese block- 
ade, provisioned Venice, and transferring his services from the sea to 
the land force, re-took Chioggia. 

On the death of Pisani (15th August 1380), Zeno was appointed 
grand-admiral, and in -that eapacity he made head against Spinola in 
the Archipelago till the peace of 1381. The next five years were spent 
by Zeno in Lombardy in the service of the Visconti. After this he 
was employed on embassies to France and England, and advanced in 
succession to the dignified magistracies of Avogador delle Commune 
and Procurator of St. Mark. In 1403, while still holding the latter 
appointment, he was, contrary to the customary policy of Venice, 
placed in command of a fleet to oppose Boucicault, over whom he 
obtained a victory on the 7th of October, A few months later he was 
sent to command the army against Francesco Carrara, lord of Padua, 
Upon the death of Carrara and the sack of his palace, an entry was 
found in his registers of 400 golden ducats paid to Carlo Zeno, Zeno 
proved satisfactorily before the Council of Ten that this was simply 


the repayment of a debt which Carrara had contracted to him on the { 


occasion of his flight to Ostia; but he was nevertheless deprived of all 
his employments and condemned to two years’ imprisonment. As 
soon as he was set at liberty, Zeno embarked on a pilgrimage to the 
Holy Land. While there he entered into the service of the king of 
Cyprus, who was at war with the Genoese. In 1410, Carlo Zeno 
returned to Venice, and married for the third time. His remaining 
years. were spent in literary pursuits, but tormented by the stone and 
the gout. He died on the 8th of March 1418. Of three sons whom 
he had by his second wife, two died before him. The family was kept 
up by the survivor, Pietro. 

Tacoro ZEno, a grandson of Carlo, was a posthumous son of Iacopo, 
who died the year before his father. He was born in December 1417. 
He studied at Padua, and, after taking his degrees, repaired to Florence 
in 1489, during the sitting of the Council of Florence, and was soon 
received into the papal service.. In 1441 he was apostolical referen- 
dary ; in 1456 (or 1447, according to Ughelli) he was made bishop of 
Belluno and Feltre; in 1459 he was promoted to the see of Padua, 
where he died of apoplexy in 1481. Iacopo Zeno was esteemed one 
of the first orators of his age. He left.a valuable library and several 
works of his own composition in manuscript. The most important 
were—1, ‘Vita summorum Pontificum,’ preserved in the Ambrosian 
Library, of which the Bollandists have made great use; 2,‘De Vita, 
Moribus, Rebusque. gestis Caroli Zeni’—a life of his grandfather, of 


which an indifferent Italian translation by Francesco Querini has been 


repeatedly published. The original Latin appeared for the first time 
in vol. xix. of. Muratori’s collection of Italian historians. 

CaTERINO ZENO, a grandson of the traveller Antonio and the son of 
his son Pietro, surnamed ‘Il Dragone.’ Pietro was married to Anne 
Morosini in 1406, but the year of his son’s birth is unknown : so is 
the year of his death. In 1472 Caterino Zeno was appointed by the 
senate of Venice ambassador to Uzun-Hassan-Beg, king of Persia. He 
is said to have accepted the mission with the more readiness, that 
having married a relative of David Comnenus, the last emperor of 
Trebizond, he was allied by marriage to the King of Persia. At 
Tabriz, the residence of Uzun-Hassan, Zeno was (probably on account 
of his matrimonial alliance) received at court on a more familiar 
footing than the generality of Europeans. This enabled him to collect 
amass of interesting information relative to the manners and polities 
of Persia. The insight thus obtained into Oriental customs he subse- 
quently increased by journeys in Persia and Arabia, After the termi- 
nation of his mission he published at Venice a short account of his 
travels. He subsequently returned to the east, and died at Damascus, 
The narrative of Caterino Zeno’s travels became in little more than 
sixty years after his death so rare, that neither Ramusio nor his own 
kinsman Nicold Zeno the younger was able to procure a copy of them. 
The latter endeavoured to supply the deficiency by compiling an 
account of Caterino’s travels from letters written by him to friends 
during his absence in the east. Even this work has however become 
extremely rare. Formaleoni published at Venice, in 1783, an account 
of Caterino Zeno’s adventures, which he pretended to have taken from 
an ancient manuscript. This work is a gross and rather clumsy 
forgery. 

Nicotd Zuno the younger (a descendant in the direct line of Nicold 
Zeno the elder), to whom we are indebted for the only notices we 
possess of the adventures of ‘the Zeni,’ and of Caterino Zeno, was 
born’ in Venice on the 6th of June 1515, and died on the 10th of 
August 1565. He was a member of the Council of Ten. His country- 
man Patrizi (a contemporary), and Gaspari (in his ‘ Catalogo della 
Biblioteca Veneta’) speak in the highest terms of his eloquence, and 
of his acquirements in mathematics and cosmography. He published 
‘Dell’ Origine di Venezia ed antiquissima Memoria de’ Barbari.’ But 
he is remembered chiefly for the little volume, published in 1558, 
containing the adventures of Caterino Zeno, in two books, and those 
of ‘the Zeni’ in one book. This work has every internal mark of 
being a faithful compilation from the very imperfect materials in his 
possession. He leaves his heroes as much as possible to tell their 
own story. 

Antonio Zeno the younger, a respectable Greek scholar of the 16th 
century, also belonged to the family of the Zena. He published at 
Venice, in 1569, a commentary on the speeches attributed to Pericles 
in Thucydides, and Lepidus in Sallust—‘ Commentaria in Concionem 
Periclis et Lepidi, ex Thucydide et Sallustio.’ 

ApéstoLo ZEno was born at Venice, on the 11th of December 1668. 
He was descended from a branch of the Zena family which had been 
settled ever since the 13th century in the island of Candia, whence 
the parents of Zeno were obliged to emigrate and return to Venice 
owing to the Turkish invasion, by which they lost all their property. 
Zeno’s mother was of a distinguished Greek family of Candia. Zeno 
lost his father when a child, and his mother was thrown for support 
on the assistance of her brother-in-law, the Bishop of Capo @Istria, 
who placed young Apostolo in the college of the Somaschi at Venice. 
He displayed erly a decided taste for poetry, and after having left - 
college he began to write melodramas, which were well received. One 
of them, entitled ‘ Temistocle,’ so pleased the Emperor Leopold I. of 
Germany that he proposed to Zeno the situation of dramatic composer 
at Vienna, with a salary of 4000 florins, which Zeno declined. He 
received orders for melodramas from several courts of Germany and 
Italy, and was handsomely rewarded for them. Since the time of 


ZENI, 


920 


Rinuccini, who may be said to have created the Italian melodrama, 
that species of dramatic composition had partaken of the vicious 
taste of the seicentisti, or 17th century school, Apostolo Zeno was 
the reformer and renovator of the genuine melodrama as a poetical 
composition, in which he was followed by his successor Metastasio, and 
afterwards by Sografli, Barbieri, Romani, and others. 

Zeno, in the midst of his poetical occupations, did not neglect graver 
studies, He was possessed of sound critical discernment, and had col- 
lected an ample store of literary knowledge. In 1710 he began to 
publish his ‘Giornale dei Letterati,’ which was afterwards continued 
by his brother Pier Caterino Zeno, making altogether a series of forty 
volumes, full of important literary and biographical information. 
Having noticed many omissions and inaccuracies in the work ‘De 
Historicis Latinis’ of G. J. Voss, especially concerning the Italian 
historians who had written in Latin, Zeno undertook to supply the 
deficiency by his ‘Dissertazioni Vossiane, which were scattered about 
his Journal; they were collected and published after his death, in 
2 vols. 4to, 1752, a work which is much valued, He likewise wrote a 
running commentary to the ‘Biblioteca dell’ Eloquenza Italiana’ of 
Fontanini, which commentary is much more important and instructive 
than the text; it is written with much critical skill, and in somewhat 
a sarcastic vein, It was published also after Zeno’s death, together 
with Fontanini’s text, in 2 vols. 4to. 

In 1717 Zeno was invited to Vienna by the Emperor Charles VL., 
with the offer of the situation of court poet, to which was afterwards 
added that of bistoriographer to his imperial majesty, accompanied 
with liberal emoluments: Zeno, having obtained leave of the state 
inquisitors, accepted the offer, and proceeded to Vienna in 1718, In 
crossing the Alps his coach was upset, and he broke his leg; but 
having recovered from the accident, he arrived at Vienna, where he 
was received by Charles in the kindest manner, He wrote dramas for 
the imperial opera, and oratorios for the imperial chapel till 1729, 
when his advanced years and the state of his health made him 
desirous of returning to Italy to end his days in his native country. 
Having obtained the consent of the emperor, and proposed young 
Metastasio to succeed him in his office of court poet, he returned to 
Venice, where he occupied himself in collecting books and medals, 
and in preparing his works for the press. The death of the Emperor 
Charles VI., and the war of the Austrian Succession which followed, 
deprived Zeno of the liberal emolument which he had continued to 
enjoy even after he left Vienna; but the Empress Maria Theresa soon 
after granted him an annual pension of 1000 florins, with the con- 
tinuation of the title of poet and historiographer to the imperial court. 
In 1747 Zeno sold his cabinet of medals for 20,000 florins to the abbot 
of the Regular Canons of St. Florian in Upper Austria, His rich 
library he bequeathed by will to the convent of the Dominicans of 
Le Zattere, near Venice, whence the greater part has been since trans- 
ferred to the library of St. Mark. Zeno died in November 1750, being 
then eighty-two years of age. 

Besides the works already mentioned, Zeno wrote also—1, ‘ Mappa- 
mondo Istorico, Continuazione dell’ Opera del P. Foresti, 4 vols, 4to, 
Venice, 1702-3 ; 2, Vita di Paolo Paruta;’ 3, ‘Note alla Vita del 
Cardinal Bembo :’ these two biographical works, as well as a Life of 
Sabellico in Latin, also by Zeno, are inserted in the collection of the 
historians of Venice, for which Zeno wrote also a ‘ Prefazione,’ or 

introductory discourse ; 4, ‘Memorie Istoriche della Famiglia e Vita 
di Enrico Caterin Davila,’ prefixed to the edition of Davila’s ‘ Storie 
di Francia,’ Venice, 1733; 5, ‘Compendio della Storia della Repubblica 

di Venezia;’ 6, ‘ Vita di Giambatista Guarino;’ 7, ‘ Vita di G. G. Tris- 
sino ;’ 8, ‘Notizie Letterarie intorno ai Manuzii, Stampatori, e alla 
loro Famiglia,’ prefixed to the Italian translation of Cicero’s Epistles 
by Aldo Manuzio, published at Venice in 1736; 9, ‘ Note e giunte alla 
Vita del Guicciardini scritta dal Manni,’ prefixed to the edition of 
Guicciardini, in 2 vols. fol., Venice, 1738. Zeno’s dramas have been 
published in 10 vols. 8vo, Venice, 1744, A selection of his letters was 
published in 3 vols. 8vo, 1752; but amore ample selection has been 
made by Morelli, in 6 vols. 8vo, Venice, 1785. Zeno left many other 
works unfinished or unpublished, 

(Corniani, J Secoli della Letteratwra Italiana; Tipaldi, Biografia 
degli Ilustri Italiani ; Lombardi, Storia della Letteratura Italiana nel 
Secolo XVIII.) 

Piztro Catrtno Zeno, elder brother of Apostolo, was born on 
the 26th of July 1666, He took the monastic vows in his twenty- 
second year, and was soon after appointed to teach rhetoric in his 
order's seminary at Murano; thence he was promoted to the chair of 
philosophy at Venice. When Apostolo quitted Venice, in 1718, he 
confided the task of editing the ‘Giornale de’ Letterati’ to his brother, 
who continued to discharge it till 1728, when he was obliged to resign 
on account of ill health. He died on the 17th of June 1732, worn out 
by the excessive rigour with which he performed his devotional exer- 
cises, Besides his contributions to the ‘Giornale de’ Letterati,’ Pietro 
Caterino Zeno published a translation of Arnauld’s Logic, and transla- 
tions of some of Bourdaloue’s Sermons. He likewise published anony- 
mously remarks on the poetry of Della Casa, and contributed the 
biographies of Baptisto Nani and Michele Fosecari to his brother's 
‘Lives of Venetian Historians.’ 

(Det Commentarii del Viaggio in Persia di M. Caterino Zeno il R. ¢ 
delle Guerre fatte nell Imperio Persiano, dal Tempo di Ussun-Cassano 


in qua, libri due; e dello Scoprimento dell? isole Frislanda, &¢., fatto 
sotto il Polo Artico da due fratelli Zeni, libro wno; in Venezia, 1558 ; 
Di Marco Polo e degli altri Viaggiateri Veneziant pid illustrt Disserta- 
ziont del P. Ab. D. Placida Zurla, in Venetia, 1818; Fabroni, Vite 
Jialorum; Giornale de’ Letterati, vol. xxxviii.; Jowrnal of the Royal 
Geographical Society of London, vol. ix.; Biographie Universelle.) 

ZENO (Zhvwyv), of Elea in Italy, was a pupil of Parmenides. Accord- 
ing to the vague expression (#xua{e) used by Diogenes Laertius, he 
was enjoying his greatest celebrity about Bc. 464. He visited Athens 
in company with Parmenides, and they were present at the Great 
Panathensa. Parmenides is described by Plato as at this time a man 
advanced in years, with his hair quite white, but of a handsome and 
pleasing person: he was then about sixty-five years of age. Zeno, who 
was then near forty, is spoken of as a tall and comely personage. If 
we place this visit to Athens, with Clinton, in B.c, 454, in the fifteenth 
year of Socrates, Zeno was born about B.c. 494. The authority for the 
visit to Athens is the ‘ Parmenides’ of Plato, which, so far as relates 
to this historical fact, is generally admitted to be sufficient authority. 

Strabo is of opinion that Zeno, as well as Parmenides, was employed 
in legislating for Elea. He probably lived till the commencement of 
the Peloponnesian War, or at least to Bc. 435. According to Plutarch 
(‘ Pericles, 4) he was one of the masters of Pericles, The circum- 
stances of his death are reported with much diversity. He is said to 
have conspired against a tyrant of Elea, who is variously named, and, 
on the discovery of the conspiracy, to have been put to death ina 
cruel manner. : 

Many works were attributed to Zeno, which, says Diogenes, were 
full of wisdom. One of his great works he is said to haye read at 
Athens, on which occasion Socrates was present. Though the ‘ Par- 
menides’ of Plato, which is the authority for this reading at Athens, 
cannot be taken to be literally true in all respects—for Socrates, then 
a very young man, is represented as discoursing with Zeno—yet there 
seems no reason to doubt the fact of Zeno having read his work at 
Athens. The object of this work, which was divided into several 
parts, was to show that it is impossible to conceive things as being 
Many, and this conclusion was derived as a necessary consequence 
from the supposition of things being Many; for Zeno showed that if 
we suppose things to be Many, then the same things are both like and 
unlike. Now, it is impossible to conceive the same things to be both 
like and unlike, and therefore it is impossible to conceive things to be 
Many (ovodv ef ddtvarov Ta Te Gvduom Suow civar kal Te Suoim avdmorn, 
adbvarov 5) Kat moAAG elvat. Plato, ‘Parmenides’). Zeno is said to 
have been the first who used the form of the dialogue in his philo- 
sophical discussions. His object was to maintain the doctrines of 
Parmenides, for he is said to have added little of his own to what his 
master did. His method was, to assume the truth of received opinions, 
and then to show the contradictions to which they lead, and, accord- 
ingly, Aristotle (as quoted by Diogenes) calls him the inventor of 
Dialectic ; not of Logic, as some modern writers have it. 

Zeno’s work in defence of the Doctrine of the One was, as Plato 
makes him describe it, designed to support the opinion of Parmenides 
against those who ridiculed it on the ground that if there is only One, 
many absurd and inconsistent consequences must flow from the doc- 
trine; and, accordingly, his work is in opposition to those who say 
that things are Many, and it has for its special object to show, that 
many more absurd consequences will flow from their hypothesis of 
things being Many, than from the hypothesis of the One, if a man 
rightly follow them up. This is the key to the explanation of what 
we know of the arguments of Zeno, 

Zeno asked Protagoras if a single grain of millet, or the ten-thou- 
sandth part of a grain, would make a noise in falling. Protagoras 
said it would not. He then asked if a medimnus of such grains 
would make a noise in falling; and the answer was, Yes. Zeno 
further asked if there was not a ratio between the medimnus of grain 
and a single grain, or the ten-thousandth part ofa single grain. Prota- 
goras admitted that there was. “Will there not, then,” said Zeno, 
“be the same ratio between the noise of the medimnus and of the 
single grain, as there is between the medimnus and the single grain ? 


will make a noise in falling.” There is nothing peculiarly subile in 
this argument. If merely viewed as an instance that the senses do not 
always lead to a safe conclusion, it is well enough for that purpose, 

Other arguments go deeper, and show more clearly the contradic- 
tions that arise from the notion of Many. Zeno, it is said, seemed to 
annihilate the notion of space, for his argument was this: —If there is 
space, it is in something, for everything that is, is in something; but 
that which is in something, is also in space, Space, then, must also 
be in space, and so on infinitely ; therefore there is no space. 

Again : he proves that if things are many, they are both finite in 
number and infinite; and he proceeds thus:—If things are many, 
they must be as many as they are, neither more nor less, they must, 
therefore, be finite, On the other hand, if they are many, they must 
be infinite; for there are always other things between things, and 
again, other things between these things, and consequently things are 
infinite. In the latter part he evidently considers the spaces between 
things as things, for things must have spaces between them; and 
these spaces he considers as things, or the equivalents of magnitudes, 
and as capable of endless subdivision, Si 


and consequently a single grain, or the ten-thousandth part of a grain, . 


a 


=e elCU Oe ee 


EE l= Ooo ee 


OO ae 


921 ZENO. 


ZENO. 922 


Another argument is to this effect :—If a thing exists, it must have 
magnitude; for we cannot imagine a thing as existing which will not 
increase another thing by being added to it, or diminish another 
thing if taken from it. Now, if a thing has magnitude, it is capable 
of infinite subdivision; therefore, if things are many, they must be 


_ both small and great—small so as to have no magnitude, and great so 


as to be infinite. This is the literal version of Simplicius, which 
seems to mean, that infinite division of a thing implies an infinite 
number of corpuscles; and in this view a body is infinitely great, but 
the corpuscles are infinitely small. | 

Zeno had four arguments against motion. The first argument is 
this :—If a certain space is to be passed over, the half must be passed 


ever before the whole space, and the half of that half before the whole 


of it, and so on in infinitum, There is therefore an infinite number 
of spaces to be passed over; and if the whole is passed over in a 
limited time, then an infinite number of spaces will be passed over in 
a finite time, which is impossible. Bayle calls Aristotle's solution of 
the difficulty ‘pitiable.’ Aristotle’s solution is this, as explained by 
the ‘Commentarii Conimbricences :’—That which is infinite in divi- 
sion, inasmuch as it is not infinite in act but in capacity only (non 
actu sed potestate), may be passed over in a finite time; for since 
time is continuous, and in like manner infinite, the time and the space 
will correspond in the same law of infinity, and in the same division 
of parts. Itis easy to show that this is no solution. 

Another argument is the Achilles, as it is called, which is akin to 
the last. Achilles runs a race with a tortoise, which has a certain 
start, but Achilles, though swift, can never overtake the tortoise, which 
isslow. For when Achilles has reached the point from which the 
tortoise started, the tortoise has advanced a certain distance ; and 
this will always be the case: therefore Achilles can never overtake 
the tortoise. On this Ritter observes:—“‘We cannot suppose that 
Zeno, who in his proofs always maintained the infinite divisibility of 
space, should not also have considered the infinite ‘divisibility of every 
portion of time; and yet the fallacy of the argument consists entirely 
in neglecting this consideration.” But Zeno only admitted the infinite 
divisibility of space in order to show the consequences of the hypo- 
thesis. What Ritter says is no solution. We may take the fingers of 
the clock for Achilles and the tortoise, and assume that there is no 
other measure of time; and we will suppose the long finger to be at 
twelve, when the short finger is at one, and Zeno’s argument is the 
same still. The difficulty lies in the idea of motion, of which Zeno 
gives another instance in a third argument against motion. An arrow 
when it moves through the air is at every moment in a space equal to 
itself, and therefore is at rest, for nothing moves in the space ia which 
itis; but that which does not move is at rest, for everything either 
moves or is at rest. Therefore the arrow which moves, while it 
moves is at rest. Aristotle replies that this argument is false, for 
it supposes that time is composed of indivisible moments, and he 
adds, that time is not composed of indivisible parts, nor is anything 
else composed of such parts. But this is not an answer, for time may 
be excluded from the consideration. The arrow is supposed by those 
who admit motion, to pass from one point in space to another. But 
in every position between these two points it is, as Zeno says, where it 
is; and when a thing is where it is, we conceive it to be at rest, and we 
cannot conceive otherwise. Bayle, who seems not to approve of Aris- 
totle’s solution, offers one which is no better. Zeno’s difficulty remains. 
There is no absolute motion : we only conceive motion relatively, 

There is a fourth argument, which is well stated by Bayle. 

If we view the arguments of Zeno as mere sophisms, we view them 
wrongly. They touch the fundamental difficulties of all science, and 
Aristotle admits that their solution is not easy (‘Topic., viii. 8.) His 
arguments were directed to show the difficulties inherenti n all our 
abstract notions. When, as Aristotle says, he denied motion and said 
that the space of a stadium could not, be passed over, we need not 
suppose that he denied the phenomenon of a stadium being passed 
over by him who seemed. to pass over it. He would not deny that 
there was the appearance of a stadium being passed over, but he 
denied that we could conceive how it was passed over, or that we 
could conceive absolutely any amount of motion. There is no autho- 
rity for saying that he denied the existence of the One, even if he 
denied the existence of individual things. He did not admit that the 
true nature of the One could be known, for he said that if any person 
would show him what the One is, he would be able to tell him what 
things are (ra évta). His speculations all point to the difficulty of 
determining the notion of individual things, and to the consequent 
conclusion of all things being One, without parts, an absolute, immea- 
surable, inconceivable Existence. Nothing particular is said of his 
theological doctrines, and the few physical doctrines that are attributed 
to him are not. worth mentioning. 

(Diogenes Laertius, Zeno of Elea; Ritter, Geschichte der Philosophie, 
yol. i, and the Fragments of Zeno, by Ritter and Preller, in their 
Historia Pholosoph. Greco-Roman.; Bayle, Dict., art. ‘Zeno,’ which 
has very copious and curious notes ; Biographie Universelle, art. * Zeno,’ 
by Victor Cousin, and the reference there; Kant, Kritik, &c., Die 
Antinomie der Reinen Vernunft.) 

ZENO of Citium, a small town in the island of Cyprus, was the 
founder of the sect of the Stoics. The time of his birth cannot be 
accurately ascertained, nor the dates of the other events of his life. 


He was however a contemporary of Antigonus Gonatus, king of Mace- 
donia, and died before him, Antigonus Gonatus died B.c, 240. Clin- 
ton places the birth of Zeno between 3.0, 357 and 352, and his death 
either in B.C. 263, or in B.c, 259 according to Diogenes Laertius, His 
father was a merchant, and Zeno when young followed his father’s 
business, It is said that his father, on returning from one of his 
voyages, brought home some of the writings of the followers of 
Socrates, and that the perusal of them determined Zeno to the study 
of philosophy. It is not certain what his age was when he came to 
Athens ; some accounts make him to have been thirty years of age, 
but his disciple Persaeus says he was only two and twenty. He taught 
at Athens for fifty-eight years, and he lived to the age of ninety-two, 
or, according to other accounts, to the age of ninety-eight. In a 
letter addressed to King Antigonus, which is preserved by Diogenes 
Laertius, Zeno says that he is then eighty years of age, and he alleges 
this as a reason for not being able to visit the king according to his 
invitation ; but he sent to him his disciples, Persaeus and Philonides, 
When Zeno first arrived at Athens, he became the pupil of Crates 
the Cynic, and this will account for his doctrines having some rela- 
tionship to those of the Cynic school. But Zeno’s moral character 
was above the standard of the Cynics, and their meagre philosophy 
could not satisfy his intellectual desires. He subsequently attended 
the lectures of Stilpo and of Diogenes Cronus, who belonged to the 
Megaric school ; but it is probable that he was not satisfied with them, 
for he ultimately came over to the Academy, and became a hearer of 
Polemo. Zeno’s doctrines, so far as we know them, show traces of 
the various schools in which his philosophical character was formed. 
He was not an original thinker; he selected out of all that he 
learned what seemed to him the best for his purpose. It was accord- 
ingly objected to Zeno, that though he differed little from his pre- 
decessors, he still wished to found a school of his own; and it was 
further objected, that he made fewer changes in doctrines than in words, 
His pupils assembled in the painted colonnade (o7od) at Athens, whence 
they received the name of Stoics (Srwixol): they were at first called 
Zenonians from the name of their master. A slight accident which 
happened to him on coming out of his school, determined Zeno to 
put an end to his life on the spot. His practice was, in accordance 
with his doctrines, characterised by the strictest integrity and mo- 
rality : his mastery over all sensual gratifications was complete, A, 
story is told which, whether true or false, shows at least the estima- 


_tion in which he was held: it is said that the Athenians entrusted the 


keys of their fortresses to his keeping. 

The name of Zeno is more conspicuous as the founder of a school, 
which continued for several centuries, than for what he did himself, 
though his writings were numerous. A list of them is given by 
Diogenes ; a very few fragments of them remain. His style is said to 
have been characterised by brevity and closeness of argumentation, It 
seems probable that the Stoical doctrines, as exhibited in the opinions 
and writings of his followers, cannot be considered to have been 
elaborated by Zeno, though, according to all testimony, he laid the 
foundation of that which was developed and extended by others, 
His successors in the Stoic school were as follow :—Cleanthes, Chry- 
sippus, Zeno of Tarsus, Diogenes of Babylon, Antipater of Tarsus, 
Panetius of Rhodes, and Posidonius. According to Clinton, Posi- 
donius came to Rome Bc. 51, Panztius was the friend of Scipio 
Africanus the Younger, Laelius, and other distinguished Romans, and 
he introduced the Stoical philosophy at Rome, The Stoical doctrines 
suited in many respects the Roman character, especially in the modi- 
fied form in which they received them, and these doctrines were 
embraced by many distinguished persons. In the imperial period the 
chief writers who belonged to the sect were L. Annzeus Seneca, Muso- 
nius Rufus, who lived to the time of Vespasian, and Epictetus, a native 
of Hierapolis in Phrygia, and the master of Arrian, the historian of 
Alexander. But the most illustrious of all the Roman Stoics was the 
emperor Marcus Aurelius, who in his own work, which is extant, has 
left his portrait painted to the life. 

Zeno’s doctrines were mainly directed to the moral part of philoso- 
phy, and he approached nearer to the Cynics than his followers. It 
appears from the fact of his disciples separating into different parties, 
that his system was either not completely developed or that it pos- 
sessed too little originality to unite all his followers. Chrysippus is 
said to have been the person who gave to the Stoical system its full 
development and fixed its doctrines; accordingly there was a saying, 
“Tf there had been no Chrysippus, there would have been no Stoa.’ 
The Stoics made three divisions of philosophy, which Plutarch calls 
the Physical, Ethical, and Logical (Aoyudv), of which our word Logical 
is not a translation. But other Stoics made different divisions. The 
triple division was made by Zeno himself, as Diodorus states in his 
Life of Zeno, in which he has collected all the Stoical doctrines. The 
Logical part of the Stoical system comprehended their metaphysics. 
They made a distinction between truth (aAn@ela) and true (aAnOés) : 
truth implied body (c@ua); but true was without body, and was 
merely in opinion. They attributed to things an absolute existence in 
themselves. Their system so far as we can learn what it was, was 
obscure, and they were certainly not well agreed among themselves 
on their metaphysical doctrines. They cultivated logic, rhetoric, 
and grammar. In their Physical doctrines they assumed two first 
principles, the Active and the Passive: the Passive was Matter (odcia), 


923 ZENO, 


ZENO, 924 


the first substance of which all things were made; the Active was 
God, who was one, though called by many names. The universal 
belief in a deity, or in many deities, they considered one of the 
evidences of God's existence, All the universe, says Seneca, according 
to our Stoical doctrines, consists of two things, Cause and Matter. 
The Cause which puts matter in motion is conceived as pervading it, 
but it is Rational; the motions produced are not the effect of chance, 
and all the harmony and beauty of the visible world are a proof of 
design. It followed from their general doctrines that the Soul (Wuxh) 
is corporeal, for they defined all things to be Body which produce 
anything or are produced. They argued thus; nothing that is with- 
out body sympathises with body, nor does body sympathise with 
that which is not body; but only body with body, The body and 
the soul sympathise, for they are both bodies. Death is the separation 
of the soul and the body. The Soul is a spirit (7vedua) that is born 
with us; consequently it is body, and it continues after death ; still it 
is perishable: but the Soul of all things, of which the souls of animals 
ave parts, is imperishable, As to the duration of the soul, there were 
different opinions; Cleanthes thought that all souls lasted to the 
general coifflagration ; Chrysippus thought the souls of the wise only 
lasted so long. 

The Ethical doctrines of the Stoics have attracted most attention, as 
exhibited in the lives of distinguished Greeks and Romans. To live 
according to nature was the basis of their Ethical system; but by this. 
it was not meant that a man should follow his own particular nature ; 
he must make his life conformable to the nature of the whole of 
things. This principle is the foundation of all morality; and it follows 
that morality is connected with philosophy. To know what is our 
relation to the whole of things, is to know what we ought to be and 
todo. This fundamental principle of the Stoics is indisputable, but its 
application is not always easy, nor did they all agree in their exposi- 
tion of it. Some things were good, some bad, and some indifferent ; 
the only good things were virtue, wisdom, justice, and temperance, 
and the like, The truly wise man possesses all knowledge; he is 
perfect and sufficient in himself; he despises all that subjects to its 
power the rest of mankind; he feels pain, but he is not conquered by 
it. But the morality of the Stoics, at least in the later periods, though 
it rested on a basis apparently so sound, permitted the wise man to 
do nearly everything that he liked. Sueh a system, it has been well 
observed, might do for the imaginary wise man of the Stoies; but it 
was not a system whose general adoption was compatible with the 
existence of any actual society. 

The subject of the Stoical sect is one of great extent. The Stoics, 
or the so-called Stoics, formed a sect that continued for four centuries, 
in which time the doctrines were subject to so much change that we 
often see little besides the name in which the professors of this sect 
agreed. Most of the works of the Stoical writers are lost. Two of 
them whose works remain, Epictetus and the emperor Marcus Aure- 
lius, if not the most genuine specimens of the Stoic school, are 
certainly two of the most worthy. , 

(Diogenes Laertius, Zeno; Ritter and Preller, Historia Philosoph. 
Greco-Roman. ; Aunntius; Epiornrus; and other articles in this 
work.) 

‘ZENO (Zfvwvr), emperor of the East, succeeded, in a.p. 474, the 
emperor Leo I. Thrax, or more correctly his own son Leo IL, the 
younger, as will appear below. Zeno was the son of Rusumblasdes, or 
Rousombladeosa, a noble Isaurian, and his original name was either 
Ariemesius, or perhaps Taradicodisus or Taradiscodiseus, or more pro- 
_ bably Trascalisseus. We know nothing about his earlier life, of which 

however detailed accounts were probably given in the works of Eusta- 
thius of Syria, which are lost, and those of Candidus, of which only 
some fragments are extant. We must suppose that he was a man of 
great influence, especially among his warlike countrymen the Isaurians, 
and well known at the court of Constantinople, for in a.p, 468 the 
emperor Leo Thrax gave him his daughter Ariadne in marriage, 
evidently for the purpose of securing his influence among the Isau- 
rians, whose assistance he wanted against the ambitious schemes of 
_his prime minister Aspar. 

On that oecasion the son of Rusumblasdes adopted the Greck name 
of Zeno, and was created by the emperor Patricius, and appointed 
commander of the imperial life-guard and commander-in-chief of the 
Greek army in Asia Minor. In 469 Zeno was consul with Flavius 
Marcianus, and he assisted the emperor in getting rid of Aspar, who 
was put to death in 471. Leo, being old and childless, wished to 
appoint Zeno his successor, but the people disliked Zeno on account of 
his ugliness, a reason which may —— insufficient in our days, but 
which was important among the Eastern nations, who have always 
liked and still like to be ruled by handsome kings, Leo consequently 
gave up his plan, and chose Leo, the son of Zeno and Ariadne, for his 
successor, in 473. The emperor Leo Thrax died early in the following 
year, 474, and Leo the younger succeeded him under the regency of 
his father, upon whom the title of Augustus was perhaps conferred by 
Leo Thrax; it may be that Zeno assumed that title on his own 
authority, but neither of these opinions has been well established. 
Assisted by the empress-dowager Verina, and probably also by her 
daughter and his wife Ariadne, Zeno succeeded in gaining the affec- 
tions of the people in some degree, and he consequently found no 
resistance when he contrived to be proclaimed emperor. His son, the 


young emperor Leo, put the imperial diadem on his head; but 
although Zeno became emperor, he was only the second in rank, as 
we may see in the laws issued by the two emperors, where Leo's 
name is always put before the name of his father: on some coins how- 
ever the name Zeno stands before Leo. Leo died towards the end of 
the same year, 474. Zeno, and even his mother Ariadne, an excellent 
woman, have been accused of having poisoned their son, but this 
charge, as well as some other stories concerning the death of Leo, seem 
to be mere calumnies invented by orthodox ecclesiastical writers who 
found fault with the heterodoxy of Zeno. ray 
Although Zeno met with no opposition in succeeding his son as sole 
emperor, he came to the throne under very difficult circumstai 
Descended from a great Isaurian family; supported by two brothers, 
Conon and Longinus, who were both enterprising, active, and ambi- 
tious ; surrounded by many other Isaurians, who looked to him : 
honours and power; and revered by the warlike inhabitants of I 
who were not of Greek descent; he had to experience that the vei 
circumstances which seemed to consolidate his strength, naan 
throne totter, and were so many causes of those rebellions and other 
public calamities by which his reign was marked as one of the most 
disastrous for the dignity and grandeur of the Eastern empire. When 
Zeno became emperor, the Isaurians came into power: 


were the consequence, and this was followed by revenge, cruelty, and 
rapacity; general discontent and weakness in the government; arro- 
gance and threats on the part of foreign barbarians, the conquest of 
Italy by the East-Goths, and the foundation of a new Western empire 
by Theodoric the Great. In short, the reign of Zeno was a crisis in 
the history of the East. As the details of this reign are far from 
being sufficiently clear, we shall only give a sketch of the most remark- 
able events. 5) WG 


Zeno was scarcely established on the throne when he lost it by a | 


rebellion of Basiliscus, the brother of the empress-dowager Verina, 
both of whom conspired against the new emperor when they saw that 
their influence was checked by the increasing power of the brothers 
and other Isaurian friends of Zeno. The rebellion broke out so sud- 
denly (475) that Zeno fled to Isauria without making any resistante, 
and Basiliscus was proclaimed emperor. Zeno, being joined by 
Ariadne, prepared to oppose Illus, a general of Basiliseus, who ad- 
vanced upon Isauria, and defeated Zeno, who retired into a castle 
called Constantinople. Illus was going to lay siege to it, when he 
was informed that there was great want of union among the adherents 
of Basiliscus, and that the people in general disliked the new emperor 
on account of his cowardly or treacherous conduct in the unfortunate 
expedition against the Vandals of Carthage, in-468. Upon this Illus 
proposed to Zeno to support him with his army; the proposition was 
accepted with great joy, and Zeno and Illus marched to Constanti- 
nople. Near Nicwa they- met with Armatius, or Harmacius, the 
nephew of Basiliscus, who offered no resistance to Zeno, by whom he 
was apparently bribed, and the usurper was soon besieged in Constan- 
tinople by Zeno. The city was taken by surprise, and Basiliseus was 
made prisoner, and starved to death in a tower in Cappadocia, Zeno 
was re-established, and in order to reward Harmacius, he made him 
commander-in-chief of the army, presented him with large estates, and 
conferred upon his son Basiliscus the younger the dignity of Cesar, 
which was equivalent to making him his successor. It seems th 

Zeno did not act voluntarily in this affair, but that Harmacius de- 
manded the Cxsarship for his son, as the prize of his defection from 
the usurper Basiliscus. Harmacius became so arrogant, that Zeno 
resolved to get rid of him. Assisted by Illus, he sueceeded in 
Harmacius, who was put to death, and his son Basiliscus was 
after having been deprived of his dignity as Caesar. Illus now aequired 
great influence over the emperor, which he soon abused, and he not 
only insulted the empress Ariadne, but conspired against her life, 
Illus, being deposed from his rank as prime minister, fled to Asia and 
revolted against Zeno: his fate is told below. During the time that 
Illus was in power several other rebellions broke out, Theodorie, 
surnamed Strabus, an adherent of Basiliscus, retired after the fall of 
the usurper into Thrace, collected a considerable force, and 
the environs of Constantinople. The emperor, unable to subdue 
bought peace from him, in 478; but Theodorie soon forgot his oath, 
united himself with Theodoric the Goth, who afterwards conquered 
Italy, and the emperor would perbaps have lest his throne but for the 
death of Theodoric Strabus, which took place in 481. As to Theo- 
doric the Goth, Zeno soothed his anger by creating him consul, and 
finally stimulated or allowed him to. conquer Italy. [Tmmoporire THE 
Great.) After peace had been concluded with Theodoric Strabus, in 
478, another most dangerous revolt broke out under Mareian, the son 
of Anthemius, emperor of the West, and the grandson of the Emperor 
Marcian, who had married Leontia, the sister of the Empress Verina. 
Marcian intended to depose Zeno, and he took Constantinople by 
surprise, but he was surprised in his turn by Illus, and after a 
desperate fight fled for refuge to a church. He was taken out by 
force, his head was shaven, and he was banished to a monas at 
Cesarea.. But he eseaped, caused fresh troubles, and was exiled to 
the castle of Papyrus in Isauria, or perhaps to Tarsus in Cilicia. The 
third great revolt was that of Illus, who, as already observed, had 


ce arose 
jealousy among the Greeks, and dissatisfaction among those who had 
helped him to the throne; intrigue, revolts, rebellion, and civil war 


4 

| 

| 
aah 
q 


a ee 


I a 


i i ll Oe ee i 


925 ZENOBIA, SEPTIMIA. 


ZENOBIA, SEPTIMIA. 926 


insulted the Empress Ariadne, and escaped being put to death by 
flying to Asia, where he placed himself at the head of an army of 
70,000 men.. The patrician Leontius, who was sent by Zeno against 
Illus, betrayed the emperor and joined the rebel, Longinus, the 
brother of Zeno, took the field against both, but he was defeated, and 
probably made prisoner, for soon afterwards he was found in the 
camp of the rebels acting in concert with Illus and Leontius, The 
rebels then laid siege to the castle of Papyrus, where the Empress- 
dowager Verina was confined on account of her dangerous intrigues, 
and the castle having been taken, Verina also joined the rebels, and as 


they intended to put Leontius on the throne, she adorned him with 


the diadem, and he was received as emperor at Antioch, in 484. Zeno 


now despatched a fresh army against the rebels,.which was com- 


manded by John the Hunchback and John the Scythian, two generals 
10 have often been confounded, but who were two different persons. 
defeated the rebels in 488, who took refuge in the fortress of 
‘apyrus, which the imperial generals hastened to surround with a 
superior force. At last the fortress capitulated; Illus and Leontius 
were made prisoners and put to death, and the empire was thus 
delivered from the greatest enemies of public order. Zeno died in 
the month of April 491, and his suecessor was an officer of the im- 
perial palace guard (Silentiarii), Anastasius I., surnamed Silentiarius, 
who married Ariadne, the widow of Zeno, It is said that Zeno died 
under strange circumstances, but the accounts of his death are very 
contradictory. If we believe Zonaras and Cedrenus, Zeno was beheaded 
in his bed while asleep; or he died in consequence.of a debauch; or 
was buried alive while insensible in a fit of apoplexy; and Ariadne 
was the author of his death. It happens however that some ecclesias- 
tical writers, Theophanes, Evagrius, and Theodorus Lector, who make 
the worst of Zeno whenever they find an opportunity, do not mention 
a violent death, which, if true, would have served their purpose by 
throwing disgrace upon the memory of the emperor. The truth seems 
to be that Zeno died of apoplexy. Zeno’s character was somewliat 
like that of his predecessor Leo J. Thrax, but he was his inferior in 
every respect, in good as well as bad qualities: he was cruel, especially 
in the latter period of his reign, but less cruel than Leo; he was often 
overpowered by anger, but he never fell into such frightful fits of 
passion as Leo; he sometimes did honourable things for honout’s sake, 
but less frequently and with less dignity and generosity. In short he 
was the shadow of Leo, without his energetic character, intelligence, 
and knowledge. Zeno did not understand the art of government; he 
was as vain as a woman, and his constant endeavours to be admired 
as oe great made him ridiculous in the eyes of the witty 
Greeks. 


(Agathias, iv. ; Evagrius, ii. 15, &c., iii,; Cedrenus, p. 351, &e., ed. 


Paris; Zonaras, vol. ii, p. 51, &c, ed. Paris; Candidus, p. 18, ed. Paris; 
Theophanes, p. 96, &c., ed. Paris; Procopius, Bell. Vandat. i. 7; De 
Adif. Justiniani, tii. 1.; Bell. Goth, i. 1, ii, 6; Jornandes, De Regno- 
rum Suecess., pp. 58-61; De Rebus Gothicis, pp. 139-141, ed. Linden- 
brog ; Suidas, sub voc, Zijywr.) 

ZENO’BIA. (ZevoBla, on the coins ZnvoBia), SEPTIMIA, was the 
daughter of Amrou, an Arab chief, who possessed the southern part of 
Mesopotamia, By her first husband Zenobia had a son named Atheno- 
dorus Waballath. Her second husband was Septimius Odenathus, 

Odenathus was of Palmyra, a flourishing city included within the 
limits of the Roman empire, and dignified with the title of Metropolis 
Colonia, He was at the head of some tribes who belonged to that part 
of the Syrian desert which surrounds Palmyra. His Roman name, 
Septimius, indicates some connection with the empire, and it is inge- 
niously conjectured by St. Martin that the origin of this connection 
and of the adoption of the name Septimius by the family of Odenathus 
must be traced to the time of the emperor Septimius Severus. The 
name of the father of Odenathus was Septimius Airanes Waballath, 
and Odenathus had by his first wife a son named Septimius Orodes, or 
Herodes, as Trebellius Pollio calls him. Septimius Severus married 
Julia Domna, a Syrian woman of Emesa, and this circumstance, com- 
bined with his long residence in Syria, renders it, probable that a con- 
nection was formed between the emperor Severus and the family of 
Odenathus, who, as usual in such cases, would adopt the name of their 
Roman patron. In aD. 244, after the assassination of the younger 
Gordian, Philip, called the Arabian, was proclaimed emperor, and on 
leaving Syria for Rome he entrusted the government of Syria to his 
brother Priseus. The bad administration of Priscus caused a rebellion 
in Syria, and Jotapianus, a descendant of the royal house which had 
reigned at or possessed Emesa, was proclaimed emperor. Jotapianus 
‘was defeated by the imperial troops and lost his life, but Philip was 
assassinated before the news could reach him, Other usurpers arose 
in Syria, but Palmyra preserved its independence. In the year 251 
Septimius Airanes was prince of Palmyra, and his son Odenathus was 
general. Onthe death of Airanes, Odenathus succeeded to the princi- 
pality of Palmyra. The year of the death of Airanes is not certain, 
but it was before 256. In 256, Mariades, whom Trebellius Pollio calls 
Cyriades, left Antioch with a large sum of money, and betook himself 
to Sapor, king of Persia. He persuaded Sapor and Odenathus to an 
invasion of Syria, in which Antioch was taken. Miriades was pro- 
claimed Cesar. He enjoyed his dignity for about a year, having been 
assassinated, according to Trebellius Pollio, while Valerian was on his 
march to the Persian war. It was Sapor’s design to anticipate Valerian 


by invading Syria, but he was defeated near Emesa, and on his retreat 
he was annoyed and robbed by his old ally Odenathus. But after the 
surrender of Valerian to Sapor, Odenathus sent costly presents to the 
Persian king, in order to conciliate him: the presents were rejected 
with contempt, and Odenathus was commanded to come in person. 
The prince of Palmyra disregarded the command, and while the Roman 
troops were retreating on all sides in the confusion which followed the 
capture of Valerian, he alone opposed the progress cf the Persian arms. 
The Persians had entered both Syria and Cilicia, and Sapor was at 
Antioch. _Odenathus, at the head of the Arabs of the desert, and 
some few Romans who had joined him, attempted to cut off the retreat 
of Sapor, in which he was aided by Balista, the Roman general, who 
made a diversion in Cilicia. His wife Zenobia also accompanied him 
in this campaign... Sapor at last commenced his retreat; but at the 
assage of the Euphrates he sustained a defeat and lost much of his 
aggage. He was followed by Odenathus through Mesopotamia, again 
defeated, and pursued to Ctesiphon on the Tigris, his capital. If Ode- 
nathus besieged Ctesiphon, it appears that it was unsuccessfully. 

About this time Odenathus assumed the kingly title, and it is pro- 
bable that he was considered emperor of the East. Gallienus, the son 
of Valerian, who became emperor upon his father's capture, in 260, 
was too indolent to attempt to maintain his authority. The Roman 
army in Syria and Egypt proclaimed Macrianus emperor, who asso- 
ciated with himself in the empire his two sons, Quietus and Macrianus, 
Quietus was left in Syria. The new emperor marched through Asia, 
and advanced as far as Illyricum, where he was opposed: by Aureolus, 
who had also risen against Gallienus, and totally defeated. Upon this 
Aureolus was received by Gallienus into partnership in the empire, 
and he forthwith marched to the East to crush the partisans of Macri- 
anus. Odenathus, seeing what turn things had taken, entered Syria, 
upon which Balista, who had quarrelled with Quietus, murdered him 
and delivered up to Odenathus the town of Emesa, in which Quietus 
and Balista were then besieged. Soon afterwards Balista proclaimed 
himself emperor, but he was defeated by Odenathus and lost his life. 
About this time probably (4.D. 263) Odenathus was associated by 
Gallienus in the empire, and received the title of Augustus. A coin 
also was struck in his honour, on which were represented the Persians 
taken captive. Odenathus now undertook a second war against the 
Persians, to avenge the cause of Valerian: he made many prisoners, 
whom he sent to Gallienus, and the slothful emperor enjoyed a triumph 
which was earned by the bravery of anuther. 
Ctesiphon, but without any result. On reaching Ctesiphon he marched 
into Cappadocia to oppose the Scythians, who were ravaging that part 
of Asia Minor. Odenathus was assassinated at Emesa in Syria with 
his son Orodes, by a relation named Meonius, in 267, but the conspira- 
tors were put to death by the soldiers of Odenathus, and his wife 
Zenobia succeeded to his power. 

The events of the life of Odenathus are confusedly told, yet the main 
facts may probably be received as true. He was a brave and active 
soldier, and if he had lived longer he might perhaps have seated him- 
self on the throne of the Roman Cexsars. There are no medals of 
Odenathus. He left by Zenobia two sons, Herennius and Timolaus. 

Zenobia, after the death of her husband, governed Palmyra till she 
was taken prison by Aurelian. It is said that she invested with the 
purple her son Waballath, or Athenodorus Waballath, and to him are 
attributed certain extant medals which bear the Greek legend of 
Athenodorus. The power of Zenobia extended from the Euphrates 
to the Mediterranean and the borders of Egypt. According to Zosi- 
mus, an army of Palmyrenes and Syrians under Zabdas, a general of 
Zenobia, invaded Egypt in the reign of Claudius, and got possession 
of the country. (Compare ‘Claudius,’ by Trebellius Pollio, ¢. 11.) 
Palmyra, in the Syrian desert, was her residence, a city then the 
centre of a great commerce, and which was adorned with magnificent 
buildings, the remains of which are still more striking from their con- 
trast with the desolation around them. Zenobia maintained herself 
against Gallienus, and also during the reign of his successor Claudius, 
who was occupied with his Gothic wars; but the accession of Aure- 
lian (A.D. 270) once more placed a soldier at the head of the empire. 
Zenobia was defeated by Aurelian, Palmyra was taken, and the Syrian 
queen appeared in chains in the triumph of the emperor, as an 
Egyptian queen, Arsinoe, once before had appeared in the triumphal 
procession of the dictator Cesar. [AURELIAN.] Zosimus indeed says 
that she died on her way to Rome; but the narrative of Trebellius 
Pollio appears too particular to be false, He says that after the 
triumph Aurelian gave her a residence at Tibur, which went by the 
name of Zenobia at the time when Pollio wrote. 

The habits and person of this warrior queen are described by 
Trebellius Pollio. She lived in great state, like the kings of Persia. 
When she harangued her soldiers she wore a helmet: her dress had 
a purple border with jewels hanging from the fringe; her vest was 
fastened round the waist with a clasp, and her arms were sometimes 
bare. Her complexion was rather dark, her eyes black and piercing ; 
her teeth were as white as pearls, and her voice clear and like a man’s. 
She knew when to be liberal, though her general character was frugal. 
She rarely rode in a chariot, but often on horseback. Sometimes she 
would march several miles on foot with her soldiers. Her habits were 
sober, but she would sometimes drink with her generals. Besides her 
native tongue, Syriac, she was well acquainted with Greek, and spoke 


Odenathus again besieged’ 


‘ 


ZENODORUS. 


927 


923 


ZEUXIS. 


the Egyptian language to perfection. Her Greek secretary was Longi- 
nus, |Lonernus.}) Such was the woman whose ambition, it is said, 
led her to aspire to overthrow the Roman empire in the West. Her 
history is imperfectly known, but the main facts appear to be as well 
ascertained as other contemporary events. 

There are coins of Zenobia with the Greek inscription err. ZnvoBia 
eB. (Septimia Zenobia Augusta); and one coin has Zenob. Aug. 
(Zenobia Augusta) in Roman characters. On the reverse of one of 
her coins is the inscription Avr. K. AvpyAiavos (Autocrator Cassar 
Aurelianus). 4 ? 

(Zosimus, i. 89-59 ; Zonaras, xii. 27; Historie Auguste Seriptores ; 
Biog. Univ., art. *Odenath, by St.-Martin, and ‘ Zénobie ; Rasche, 
Lexic. Rei Numarie ; Eckhel, Doctrina Num. Vet., vii. 490, &e.) 

ZENODO’RUS, a Greek sculptor, supposed by Thiersch to be a 
native of Massilia, from having first practised his art in Gaul, where 
he made an enormous colossal statue of Mercury, which occupied him 
ten years. He was called to Rome by Nero, in order to make a 
bronze statue of that emperor of far greater dimensions than any pre- 
vious work. One account says it was 110 feet high, another 120, 
(Pliny, ‘ Hist. Nat.,’ xxxiv. 18; Suet. ‘ Ner.,’ 31.) This statue, which 
was set up in front of the Golden House, was afterwards re-dedicated 
as a statue of the Sun by Vespasian : its subsequent history is related 
by Thiersch (*Epochen,’ 307, &c.). Zenodorus, though successful in 
casting his great bronze works, appears from the statement of Pliny to 
have been deficient in the higher and more refined technicalities of the 
sculptor’s art. Zenodorus seems to have been equally famed for his 
skill in silver chasing, and the sculpture of small works in metal, as for 
his colossal statues. The date of his death is not recorded. 

ZENO’DOTUS (Znvddor0s) cf Ephesus, a celebrated Greek gramma- 
rian. According to Suidas and Eudocia, he was a pupil of the 
grammarian Philetas, and lived at Alexandria in the reign of Ptolemy, 
the son of Lagus, whom however he must have survived, as his most 
active period belongs to the reign of his successor Ptolemy Philadel- 
phus, about B.c. 280. Zenodotus was the first chief librarian at 
Alexandria, and was succeeded in this office by Callimachus. He is 
also said to have instructed the sons of the first Ptolemy. With 
Zenodotus there begins a new era in the history of grammatical and 
critical studies, both of which he treated according to the principle 
of analogy. He was the first Alexandrine critic who made a new 
edition (Aidp@wors) of the Homeric poems, which is frequently referred 
to by Eustathius, the Venetian Scholia, and other grammarians. His 
edition of Homer and the later one of Aristarchus were held in the 
highest esteem by the ancients. This undertaking led him to a careful 
study of the Homeric language, and its comparison with that of later 
times. The signification of words and phrases appears to have much 
engaged his attention, and the fruits of his studies in this respect 
were deposited in his Glossary (TA@ooa) and his dictionary of foreign 
or barbarous phrases (Adies €@vixal; Scholiast ad ‘Apollon. Rhod.,’ ii. 
1005; ad ‘ Theoerit. Idyll.,’ v. 2; Athenzeus, i., p.12; vil, p. 327; xi, 
p. 478; Galen, ‘Glossar. Hippocrat.,’ s. v. wé(at and méAra). Athenzeus 
(x. p. 412, and iii, p. 96) mentions two other works of Zenodotus, one 
called ’Em:rouat, and the other ‘Ioropucd& Gmrouynuoveduara, although 
these works may possibly belong to a later grammarian, Zenodotus, 
who lived after the time of Aristarchus, and censured this critic for 
his bold dealings with the Homeric poems. Suidas attributes to this 
latter Zenodotus several works, of. which however nothing except the 
titles is known. (Fabricius, Biblioth. Grec., i, p. 362, &c.; Wolf, 
Prolegomena ad Hom., p. 199, &c.; Hefiter, De Zenodoto ejusque 
Studiis Homericis, 4to, Brandenburg, 1839 ; Grafenhan, Geschichte der 
Philologie, i., p. 388, &c., 330.) 

ZEPHANI’AH, or SOPHONT’AS, one of the twelve minor Hebrew 
prophets, was the son of Cushi, the son of Gedaliah, the son of Ama- 
riah, the son of Hizkiah, and prophesied in the reign of Josiah, king 
of Judah (chap. i. 1). The period of that king’s reign to which 
Zephaniah must be referred seems to be determined with tolerable 
exactness by the book itself, which describes the Jewish state as par- 
tially but not entirely reformed from the worship of Baal, and from 
other corruptions of religion (i. 3-5). Now, in the Second Book of 
Chronicles (xxxiii. 4-7) the reign of Josiah is divided into three 
periods: during the first, which extended to the twelfth year of his 
reign, he tolerated idolatry; during the second, from the twelfth to 
the eighteenth year, he instituted a partial reformation; but in the 
eighteenth year he commenced a thorough restoration of the Mosaic 
institutions, in which he persevered till the end of his reign. It is 
evidently to the second of these periods, which extended from the year 
B.C. 630 to 624, that the prophecies of Zephaniah must be referred. 
This date is confirmed by the prophecy (ii. 18-15) of the destruction of 
Nineveh, fulfilled in the year B.c. 625. Zephaniah was contemporary 
with Jeremiah during the first part of Jeremiah’s ministry. 

The prophecy of Zephaniah is a prediction of the judgments about 
to fall on the Jews and other nations. The first chapter contains a 
prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem, the desolation of the land 
of Judah, and the captivity of the people. The second chapter opens 
with an exhortation to repentance, and then denounces the destruction 
of the Philistines, of Moab and Ammon, of Cush and Assyria, as the 
enemies of the people of God, with hints of the restoration of the 
Jews, The third chapter recounts the sins of Judah, and promises the 
restoration and prosperity of Israel and Judah, 


The style of Zephaniah is poetical, “but there is nothing,” says. 


Bishop Lowth, “ very striking or uncommon either in the arrangement 
of his matter or the complexion of his style.” 

(E. F. C. Rosenmiiller, Scholia in Vet. Test., Prowm in Zeph.; the 
‘Introductions’ of Eichhorn, Jahn, De Wette, and Horne.) 

ZEPHYRI’NUS, a native of Rome, succeeded Victor I. as bishop of 
the Christian Congregation of that city, during the reign of the Empe- 
ror Septimius Severus. We have no authentic records of his life, nor 
of his alleged martyrdom. He died about a.p. 202, and was succeeded 
by Calixtus I. 

ZEUXIS, one of the most celebrated painters of antiquity and the 
greatest of his time, was born at one of the ancient cities named 
Heraclea, between Bc. 460 and B.c. 450. He was instructed by Demo- 
philus of Himera or Neseas of Thasos. Little or nothing is known 
about them. Pliny fixes the time of Zeuxis at B.c. 400; but he can 
scarcely have been born later than 3.¢. 450, as he was at the height of 
his reputation during the reign of Archelaus, king of Macedon, which 
was from B.¢. 413 until B.c. 399 ; and Harduin and others are therefore 
probably incorrect in fixing upon Heraclea in Lucania, in Italy, as the 
birth-place of Zeuxis; for that city was not founded until after the 
destruction of Siris, B.c. 433. (Diodorus Siculus, xii.,.c. 6; Strabo, 
p: 264.) From the complaint of Apollodorus, who lived at Athens, 
Zeuxis must also have been early in that city ; and he was most likely 
a native of one of the Heracleas in Greece, and, from his connection 
with Archelaus, probably Heraclea Lyncestis in Macedonia, Harduin 
supposed Heraclea in Lucania to be the birth-place of Zeuxis, from the 
circumstance of his being commissioned to paint a picture by the Cro- 
toniats—a very insufficient reason. Zeuxis, when he had made himself 
rich by his profession, and must accordingly have been somewhat 
advanced in years, gave away some of his works, and Archelaus was 
then living, for he presented a picture of the god Pan to that king. 
Zeuxis lived also some time at Ephesus, and Tzetzes, an indifferent 
authority, calls him a native of that place. 

Lucian terms Zeuxis the greatest painter of his time: he was imme- 
diately preceded by Apollodorus of Athens, whom he surpassed; and 
he was immediately followed by Parrhasius of Ephesus, who surpassed 
him. The peculiar excellence of Zeuxis is defined by many ancient 
writers: he drew well and in a grand style, and the beauty and 
grandeur of his forms were so predominant, that he was said by Aris- 
totle to have failed in expressing mind. Aristotle adds that he was 
in this respect much surpassed by Polygnotus of Thasos, who preceded 
him about half a century. Quintilian says that Zeuxis followed 
Homer, who loved powerful ‘forms even in women; he likewise 
notices his excellence in light and shade. Cicero also speaks of the 
fine forms of Zeuxis, That he was excellent in light and shade and 
colour is evident from the complaint of Apollodorus, that Zeuxis 
had robbed him of his art: effective colouring and light and shade 
were the peculiar excellences of Apollodorus. With these excellences 
Zeuxis combined a dramatic effect of composition, and he was dis- 
tinguished also, according to Lucian, by a peculiar choice of subject ; 
for he seldom or never, says Lucian, exerted his powers upon such 
vulgar or hackneyed subjects as gods, heroes, or battles; but he 
always selected something new and unattempted, and when he had 
chosen a subject he laboured his utmost to render it a masterpiece. 
Lucian instances, as an example, a picture of a family of Centaurs, of 
which he saw a copy at Athens, and which excited his wonder from 
its extraordinary excellence. The original was lost at sea on its passage 
to Rome, whither it was sent by Sulla. Lucian describes it as follows : 
“On a grass-plot of the most glossy verdure lies the Centauress, with 
the whole equine part of her stretched on the ground, the hind feet 
extending backwards, while the upper female part is gently raised and 
reclining on one elbow. But the fore feet are not equally extended, 
as if she lay on her side; yet one seems to rest on the knee, haying 
the hoof bent backward, whereas the other is lifted up and pawing the 
ground, as horses are wont to do when they are going to spring up. 
Of her two young, one she holds in her arms to give it the breast, the 
other lies under her sucking like a foal. On an elevation behind her 
is seen a Centaur, who appears to be her mate, but is only visible to 
the half of the horse; he looks down upon her with a complacent 


smile, holding up in one hand the whelp of a lion, as if jocosely to 


frighten his little ones with it. .... In the male Centaur all is fierce 
and terrific : his shaggy mane-like hair, his rough body, his broad and 
brawny shoulders, and the countenance, though smiling, yet wild and 
savage: in short, everything bears the character of these compound 
beings. The Centauress, on the other hand, as far as she is brutal, 
resembles the finest mare of the Thessalian breed which is yet 
untamed and has never been mounted; by the other moiety she is a 
woman of consummate beauty, excepting only in the ears, which have 
somewhat of the satyr shape. The blending however of the human 
and the animal natures is so artificial, and the transition of one to the 
other so imperceptible, or rather they so gently lose themselves in one 
another, that it is impossible to discern where the one ceases and the 
other begins. Nor in my mind was it less admirable that the new- 
born young ones, notwithstanding their tender age, have somewhat 
wild and fierce in their aspect, and that mixture of infantine timidity 
and curiosity with which they look up at the whelp, while at the same 
time they continue eagerly sucking, and cling as close as they can to 


| the mother” (Tooke’s Translation). Pliny notices several pictures by 


=. 


a 


A imi gem nes al aca lial allie a tel, 


eC. ee, ae 
SS. We 


ve 


poh & 


i es 


PASS 


. for the city of Croton, 


name woven in letters of gold on the border. 


_ show that he had no want of penetration. 


929 ZEUXIS, 


ZHUKOVSKY, VASILY ANDREEVICH. 930 


Zeuxis, but his most celebrated work was his Helen, which he painted 
It was in the painter’s own opinion a perfect 
work, and he inscribed upon the pannel, according to Valerius Maxi- 
mus, the three lines of Homer, thus rendered by Pope :— 
** No wonder such celestial charms 

For nine long years have set the world in arms! 

What winning graces! what majestic mien! 

She moves a goddess, and she looks a queen.” 

3 § liad,’ iii., 156-158. 
This picture, for which, says Cicero, the citizens of Croton allowed 


_ Zeuxis to select five of their most beautiful virgins as his models, was 
dedicated in the temple of Juno Lacinia at Croton. 


®lian says that Zeuxis exhibited this picture at so much a head, 
and made a great deal of money by the exhibition, and that it 
acquired the name of The Prostitute in consequence. It was a very 
famous work in after-times, and painters apparently travelled to 
Croton to see it, Stobaeus relates that the celebrated Nicomachus of 
Thebes, hearing some person remark that he perceived nothing extra- 
ordinary in the picture, observed —“ Take my eyes, and you will see a 
goddess.” There wes in Pliny’s time a picture of Helen by Zeuxis, in 
the Portico of Philip at Rome. Probably a greater work by Zeuxis, 
though less celebrated than his Helen, was his picture which he pre- 
sented to the Agrigentines, of the infant Hercules strangling the ser- 
pent sent by Juno to destroy him, in the presence of his panic-struck 
mother Alcmena and of Amphitryon. Other famous works by him 


_ were—Jupiter in the midst of the assembly of the Gods; Penelope 


bewailing the absence of her husband; Menelaus mourning over the 
fate of Agamemnon; a Marsyas bound, in the temple of Concord at 
Rome in Pliny’s time; an Athlete, under which he wrote the line— 
“Tt is easier to find fault than to imitate,’—which, according to Plu- 
tarch, Apollodorus wrote upon some of his pictures; and a Cupid 
crowned with roses, which was in the temple of Venus at Athens. 
This Cupid is noticed by Aristophanes in the comedy of the ‘ Achar- 
nenses,’ but the painter’s name is not mentioned; it is however 
ascribed by the scholiast to Zeuxis. As this comedy was acted as 
early as the third year of the 88th Olympiad (s.c. 426), Sillig has con- 
cluded that it is an error of the scholiast to ascribe the picture in 
question to Zeuxis, as he cannot have painted it so soon; but from 
what has been said above it is pretty evident that Zeuxis was a man of 
mature years in B.C. 426, and, as we have seen, he had amassed a 
fortune within twenty-seven years of this date, for he presented a 
picture of Pan to Archelaus, who died in 3.c. 899. Zeuxis had pre- 
viously executed several works for Archelaus in his palace at Pella, for 
which the king, says Allian, paid him 400 mine, 1625/., according to 
Hussey: this, though a smal! sum compared with what was paid to 
some of the painters of the Alexandrine period and later, was pro- 
bably at the time comparatively a very large one. The time and 
place of Zeuxis’s death are unknown, but, as Sillig has observed, he 
must have died, and probably some years, before the second year of 
the 106th Olympiad (z.c. 355), the year in which Isocrates delivered 
his oration sep! ’Avridéccws (on the exchange of property), in which he 
praises Zeuxis, for, according to the Greek custom, he would not have 
done it had the painter been still living. Festus (sub voce. ‘ Pictor’) 
relates, from Verrius, that he died through laughing excessively at the 
picture of an old woman which he had made, but this is probably a 
mere fiction: there is no other notice of such a disaster. 

Zeuxis is represented as having been very proud of his reputation 
and ostentatious of his wealth; he used to wear a mantle with his 
To balance this weak- 
ness there are two or three anecdotes of an opposite character, which 
Plutarch relates a story, 
that upon an occasion when in his company a painter of the name of 
Agatharchus boasted of the great facility and rapidity with which he 
painted, Zeuxis quietly remarked, that he took a long time to. paint 
anything. And lian records how he reproved a certain Megabyzus, 
a high priest of Diana at Ephesus, who during a visit to the painter 
conversed so very ignorantly about pictures, that some lads who were 
grinding colours were forced to laugh, upon which Zeuxis observed to 
him—* As long as you were silent, these boys were admiring you, 
wondering at your rich attire, and the number of your servants; but 
now that you have ventured to discourse about the arts, of which you 


-have no knowledge, they are laughing at you.” Plutarch relates this 


story of Apelles and Megabyzus, and Pliny relates it of Apelles and 
Alexander. Zeuxis, probably while at Ephesus, entered into a contest 
with Parrhasius ; Zeuxis painted some grapes which are said to have 
deceived birds, but Parrhasius painted a curtain which deceived 
Zeuxis himself, who accordingly confessed himself beaten. Zeuxis 
also painted a boy carrying some grapes, which likewise deceived the 
birds, but in this instance, to the dissatisfaction of the painter, who 
observed, that if the boy had been as well painted as the grapes the 
birds would have feared'to approach them. Though these stories in 
themselves are valueless, the fact that such stories should have been 
circulated in ancient times is of considerable interest, as it shows that 
the ancients believed that exact imitation could be accomplished in 
colours, a result they could only have arrived at by the evidence of 
their senses; yet they do not appear to have estimated such pro- 
ductions at more than their due value, whidh is evident from the fact 
that there is scarcely a passage in ancient authors in which mere 
BIOG, DIV, VOL. VI, 


beauty of execution and exact fidelity of imitation are praised, if we 
except one or two original expressions of Pliny, who is the least 
critical of all the ancient writers when speaking of the arts. 

Cicero states that Zeuxis used only four colours, but this is probably 
an error, or he may mean in his carnations, in which four are all that 
are necessary. The same writer makes also the following remark :— 
that the works of Zeuxis, of Aglaophon, and of Apelles are in different 
styles, yet they are all three perfect in their respective styles. Zeuxis 
painted also pictures in white or mere chiaroscuro, that is, in light and 
shade, what the Greeks termed monochroms (uovoxpéuara), that is, in 
one colour. 

It is remarkable that Pausanias does not mention the name of 
Zeuxis, and we may infer from this that Zeuxis painted easel pictures 
only, or upon tabule, wooden pannels (zivaxes), which, from their 
perishable nature and facility of removal, are very easily lost. The 
more eminent a painter therefore, the greater is the risk that his 
works will perish, as they are better worth removal, Few of the 
great painters of Greece painted upon walls: Apelles never did, and 
there is reason to believe that the works of Polygnotus at Delphi were 
painted upon pannels, which were inserted in the walls; on this subject 
see Raoul Rochette, ‘Sur Emploi de la Peinture,’ &c. 

(Pliny, Hist. Nat. xxxv. 9, 36; Lucian, Zeuxis or Antiochus; Quin- 
tilian, xii. 10, 3; Cicero, De Invent., ii. 1; Brutus, 18; De Orat. iii. 7 ; 
Valerius Maximus, iii. 7, 3; Adlian, ii, 2; iv. 12; xiv. 17 and 47; 
Tzetzes, Chil., viii, 196 ; Stobaeus, Serm., 61; Plutarch, Peric., 13; De 
Glor. Athen., 2; Aristotle, Poet., 6.) 

ZHUKOVSKY, VASILY ANDREEVICH, a Russian poet of the 
first order of eminence, was born at the village of Mishensky, about 
two miles from the town of Bielev, in the government of Penza, on 
the 29th of January (0.8.) 1783. The year of his birth, which has often 
been differently stated, is given on his own authority as reported by 
Sneguirev. At avery early age he lost his father, and he was chiefly 
brought up by his mother, grandmother, and aunt, in a household 
which contained nine girls and three young women, and in which he 
was the only boy. At school he had at first the reputation of being 
lazy and very averse to dry studies, while at home his good looks and 
good nature made him a general favourite. He formed all the girls 
into a troop of actors, and at an early age got up a play of his own 
composition, ‘Camillus, or Rome Preserved,’ in which he acted the 
part of the hero with great applause from the neighbours who were 
invited to the performance. At the age of thirteen, on the subject 
of ‘Hope’ being given him for a theme at school, he produced an 
exercise of such excellence that it has been inserted as a classical 
piece in several Russian compilations of the nature of Enfield’s 
“Speaker” Atthe age of fourteen he began to appear in print by 
contributing to one of the Moscow periodicals under the signature of 
the ‘ Hermit of the Mountain;? and it was remarked, that while gay 
and lively in society, he was disposed in composition to be mild and 
meditative. His time appears to have been divided for some years 
between different towns in winter and his native village in summer ; 
and while at the schools of Tula and Moscow he gradually won his 
way into notice and distinction by proficiency in study. At the village 
of Mishensky, which was picturesquely situated on the banks of the 
Oka, he cultivated his talents for poetry, music, and drawing, for all 
of which he had a natural gift. 

It was at a house within sight of the church and churchyard of 
Mishensky that he wrote his translation of Gray’s ‘ Elegy in a Country 
Churchyard,’ the first production of his pen which made an impres- 
sion on the public. Gray’s ‘ Elegy’ is at this moment the most univer- 
sally known and universally popular piece of poetry in existence. 
Bowring, in 1821, mentioned that he had seen a collection of more 
than one-hundred and fifty different versions, and among them 
Zhukovsky’s is undoubtedly one of the best. This fortunate trans- 
lation, which was published in 1802, was, like Moore’s ‘ Anacreon,’ 
the foundation of a fame which encircled its author for a succeed- 
ing half-century. It first appeared in the ‘Viestnik Evropui,’ or 
European Intelligencer, then the leading periodical of Russia, of which 
Karamzin, its most popular author, was at the time the editor, and it 
introduced him at once to the friendship of Karamzin and Dmitriev, 
and a position amid the best literary society of Moscow. A few years 
later, in 1808 and 1809, Zhukovsky became himself the editor of the 
same periodical, but he soon relinquished the employment, though he 
had now devoted himself to a literary career. In the war of 1812, 
both Karamzin and Zhukovsky were anxious to bear arms, but the 
bodily infirmities of Karamzin would not allow him to sit on horse- 
back, and Zhukovsky took leave of him at Moscow at the house of 
Count Rostopchin, where he was residing, to hasten to the ranks of 
the army. As a lieutenant of the Moscow volunteers, Zhukovsky 
fought at the great battle of Borodino, and he took an effective part 
in the subsequent memorable campaign, both as a bard and a soldier. 
It was in the former capacity however that he most distinguished 
himself; his‘ Minstrel in the Russian Camp,’ a series of songs on 
the war, created unbounded enthusiasm among the soldiery, were 
struck off at a military printing-press, and circulated and sung 
throughout the army. The poet however, unaccustomed to the 
fatigues of a military life, was attacked by fever, and obliged to quit 
the army early in 1813. The Empress mother, Maria Theodorovna, 


who had been delighted with his poems, was eect see and 
) 


931 ZHUKOVSKY, VASILY ANDREEVICH. 


ZIEGLER, FRIEDRICH WILHELM. 932 


to reward the ‘ Minstrel ;’ a splendid edition of the work was issued 
with a poetical epistle to herself, and Zhukovsky, who had been 
decorated with the order of St. Anne for his military services, received 
from the Emperor Alexander a pension for life of 4000 rubles. For 
some years afterwards his time was chiefly spent at court at St. Peters- 
burg in the enjoyment of imperial favour, of great success in society, 
and till the rise of the Russian Byron, Pushkin, of the reputation of 
being the first poet of Russia, t ‘ 
His most popular productions in this his most productive period 
were a number of ballads, a species of composition which he was the 
first to introduce into Russian literature. His first poem of the class, 
‘Ziudmilla, an imitation ef Biirger’s ‘Lenora,’ startled the Russian 
public into a burst of enthusiastic admiration. He afterwards treated 
the same subject with variations in a poom entitled ‘Svietlana,’ which 
is still considered his masterpiece, and finally he translated ‘ Lenora’ 
itself simply from the German into Russian. Almost all his sub- 
sequent ballads are founded on foreign originals, and constitute what 
some of the Russian critics are fond of calling the “inimitable imita- 
tions” of Zhukovsky. . But how far the imitation extends it is not 
always easy to ascertain, for in most cases he takes the liberty of 
. suppressing the name of the original author. |The reader who is 
acquainted with the poetical literature of England, France, and 
Germany, in looking through the ballads of Zhukovsky, is continually 
meeting with old faces and old favourites, From Southey alone, the 
Russian poet borrowed, without the mention of Southey’s name, 
‘Queen Orraca and the Five Martyrs of Morocco,’ ‘Rudiger,’ ‘The 
Old Woman of Berkeley,’ and ‘ Lord William,’ the title of the last of 
which he altered to ‘ Varvik,’ the nearest approach which the Russian 
alphabet allows to the English ‘Warwick.’ Still more strangely, 
while the ballad of ‘Smailholm Tower’ is acknowledged to be taken 
from Walter Scott, a tolerably close version of the condemnation of 
Constance, from the second canto of ‘Marmion’ is presented to the 
reader of Zhukovsky’s works, as ‘The Trial Underground, a fragment 
of an unfinished poem.’ This mode of proceeding is not confined to 
Zhukovsky, and seems to be in accordance with the Russian code of 
literary ethics : as, though the native critics must be aware of the fact, 
we have never seen it mentioned with blame. How aptit is to mislead, 
may be shown from the example of Merimée, who, in his life of the 
false Demetrius, speaks of the beauty of the Pelish ladies as being so 
remarkable as to. have drawn from the Russian Byron, Pushkin, the 
very curious compliment paid to it in the ballad of ‘The Three Sons 
of Bodrys,’ quite unaware that the ballad in question has been trans- 
ferred without acknowledgment from the Polish Byron, Mickiewicz, 
Leaving their origin out of view, the ballads of Zhukovsky are 
beautiful specimens of animated narrative, and in his own poem of 
‘Svietlana’ (which has been translated into English by Bowring) 
there is a power and force of what is now called ‘word-painting,’ 
which have rarely been equalled in any language, In his first romantic 
poem, ‘Ruslan and Liudmilla,’ Pushkin showed a similar power, and 
Zhukovsky sent a present of his works to him with the inscription, 
“From the conquered teacher to his conquering pupil.” They became 
intimate friends, and around them were grouped for several years all 
the most eminent literary society of St. Petersburg, which was in the 
habit of meeting at Zhukovsky’s house, ~All shades of opinion were 
represented. Zhukovsky, a favourite at court, was a contributor to 
‘The Polar Star, edited by Bestuzev and Ruilyeev, who afterwards 
perished on the gallows and in exile for their conspiracy against the 
Emperor Nicolas. Zhukovsky became more and more connected 
with the imperial family. When the Grand-Duke Nicolas married a 
Prussian princess, he was selected to teach her the Russian language; 
and when Nicolas became emperor, and the offspring of the marriage, 
- the hereditary prince, was of an age to require a preceptor, Zhukovsky 
was appointed to the office. This withdrew him for some years from 
the active pursuit of literature, but enabled him in various ways to 
act efficiently for the benefit of his literary brethren. It was by the 
influence of Zhukovsky that Hertzen [HEeRrtzENn] was allowed to return 
from exile, and that Mickiewicz [M1cxrmwicz], the Polish poet, ob- 
tained permission to quit Russia, which he had entered as a captive. 
He too bad probably a hand in obtaining a pension for Pushkin’s 
widow after the decease of her husband, whose death he witnessed 
* and described, but in a letter singularly jejune and destitute of his 
usual fire. It was remarked that, by a singular coincidence, the death 
of Pushkin took place on Ghukovsky’s birthday, the 29th of January 
(0.8.). When the hereditary prince, now (1857) the Emperor Alex- 
ander II., made extensive tours through the vast empire which was to 
fall under his sceptre, Zhukovsky acted as his Mentor, and he also 
accompanied him in his visit to Germany, Italy, and England. The 
poet had made tours in Germany and Italy before, but to England 
this was his first visit ; and though some of his poems had been trans- 
lated by Bowring, and noticed by Byron, it is probable that the 
“Minstrel in the Russian camp” was recognised by few under the 
disguise of the French appellation on his cards— M. de Joukoffsky.” 
On his visit. to the British Museum however, one of the assistant- 
librarians, who was a student of Russian literature, had the satisfaction 
of showing him an edition of his works which had just been added to 
the national library. Shortly after the prince’s return to Russia, his 
preceptor’s functions ceased. Zhukovsky’s health had for some time 
been indifferent, and he transferred his residence to Germany, a country 


e] 


=i 
, ° _—, 
whe 


of which it is said he was “ passionately fond,” to have the benefit of 
the waters. He had always been a panegyrist and an admirer of domes- 
tie life, but he had now attained his fifty-ninth year and was still a 
bachelor. The Hereditary Prince in his European tour had been in 
search of a wife, and on the 28th of April 1841 he married the present 
Empress of Russia, the daughter of the grand-duke of Hesse. Within 
a month the preceptor followed the pupil’s example. On the 2ist 6f 
May 1841, at a little Russian chapel on a hill near Canstadt, which was 
erected over the remains of a Russian princess who had been queen of 
Wirtemburg, he was married to a beautiful girl of the name of Reutern, _ 
the daughter of an old officer and native of one of the Baltic provinces. 
Six years afterwards he wrote to a friend in raptures at the 7 stice 
happiness which had fallen to his portion, He chiefly passed his time 
at a retreat in the neighbourhood of Dusseldorf, and amused himself 
with translating into Russian poems by Ferduci and Homer. Two ~ 
children, both boys, were the offspring of the marriage, and his sa 
delight was in superintending their education, which he wished that 
his life might be prolonged to his eightieth year to see completed. 
Neither this wish nor that of revisiting Russia was fulfilled. the - 
12th of April 1852, Zhukovsky died, calm and resigned, at oe 
the bosom of his family. His remains were afterwards removed to his 
native country. (“ke 
An edition of Zhukovsky’s works which appeared at St. Petersburg 
in 1835-37, fills eight octavo volumes, and three additional ones were — 
published under the title of ‘New Poems’ in 1849, Only one of 
these eleven volumes consists of prose, the remainder is all either 
original or translated poetry. Among the shay the palm is ally — 
given to a tale entitled ‘ Marina Roshcha’ (Mary’s Grove), the name of — 
a favourite resort of the inhabitants of Moscow, which ever since the 
tale appeared has been regarded in the light of a classic spot. There 
are some fragments of a diary kept by Zhukovsky on his tours in Italy 3 
and Germany, which are singularly vivid, but nothing apparently has 
been published from his pen of his visit to England. Among the — 
poems ‘ Svietlana’ is the masterpiece, and he is often called by his 
admirers ‘ the poet of Svietlana.’ One of the volumes is occupied with 
a poetic version of La, Motte Fouqué’s ‘ Undine,’ and most of another 
with a version of Schiller’s ‘Maid of Orleans,’ in both of which Zhu- — 
kovsky is thought by Russian critics to have surpassed the originals, 
His later works consist almost entirely of translations, one from the 
‘Shah-Nameh,’ into a metre not in the least resembling that of Fer- 
duci, the other from the ‘Odyssey’ of Homer, into hexameters. Zhu- fi 
kovsky informs us in the preface that, not understanding a word of 
Greek, he had composed his version by means of an interlineary trans- 
lation of the original which a German professor (Grashof) had been — 
kind enough to make for his exclusive benefit, and candidly admits — 
that to the question “if he has succeeded” he can make no answer, 
as he can be no fair judge, not being able to make a comparison. — 
Those who can make it are not likely to be satisfied with his success. — 
Considering the genius of Zhukovsky, and the great resemblance — 
in many points of the Greek and Russian languages, the difference - 
between the exquisite beauty of the original and the unpleasing — 
abruptness in the copy is very striking. In addition to the trans- — 
lations from the English that have been already noticed, it may be 
mentioned that Zhukovsky also rendered into Russian the ‘Alex- — 
ander’s Feast’ of Dryden, Moore’s ‘ Paradise and the Peri,’ which he 
entitled ‘The Angel and the Peri, Byron's ‘Prisoner of Chillon,’ 
and numerous other pieces, some of which bear the names of the — 
original authors. Ana 
A critical essay on Zhukovsky by Sneguirev appeared in the ‘ Mosk- 
vitianin’ for 1853, and has been separately published. It is npa- 
nied by a minute chronology of all his writings by Tikhonravov. = 
ZIEGLER, FRIEDRICH WILHELM, a popular actor and dramatic 
writer of Germany, was born at Brunswick in 1760. His fine person, 
and his great talents as an actor, made the Emperor Joseph II, anxious — 
to gain him for the court theatre of Vienna, and the Emperor at his 
own expense sent him to the best German theatres for the purpose of 
studying and cultivating his art, and afterwards appointed him tothe — 
court theatre of Vienna, where Ziegler remained for peril : 
years. Not satisfied with his fame as an actor, Ziegler endeavour 
to obtain the higher reputation of a dramatic author. His attempts 
were crowned with success, and he became one of the most pipana r, 
and prolific writers of the day. His plays, wai | comedies and 
tragedies, and partly domestic dramas, were performed at Vienna and — 
in nearly all the towns of Southern Germany, where they enjoyed a — 
popularity equal to those of Iffland and Kotzebue. Invention, situa- 
tion, and effect were generally happily combined in his plays, and he 
showed a great practical knowledge of theatrical affairs: owing to 
these circumstances, some of his plays, such as ‘Parteienwuth’ and 
‘ Die vier Temperamente,’ still continue to be acted, although the lan- 
guage is rather obsolete. In 1798, when Kotzebue went to Vienna as’ 


the successor of Alxinger, Ziegler and some others formed so strong 
an opposition to him, that he quitted Vienna after two years, As — 
Ziegler was in the service of the imperial court, he frequently _ 
allowed himself to be made use of for political purposes, partly — 

by writing plays with certain political tendencies, and partly by 

‘hints and livsielas A collection of his dramatic works, in 5 vols. 
3vo, appeared at Vienna, 1791-94. A more complete collection of — 
Ziegler’s ‘Simmtliche Dramatische Werke,’ in 13 vols. 8vo, appeared — 


933 ZIMMERMANN, JOHANN GEORG VON. 


ZIMMERMANN, JOHANN GEORG VON. 934 


at Vienna in 1824, He made also several attempts as a critic on the 
dramatic and other arts, but his success was small, as he possessed 
little philosophical knowledge, whence his ssthetical works are very 
confused and almost worthless. His principal works of this kind are 
+1, ‘ Zergliederung von Hamlet’s Character nach Psychologischen und 
. Physiologischen Grundsiitzen,’ 8vo, Wien, 1803; 2, ‘ Die Dramatische 
Schauspielkunst in ihrem ganzen Umfange,’ 8vo, Wien, 1821; 3, ‘ Der 
innere und aiissere Mensch in Beziehung auf die bildenden Kiinste, 
besonders auf die Schauspielkunst,’ 2 vols. 8vo, Wien, 1825. In the 
year 1821 Ziegler left the stage, and had a pension given to him for 

e remainder of his life, which he spent principally at Presburg. He 


_ died at Vienna, on the 21st of September 1827. 


ZIMMERMANN, JOHANN GEORG VON, was born on the 8th of 
December 1728, at Brugg, a small town in the German part of the 
canton of Bern. He belonged to a distinguished family, especially on 
his mother’s side, and as she was a native of the French part of the 
eanton of Bern, Zimmermann acquired from his childhood an equal 
facility in speaking French and German. His education was con- 
ducted in the house of his parents up to his fourteenth year, when he 
was sent to Bern to prepare himself for the university. In 1747 he 
went to Gottingen, to study medicine, and there he was received by 
Haller, his countryman, in the kindest manner. Haller took him into 
his house, and assisted him in his studies, which were not confined to 
subjects directly bearing upon the medical profession; no branch of 
knowledge was without interest for him. He also learned English, 
and gained an intimate acquaintance with English literature, for 
which he had always a great partiality. His love of study was so 
great, that he scarcely ever took any relaxation; and he thus laid the 
foundation of an illness by which he suffered all through life. He 
was aware of his over-exertion, and he wrote from Gdttingen to a 
friend: “I here lead the life of a man who is desirous to live even 
after his death.” The first symptoms of melancholy appeared while 
he was yet at Gottingen. When he took his degree of doctor of 
medicine, he wrote a ‘ Dissertatio Physiologica de Irritabilitate’ (4to, 
Gottingen, 1751), by which he acquired considerable reputation as a 
theoretical writer on medicine, both on account of the independence 
of his judgment and the soundness of his observations: this little 
work is still held in great esteem. It was translated into Italian by 
P. Gian Vincenzo Petrini (8vo, Naples,1756). After leaving Gottingen 
he spent a few months in Holland and at Paris, and then returned, in 
1752, to Bern, where he commenced his career as a physician with 
great success. Shortly after, Haller went from Giéttingen to see his 
friends at Bern, and also for the recovery of his health, and his native 
place had such charms for him, that he resolved not to return to 
Hanover. Zimmermann was commissioned to fetch Haller’s family 
from Gottingen, and not long after he married a relation of Haller. 

About this time the place of public physician (Stadt physicus), at 
Brugg became vacant, and Zimmermann, who had already acquired 
great reputation as a physician, was prevailed upon to accept it on 
account of the property and family connections he had at Brugg. 
His practice here increased to an extraordinary degree, for no physi- 
cian surpassed him in the quick perception of the nature of disease 
and the remedies required to remove it; patients came from all parts 
of Switzerland and from the adjoining countries to have his advice, 
But although he loved his profession, independent of all pecuniary 
advantages, he could not confine himself to the mere practice of his 
art, and he was unable to forego the pleasure of devoting himself to 
more extensive studies. His numerous professional engagements, and 
the fact that at Brugg he had no friends of congenial pursuits, pro- 
duced great mental discontent. Zimmermann, with all his philosophy, 
had not the power of accommodating himself to circumstances, and 
while he was ever longing for the intellectual enjoyments of Got- 
tingen and Bern, he refused, like a spoiled child, to enjoy the pleasures 
which he might have had. His hypochondrfae disposition was thus 
gradually developed, and increased his love of solitude. He avoided 
society as much as he could, and spent all his leisure hours in reading, 
although he discharged his professional and official duties with the 
utmost strictness, and treated his patients with a kindness and cheer- 
fulness which often produced the best effects. It is remarkable that 
even during the strongest attacks of hypochondriasis Zimmermann 
appeared a different man as soon as he entered the sick-room. In 
1756 he published his first essay on Solitude, which is only a sketch 
of his celebrated work with the same title, which he published about 
thirty years later. About the same time he formed the plan of his 
work on Experience in Medicine (‘ Von der Erfahrung in der Arznei- 
kunst’), which however did not appear till 1763 (2 vols. 8vo, Ziirich). 
A second edition, in one volume, appeared at Ziirich, 8vo, 1787. It 
is only a fragment; the author intended to add two more volumes, 
but he did not carry out his plan. This work possesses the greatest 
interest for the student of medicine and every one else. The philo- 
sophical spirit which pervades it, the amount of experience, and the 
sound rules as to the manner in which a medical man should ob- 
serve, render it still a work of great utility. It has been trans- 
lated into French and Italian, A third work was on National 
Pride (‘Yom Nationalstolze,’ 8vo, Ziirich, 1758; the sixth edition 
appeared at Ziirich, 8vo, 1789), the popularity of which is attested 
by the numerous editions and translations into French, Russian, 
English, and other languages. Zimmermann examines national pride 


in all its manifestations, investigates its causes and results, with a 
clearness and freedom from prejudice which are seldom found in 
similar works. The whole is interwoven with pleasing anecdotes. 
There are two English translations of it; the first bears the title, 
‘Essay on National Pride; translated from the German,’ 12mo, Lon- 
don, 1771, but is much interpolated and altered. The second, by 
8. H. Wileocke (8vo, London, 1797), is much better, and contains a 
memoir of Zimmermann. 

Although his residence at Brugg was the source of discontent and 
melancholy, yet it is the period during which Zimmermann produced 
his best works, or at least, as in the case of that on Solitude, formed 
the plan of them. These works spread his fame far and wide, and 
the most distinguished learned and scientific societies of Europe 
honoured his merits by making hima member. This celebrity, in- 
stead of making him happier, only increased his desire to have a 
wider sphere of action. Many honourable offers were made to him 
from various parts of Europe, but he had not resolution enough to 
accept them, or they were not to his taste. At last however the post 
of physician to his Britannic majesty at Hanover, and the title of aulie 
councillor, were offered to him, through the influence of a friend. 
This offer seemed to satisfy his wishes, and in 1768 he went to 
Hanover. But the world in which he now lived was as little calcu- 
lated to give him happiness as that at Brugg. The jealousy of one of 
his colleagues, and the pretensions of persons of quality and their 
unreasonable demands on his time, caused him not a little annoyance 
and vexatien; he felt his own dignity too much, and had too just a 
notion of the duties of a physician to determine: the number of his 
visits and their duration by anything else than the nature of the ill- 
ness. Those who were offended by such straightforward conduct, did 
not of course contribute to make his residence at Hanover pleasant. 
But notwithstanding this, there was at that time no physician in all 
Northern Germany who enjoyed such unbounded confidence as Zim- 
mermann, and the patients who consulted him were so numerous 
that he had little time left to indulge in his hypochondriac disposition. 
During this period of uninterrupted activity in his profession, his only 
recreation consisted in occasional visits to several of the courts of 
Germany, where his advice was requested, and to the waters of Pyr- 
mont. Butinashort time he found that Pyrmont, instead of being 
a place of rest for him, was a much more busy place than Hanover, 
for persons flocked thither from all parts when it was known that he 
was there. In 1770 his wife died, and he himself was at the time 
suffering from internal disease, which induced him the year after to 


“go to Berlin for the purpose of submitting to a dangerous operation. 


He remained at Berlin for five months, and made the acquaintance 
and friendship of the most distinguished men of that capital. He 
was also introduced to Frederic the Great, with whom he had a long 
conversation. On his return to Hanover he felt in good spirits, and 
as he had got rid of the cause of his bodily suffering, he looked 
forward to happiness. But his great professional exertions brought 
on a return of his old complaint, and in its train came his former 
depression of spirits, which was increased by the death of his daughter, 
He had now only a son left, and this son was constantly in ill-health, 
which at length terminated in a state of perfect insensibility. The 
friends of Zimmermann, who pitied his situation, prevailed upon him 
to marry again: the influence which his young wife exercised over 
him promised to be most beneficial: he seemed to revive, he became 
cheerful, and took pleasure in social circles. The fruit of this happy 
period was the working out and completion of his great work on 
Solitude (‘Ueber die Einsamkeit’), in 4 vols. 8vo, which appeared 
at Leipzig in 1784 and 1785, This work, the best and most matured of 
all his productions, was soon translated into alk the languages of 
Europe, and became as popular in foreign countries as in Germany. 
The ,English translation, under the title ‘Solitude considered with 
respect to its influence on the Mind and the Heart’ (8vo, London, 
1791), was made from the French translation of J. B, Mercier, which 
however is only an abridgment of the original; for Mercier had not 
the boldness to lay before the French public all the important dis- 
closures which the original work contains. This book on Solitude 
procured the author friends and admirers in all parts of Europe. 
The Empress Catherine II. of Russia sent him a magnificent present, 
accompanied by a letter in which she thanked him for the salutary 
prescriptions he had given to mankind; she also invited him to St. 
Petersburg and offered him the post of her private physician. On his 
declining to go to Russia, the empress requested him to recommend a 
number of young physicians who were willing to settle in her domi- 
nions. This request was readily complied with, and Zimmermann was 
knighted, and received the order of St. Wladimir as a reward. 

In 1786, when Frederic the Great was attacked by his last illness, 
he wrote two letters to Zimmermann to invite him to come to Pots- 
dam and give him his advice. On his arrival there, Zimmermann 
discovered that the king’s case was hopeless, and he refused to pre- 
scribe any powerful medicine. His visit to Potsdam was the turning 
point in his life: until then he had been the favourite of the public as 
a philosopher, a physician, and a highly gifted writer, but he now left 
the path in which he had earned his just laurels, and all he wrote 
after this time served rather to destroy than to increage his reputation. 
After his return from Potsdam he wrote two works’on Frederic the 
Great: ‘Ueber Friedrich den Grossen und meine Unterredung mit 


935 ZINGARELLI, NICOLO. 


ZINZENDORF, COUNT VON. 936 


ihm kurz vor seinem Tode’ 8vo, Leipzig 1788, and ‘Fragmente iiber 
Friedrich den Grossen,’ 3 vols. 8vo, Leipzig, 1790, which created the 
greatest. sensation in Germany, and involved the author in disputes 
which ended only with his life. These works pretend to give an 
account of the king, derived from sources to which no one had had 
access before. They contained attacks on men of unblemished 
character, and Zimmermann charged them with things which had no 
existence except in his own imagination, Truth itself seemed no 
longer to be sacred to him, and various calumnious reports respecting 
the private life of Frederic the Great and other eminent men were set 
forth as new discoveries, and that in so coarse a manner as to offend the 
good feeling of the public. The cause of this change in his conduct 
must be looked for in his discontented disposition, and the desire to 
shine in a new sphere for which he was not fitted—politics and con- 
temporary history. The peculiar state of his own mind prevented his 
gaining a clear perception of things, and made him see in the political 
changes of the time nothing but conspiracies to upset religion and all 
social order. The opposition he met with, especially on the part of 
the freethinker Dr. Bahrdt, and A. Hoffmann, only increased those 
feelings. He now devoted all his time to the combating of the 
monsters which his own imagination raised up, with the exception of 
two hours every day, which he gave to his patients, His diseased 
imagination represented to him Jacobins, Illuminati, and the promoters 
of improvements of every kind, as persons animated by the same evil 
spirit, and he denounced them all as criminals who ought to be put to 
death by the hangman. In order to secure the assistance of all 
governments against them, he drew up a memorial, which he sent to 
the Emperor Leopold, and which bore the following title: ‘ Ueber 
den Wahnwitz unseres Zeitalters und iiber die kriftigsten Hiilfsmittel 
gegen die Mordbrenner, die uns auffkliiren wollen, und gegen die 
Untergrabung und Vernichtung der Christlichen Religion und der 
Fiirstengewalt.’ It consisted of 370 quarto pages. The emperor 
intended to place it before the princes’ diet at Regensburg, and to 
call upon the princes of the empire to put an end to the proceedings 
of the Illuminati. But the death of the emperor, who had testified 
' his gratitude to Zimmermann by a handsome present, prevented this 
plan being carried into effect. Zimmermann however continued his 
exertions till the year 1794, when his physical as well as mental 
powers began to decline, and he was obliged to give up all his occupa- 
tions. His melancholy rose to a deplorable height. The French 
revolution was making rapid progress, and he fancied that the French 
were hunting him out and intending to put him to a cruel death as an 
aristocrat; he even thought of taking to flight, and as his physician 
believed that a change of place might be beneficial, Zimmermann went 
to Eutin in Holstein. But no means were of avail, and, after an 
absence of three months, he returned to Hanover in a worse condition 
than he had left it. His fear of his enemies was at last increased by 
the dread of poverty and starvation, a monomania which the most 
substantial proofs of the contrary were unable to destroy. Wherever 
he went he fancied that he was diffusing the miasma of the plague ; in 
short his mind was completely deranged, and after months of severe 
suffering, both real and imaginary, he died on the 7th of October 
1795, in the sixty-seventh year of his age. 

Zimmermann was one of the most remarkable men of the last 
century, both as a physician and a philosopher. He possessed an 
inexhaustible imagination, great sagacity and judgment, and most 
extensive knowledge not only of medicine, but also of philosophy, 
history, and the whole range of ancient and modern literature. The 
great works which he wrote previous to 1786 are masterly productions 
of their kind. During the latter period of bis life his nervous sensi- 
bility and his hypochondriac disposition had ruined his mental powers, 
and for all he did during that period he perhaps deserves more to be 
pitied than to be censured. Besides the works which we have already 
noticed, and a number of essays in literary and scientific journals, the 
following deserve to be mentioned :—1, ‘ Leben des Herrn von Haller,’ 
8vo, Ziirich, 1755; 2,°‘Vertheidigung Friedrichs des Grossen gegen 
den Grafen von Mirabeau,’ 8vo, Hanover, 1787; 3, ‘ Versuch in anmu- 
thigen und lehrreichen Erzihlungen, launigten Einfiillen und Philoso- 
phischen Remarquen iiber allerlei Gegenstiinde, 8vo, Gottingen, 1779: 
this is a collection of essays which Zimmermann had contributed from 
time to time to a Hanoverian periodical, and were published in one 
volume by an anonymous editor; 4, ‘ Zerstreute Blatter vermischten 
Inhalts,’ edited by a friend of Zimmermann after his death (8vo, 
1799); 5, ‘Die Zerstorung von Lissabon,’ 4to, Ziirich, 1756: this is 
an epic poem of no great value, which some friends of the author got 
published without his knowledge. 

The number of works on the life and writings of Zimmermann is 
very great; the following are the best among them: S. A. D. Tissot, 

Vie de M. Zimmermann, 8yo, Lausanne, 1797; J. E, Wichmann, J. @. 
Zimmermann’s Krankengeschichte, ein Biographisches Fragment, 8vo, 
Hanover, 1796: Zimmermann’s Verhiiltnisse mit der Kaiserin Oatha- 
rina Il, und mit dem Herrn. Weikard, d&c., 8vo, Bremen, 1803; 
Doring’s Zimmermann, in the Zeityenossen, third series, No. 6; Zim- 
arncens Briefe an einige seiner Freunde in der Schweiz, 8vo, Aarau, 

ZINGARELLI, NICOLO, a celebrated Italian composer, was born 
at Naples in 1752. After receiving a complete musical education from 

some of the greatest masters of that day, he betook himself to dra- 


matic composition, and produced several operas for the theatres of 
Naples, Milan, and Venice. He visited Paris in 1789, when his opera’ 
of ‘Antigone,’ of which the poem was written for him by Marmontel, 
was performed at the Académie Royale de Musique; but the storms 
of the Revolution drove him from France, and he returned to Italy. 
His operas were successful, but are now forgotten. Like ne hee \ 
Italian dramatic music of that day, they gave way to the more un 
style introduced by Rossini and his followers ; and moreover, Zinga- 
relli’s genius and inclination led him to the cultivation of sacred music, 
to the study of which, on his return to Italy, he entirely devoted him- 
self. He was elected maestro di capella in the cathedral of Milan, and 
on the death of Guglielmi in 1806 he succeeded that master in the — 
chapel of the Vatican. He remained at Rome till 1811, when, having he 
refused to comply with an order of the Emperor Napoleon to compose 
a Te Deum for the birth of the King of Rome, he was sent to Parisa 
prisoner under an escort of gendarmes. This strong measure,itseems, 
was taken without the sanction of the emperor, who ordered the com- 
poser to be immediately released, and compensation to be made him ~ 
for the injury he had suffered ; and Murat, then king of Naples, placed 
him at the head of the Conservatory of that city, then one of 
greatest schools of music in Europe. This office he continued to hold — 
till his death in 1837, Zingarelli’s sacred works consist of oratorios, 
cantatas, and masses. His principal oratorio, ‘La Distruzione di 
Gerusalemme,’ is a masterpiece of the grand and simple but profound a 
Italian style, which is now extinct; and its reproduction, by the con- -" 
ductors of ngs of our sacred concerts, wag be an at of , ste = 
and probably good policy. As the head of the great Neapolitan Con- 
servatory, Zingarelli was the instructor of several of the most eminent — 
composers of the day, and in particular of his countryman Costa, now 
a naturalised Englishman, whose noble oratorio, ‘ Eli, produced at the 7 
last Birmingham Festival, and since repeatedly performed at Exeter — 
Hall, does honour to the master under whom he studied. 
ZINGG, ADRIAN, a very clever Swiss draughtsman, etcher, and — 


ys 


avs 


+P) 


copper-plate engraver, was born at St. Gallen in 1734. His father was 
likewise an engraver, and he instructed his son in his art; but Adrian 
Zingg went early to Ziirich, and continued the study of engraving with 
Rudolph Holzhalb. He went afterwards to Bern in 1757, and became 
the pupil of Aberli, with whom he became an excellent draughtsman — 
and etcher of landscapes. In 1759 Zingg went with Aberli to Paris, — 
and there studied several years with J. G. Wille, for whom he engraved — 
many plates, by. which he established a reputation a3 an exellent - 
engraver. He was invited in 1766, while at Paris, by the Saxon — 
government to Dresden, where he was appointed engraver to the court, 
and professor of engraving in the academy of Dresden; he was li 
wise elected a member of the academies of Vienna and Berlin. He die 
at Dresden in 1816, according to Heller. ., 
Zingg’s works consist of some marine landscapes, many ons h 
Switzerland, some of the best landscapes in the Dresden Gallery, an 
several prints from his own drawings, principally in the vicinity of — 
Dresden. He engraved an excellent print of the celebrated picture of — 
the ‘Stag Hunt,’ by Ruysdael, in the Dresden Gallery; he has ved 
also after Both, J. Vernet, Vander Neer, Dietrich, Agricola, ‘Aber! ya 
Brand, and others. His plates after Dietrich are numerous, and he — 
Si igi a considerable number after his own designs, which he drew _ 
with a pen. U 
ZINZENDORF, .NICOLAUS LUDWIG, COUNT VON, the 
founder (or rather restorer) of the sect of the Moravian Brothers, or 
Herrnhuters, was the son of Count Georg Ludwig von ndorf, | 
chamberlain and state-minister of Augustus IL., elector of Saxony and. 
king of Poland. He was born on the 26thof May 1700. He losthis 
father at an early age. His mother made a second marriage with the — 


Pe 


=. 


Count Von Natzmer, a Prussian field-marshal; and young Zinzendorf : 
was educated under the care of his maternal grandmother, the widow 
of Baron von Gersdorf, a pious and learned lady, who wrote some — 
hymns and treatises on religious subjects, and corresponded in Latin — 
with several distinguished divines and scholars. This lady lived on 
her estate in Lusatia, where she was frequently visited by pious men: 
the celebrated Jacob Spener was her most intimate friend, and it was — 
the influence of this divine, who was considered the head of the ~ 
Pietists, which produced in the mind of young Zinzendorf that religious _ 
tendency which made him noticed when a mere child, and in later 
years led him to aim at reforming the Protestant faith. In 1710 — 
Zinzendorf was sent to the Paedagogium at Halle, which was then — 
directed by Francke, to whose particular care he was intrusted. In 
that school Zinzendorf remained six years, and as Pietism was the — 
ruling principle there also, he abandoned himself entirely to reli 
pursuits, and founded a mystical order among his fellow-pupils, w. 
he called Der Orden von Senfkorn, or the Order of the Grain of 
Mustard-seed, in allusion to the in St. Matthew (xiii. 31, 
His family however was not pleased with the theological occupati 
of a young nobleman, whom they wished to bring up as a statesmai 
and not for the church, which had been deserted by the Protesta 
nobility of Germany since the bishoprics and rich prebendaries 
been abolished by the zeal of the secular princes. “Zinzendorf 
accordingly sent to the university of Wittenberg (1716), where w 
spirit in religious matters quite opposite to the Pietism of Halle ; 
far from giving up his pursuits, he continued to hold religious m 


ings in his house and elsewhere, and resolved to take orders 


¥ 


a 


—_ 


eek a. lies aw 


y 7 er 


y 
1 


_ several of the gravest divines of his time. 
_ + that Zinzendorf led this equivocal course of life. 
_. Wittenberg he formed a lasting friendship with Frederick von Watte- 


937 ZINZENDORF, COUNT VON. 


ZINZENDORF, COUNT VON. 


933 


devote himself entirely to the church. It is however said that his 
life there presented a striking contrast with his principles; he was as 
often seen in gaming-houses as in conventicles; he dressed in the 
most fashionable style, and being possessed of great personal beauty, 
imagination, and vivacity, he became the favourite of women whose 
moral character was suspicious. It is said that he endeavoured to 
reclaim them to better principles, but it is also true that the doctrines 
which he afterwards preached presented a strange mixture of idealism 
and sensualism, and exposed him not only to vulgar slander, but to the 
reproach of a bad life and hypocrisy, with which he was charged by 
It was only for a short time 
During his stay at 


ville, a young patrician of Bern, who afterwards became the protector 
of the Moravians in Switzerland; and as early as 1715 he made the 
acquaintance of Ziegenbalg, the German missionary, on his return from 
the coast of Malabar, where he had been sent by the Danish govern- 
ment, Ziegenbalg was accompanied by a young native of Malabar, 


_ whom he had converted to Christianity ; and it is said that the sight 


of this proselyte inspired Zinzendorf with the idea of propagating 
the Christian religion among the heathens, a design which he never 
lost sight of, and which he ultimately carried into execution. 

In 1719 Zinzendorf left Wittenberg, and travelled to Holland and 
France, for the purpose of making the acquaintance of distinguished 
diyvines, His religious principles at that time were in accordance with 
the Confession of Augsburg: he was of course not yet a sectarian, 


___ and distinguished himself from his fellow-believers only by his greater 


zeal and more fervent piety. At Utrecht he was highly distinguished 
by the jurist Vitriarius and by Basnage, both of whom encouraged him 
to preach, which he did with the greatest success. From Holland he 
went to Paris, accompanied by his friend the count of Reuss-Ebers- 
dorf. Having been introduced to the nobility and at the court, he 
availed himself of the- opportunity, and endeavoured to convert them 
to the Lutheran Church, Onsome his sermons hada good effect, others 
styled him a Jansenist and Pietist; but to the majority he was an 
object of laughter and mockery. None however ventured to ridicule 
him to his face. Instead of an ordinary preacher of awkward manuers 
and uncouth Teutonic expressions, they saw a nobleman accustomed 
to frequent the most aristocratic societies, who spoke French elegantly, 
and who, notwithstanding his youth, showed so much talent, learning, 
and self-possession, that wherever he appeared he was an object of 
general attraction. He maintained serious discourses on religion in 
the midst of the most frivolous society in the world ; he was much 
noticed by the first men in Paris, and was frequently at the court of 
the Duke of Orleans, then regent of France. Lord Stair, the English 
ambassador at Paris, treated him with great respect. Father De la Tour, 
the general of the order of the Oratory, introduced him to the arch- 
bishop of Paris: the prelate and the count endeavoured to convert 
each other, but neither succeeded. From Paris Zinzendorf went to 
Switzerland, and thence returned to Saxony in 1721. Being now of age 
he was entrusted with the management of his extensive estates, and 
the elector of Saxony appointed him a member of his state council. 
The count however was seldom seen at its meetings, and he resigned 
his placein 1728, As early ‘as 1722 he married the sister of his friend 
the count of Reuss-Ebersdorf, and retired with her to his seat of Ber- 
thelsdorf in Upper Lusatia. One day a man called upon him, named 
Christian David, a carpenter from Moravia, who had travelled much : 
he belonged to the obscure sect of the Moravian Brothers, who pro- 
fessed the doctrines of John Huss in some remote corners of Moravia. 
David, who was a pious man, having informed the count of the oppres- 
sion under which they lived under the Austrian government, Zinzen- 
dorf invited him to settle on his estate, and to bring thither such of 
his friends as would prefer liberty of conscience in a foreign country 
to religious oppression at home. David accepted the proposal, and 
returned in the course of the summer of 1722, with three men, two 
women, and five children, to whom the count gave some land and a 
wooden house situated at the foot of the Hutberg, or ‘ pasture-hill.’ 
Such was the beginning of the celebrated colony of Herrnhut; for 
this name, which signifies ‘the lord’s guard,’ was given by Zinzendorf 
to the settlement in allusion to the double meaning of the word ‘ Hut,’ 
which signifies ‘guard,’ as well as ‘a place were flocks are guarded,’ 
that is, ‘a pasture-ground.’ The first settlers were so poor, that the 
countess presented them with some clothes and a milch cow, to 
prevent the children from starving; but they were industrioys and 
good people, and soon got into better circumstances. 

It was on this occasion that Zinzendorf first conceived the idea of 
forming a sect, and he published the principles of the new creed in 
several pamphlets, which sometimes contradict one another, but from 
which we may nevertheless see that he did not intend to separate 
from the Augsburg Confession. Hernhut was destined to become the 
centre of that sect, and he invited other Moravian brothers, whose 
religious principles seemed to him to correspond best with his own, to 
settle in the new colony, to which he gave his solemn benediction. 
He supported the settlers with great liberality, and he and his flock 
soon attracted the attention of Germany and other Protestant countries. 
The number of his adversaries increased with that of his followers : he 
was attacked publicly and privately; but he also received proofs of 
respect and esteem from the highest quarters : the emperor Charles VI. 


invited him to his court at Vienna, but Zinzendorf declined this 
honour as well as many others. Faithful to his plan of converting the 
heathen, Zinzendorf went to Copenhagen in 1731, for the purpose of 
inquiring into the state of the Danish missions in Greenland, and the 
East and West Indies; and he despatched several of his disciples as 
missionaries to those countries. This is the origin of the system of the 
Moravian missions which are now scattered over the world. The king 
of Denmark, Christian VL, rewarded his zeal with the Knight Cross of 
the Order of Dannebrog, which Zinzendorf accepted; but he sent it 
back five years afterwards. In 1734 Zinzendorf went to Stralsund for 
the purpose of being ordained a minister of the Lutheran Church. As 
his enemies were numerous, he adopted the name of Ludwig von 
Freideck, and engaged himself as tutor in the house of a merchant 
named Richter, After having been examined by the members of the 
consistory at Stralsund, he received ordination and preached in the 
chief church of that town. It is said that he became a tutor because 
he had devoted all his property to the establishment of his colony 
of Herrnhut, and wanted a livelihood; but this is scarcely credible, 
If he had lost his property, his devoted adherents would have sup- 
ported him ; or his brother-in-law, the count of Reuss-Ebersdorf, who 
was his sincere friend, would have supplied him with the necessary 
means. Besides, Zinzendorf continued to travel about the world ; and 
although he was often in temporary want of money, because he spent 
large sums at once, he was never obliged to give up his plans for want 
of funds. In 1735 he intended to go to Sweden, but on his arrival at 
Malmoe, he was ordered to leave the kingdom immediately. Upon 
this he attacked the king of Sweden, Frederick of Hesse-Cassel, in a 
pamphlet, of which he sent copies to the principal courts of Europe. 
This made him new enemies, and in 1736 he was banished from Saxony 
on the charge of having introduced novelties and preached dangerous 
principles in meetings of a suspicious character, which tended to 
weaken the authority of the government and to bring into contempt 
the services of religion as practised by the Protestant Church. Zin- 
zendorf took refuge with his brother-in-law, the Count of Reuss-Ebers- 
dorf, who was a sovereign member of the empire; and it was only in 
1747 that he was allowed to return into Saxony. In the same year, 
1786, he went to Holland, at the request of the princess-dowager of 
Orange, and founded the colony of s’ Heerendyk (the lord’s dyke), 
which was afterwards transferred to Zuyst. Thence he went to Livo- 
nia and Hsthland, caused the Bible to be translated into the Livonian 
and Esthonian languages, and established several Moravian colonies 
there. On his return he was invited to Berlin by the king of Prussia, 
Frederick William I., who had a very unfavourable opinion of Zinzen- 
dorf, whom he believed to be a vulgar fanatic; but no sooner was the 
count introduced to the king, and spoke to him with that gentle and 
noble persuasion which had always distinguished him, than the king 
changed his opinion. Their conversation lasted three days, and the 
king was so pleased with him that he promised to acknowledge him as 
bishop of the Moravians, if the count would be ordained. Zinzendorf 
having agreed to the proposal, the Reverend Jablonski, who held the 
office of the king’s first court preacher, ordained him bishop (May 
1737). The ordination of a bishop, by one who was not a bishop, was 
hardly in concordance with the canon law ; but as Luther had ordained 
a bishop (Amsdorf), although he himself was no bishop, the practice 
seemed to be justified ; and the ordination finally contributed to raise 
Zinzendorf in the opinion of the world, although, strange enough, the 
king of Prussia would not allow him to preach in public. 

About this time Zinzendorf was informed that he might return to 
Saxony if he would sign a paper declaring himself guilty of several 
charges which had been brought against him by slanderers, but he 
nobly refused to do so, and continued to live in exile. In the same 
year (1737) he went to London, and held private meetings in his 
house, which were attended by a great number of both pious and 
curious persons, and led to the establishment of a Moravian congrega- 
tion. Wesley received him with great kindness and esteem : and it is 
said that each of them tried to convert the other, but of course without 
effect. They were often engaged in discussions on religious subjects, 
and they argued particularly the question, whether men could attain 
perfection in this world, which Wesley affirmed, but Zinzendorf 
denied, 

From London Zinzendorf proceeded to the Danish colony of St. 
Thomas in the West Indies, and on his arrival there found that the 
Moravian missionaries who had been sent thither a few years before 
had been thrown into prison, and their chapels shut up by order of the 
local government. He succeeded in obtaining their liberty, and de- 
fended his and their cause with so much eloquence that the governor 
promised not to obstruct the religious services of the brotherhood. 
He now returned to Germany, and made a tour through Switzerland, 
where Vernet and other French writers and philosophers received him 
with a kind of respectful curiosity, but avoided any intimacy with 
him; and in 1742 he set out on his great tour to the British colonies 
in North America. He was accompanied by his daughter, who was 
then only sixteen. No sooner had he arrived in Pennsylvania than he 
was assailed by accusations of a disgusting and revolting description, 
which he supported with his usual calmness and forbearance. At Ger- 
mantown he performed divine service every Sunday, and made himself 
so popular that the inhabitants, who were mostly Germans, chose him 
their minister. He accepted the office with visible satisfaction, and 


939 ZINZENDORF, COUNT VON. 


_ZISKA. 940 


being afterwards obliged to continue his travels, wrote to Herrnhut, 
and caused one of the preachers there to proceed to America at his 
own expense, and to take his place as minister at Germantown. He 
also ordered a church to be built there at his own expense, for the use 
of thé Moravian congregation, who had hitherto assembled in a barn. 
At Philadelphia Zinzendorf delivered a Latin speech in presence of a 
numerous auditory, to whom he declared that he considered his title 
of count to be inconsistent with his holy functions, and that he would 
henceforth be called Von Thumstein, which was the name of one of 
this estates. The Quakers in Philadelphia acted very kindly towards 
him, and defended him warmly against his detractors; they used to call 
him ‘friend Louis.’ After having visited the Indians in the interior of 
the country, and founded the celebrated colony of Bethlehem, he 
returned to Europe (1743). ee 

During his absence the Moravian brothers in Livonia had endeavoured 
to establish their faith in an arbitrary manner in all the Lutheran 
churches of that country, and Zinzendorf was accused of having en- 
couraged them to such proceedings. However, so far was he from 
having had the slightest idea of propagating his creed by other means 
than those of reasonable persuasion, that he immediately proceeded to 
Russia in order to justify himself. On arriving at Riga he received an 
order from the Empress Elizabeth to leave the empire immediately, and 
he was put under a military escort, which accompanied him on his return 


as far as the Prussian frontier, and prevented him from holding any: 


communications with the inhabitants. A few years after this he was 
allowed to return to Saxony (1747). During his exile the brethren 
had increased in number and in wealth, and their good conduct and 
industry had made them many friends among people of rank, so that 
the government gradually treated them with less severity. Zinzen- 
dorf’s numerous and powerful friends also pleaded in his favour, and 
the government was finally fully persuaded of the reformer’s honesty 
by an offer of the brethren to buy the castle of Barby and its territory, 
which belong to the crown, but were of no use, as the castle was half 
in ruins and the soil barren, and for which the brethren offered to give 
one hundred and fifty thousand thalers (25,000/.), if they might be 
allowed to establish there a school of divinity. The Saxon govern- 
ment assented, full liberty of religion was granted to the brethren, 
and Zinzendorf returned to Herrnhut. 

In 1749 he went to England, and through the protection of Arch- 
bishop Potter, General Oglethorpe, and several other men of influence 
whose attachment to the Church could not be doubted, he obtained an 
act of parliament for the establishment of Moravian colonies and 
missions thoughout the British possessions in North America. He 
now set out for America to carry his plan into execution, and after an 
absence of some years returned to Herrnhut. His last great tour was 
in 1757, when he visited his friend Von Watteville at Montmirail, in 
the canton of Bern in Switzerland, whence he proceeded to Holland. 
He finally returned to his flock, and the Countess of Reuss, his wife, 
being then dead, he married Anne Nitschmann, the daughter of one of 
the first Moravians who had settled at Herrnhut, and who had for 
many years been superintendent of the spinsters at Herrnhut. Zin- 
zendorf passed the last years of his active life in perfect quiet and 
retirement at Herrnhut, and when he died, after a short illness, on the 
9th of May 1760, he was buried in the cemetery of that place; thirty- 
two Moravian preachers from all the countries in the world, some 
even from Greenland, bore his coffin, which was followed by two 
thousand brethren and a crowd of people of all ranks and confessions. 

Zinzendorf’s activity was unbounded, but he had excellent health, 
He wrote more than one hundred pamphlets, all directed to the pro- 
pagation of his creed, or to the defence of himself or his brethren. 
The following are some of them :—‘ Attici Wallfahrt durch die Welt’ 
(Atticus’ Travels through the Worl4), a description of his first tour to 
Holland and France; ‘Das gute Wort des Herrn’ (The Good Word 
of the Lord), a kind of catechism; ‘Die wahre Milch der Lehre 
Jesus’ (The true Milk of the Doctrine of Jesus); ‘Der Deutsche 
Socrates’ (The German Socrates), a periodical, &e. Many of them are 
anonymous. He also wrote a great number of hymns, which are in 
the song-books of the Moravians; they are of a remarkable mystical 
tendency; the versification is often harsh and the style broken, but 
they are well adapted to the organ and to singing in chorus. His 
writings may generally be characterised as a compound of beauty and 
tastelessness, of clearness arid mystical dimness, of deep thoughts and 
common-places wrapt up in grand words, There is another defect, 
but only in the earlier writings of Zinzendorf, which deserves censure, 
although the author made apology for it, and regretted his aberrations 
in his later and cooler years. This is the pious obscenity which 
poisons many of his hymns and sermons, and is particularly con- 
spicuous in such as treat of the mystical marriage of Christ with his 
bride the Church, and the unctions of the Holy Ghost as a spiritual 
mother. Most ofthis sermons were not published, nor even written 
by him, but by others who took short-hand notes of them which they 
afterwards caused to be printed. Zinzenddrf as a poet is the founder 
of a particular school of hymn-writers. 

(Varnhagen von Ense, Leben des Grafen N, von Zinzendorf, in the 
fifth volume of his ‘Denkmale ;’ this is the best biography of Zinzen- 
dorf; the author is considered to hold the first vate among German 
biographers ; Spangenberg, Leben des Grafen N. v. Zincendor 


from | 
which extracts have been published by Reichel and Duvernois ; Span- | 


genberg was one of the earliest friends and disciples of Zinzendorf, 
and his work is not impartial; an English abridgment of it was pub- _ 
lished under the title of ‘Memoirs of the Life of Count Zineenboehe 
Bishop of the Moravian Brethren,’ by Spangenberg, translated by 
Samuel Jackson, with an Introductory Essay by Latrobe, 8vo, London, __ 
1838 ; Miiller, Das Leben des Grafen N. von Zinzendorf, in the tied. 
volume of his ‘ Bekenntnisse beriihmter Manner,’ 5% 
ZISKA, or more correctly ZIZKA, OF TROCZNOW, JOHN, the 
celebrated leader of the Hussites, was born under an oak-tree in the — 
open fields, near the castle of Trocznow, in the circle of weis,in 
Bohemia, about 1360, or, as some say, about 1380. His father,the — 
lord of Trocznow, was a Bohemian noble of more credit than we (9 
John Zizka lost one eye at an early age, and hence it was said th 
was called Zizka, which would signify ‘one-eyed’ in the Bohe 
language. But this is a fiction; Zizka was the name of his fam 


+ 


and it does not signify one-eyed either in Bohemian or in Polish, At 
the age of twelve John Zizka was received among the pages of Wen- — 
eeslaus, king of Bohemia and emperor of Germany, and he became 
distinguished among his fellow-pages by his gloomy temper and his 

love of solitude. Disgusted with the trifling and capricious character 
of Wenceslaus, Zizka left the court, and sought his fortune abroad. 
For some time he served as a volunteer in the English army, : 
distinguished himself against the French. He afterwards went 
Poland, and commanded a body of the Bohemian and Moravian a 
iliaries of King Wladislaw II., Jagiello, in bis war against the Knigh 
of the Teutonic Order. The dreadful battle of Tannenberg (15th of — 
July 1410), in which the grand-master Ulrich von Jungingen was slain, 
with 40,000 knights and soldiers, was decided in favour of the mah 4 


ra 


by those auxiliaries, and John Zizka distinguished himself so much 
that King Wladislaw rewarded him with a chain of honour and other 
rich presents. The war being terminated by that battle, Zizkafought 
against the Turks in Hungary, and having again entered the English 
army, won fresh laurels at the battle of Azincourt (1415). After this 
he returned to Bohemia, and accepted a place as chamberlain at the 
court of King Wenceslaus, against his own inclination, and for reasons 
unknown. oe 

Zizka was an adherent of the doctrines of John Huss, and the fate 
of this reformer and his friend Jerome of Prague, who were burnt at 
Constance in 1415, was considered by him as an insult to his faith and — 
his country. His hatred of the Roman Catholic cl was increased 
when his favourite sister was seduced by a monk. He became con- 
spicuous among those Bohemian nobles who urged King Wenceslaus — 
to revenge the insult, and to protect the followers of Huss against the 
decisions of the’ synod of Constance, The king, seeing him one day 
from the window of his palace walking in a thoughtful mood, asked 
him what he was meditating about. “Upon the bl affront, 
answered Zizka, “which the Bohemians have suffered at Constance.” ~ 
“Tt is true,” replied the king, “that we have been insulted, but I fear 
it is neither in my nor in your power to revenge it. If you can do so, 
I give you my royal permission.” It is said that this circumstanc 
first inspired Zizka with the resolution of defending with his sw 
the religious liberties of his country. But Wenceslaus was a man 
so little steadiness and energy, that he was alarmed at his own resolves, — 
and his perplexity was augmented when he was informed that the - 
Bohemian nobles had resolved to take up arms in.defence of the 
dignity of his own person. Their leader was Nicholas of H cz, 
and Zizka was among them. They did not venture to appear before — 
the king though they acted with his permission. 


Zizka however 
persuaded them to follow him, and having been received by the king, 4 
spoke to this effect :—“ Sire, behold a body of your majesty’s faithful — 
subjects. We have brought our arms, as you commanded, Show us 
your enemies, and you shall acknowledge that our weapons can be in — 
no hands more useful to you than in those which hold them.” “Take 
your arms,” replied the king, after a moment's hesitation, “and use 
them properly.” Zizka’s conduct on this occasion recommended him 
to the confidence of his party. But the king’s energy was not real; 
he did not protect the followers of Huss; and the Roman Catholic 
party became still more insolent. On the 30th of July 1419, there ~ 
was a public ‘procession at Prague, and some quarrel ha broken 
out between the Roman Catholics and the Hussites, a Hussite priest — 
was wounded by a stone thrown by a Roman Catholic. The dis- 
content of the Hussites now burst out, and, as the government of the — 
town was in the hands of the Roman Catholics, they proceeded to — 
the town-hall, where the magistrates were assembled, and, led by 
Zizka, stormed it, and threw thirteen aldermen from the windows in io 
the court-yard, where they were torn in pieces by the mob, When — 
Wenceslaus was informed of it, he fell into a fit of ion and died. 
[Werncestaus.] This was the beginning of the Hussite war, the first — 
great religious contest that desolated Germany. Zizka was proclaimed — 
commander-in-chief by the Hussites, and he found no opposition to 
his authority. ace 
Sie ind king of Hungary and emperor of Germany. considered — 
himself as the lawful successor of his brother Wenceslaus in Bohemia; — 
but the Hussites, who knew the emperor’s character, and had not for- 
given him hig faithless conduct towards Huss, did not acknowledge his — 
title. They resolved to exclude him from the throne, they prepared — 
for resistance, and protected the doctrines of Huss throughout the — 
kingdom. In 1420 Mardin entered Bohemia at the head of 40,000 — 


ee 
te. 


941 ZISKA, 


ZOKGA, GEORG, 942 


men, and Pope Martin V. endeavoured to increase his adherents by 
preaching a crusade against the Hussites, - Encouraged by some 
advantages over Zizka, the emperor behaved with cruelty to the 
Hussite priests, who were burnt alive by his order wherever they fell 
into the hands of the Imperialists. But the party of the Hussites 
grew daily more dangerous, and Zizka not only disciplined their 
. troops, but secured them against sudden attacks by building fortresses 
in proper situations, His principal fortification was near Bechin, A 
short distance from this town the Moldau winds round a craggy hill, 
and forms a spacious peninsula, the neck of which is scarcely forty 
1 feet wide, and on that side only is the peninsula accessible. The hill 
was fortified with great skill, and a strong body of Hussites encamped 
_ there in tents; but the tents soon became houses, in the midst of 
_ which stood-the palace of Zizka. The name of the hill was Tabor, 
and hence the Hussites called themselves Taborites, by which name 
they afterwards distinguished themselves from some sects which 
sprung up among them, as the Calixtines, the Orebites, and the Orpha- 
nites. Zizka began his victories with the conquest of Prague, except 
the castle; and he took up a fortified position on Mount Wittkow in 
order to protect the town against Siegmund, who approached with 
30,000 men: Zizka had only 4000. When he was attacked, on the 
14th of July 1420, he not only drove the Imperialists back, but entirely 
routed them. That mountain is still called the Zizka-mountain. The 
-emperor having been obliged to retreat from Bohemia, Zizka laid siege 
to the castle of Prague, which he took in 1421, and there found four 
cannons, the first which he had in his army. But he soon increased 
his artillery, and he procured a great quantity of small fire-arms, which 
had hitherto been very little used in warfare. He gave fire-arms to a 
considerable part of his army, and from this time they gradually 
became the common arms of the infantry of all nations. Zizka was 
also very deficient in cavalry, and, in order to protect his infantry 
ainst the attacks of cavalry, he invented, or rather introduced again, 
an ancient kind of barricado, made of baggage-carts, which is known 
by the German name of ‘ Wagenburg’ (cart-fort). These were not 
the sole inventions of Zizka, whose name will ever be conspicuous, 
“not only as a general, but also as an engineer. In the same year 
(1421) Zizka lost his other eye by an arrow during the siege of the 
castle of Raby; but he nevertheless continued to head his troops, in 
front of whom he was carried in a cart, and he arranged the order of 
battle according to the description of the ground made by his officers. 
Tn this difficult business he was greatly supported by his excellent 
memory and his complete geographical knowledge of Bohemia. 
Meanwhile Siegmund had levied a new army in Germany, the flower 
of which was a body of 15,000 Hungarian horse, who were considered 
the best in Europe, and were commanded by an Italian officer of great 
experience. A pitched battle was fought on the 18th of January 
1422. Historians speak of the onset of Zizka’s troops as a shock 
beyond all credibility, and it appears that they have not exaggerated 
it. ‘The imperial infantry made no stand at all, and the horse took 
- to flight after a feeble resistance : they were beaten by terror rather 
than by the sword. They retreated towards Moravia, and were so 
hard pressed by Zizka that they crossed the frozen Igla in large bodies, 
and, as the ice broke, about 2000 of them were drowned. In the 
same year Zizka obtained a decisive victory at Aussig, over a Saxon 
army commanded by the Electors of Saxony and Brandenburg. The 
Saxons however were excellent soldiers, and on their first onset the 
Hussites were so well received that they retired in confusion, and 
then stood still facing their enemy with silent amazement. They had 
never met with such resistance, and they believed that nobody could 
resist them. Upon this Zizka approached on his cart and said :— 
“Well, my brethren, I thank you for all your past services: if you 
have now done your utmost, let us retire.” This noble rebuke roused 
their fanatical courage, and in a second attack the Saxons were routed 
and left 9000 dead on the field. Siegmund now saw that he could 
never conquer Bohemia, and he proposed an arrangement, to which he 
was the more inclined as some of the Bohemian states had offered the 
crown to Witold, grand-duke of Lithuania, who accepted it, and sent 
Prince Korybut to Prague as his viceroy. But Korybut, being only 
supported by part of the Hussites, could not maintain himself, and 
was compelled to return to Lithuania. On the other hand there were 
good reasons for Zizka making peace, for although his own authority 
was never shaken, the animosity between the minor sects of the 
Hussites was too great to allow the prospect of a lasting political 
union among them. Siegmund promised to grant full religious liberty 
to the Hussites, and to appoint Zizka governor of Bohemia and her 
dependencies, with great power and privileges. But Zizka did not 
live to complete the treaty, which was ready to be concluded after an 
interview had taken place between him and the emperor, with whom 
the blind general treated on terms of equality and with the confidence 
of a sovereign king. Hostilities were continued during the negocia- 
tions: Zizka laid siege to the castle of Przibislaw, in the district of 
Czaslau ; and a kind of plague having broken out, he was seized, and 
died on the 12th of October 1424, Zizka was victorious in thirteen 
pitched battles and more than one hundred engagements and sieges: 
he was only once beaten in the open field, at Kremsir in Moravia; 
but he retreated in such good order that his defeat was not followed 
by any bad consequences for him. 
The only stain on his character was his cruelty. He believed him- 


“ 


‘ 


ng ee eS ee a 


“> - 


ind, 5 tient 


vad 


Ea TS 


self the instrument of divine vengeance, and he called the cries and 
lamentations of the monks and priests who were burnt by his order 
the bridal-song of his sister. He was buried in a church at Czaslau, 
and his iron war-club, with which he is represented in many engravings, 
was hung up over his tomb, When the Emperor Ferdinand I. went 
to Czaslau, in 1554, and saw the tomb, he asked who was buried there, 
and being informed that it was Zizka, he cried out in Latin, “Phui, 
phui, mala bestia, que mortua etiam post centum annos terret vivos !” 
(Lo, the wicked beast, one hundred years dead, and still frightens the 
living!) The emperor it is said was so frightened that he left the 
church immediately, and gwould not stay the night at Czaslau, but 
proceeded on his journey: but it may be believed that he had some 
better reasons for continuing his journey than dread of the long buried 
Zizka. There is another idle tale that Zizka on his death-bed ordered 
his skin to be tanned, and put over a drum in order to frighten his 
enemies after death; and it is also said that the Hussites used that 
drum in many a battle: all this ig fabulous, 

After Zizka’s death the negociations with the emperor were broken 
off: thé Taborites chose Procop the Holy for their leader; the Ore- 
bites, Krussina ; and the Orphanites, Procop the Little, who continued 
that awful war for eleven years more, till it was finished by the treaty 
of Prague, in 1436, in consequence of which Siegmund was acknow- 
ledged king of Bohemia, 

(Millauer, Diplomatisch-historische Aufsitze tiber Johann Zizka von 
Trocznow, Prague, 1824; Koelerus, Zulogiwm Joh. de Trocznow cog- 
nomento Ziske, Gottingen, 1742; The Life of Zizka, in Gilpin, The 
Lives of John Wicliff and of the most eminent of his Disciples, Lord 
Cobham, John Huss, Jerome of Prague, and Zizka.) : 

ZOBEL, BENJAMIN, was born in 1762, at Memmingen in Bavaria, 
He received his education at the government school df that city, and 
acquired the rudiments of drawing from one of the monks belonging 
to the convent of Ottobeuern. In 1781 he went to Amsterdam, 
where he resided for two years, occupying himself chiefly in portrait- 
painting. In 1783 he came to London, where he formed acquaintance 
with Morland and Schweickhardt, the latter of whom was employed 
at Windsor Castle by George III.’s ‘table-decker.’ It was then the 
custom to ornament the royal dinner-table by having a silver plateau 
extending along the centre, on which were strewed various coloured 
sands or marble dust, in fanciful designs of fruit, flowers, arabesque- 
work, &c. For this an artist of some talent and great freedom of 
hand was required. On the retirement of Schweickhardt, Zobel 
was appointed; and he continued to fill the office for a considerable 
period, . Ornamenting the royal table in the manner just described 
was a daily occupation, the sands not being cemented by any sub- 
stance, From this occupation arose the idea in the mind of Zobel 
of producing a finished and permanent picture, by the use of some 
substance by which the sands might be fixed. After various experi- 
ments, a composition (in which gum-arabic and spirits of wine formed 
the chief ingredients) was found to answer the best. The subject of 
the picture having been designed either on pannel or milled board, 
a coating of the glutinous substance was spread over it; the different 
coloured sands were then used in a similar manner as that employed 
in decking the royal table, viz., by strewing them from a piece of card 
held at various elevations, according to the strength or softness of the 
tint required. Thus was formed a picture, not subject to decay, and 
permanent in all its parts, and this was called by the inventor, Marmo- 
tinto, Some of the best specimens of this peculiar art were formerly 
in the possession of the late Duke of York, but were sold, at his 
death, at Oatlands. Several are still among the collections of paintings 
belonging to the Duke of Northumberland and Sir Willoughby 
Gordon. Painting on gold and silver grounds in transparent colours 
for the representation of cabinets of humming-birds, &c., was also 
practised with eminent success by Zobel. He died in 1831. 

ZOEGA, GEORG, was the eldest of the three sons of a Lutheran 
clergyman of Jutland, said to have been of Italian descent, and was born 
the 25th of December 1755, at the village of Dahlen in the county of 
Schackenburg and the diocese of Ripen, where his father was then 
minister, although he soon after removed to the parish of Mogelton- 
dern, near the town of Tondern in the same county. After having 
been carefully educated at home, under the eye of his father, Zoéga 
was sent, in 1772, to the gymnasium of Altona, whence the next year 
he proceeded to the university of Gottingen. 

On finishing his academic course, in 1776, Zoéga set out on a tour 
through Germany and Switzerland, which he was eventually led to 
extend to Italy, and he did not return to his native country till he 
had visited both Venice and,Rome. He then passed a winter at the 
university of Leipzig; after returning home from which he spent 
some time in the office of a brother of his father, who held a post 
under the government at Copenhagen ; but at last, in October 1778, 
he accepted the situation of a family tutor in the little town of Kier- 
teminde, on the eastern coast of the isle of Fiinen. After a few 
months however he was offered the appointment of travelling tutor 
to a young gentleman who proposed to make the tour of Germany, 
Italy, France and England; this scheme exactly suited the taste of 
Zoéga, who was already devoted to the study of the fine arts. After 
a year’s residence with his pupil at Géttingen, where he renewed his 
intimacy with his old professor Heyne, with whom he had been 
always a favourite, they set out together in March 1780, and after 


ZOBGA, GEORG. 


943 
having visited Cassel and Frankfort, and traversed Hesse, the Palati- 
mate, Suabia, and Bavaria, went down the Danube to Vienna, and 
thence crossed the Tyrol and Carinthia to Venice, whence they pro- 
ceeded through Lombardy and Tuscany to Rome, and from Rome to 
Naples. Returning to Rome, they spent two months more in that 
city; and then, in May 1781, were about to take their departure, by 
the way of Milan and Turin, for France, when an unexpected death 
suddenly recalled them to Denmark. , 
Soon after his return home Zoéga was introduced to the Danish 
minister Guldberg, who, struck with his merit, appointed him to 
make a numismatic tour at the charge of the king in Germany and 
Italy. Upon this enterprise he set out in April 1782; and after 
spending six months in the Imperial Museum at Vienna, he arrived 
once more at Rome, in January 1783. From this date Italy, and 
chiefly Rome, continued, with the exception of a short visit which 
he made to Paris in 1784, to be the residence of Zoéga to the end of 
his life. The sudden death of his patron Guldberg, the news of which 
reached him while he was at Paris, in May 1784, reduced him fora 
time to great straits; and his difficulties were made the more serious 
by his having some time before married a young Italian lady, Maria 
Pietruccioli, the beautiful but penniless daughter of a painter, and 
become a convert to popery. He had however on the introduction of 
the Austrian papal nuncio Garompi, whose acquaintance he had made 
at Vienna, been received with distinguished favour by the celebrated 
Stefano Borgia, then secretary to the Propaganda College, afterwards 
cardinal; and he soon, through Borgia’s interest, received from the 
pope the appointment of interpreter of modern languages to the Pro- 
paganda College. He was engaged in the preparation of a critical 
catalogue of the series of Egyptian coins struck by the Roman em- 
perors, mostly as contained in the rich museum of Borgia at Velletri, 
which was at last published in 4to at Rome, in 1787, with the title of 
‘Numi Aigyptii Imperatorii prostrantes in Museo Borgiano Velitris, 
adjectis preeterea quotquot reliqua hujus classis numismata ex variis 
museis atque libris colligere obtigit.? This work attracted great 
attention, and soon made the name of Zoéga known throughout 
Europe. It was followed by his greatest work, his treatise on Obe- 
lisks, prepared at the desire of Pope Pius VI., and the printing of 
which, after it had been going on for five years, was at last completed 
in 1797. But after the labours and anxieties of so many years, which 
pressed the more heavily upon Zoéga inasmuch as he had to contend 
at the same time with many other distractions and vexations, straitened 
circumstances, frequent attacks of illness, the still worse health of his 
wife, and the death of many of his children, eight of whorp, out of 
eleven, he is stated to have lost in eighteen years, the publication of 
the work was fora time prevented by the hurricane of the French revo- 
lution which had already swept the north of Italy, and in the begin- 
ning of 1798 enveloped Rome, throwing down or scattering pope and 
cardinals, wresting from the libraries and museums many of their 
most precious treasures, threatening in short to break up the whole 
system of things in which the great archeologist lived and moved and 
had his being. At first Zoéga thought of taking flight, as his patron 
Cardinal Borgia had done; but, mainly, it is probable, from irresolu- 
tion, he remained till the French liberating army, as it called itself, 
made its entry ; and then, caught for the moment by the prevailing 
contagion, he joined in hailing what seemed to his excited imagina- 
tion, and that of many others, the resurrection of old Roman freedom. 
But this enthusiasm did not last long; after a few months he is 
found in his letters expressing his repentant regret for having ever 
for an instant approached what he calls the popular volcano. Mean- 
while he had been appointed a member of the newly established 
Roman National Institute, with the other most eminent of the Italian 
men of letters; and he afterwards read several learned discourses 
before this body. At last, in 1800, after the return of his friend 
Cardinal Borgia with the new pope, Pius VII., the treatise on Obelisks 
appeared in a magnificent folio volume, bearing the date of 1797, and 
the title of ‘De Origine et Usu Obeliscorum ; ad Pium Sextum Ponti- 
ficem Maximum, auctore Georgio Zoéga.’ A thousand copies were 
printed. This may probably be considered as the earliest modern 
work upon the subject of Egyptian antiquities which still retains any 
value, and as the foundation and commencement of all the sound 
investigation which that department of archeology has yet received. 
Zoéga now, broken down by infirmities, though as yet only in his 
forty-fifth year, and having secured no provision for his family, began 
to turn his eyes to his native country; and with his great reputation 
he found little difficulty in obtaining from the king of Denmark an 
appointment to a professorship in the University of Kiel. This 
arrangement was made in the beginning of 1802; but in fact, he 
could not bring himself to leave Rome, and at last, in 1804, after he 
had repeatedly obtained leave to postpone bis departure on various 
grounds, he was permitted to remain where he was, with the title of 
professor and the same advantages which he would-have had at Kiel, 
retaining at the same time the appointment of agent to his Danish 
majesty, which he had held for some years past. His salary alto- 
gether is stated to have amounted to 900 crowns; but then it was 
paid in paper, and the Danish paper money at this time, and still 
more at a later date, was much depreciated. Zoéga’s next work was 
a catalogue of the Coptic Manuscripts in the library of Cardinal 
Borgia: ‘Catalogus Codicum Copticorum Manu Seriptorum qui in 


ZOILUS. O44 


Museo Borgiano Velitris adservantur; auctore Georgio Zoéga, Dano, 
Equite Aurato ordinis Danobrogici, fol., Rome, Typis Sacre Congre- 
gationis de Propaganda Fide.’ The whole of this work, with the 
exception only of three pages of corrigenda, was printed in 1805, but 
the sudden death of Cardinal Borgia, which took place at Lyoninthe 
end of 1804, and the embarrassment into which Zoéga was thrown by 3 
that event, which involved him in a law-suit with the heirs ofthe 
cardinal and the Propaganda College about the expenses of ying 
the book through the press, prevented it from being published till 
1810, after his decease, when the case was decided in favour of his 
children. Meanwhile he had commenced, in conjunction with Pira- — 
nesi and the engraver Piroli, an account of the antique bas-reliefs 
existing at Rome—‘ Bassirilievi Antichi di Roma,’ the first 4to volume _ 
of which, published in numbers, was completed in May 1808; asecond ~ 
volume was carried on for some numbers by Zoéga, without the 
assistance of Piranesi, but was left unfinished at his death, which 
took place on the 10th of February 1809. Eight days after his death — 
the announcement was received by his family of his having been 
appointed by the king of Denmark a knight of the order of Daniel 4 
brog. A German translation of his last work, in 2 vols. small folio, 
(one of letter-press, one of plates), was published at Giessen in 1811-12, — 
by F. G. Welcker, then professor of Greek in the university there, 
with the title of ‘Die Antiken Bas-reliefe von Rom. In den original. — 
kupferstichen von Tomaso Piroli in Rom, mit den Erklirungen von 
Georg Zoéga. Uebersezt, und mit Anmerkungen begleitet, von F. 
Gr. Welcker, &c. In 1817 Welcker published an 8vo volume o 
detached dissertations by Zoéga; and in 1819 a collection of hi 
Letters, in 2 vols., in German, with a memoir of his Life, cae 
ZO’FFANY, JOHANN, B.A., a distinguished painter of the latter 
part of the 18th century, was by descent a Bohemian, but his father, 
who was an architect, had settled in Germany. Johann Zoffany was — 
born, according to Fiorillo, at Regensburg in Bavaria, or, according to — 
another account, at Frankfort-on-the-Main in 1735: the latter probably _ 
is the correct account, Young Zoffany was sent early by his father to — 
Italy, where he studied some years. After his return to Germany he 
practised some time as an historical and portrait painter at Coblenz 
on the Rhine, from which place he came to England a few years before — 
the foundation of the Royal Academy, for he was elected one of its 
first members in 1768. In England, Sir Joshua Reynolds and Garrick 
became valuable patrons to him, and his first pictures which attracted 
notice in London were a portrait of the Earl of Barrymore and some — 
theatrical portraits. He painted Garrick in Sir John Bute, andas — 
Abel Drugger in Ben Jonson’s ‘ Alchymist ;’ Foote, as Sturgeon, in 
the ‘Mayor of Garret ;* Weston and Foote in Dr. Last; and Garrick — 
in the ‘Farmer's Return,’ in which the character and drawing are very — 
good: the colouring is less successful. ey! 
In 1771 Zoffany painted the royal family on a large canvas, to the — 
number of ten portraits, of which there is a mezzotinto by Earlom. 
He painted likewise two separate portraits of George III. and his — 
queen, which were engraved in mezzotinto by Houston. Shortly after — 
this time he revisited Italy, and took a recommendation from 
George III. to the Grand-Duke of Tuscany at Florence, where he — 
painted an interior view of the Florentine picture-gallery, which was — 
purchased by George III. In 1774 he painted a clever picture of the — 
*Life-school’ of the Royal Academy, in which he introduced two 
naked models and thirty-six portraits ; it has been engraved in mezzo- — 
tinto by Earlom. In 1781 or 1782 Zoffany went to the East Indies, 
and lived some years at Lucknow, where he met with the est 
success, and he painted three of his best works there, all of which 
have been well engraved in mezzotinto by Earlom. One is the — 
Embassy of Hyderbeck to Calcutta, who was sent by the Vizier of — 
Oude to Lord Cornwallis; he went with a numerous retinue by Patna 
to Calcutta: the picture is a rich display of Indian costume, and 
contains, besides about 100 figures, several elephants and horses; the — 
scene is placed in Patna. The others are an Indian Tiger-Hunt, and, 
as a companion to the Embassy, a Cock-Fight, at which there are many — 


spectators. ts 
London about 1796 with a large fortune, and — 


Zoffany returned to 
died at Kew in 1810. ; 4 
(Fiorillo, Geschichte der Mahlerey, &c.; Pilkington, Dictionary of — 
Painters.) : “4 
ZO'ILUS (ZdiAos), a Greek rhetorician and grammarian, is called by — 
some a native of Ephesus (Scholiast ad ‘Hom. Mliad,’ v. 7), though the — 
majority of ancients describe him asa native of Amphipolis on the 
Strymou, whence Heraclides Ponticus calls him a Thracian. (Ailian,” 
‘Var. Hist.,’ xi. 10; Suidas; Heraclid. Pont., ‘Allegoriz Homeric.” 
p. 424.) Ailian describes Zoilus asa pupil of Polycrates, who wrote — 
an accusation of Socrates, and seems to have lived about 3.0. 390. 
Vitruvius (‘Preefat.,’ lib, vii.), on the other hand, makes him a contem- 
porary of Ptolemy Philadelphus, B.c. 283-247. Suidas (s.v.’Avatimévys) — 
states that Anaximenes of Lampsacus was a pupil of Zoilus, and we ~ 
know that this Anaximenes must have lived shortly after the time of 
Alexander the Great. These different statements of the age at which — 
Zoilus lived do not allow us to draw any more definite conclusion than — 
that he must have lived during the period that followed the death of 
Philip of Macedonia, that is, after b,c. 336, for we know that he wrote — 
a history which came down to the death of that king. Some modern — 
scholars have had recourse to the usual expedient in such cases, — 


BW 


~ crates. 


45 ZOLLIKOFER, GEORG JOACHIM. 


ZOROASTER. 946 


namely, to suppose that there were two persons of the name of Zoilus 
—the one a grammarian who attacked Homer, and the other a rheto- 
rician, though a careful examination of the passages in which Zoilus 
is mentioned leaves no doubt that they all refer to the same person. 
We have thus no alternative except to suppose that some of the 
ancients fixed the date of Zoilus incorrectly. From Heraclides Ponti- 
cus it appears that Zoilus was originally a slave, but he afterwards 
acquired great reputation as a rhetorician.. He was notorious for the 
bitterness and severity of his attacks, whence he was nicknamed ‘ the 
rhetorical dog’ (iiwy pnropirds), He attacked Homer for introducing 
fabulous and incredible stories in his poems, and also Plato and Iso- 
(Scholiast ad ‘Hom, Iliad.,’ v. 7, 20, &c.; Longinus, ‘De 


_ Sublim.,” ix. 14; Scholiast ad ‘ Plat. Hipparch.,’ p. 240; Dionys, Hal., 


towards Homer, deserves just as little credit. 


lation. 


* Demosth.,’ 8; ‘Isaecus,’ 20.) For this reason his name appears to 
have become proverbial for a detractor in general. (Ovid, ‘Remed. 
Amor., 366.) But Dionysius of Halicarnassus (‘Epist. ad Pomp.,’ 
¢. 1) gives him the honourable testimony of having attacked no one 
except in defence of what he considered the truth, and he places him 
by the side of Aristotle and other great men, The story of his having 
been ill-used by Ptolemy Philadelphus for having censured Homer, and 
of his miserable death, of which three traditions are enumerated by 
Vitruvius, is probably a mere fable; and the account of Suidas; that 
he was killed at Olympia by the assembled Greeks for his hostility 
The following works of 
Zoilus are mentioned by Suidas and others :—-1, a work in nine books 
against the poetry of Homer (Suidas; Dionys. Hal., ‘Isaeus,’ 20) ; 
2, an oration against Homer, ¥éyos ‘Ounpoy (Suidas); 3, an historical 
work in three books, beginning with the theogony and ending with the 
death of Philip of Macedonia (Suidas); 4, a work on Amphipolis 
(Suidas) ; 5, an encomium on the inhabitants of Tenedos (Strabo, vi., 
p- 271); and 6, a work on the figures of speech, of which a fragment 
is still extant (Phoebammon, ‘ De Figuris,’ p. 588, ed. Aldus; comp. 
Quintilian, ix. 1, § 14). 
. (Fabricius, Biblioth. Grac.,i., p. 560, &e.; Wolf, Prolegom. ad Homer, 
p. 192; Vossius, De Hist. Grecis, p. 130, &c., ed. Westermann.) 
ZOLLIKOFER, GEORG JOACHIM, one of the greatest German 
pulpit orators of the 18th century, was born on the 5th of August 
1730, at St. Gallen in Switzerland. His early education was conducted 
by his father, a distinguished and much respected lawyer; and after 
having for some time attended the public school of his native place, 
young Zollikofer was sent to the gymnasia of Frankfurt-on-the-Main 
and of Bremen. When he had completed his preparatory courses, he 
went to the University of Utrecht, where he studied chiefly theology, 
but devoted also much time to the study of the ancients, of philoso- 
phy, and belles-lettres, Soon after his return to Switzerland he was 
appointed, in 1754, pastor at Murten in the Pays de Vaud, but he did 
not remain there long. After having successively been removed to 
Monstein and Isenburg, he was ‘invited, in 1758, to the office of pastor 
of the Reformed (Calvinistic) congregation at Leipzig. In this place 
he continued until his death, on the 25th of January 1788, although 
several yery honourable offers were made to him. His position at 
Leipzig was particularly favourable, for his congregation was one of 
the most enlightened in Germany, and his intercourse with the distin- 
guished professors of the university had a great influence on the 
development of his talent as a pulpit orator. He also exerted a 


very beneficial influence not only upon his congregation, but upon the. 


young theologians of Leipzig, to whom his upright and pious conduct 
was a model of what a pastor should be. His knowledge, though very 
extensive, was not always profound, and he attached a higher value to 
the practical part of religion than to learning and theological specu- 
He taught his flock by word and example the practical 
influence which Christianity should have upon their conduct. His 
method of preaching was calm and dignified, impressive and con- 
vincing, without being rhetorical. Although his sermons were not 
exactly what we call popular, they were always clear and lucid, and 
won their way to the heart through the understanding. He counter- 
acted the prevailing prejudices and evils of the time, and endeavoured 
to correct the vulgar notions of morality, and to enlighten his 
audience in the true sense of the word. What rendered his influence 
as a teacher the more efficacious was, the fact that his own life was a 
perfect exemplar of what he taught. As regards his doctrinal views, 
he did not hesitate to attack the common opinions where he thought 
them incompatible with reason and good sense; and, although he was 
not a neologian, yet he differed in several points from the common 
Calvinistic views. The best of his sermons, amounting to about 250, 
were published and received with great favour, and they are still 
much read in Germany. Zollikofer himself published several col- 
lections of them: one at Leipzig, in 1769-71, in 3 vols. 8vo; a second 
in 1784, 2 vols. 8vo, reprinted in 1790 and 1795 ; and a third in 1787, 
8vo, of which a third edition appeared in 1789. After his death a 
collection of unpublished sermons was edited by F. Von Blankenburg, 
in 7 vols. 8vo, Leipzig, 1788-89, to which two more volumes were 
added by J. G. Marezoll, 8vo, Leipzig, 1804. About the same time 


there appeared a complete collection of all Zollikofer’s sermons, in 


15 vols., 8vo, Leipzig, 1789-1804. Besides these sermons, he pub- 

lished—1, a new Hymn-book for the use of the Reformed Churches, 

8yo, Leipzig, 1766; some of the hymns are of his own composition, 

and the great popularity of them is manifest from an eighth edition 
BIOG. DIV, VOL, VI, 


being published in 1789, 8vo. 2, ‘ Abhandlung iiber die Erziehung,’ 
8vo, Leipzig, 1783. 3, ‘ Anreden und Gebete zum Gebrauch bei dem 
gemeinschaftlichen und auch dem hiiuslichen Gottesdienste,’ 8vo, 
Leipzig, 1777, reprinted in 1785. 4, ‘Andachtstibungen und Gebete 
zim Privatgebrauch fiir nachdenkende und gutgesinnte Christen,’ 
2 vols. 8vo, Leipzig, 1785. A third and fourth volumes appeared after 
his death, in 1792 and 1793, anda new edition of the two last volumes 
in 1802, &c. Zollikofer also translated several works from the French 
and English, with which languages he was thoroughly conversant. 
From the English he translated P. Brydone’s‘ Travels in Sicily and 
Malta,’ of which a third edition appeared at Leipzig in 1783. Zolli- 
kofer's sermons were translated into English by William Tooke, 
10 vols. 8vo. 

(C. Garve, Veber den Character Zollikofer’s, 8vo, Leipzig, 1788 ; Jér- 
dens, Lexikon Deutscher Dichter und Prosaisten, v. pp. 663-690.) 

ZONA/RAS, JOANNES, a Greek historian and theologian of the 
12th century of the Christian era. He was a native of Constantinople, 
and lived in the reign of the Emperor Alexius Comnenus, He was at 
first invested with the high office of prefect of the emperor’s body- 
guards, and that of protoasecretis (mpwroacnxpiris), but he afterwards 
entered a monastery. During this last period of his life, which falls 
in the reign of Joannes Comnenus, he devoted himself entirely to 
literary pursuits, and produced several great works, partly historical 
and partly theological: He is said to have died on Mount Athos, at 
the age of eighty-sight. He is spoken of by his contemporaries, as 
well as by subsequent writers, in terms of the highest praise, both asa 
man and a philosopher. We subjoin a list of those of his works which 
have been printed, and begin with the most important :—1, Xpovxdr, 
or annals from the creation of the world down to the death of Alexius 
Comnenus, 1118, at which point Acominatus Nicetas takes up the 
history. This work is divided into two great parts, and subdivided 
into eighteen books. It is a compilation from the earlier Greek his- 
torians, whose statements are sometimes only transcribed and some- 
times abridged, so that the work is a substitute for many others which 
have perished. The ‘ Annals’ of Zonaras were first edited by H. Wolf, 
with a Latin translation by A. Fugger (3 vols. folio, Basel, 1557), This 
edition was followed by a much better one by Du Fresne du Cange 
(2 vols. folio, Paris, 1686, &c.), with an improved Latin translation and 
notes. A reprint of this edition is contained in the Venice collection 
of the Byzantine writers of 1729, &c., in 23 vols. folio. In the Bonn 
collection of the Byzantine writers Zonaras is edited by Pinder. 2, 
°EEnynots Tv icpdv Kad Oclwy kavdvwr, &c., that is, an exposition of the 
sacred canons and those of the apostles, councils, synods, and ecelesi- 
astical fathers. The commentary on the canons of the apostles was 
edited in a Latin translation by J. Quintinus (Paris, 1558), and that on 
the councils and fathers, likewise in a Latin translation, by A. Salmatia, 
(Milan, 1613). The Greek original of the latter, with the Latin version, 
was published at Paris in 1618, folio. The whole of Zonaras’s com- 
mentaries, both in Greek and Latin, was edited by G. Beuergius (folio, 
Oxford, 1672). 3, Adyos mpbs rods Thy puaikhy Tis yorjs expohy plasua 
jyounevouvs. It is published in E. Bonefidius’s ‘ Jus Orientale, iii. 261, 
&c., both in Latin and Greek, and also in Leunclavius and Freher’s 
‘Jus Graeco-Romanum,’ i. 351, &c. 4, ‘Ex mpoodémrov tay apxicpéwy 
mept Tod wh Seiv dietaderpous Thy aibthy a&yaryécOu mpds yduov :’ that is, a 
treatise to show that two nephews should not be allowed to marry the 
same woman, It is printed in Latin and Greek in Cotelerius’s ‘ Monu- 
menta Ecclesiae Graecae, ii. 483, &c. There are several other works 
of Zonaras, and among them several homilies and letters which have 
not yet been printed, or only in a fragmentary way : a complete list of 
them is given by Fabricius. 

(Biblioth. Graec., xi., p. 222, &c.; vii, p. 465, &c.: compare Cave, 
Historia Literaria, i, p. 648, &e.) 

ZOROASTER, or ZERDUSHT, the founder of the religion of the 
Parsees, was born about Bc. 589, at Urmia, a town of Azerbijan, in 
the reign of Lohrasp, the father of Gushtasp (the Darius Hystaspes of 
the Greeks). His parents were in an humble condition, although of a 
noble family, and some of the Eastern authorities trace the lineage of 
his father, Purushasp, to Feridoon, Daghda (Anquetil writes Dogdo), 
the mother of Zoroaster, is also said to have been of princely birth, 
and it is needless to observe that her life is reported to have been so 
spotless as to attract the favour of the Deity, who foretold to her the 
greatness of Zoroaster while yet in the womb, through the medium of 
magic dreams. Nor is it necessary to state that the birth of the 
Persian prophet was attended with many miraculous circumstances 
calculated to make the persons who saw it adopt and spread the 
belief in the divine mission of the new-born infant. Many of these 
miracles have found their way into classical writings, and Pliny 
mentions that Zoroaster laughed on the day on which he was born, 
and that his brain palpitated so violently as to repel the hand when 
placed on it, (‘His. Nat.’ vii, c. 16; H. Lord’s ‘Account of the 
Modern Parsees in India,’ c. 3.) Miracles of this kind are by Eastern 
authors always made to precede the life of a remarkable man, and 
they serve to show the high influence which Zoroaster obtained 
throughout life, and the respect which posterity paid to his memory, 
The years of Zoroaster’s childhood quietly passed in his native town— 
although his historians delight in adorning them with the most extra- 
vagant accounts of his exploits when a child. However, he must have 


soon turned his attention to the study of nature, as it * stated that 
P 


ZOROASTER. 


947 


ZORRILLA, Y MORAL DON JOSS. ya 


he passed twenty years in the deep caves of the mountain Elbrooz 
(Pliny mentions this with a slight alteration, ‘ Hist. Nat.,’ xi, c. 42) 
before he went tothe court of Gushtasp, at which period he is said to 
have been only thirty years of age (Hyde, p. 330, on the authority of 
Shahristani). His having secluded himself from the society of men 
for a great number of years, is a fact corroborated by many inde- 
pendent authorities. It was in his retirement that the will of the 
Supreme Being was made known to him, and as this portion of Zoroa- 
ster’s life is the one upon which the Parsees rest most of the evidence 
of the truth of his divine mission, we shall relate it according to the 
Zerdusht-nameh, It must be observed that Zoroaster’s journey to the 
mountain Elbrooz is by the Parsee authors invariably called the 
prophet’s journey to heaven, where he received bis instructions from 
Ormuzd (i. ¢ the Zend-Avesta and the sacred fire). Then (says the 
Zerdusht-nameh, ec, 22) Bahman, radiant like the sun, and with his 
head covered by a veil, appeared before Zoroaster, by the command of 
Ormuazd, and said, “ Who art thou? What dost thou want?” Zoroa- 
ster answered, “I seek only what is agreeable to Ormuzd, who has 
created the two worlds, but I know not what he wants with me. O 
Thou, who art pure, show me the way of the law.” These words 
pleased Bahman. “ Rise,” said he, “to go before God; there thou 
shalt receive the answer to thy request.” Zoroaster rose and followed 
Bahman, who said, “Shut thine eyes, and walk swiftly.” When 
Zoroaster opened his eyes, he saw the glory of heaven; the angels 
came to meet him, and with them he approached Ormuzd, to whom 
he addressed his prayer. From him and the other six Amshaspands 
(or heavenly ministers) he received the following instructions; Or- 
muzd himself said to Zoroaster, “ Teach the nations that my light is 
hidden under all that shines. Whenever you turn your face towards 
the light, and you follow my command, Ariman (the evil spirit) will 
be seen to fly. In this world there is nothing superior to light.” He 
then handed to him the Zend-Avesta with the injunction to declare 
it before Gushtasp. Bahman, the Amshaspand presiding over the 
animals, surrendered his office to Zoroaster, and gave him the neces- 
sary directions. Ardibehesht, Shaherawar, Isfendermad, Khourdad, 
and Amerdad followed the example of Bahman, and Zoroaster returned 
to the world to overthrow the false doctrines which were upheld by 
magicians and had brought misery upon mankind. This fanciful 
story, which is gravely repeated by most of the authors on the life of 
Zoroaster, was evidently invented for the purpose of filling up the 
chasm which the twenty years of seclusion would have left, 

Zoroaster first saw Gushtasp at Balkh, and he soon led this prince 
to become a zealous and powerful propagator of his faith, The Zinat- 
al-Tawarikh states that Asfandiyar, the son of Gushtasp, was the first 
eonvert of Zoroaster; and that his father was persuaded by the 
eloquence of his son to follow his example. However, the new 
doctrine, which Zoroaster said had been revealed to him from above, 
spread rapidly in the province of Azerbijan (i. ¢. ‘the house of fire’). 
Gushtasp introduced it into every part of his dominions, and ordered 
12,000 cow-hides to be tanned fine that the precepts of his new faith 
might be written on them. These parchments were deposited in a 
vault hewn out of arock in Persepolis. He appointed holy men to 
guard them ; and it was commanded that the profane should be kept 
at a distance from the sacred book (Malcolm, i. p. 45). The powerful 
protection of the king enabled Zoroaster to introduce his doctrine 
farther than the-kingdom of Iran; we hear of his journeys into Chal- 
deea, and that Pashuran, the second son of Gushtasp, was sent by him 
into Varjamgherd in order to propagate his new religion, He also 
tried to gain proselytes in India, and succeeded in converting a learned 
Brahmin (Tchengrighatchah, according to Anquetil, vol. i., c. 2, p. 70), 
who went back into his native country with a great number of priests. 
Temples of Fire, or Atesh-gahs, were erected in all parts of the empire 
at the expense of Gushtasp, whose zeal in imposing the Zend-Avesta 
not only on his own subjects, but also on those of the neighbouring 
monarchs, at last engaged him in a war with Arjasp, king of Turan. 
Zoroaster was undoubtedly the chief instigator of this war, which was 
protracted beyond his life-time, and finally ended in a victory gained 
by Asfandiyar over the Turanians, who, in the exultation of a first 
success, had determined on putting to death all the followers of 
Zoroaster. The prophet died in the year B,o. 518, about seventy-six 
years of age, a few months before the general massacre of the fire- 
worshippers had been resolved upon by Arjasp. Some authorities 
quoted by Hyde, pp. 328 and 329, say that he was murdered during 
the persecution, 

The whole history of Zoroaster, when divested of all extraneous 
matter, can be reduced to the following statement :—The ancient 
religion which Djamshid had established in Iran had become merely 
traditional and lost its influence over the nation; new sects had 
sprung up in every direction ; Hindoos and Chaldeans were endeavour- 
ing to introduce their own religion, when Zoroaster appeared. It is 
evident that the worship of elements had been established in his 
native province, before he produced his great reform in the adjacent 
empire; he therefore seems to have restored the religion of his ances- 
tors to a state of greater purity and adapted it to the exigencies of the 
nation where he was the first to promulgate it. 

What we have said hitherto rests entirely on the authority of 
Eastern authors—it has no claim to historical accuracy; but it con- 
tains more than can be gathered from classical writers, The Life of 


Zoroaster, prefixed to Anquetil du Perron’s Zend-Avesta, is a compen- — 
dium of all the extravagant stories which have been invented about 
Zoroaster. e 

From the different dates assigned to Zoroaster by Greek and Latin _ 
authors, many. modern ‘authors were ledjto believe that there were 
no less than six men of that name; but this opinion has been gatis- 
factorily refuted by Hyde, in his‘ Veterum Persarum et Majorum 
Religionis Historia;’ and lately by Pastoret, in his ‘ Zoroastre, Con- 
fucius, et Mahomet comparés.’ For an ingenious endeavour to prove — 
that there were more than one Zoroaster we refer to Stanley's ‘Historia 
Philosophiw ’ (Pars xiii., Sect. i, c. 2); and to Bryant's ‘Analysisof 
Ancient Mythology,’ vol. ii., p. 388, where almost all the passages 
that can be found in ancient authors relating to Zoroaster are very 
carefully put together, bs! a 

Again, there were writers who identified Zoroaster with Moses, 
among whom Huet is the most prominent (‘ Demonsiratio Evangelica.’ 
Prop. iv., c. 5); others again have supposed that Zoroaster was born in — 
Palestine, or that he passed his early youth in that country and 
earned his subsistence by becoming a servant to a Jewish prophet — 
(Hyde, p. 816). Abu-l-faraj states this prophet to have been Elijah, — 
Hyde thought he was Esdras, while Prideaux conjectures that Zoro- 
aster had been servant to Ezekiel. It is scarcely necessary to observe 
that these conjectures are utterly vain and quite useless, There was — 
only one Zoroaster or Zerdusht, who lived in the time of Gushtasp and 
effected a great reform. ise 

The leading doctrines propagated by Zoroaster were the followir 
—He taught that God existed from all eternity, and was like i 
of time and space. 


si¥ 
+ 


There were, he averred, two principles in the 
universe—good and evil; the one was termed Ormuazd, or the good 
principle, the presiding agent of all good; the other, Ariman, the lord 
of evil. Each of these had the power of creation, but that power was — 
exercised with opposite designs; and: it was from their united action 
that an admixture of good and evil was found in every created thing, 
The angels of Ormuzd sought to preserve the elements, the seasons, 
and the human race, which the infernal agents of Ariman wishedto 
destroy. But the power of good alone, the great Ormuzd, was eternal, _ 
and must therefore ultimately prevail. Light was the type of the — 
good spirit, darkness of the evil spirit; and, as stated above, God said : 
to Zoroaster, ‘My light is concealed under all that shines.” Hence 
the disciple of that prophet, when he performs his devotionsin a — 
temple, turns towards the sacred fire that burns upon its altar; and 
when in the open air, towards the sun, as the noblest of all lights, and _ 
that by which God sheds his divine influence over the whole and per- 
petuates the works of lris creation. [ARIMANES.] > 2 
Zoroaster, we are told, was a great astrologer and magician; and it 
is even stated by Porphyrius that Darius was so proud of having been 
initiated into the mysteries of the art by Zoroaster himself, that he 
ordered it to be inscribed on his tomb. om 
After his death the religion he introduced was disturbed by a ~ 
thousand schisms; many reforms were introduced; but it y 
sank to a mere idolatrous worship of the fire and the sun; the wor- 
shippers were persecuted when Mohammedan rulers had possessed _ 
themselves of Iran’; they first fled into the mountains, and at last left — ; 
the country and settled in Guzerat, where they are to this day but 
greatly diminished in number, 
(Hyde, Veterum Persarum et Magoruwm Religionis Historia, Oxford, 
1760; Anquetil du Perron, Zend-Avesta, Paris, 1771; Pastoret, Zoro- 
aster, Confucius, et Mahomet comparés: Maleolm’s History of Persia; — 
Bayle, Diction. Historique, has a long and curious article on Zoro- — 


aster.) 

*ZORRILLA, Y MORAL DON JOSS, the most-popular living poet 
of Spain, is a native of Valladolid, where he was bora on the 2ist of — 
February 1817. His father, who held. important posts in the mre  @ 
tracy, was transferred from Valladolid to Burgos, to Seville, and in — 
1827 to Madrid, where his son, who of course accompanied him in his 
migrations, was sent to the Seminary of Nobles in that city. In early 
life he showed a strong partiality for the theatre and poetry, and he — 
was fond of reading two very different books, Chateaubriand’s ‘Spirit _ 
of Christianity’ and the Bible. His father, who intended him for the 
legal profession, sent him to study law at Toledo; but Zorrilla spent — 
much of his time in rambling about the city and writing verses. In — 
the sequel, when going to Valladolid to pursue the same study, he — 
entirely neglected it for poetry, making his first appearance as an — 
author in the pages of ‘ El Artista,’ a periodical of that city, he was — 
sent to his father at Lerma, under the charge of a muleteer who was — 
bound for that town, and was so apprehensive of the reception he was 
likely to meet with, that on their stopping at the house of one of his 
relations on the road, he gave the muleteer the slip, borrowed a horse” 
of his relative without the owner's leave, and rode back to Valladolid, — 
and thence to Madrid. For ten months he eluded all the efforts to 
trace him made by his family, and then suddenly burst into the public — 
notice at the funeral of the poet Larra [Larra]. Roca de Togores 
had just concluded a funeral oration on the deceased, “ when,” says — 
Nicomedes Pastor Diaz, who was one of the mourners, “from the 
midst of us and as if he had sprung from the sepulchre, we saw 
appear a youth, almost a boy, who was unknown to us all. His 
countenance was pallid; he cast a sublime glance first at the to 
and then at the sky, and raising a voice that sounded in our ears 


1 
q 


eS 


+a, 


- | 


ee ee 


= a aide: ” 


’ 


Lp 


949 ZOSIMUS. 


ZOUCH, THOMAS, 950 


the first time, he began to read in broken and tremulous accents some 
verses in honour of Larra, which Sefior Roca de Togores had to 
take from his hand, for overcome by the force of his emotions, he 


to become a national poet, and, as a Spaniard and a Christian, to sing 
the glories of Christianity and Spain. To this determination he has 
adhered for the twenty years that have since elapsed, and has thus per- 
haps assisted in confining his fame to his native country, where he 
appears to be recognised as decidedly the first poet of his time. His 
productions are numerous. His dramas alone amount to more than 
twenty in number, all of them on national subjects, and written in the 
old national metre of Lope and Calderon. One of them, ‘The Apo- 
theosis of Calderon’ is quite in the old Spanish taste, the characters 
being Fame, Repose, Criticism, Homer, Virgil, Shakspere, and Cer- 
vantes. In ‘Don Juan Tenorio,’ a play in two parts, founded on the 
story of the world-renowned Don Juan, the termination leaves the hero 
not in hell but in purgatory, amid a burst of religious doctrine and 
feeling which in England would be thought unusual for the stage. 
The most popular of his dramas is another in two parts, ‘El Zapatéro 
y el Rey’ (the Shoemaker and the King), which has been one of the 
most successful on the Spanish boards, Many of the others are 
accused of being melodramatic, but none of being dull. His ballads 
and shorter pieces exhibit the same national air. One of the finest is 
undoubtedly ‘A buen Juez, mejor Testigo’ (The Judge good and the 
Witness better), a story of a seduced lady who, unable to produce 
any evidence of her seducer’s promise of marriage, appeals to a crucifix 
before which it was made, and is miraculously answered,—a tale so 
vividly and admirably told, that but for the Roman Catholic, and to 
English notions irreverent, character of some of its contents, it would 
probably have been long ere now translated and popular in English. 
While Zorrilla’s subjects are thus national and antique, his style of 
narrative is by no means of the grave and serious real Spanish cha- 
racter, but rapid, concise, and energetic, with some of the best 
characteristics of modern French literature, which he appears to 
have studied closely. Perhaps his leading work, on the whole, is his 
‘Cantos del Trovador’ (Songs of the Troubadour), a collection of 
legends aud historical traditions (8 vols, Madrid, 1840-41). His 
‘Granada,’ an epic poem (2 vols., Paris, 1852), appears to be less suc- 
cessful. In the preface he speaks in somewhat hyperbolic terms of 
Granada, which he informs us has “ become for him the object of a 
superstitious idolatry which has absorbed all his thoughts.’ The 
whole history of the city was to be included in this poem and in 
another called the ‘Cuento de Cuentos’ (or Tale of Tales). Though 
so ardent a devotee of Spanish glory, Zorrilla has now lived for some 
years away from it, spending much of his time in France and Belgium, 
and by a passage in one of his notes to ‘Granada,’ he appears to have 
visited England. He speaks in the preface to the same poem of “the 
misfortunes which have nearly overwhelmed him,” and “the loss of 
his parents and property.” By a poem published as early as 1840 and 
addressed to his wife Donna Matilda O'Reilly y Zorrilla, it may be 
gathered that he was early married to a lady of Irish descent. An 
edition of his works was published at Paris in 1847, and again in 1853, 
as part of the collection of Spanish classics issued by Baudry. 
O'SIMUS, a native of Greece, succeeded Innocent I. as bishop of 
Rome, s.D. 417, under the reign of Honorius, emperor of the West. 
At that time Pelagius and his friend Coelestius were disseminating in 
the west their peculiar doctrines about the merit of good works and 
the freedom of man from sin. Zosimus appears at first to have been 
captivated by the eloquence of Coelestius, who was a ready and subtle 
speaker, and to have countenanced his tenets. But Pelagius and 
Coelestius were soon after condemned by the council of Carthage, a.p. 
418, and Zosimus confirmed the sentence of heresy against the Pela- 
gians. A dispute about jurisdiction having arisen in Gaul between 
the bishop of Arles and the bishop of Vienne, Zosimus supported the 
bishop of Arles, but the other bishops of Gaul did not submit to his 
decision. Zosimus encouraged appeals from the bishops to the see of 
Rome, His letters on the Gaulish and Pelagian controversies are 
worthy of notice, and they are inserted in Constant’s ‘ Epistole Roma- 
norum Pontificum.’ Zosimus died in December 418. (Muratori, 
Annalt d’ Italia, and the Church Historians.) 
ZO’SIMUS (Zoos), a Greek historian of the time of Theodosius 


the younger (A.D. 408-450). He-is described by Photius (‘ Bibl. Cod.,’ 
98) as xduns xa dard qickoovvtyyopos;(comes et exadvocatus fisci), and was 
perhaps a son of Zosimus, the prefect of Epirus, who is mentioned in 
the Theodosian Code in connection with some laws promulgated by 
Valentinian and Valens in a.p. 373. Zosimus is the author of an 
historical work still extant (icropia or ioropixdv), in six books, which 
appears to have been written after the year a.D. 425, as it (v. 27) men- 
tions an occurrence which happened in that year. It begins with the 
history of Augustus, and after having given in the first book a sketch 
of the history of the emperors down to the end of Diocletian’s reign, 
A.D. 805, the author devotes the remaining five books to a more de- 
tailed history of the Roman empire down to the year a.p. 409, when 
Rome was besieged by Alaric a second time, and Attalus was declared 
emperor, Zosimus seems to have been pretty well acquainted with 
the earlier writers on Roman history. Photius says that this work 
was @ mere compilation from the chronicle of Eunapius, who however 
is not mentioned by Zosimus. He also used the works of Dexippus 
and Olympiodorus, from the latter of whom he copied whole chapters. 
As Zosimus did not examine the credibility of his sources, his own 
weight as an historical authority depends on that of his sources. The 
style of his history is well characterised by Photius, who calls it con- 
cise, pure; and pleasing. Zosimus himself was a pagan, and is severely 
censured by Christian writers for the frankness with which he records 
the crimes and vices of Christian emperors. (Phot., ‘Bibl. Cod.,’ 98; 
Evagrius, iii, 40, 41; Nicephorus, xvi. 41, &c.) But it cannot be 
proved that he carried his accusation any further than his duty as a 
historian required. The first edition of the history of Zosimus ap- 
peared in a Latin translation by Leunclavius, fol., Basel, 1576. It 
contains the vindication of the character of Zosimus against the impu- 
tations of Christian writers, and also a. Latin translation of Procopius, 
Agathias, and Jornandes, The first edition of the Greek text, with 
the translation of Leunclavius (though the translator’s nime is not 
mentioned) is that of H. Stephens, 4to, Lyon, 1581. In this edition 
Zosimus is printed with Herodian. Zosimus is also contained in Fr. 
Sylburg’s ‘Romane Historie Scriptores Greci, fol., Frankfurt, 1590: 
this was followed by two separate editions of Zosimus, the one by 
Chr. Olearius (Zeitz, 8vo, 1579, reprinted at Jena, 8vo, 1714), and the 
other by Thomas Smith (Oxford, 8vo, 1679). The best modern editions 
are that of J. F. Reitemeier (Leipzig, 8vo, 1784, with a valuable intro- 
duction, notes, and commentary), and of Emmanuel Bekker (Bonn, 
8vo, 1837). There is an English translation, under the title of ‘The 
New History of Count Zosimus,’ &c., 8vo, London, 1684. (Fabricius, 
Biblioth. Gree., viii, p. 62, &c.; Vossius, De Historicis, p. 312, ed. 
Westermann; Reitemeier, Commentatio de Zosimi fide, stilo et Histo- 
vicis quos ille sequutus est Scriptoribus, in the Bibliotheca Philologica, 
ii., p. 225, &c., Leipzig, 8vo, 1780.) 

ZOUCH, RICHARD, an eminent English civilian, was born about 
1590. He was educated on the free foundation of Winchester school; 
elected to New College, Oxford, in 1607, and chosen fellow in 1609. 
He took-the degree of Bachelor of Civil Law in June 1614, and was 
admitted at Doctors’ Commons in January 1618. In April 1619 he 
commenced L.L.D., and was appointed Regius Professor of Law at 
Oxford in 1620. He represented Hythe in the last parliament of 
James I. In 1625 he was appointed principal of St. Alban’s Hall, and 
chancellor of the diocese of Oxford, and soon after judge of the High 
Court of Admiralty. He contributed the legal arguments to the 
reasons against the Solemn League and Covenant, published by the 
University of Oxford in 1647. In 1648 he submitted to the parlia- 
mentary visitors, and was allowed to retain his university appoint- 
ments till the Restoration. Cromwell appointed him one of the 
delegates in the cause of Dom Pantaleon de Sa, brother of the Por- 
tuguese ambassador, who was tried and executed in 1553, for the 
murder of an English gentleman. At the Restoration he was rein- 
stated as judge of the Admiralty, and nominated a commissioner for 
regulating the university. He died soon after at his apartments in 
Doctors’ Commons, on the 1st of March 1661, 

Zouch published, in 1613, ‘The Dove,’ an indifferent poem. His 
professional works are :—1, ‘ Elementa Jurisprudentiz, definitionibus, 
regulis, et sententiis selectioribus juris civilis illustrata,’ 8vo, Oxford, 
1629. 2, ‘Descriptio juris et judicii feudalis, secundum consuetudines 
Mediolani et Normanniz, pro introductione ad jurisprudentiam Angli- 
canam,’ 8vo, Oxford, 1634. 3, ‘Descriptio juris et judicii temporalis, 
secundum consuetudines feudales et Normannicas, 4to, Oxford, 1636, 
4, ‘Descriptio juris et judicii ecclesiastici, secundum canones et con- 
suetudines Anglicanas,’ 4to, Oxford, 1686. 5, ‘ Descriptiones juris et 
judicii sacri; juris et judicii militaris ; et juris et judicii maritimi,’ 4to, 
Oxford, 1640. 6, ‘Juris et judicii fecialis, sive juris inter gentes, &c. 
explicatio,’ 4to, Oxford, 1650. 7, ‘Cases and Questions resolved at 
Civil Law,’ 8vo, Oxford, 1652. 8, ‘Solutio questionis de legati delin- 
quentis judice competente,’ 8vo, 1657. 9, ‘Hruditionis ingenue speci- 
men, scilicet artium, logic dialectics, &c.,’ 8vo, Oxford, 1657. 10, 
‘Questionum juris civilis centuria in decem classes distributa,’ 8vo, 
Oxford, 1660, 11, ‘The Jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court asserted 
against Sir Edward Coke’s Articuli Admiralitatis, in the 22nd chapter 
of his Jurisdiction of Courts,’ 8vo, London, 1663 ; a posthumous pub- 
lication, An anonymous pamphlet, entitled ‘Specimen questionum 
juris civilis, 4to, Oxford 1653, has been attributed to Zouch. r 

ZOUCH, THOMAS, an English divine, was born near Wakefield in 


951 ZOUST, GERARD. 


ZSCHOKKE, JOHANN HEINRICH. 952 


Yorkshire, in 1787. He entered Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1757. 
In 1760 he was elected into one of Lord Craven’s scholarships. He was 
chosen fellow of his college, and appointed assistant tutor in 1763. 
The state of his health obliging him to leave the University in 1770, 
his college presented him to the living of Wycliffe, in the N orth Riding 
of Yorkshire. In 1791 he was appointed deputy-commissary of the 
archdeaconry of Richmond; and in 1793 chaplain to the Master of 
the Rolls, and rector of Scrayingham. At the death of his elder 
brother, the Rev. Henry Zouch, he inherited an estate at Sandal, 
where he continued to reside till his death. Mr. Pitt conferred upon 
him the second prebend in the church of Durham, The see of Carlisle 
was offered to him in 1808, but he declined it on account of his 
advanced age. He died on the 17th of December, 1815. Dr. Zouch 
was an elegant classical scholar, and possessed considerable acquire- 
ments in botany. Besides several occasional discourses, he published 
* An inquiry into the Prophetic Character of the Romans, as described 
in Daniel viii. 23-25,’ 1792 ; and ‘ An attempt to illustrate some of the 
Prophecies of the Old and New Testament,’ 1800. He also published 
some biographical works :—1,‘Memoir of the Life and Writings of 
Sir Philip Sidney,’ 4to, 1808; 2, ‘ Memoir of the Life of J ohn Sudbury, 
D.D., Dean of Durham, 4to, 1808; and an edition of Isaak Walton’s 
* Lives,’ with additions. 

ZOUST, GERARD, called sometimes Sowst and Soest, was a Ger- 
man portrait-painter of great ability, who established himself in 
England, and was one of Lely’s rivals, in the reign of Charles II. He 
was born in Westphalia, in 1637, but the year in which he came to 
England is not known. Buckeridge, in his ‘English school,’ says he 
came to this country about the year 1656, and found encouragement 
suitable to his merit. ‘ His portraits of men,” he continues “are 
admirable, having in them a just, bold draft, and good colouring ;’ but 
he did not always execute with a due regard to grace in women’s 
faces; which is an habit that can only be acquired by drawing after 
the most perfect beauties, in which his country did not greatly abound. 
What we are most indebted to him for is his educating Mr. Riley.” 
Walpole says of Zoust—* By what I have seen of his hand, particu- 
larly his own head at Houghton, he was an admirable master. It is 
animated with truth and nature; round, bold, yet highly finished.” 
Jervase, the painter, admired Zoust’s style and endeavoured to acquire 
it: he copied a portrait which he had in his possession, by Zoust, more 
than once. Zoust was a man of singular temper, and was much dis- 
pleased at Lely’s female portraits being preferred to his. He was 
slovenly in his dress, and he often opened bis house-door in Cursitor’s- 
alley or Holborn-row himself, and if he did not like the look of his 
visitor, he used to say that his master was not at home, Walpole 
mentions several portraits by him, among them a fine head of Loggan, 
the engraver, one of Sir F. Throckmorton, and an excellent one of a 
gentleman in a dark periwig, on the back of which was written the 
price of the picture and frame: the picture 3/, and the frame 16s. His 
draperies were frequently of satin, in which he imitated the manner of 
Terburgh. He died in 1681, aged forty-four. 

ZSCHOKKE, JOHANN HEINRICH DANIEL, was born at Mag- 
deburg in Prussia on March 22, 1771, and received the earlier part of 
his education in the Klosterschule and in the gymnasium of that 
town. When only seventeen he quitted his school and family, and 
became play-writer to a troop of strolling-players. In a short time 
however he returned to his family, and was sent to the university of 
Frankfurt-on-the-Oder, where, without any settled plan, he studied 
philosophy, theology, the fine arts, history, and finance. In 1792 he 
commenced private teaching in Frankfurt, but with little success; 
and he employed most of his time in writing for the stage, where his 
‘ Abiillino, the Bandit’ (of which the story was borrowed by Monk 
Lewis for his ‘Bravo of Venice’), and ‘ Julius von Sassen,’ produced 
at this period, were favourably received. But he also wrote against 
a government edict respecting religion, and therefore when, in 1796, 
he applied for a professorship, it was refused him, He then left Frank- 
furt, travelled about Germany and France, and at length settled at 
Reichenau in the Graubundten where, in conjunction with Tscharner, 
he established a boarding-school for boys, which was so well conducted 
that the canton presented him with its freedom asa burgher, and he 
evinced his gratitude by writing his ‘ Geschichte des Freistaats der 
drei Biinde in Rhiieten’ (History of the Free State of the Three 
Leagues in Rhetia), which was published in 1790. This is an account 
of the early associations of the canton for the establishment of its 
liberties, and was the precursor of several other works on the history 
of Switzerland. In that year however the Canton of Graubundten 
declined to join the Helvetic republic established under French in- 
fluence; Zschokke was in favour of the union ; he became unpopular, 
and his school was the sacrifice. Austrian troops entered the canton, 
and Zschokke withdrew to Aarau, where the central government of 
the Helvetic republic was then fixed. His reputation, his talents, and 
his political opinions, procured him employment under the govern- 
ment. He was made chief of the department of education, and was 
sent in the capacity of a fully-empowered government commissioner to 
settle the affairs of Unterwalden, then suffering from the devastations 
of a foreign enemy and the effects of party violence, where he acted 
as a true benefactor and a restorer of peace. A memorial of this 
remarkable period is given in his ‘ Historischen Denkwiirdigkeiten der 
Schweitzerische Staatsumwiilaung’ (Historical Memoirs of the Swiss 


Revolution). His commission was subsequently extended over the 
cantons of Uri, Schwytz, and Zug, and his appeals for the help of the 
miserable sufferers remain in proof of his powers of eloquence. 
During this time he wrote his + Geschichte vom Kiimpfe und Unter- 
gange der Schweitzerische Berg- und Waldcantone’ (History of the 
Conflicts and Fall of the Swiss Mountain and Forest Cantons), an 
excellent sketch, published in 1801. In 1801 the central government — 
of Bern nominated him to the bailiwicks of Lugano and Bellinzona, 
where he executed his duties with the best results, On his return to 
Bern he was loud in his complaints against the French ambassador 
Bernhard, and the General Dumas, on account of their oppressive con- 
duct and arbitrary proceedings; for Zschokke had opposed the desires 
of the Graubundten for independence rather from a conviction of 
their hopelessness than from any unpatriotic love of French domina- 
tion, and he stated “that the Helvetic executive directory enjoyed no 
influence or consideration; it was in a manner foreign to the le - 7 
it was appointed to govern;” but it was not cruel, and it avchled 
anarchy, so that he was contented to act under it. His remonstrances 
had produced no immediate effects, when he was created governor 
of Basel, where a commotion had arisen against the land tax and 
tithes; he there threw himself into the midst of an armed assemblage 
of the people, and induced them to follow his advice and submit. 
When the central government at Bern, with the Landmann Aloys 
Reding at its head, prepared in 1801 to restore the ruptured federalism 
of the union, Zschokke resigned his offices, as he doubted whether 
the attempt could be successful then, and he retired to Biberstein in 
Aargau, to devote himself to his favourite studies. Much civil con- 
tention arose, and a civil war seemed inevitable, when in October 
1802, Bonaparte offered his mediation, and by it the federal union of 
Switzerland was established in 1803. The modification brought 
Zschokke again into political activity. He was presented with the citi- — 
zenship of Aargau, and nominated by the government in 1804 a member 
of the council of mines and forests. In the same year he commenced 
his popular ‘Schweizerboten’ (Swiss Messenger), and in 1807 his 
‘ Miscellen fiir die neueste Weltkunde’ (Miscellany of the most recent 
Events), which was continued without interruption till 1813; it dis- 
played a happy choice of subjects, a richness of contents, a conscien- 
tious liberalism, and in general a strong and correct judgment. In 
1814, when the Swiss, after the downfall of Bonaparte, again wi 

to reconstruct their constitution, Zschokke exerted himself to main- — 
tain peace in Aargau, while he strenuously defended its independence 
against the claims of Bern. In 1829, in consequence of some impu- 


ed his 


‘ 
; 


tations against him as editor of the ‘Schweizerboten,’ he resign 
offices of church and forest inspector, but retained those of member of 
the council, of the school directory, and president of the directory of 
the school of education for artisans. In 1830 he was re-chosen a member 
of the church council, and he continued to exert himself actively and — 
effectively in the promotion of education and all social reforms, though 
his time was now chiefly given to literary composition, With these 
duties and his literary works, which became extremely numerous, he 
continued to occupy himself until his death, which took place at Biber- 
stein, on June 27,1848. His published works are of very varied charac- 
ter. We have noticed some of his historical and political productions, 
but in this class the most valuable are his ‘ Geschichte des Baierischen 
Volks und seiner Fiirsten’ (History of the Bavarian People and their 
Princes), 1813-18; and ‘ Des Schweizerlandes Geschichte fiir das 
Schweizervolk’ (History of Switzerland for the Swiss People), 1822; — 
which are highly esteemed, have been frequently reprinted, and are — 
distinguished by a lucidity of arrangement, clearness of perception, a — 
keen insight into character, and warmth and strength of expression. 
His novels and tales exceed all other classes in number. Among the — 
best are his ‘ Adventures of a New Year's Night,’ which was ted 
in ‘Blackwood’s Magazine, ‘Jonathan Frock,’ a serio-comic novel, 
‘The Dead Guest,’ and ‘The Goldmaker’s Village.’ His merits are a 
correct delineation of the nicer shades of character, a naturally simple — 
pathos, a happy exposition of some of the weak points of our social 
institutions, a considerable amount of humour, and a constant — 
maintenance of good principles and feelings. Some of these novels, — 
like the ‘ Cottagers of Glenburnie,’ aim at effecting the removal of social 
evils, national prejudices, or injurious customs, such as ‘Die Brannt- — 
weinpest’ (The Brandy Pest); he is frequently tedious, and his plois © 
are improbable, and the least happy of his attempts are of the historical — 
class. His poetry seldom rises beyond mediocrity, nor are his dramate — 
attempts of a high character. He had much knowledge of a kind 
fitting him for his office of inspector of forests, and was acquainted with — 
geology, particularly in reference to the country in which he resided, — 
as is shown in his ‘Gebirgsférster’ and * Die Alpenwiilder.’ By far — 
the most popular of his works was his ‘Stunden der Andacht’ (Hours — 
of Devotion), which was first published as a Sunday periodical, and 
which has gone through forty editions. It is one of the most complete 
expositions of modern rationalism, but its want of orthodoxy was held — 
to be compensated by its fervid eloquence, and its zealous inculcation — 
of every practical duty in all ranks. This work was not known to be — 
his till the appearance of his ‘ Selbstschau,’ a sort of autobiography of — 
a somewhat singular character, which has been translated into English, — 
He published a collected edition of his historical writings, in 1880, in 
16 volumes, and a selection of his novels and poems in 10 volumes, in — 
1847 ;-but an edition of his collected works, in 1825, occupied 40 vols. 


+ 


<7 


Ss ee ee 


ee 


at 


953 ZUCCARELLI, FRANCESCO. 


ZUCCARO, TADDEO anp FEDERIGO. 954 


Many of his works have been translated into French; and in English 
we have his ‘Goldenthal,’ a tale; ‘Der Goldmachersdorf;’ ‘ Love's 
Stratagem,’ and other tales; ‘The History of Switzerland ;’ a volume 
of select essays; and the ‘Stunden der Andacht, under the title of 
‘Hours of Meditation and Reflection.’ 

ZUCCARELLI, or ZUCCHERELLI, FRANCESCO, a distinguished 
Italian landscape-painter, born at Pitigliano, near Florence, in 1702, 
He first studied figure-painting, but he eventually decided upon fol- 
lowing landscape-painting, in which his first instructor was Paolo 
Anesi, at Florence. He afterwards went to Rome and continued his 
studies with Morandi, and lastly with Pietro Nelli. Zuccarelli 


established himself at Venice, but he acquired in time, through 
_ Smith’s prints, after his works, so great a reputation in England, that 


he was induced to visit this country in 1752, and his success was 
such as to satisfy the most sanguine expectations. At the institution 
of the Royal Academy in 1768 he was elected one of the members, 
and is accordingly one of those who are considered its founders. 
Several of his pictures have been evgraved by Vivares. The figures 
in them were painted by himself; and “it has been remarked,” says 
Edwards, “that among the figures which he introduced in his land- 
scapes, he frequently represented one with a gouwrd-botile at his waist, 


as is often seen in Italy. This is said to have been done intentionally, 


as a sort of pun on his own name, Zucco being the Italian word for 


gourd,” 


In 1759 Zuccarelli painted a set of designs for tapestries, which 
were executed by the king’s tapestry-weaver, Paul Saunders, for the 
Earl of Egremont’s house in Piccadilly. He painted many creditable 
pictures in England, but they are generally very inferior to those he 
painted in Venice, and to which he was indebted for his reputation 
and the fortune he made in this country. His latter works are cold in 
colouring, want harmony, and are artificial in their composition; 


there are some specimens at Hampton Court. Zuccarelli however in 


his time reigned over the public taste in England; and the chief cause 
of Wilson’s want of success was because he did not imitate him. 

In 1773 he returned to Florence, and he gave up painting, having 
resolved to pass the remainder of his life in quiet retirement; the 
suppression however by the Emperor of Austria of a monastery, on 
the security of which he had advanced money, deprived him of his 
property. This misfortune compelled him to resume the pencil, and 
he found sufficient employment from the English gentlemen who 
visited Florence, where he continued to paint until his death in 1788. 
He etched some plates after Andrea del Sarto. 

(Lanzi, Storia Pittorica, &c.; Edwards, Anecdotes of Painting, dc.) 

-ZU’/CCARO, TADDEO and FEDERI’GO, two celebrated Italian 
historical painters, were the sons of Ottaviano Zuccaro, an obscure 
painter, and were born at S. Angelo in Vado. 

TaDDEO ZUCCARO, was born in 1529, He studied first with Pompeo 
da Fano, and afterwards with Giacomone da Faenza. He went early 
to. Rome, and became a very popular painter, for the reason, says 
Lanzi, that there is nothing in his works that the populace cannot 
understand or imagine it understands. His pictures are compositions 
of portraits, simply disposed, dressed in the costume of his time, have 
little variety of character, and he rarely introduced the naked figure, 
but when he did it was natural and simple. 

His early life—according to Vasari, who writes his name Zucchero— 
was one of extreme hardship. He left his father’s house at the age of 
fourteen, and set out alone for Rome. When he arrived there he 
found himself friendless and houseless, and he was forced to seek 
employment as a colour-grinder, but in this way he added little to his 
means, and he was for some time comparatively destitute. He passed 
many of his nights in the streets of Rome, sleeping among the ancient 
ruins, or under the porches of the modern palaces or churches; and 
after much perseverance, he was at last compelled by excessive priva- 
tion to return to his father’s house, there to recruit his shattered con- 
stitution, for, says Vasari, he had been living upon his youth; but 
during all this period he let pass no opportunity that occurred of 
improving himself in drawing. As soon as he had recovered his 
strength he returned with renewed courage to Rome, and this time 
his exertions met with a different reward. He attracted the notice of 
Daniello da Parma, who had painted some years with Correggio and 
Parmigiano, and who took Taddeo with him to Alvito near Sora, where 
he was about to paint a chapel in fresco. The experience he acquired 
in this work was of great value to him, and although only in his 
eighteenth year, he returned to Rome in 1548 a good fresco-painter, 
and he gave a proof of his ability by the frescoes in chiaroscuro which 
he executed on the facade of the house of Jacobo Mattei, illustrating 
the life of Furius Camillus. From this time he found steady employ- 
ment, and executed many vast works, good, bad, and indifferent, at 
Rome and elsewhere. He painted several frescoes for the Duke of 
Urbino, for Pope Julius IIL, and for Pope Paul IV.; but his greatest 
works were those which he painted for Cardinal Alessandro Farnese 
at Caprarola; his best works at Rome are some frescoes in the church 
of the Consolazione. 

The paintings of Caprarola illustrating the glories of the Farnese 
family were engraved in 45 plates by J. J. Prenner, and were published 
in Rome in 1748-50, in folio; and there is a description of the paint- 
ings and the palace by L. Sebastiani, ‘ Descrizione e Relazione Istorica 
del real Palazzo di Caprarola,’ published also at Rome in 1741. 


Taddeo died at Rome on the 2nd of September 1566, aged thirty- 
seven years and a day, and he was buried by the side of Raffaelle in 
the church of Santa Maria della Rotondo, or the Pantheon, at Rome. 

Frprrico Zuccaro, Taddeo’s brother and, pupil, was born at Sant’ 
Angelo in Vado, in 1543. He was given to the charge of his brother 
at ome when very young. ‘Taddeo’s numerous occupations gave 
Federigo great advantages, and he was early employed by his brother 
as an assistant. Federigo completed the works which Taddeo had 
left incomplete. He painted much in a similar style to that of 
Taddeo, but he was in every respect inferior to him, except in success 
and in the quantity and extensiveness of his works; his drawing was 
inferior, his compositions were more crowded, and there was generally 
more affectation in his style. He was invited by the Grand-Duke 
Francesco I, to Florence to paint the cupola of the cathedral, which 
had been commenced by Vasari. He there painted, says Lanzi, more 
than 300 figures 50 feet high, with a Lucifer so large, to use his own 
words, that the other figures appeared like babies. He boasted that 
they were the largest figures known, but, continues Lanzi, beyond 
their vastness they had nothing to recommend them. When Pietro 
da Cortona was in Florence there was a project to replace them by 
some works of that painter, but on account of the greatness of the 
undertaking, it was feared that he might not live long enough to com- 
plete it, and Federigo’s works were not disturbed. 

After this great work Federigo enjoyed a reputation which surpassed 
the fame of all his contemporaries, and he was recalled to Rome by 
Gregory XIII. to paint the ceiling of the Cappella Paolina in the 
Vatican. During the progress of this work he had.a quarrel with some 
of the papal courtiers who brought various accusations against him, 
and to avenge himself he imitated the example of Apelles of Ephesus 
(Lucian, ‘De Calumnia’), and painted a picture of calumny, in which 
he introduced the portraits of his accusers with asses’ ears, and placed 
the picture on St. Luke’s day over the door of the church of that 
saint. This proceeding was represented and gave offence to the pope, 
and Federigo was compelled to leave Rome immediately, to avoid the 
consequences. The picture in question is not the one he painted after 
Lucian’s description of that of Apelles of Ephesus; this was painted 
in distemper on canvas, for the Orsini family ; and it is, or was lately, 
in the Palazzo Lante; there is an engraving of it by Cornelius Cort. 
It is one of Federigo’s best works. 

After this event he went to Flanders, where he made some cartoons 
for tapestries; then to Holland, and thence came to England in 1574. 
Here he painted the portrait of Queen Elizabeth, and that of Mary 
Queen of Scots, which is at Chiswick, and which Vertue engraved. 
He painted a second portrait of Elizabeth in a sort of Persian dress, 
which is at Hampton Court, on which there is a scroll with the 
following verses attributed to Spenser, but which Walpole conjectures 
are by Elizabeth herself :— 


*¢ The restless swallow fits my restlesse mind, 
In still revivinge, still renewinge wrongs ; 
Her just complaints of cruelty unkinde 
Are all the musique that my life prolongs. 
With pensive thoughts my weeping stag I crown, 
Whose melancholy teares my cares expresse ; 
His teares in silence and my sighes unknown 
Are all the physicke that my harmes redresse, 
My only hope was in this goodly tree, 
Which I did plant in love, bring up in care, 
But all in vaine, for now to late I see 
The shales [shells] be mine, the kernels others are. 
My musique may be plaintes, my musique teares, 
If this be all the fruit my love-tree beares.”” 


Federigo painted likewise the portrait of Sir Nicholas Bacon at 
Woburn, and those of Charles Howard, earl of Nottingham, lord high 
admiral; and Elizabeth’s giant porter, now at Hampton Court. Wal- 
pole had a portrait of Sir Francis Walsingham by him. 

He did not remain long in England; he was soon forgiven and 
recalled by the pope, and he returned to Rome and finished the 
ceiling of the Paolina. At the end of 1585, after the accession of 
Sixtus V. to the papal chair, Zuccaro was invited by Philip II. to 
Spain to paint the Escurial, with a salary of 2000 scudi per annum. 
He arrived at Madrid in January 1586, and he was occupied in the 
Escurial nearly three years, during which time he painted several 
works in oil and in fresco, some of which however were immediately 
afterwards removed or destroyed; yet Zuccaro left Spain richly 
rewarded. He returned to Rome at the end of 1588. In 1595 he 
founded the Academy of St. Luke there, for which a charter had been 
granted by Gregory XIII., and it was confirmed by Sixtus V.: he was 
the first president. He wrote a book on the principles of painting, 
sculpture, and architecture, entitled ‘ L’idea di Pittori, Scultori, e 
Architetti,’ and printed it in 1603 at Turin, with a dedication to the 
Duke of Sayoy. He published two other works at Bologna in 1608— 
one giving an account of his visit to Parma, ‘La dimora, di Parma, 
del Sig. Cav. Federigo Zuccaro;’ the other giving an account of a 
journey in Italy and his stay at Parma, ‘Il passaggio per Italia colla 
dimora di Parma, del Sig. Cav. Federigo Zuccaro.’ He died in 1609, 
the year following, at Ancona. Federigo Zuccaro, though a mannerist, 
had great ability as a painter. He was also sculptor, poet, and archi- 
tect, and he is said to have owed his success chiefly to his general 


955 ZUCCHI, ANTONIO. 


ZURBARAN, FRANCISCO. 956° 


accomplishments and personal attractions: he was the most fortunate 
painter, or perhaps artist, of his‘time. Lanzi criticises his writings; 
he terms them bombastic and pedantic, and says that instead of 
instruction they present a mere tissue of sterile and undigested specu- 
lations, and that one page of Vasari is worth more than all that 
Zuccaro wrote, 

(Vasari, Vite de’ Pittori, &c. ; Baglione, Vite de’ Pittori, dc. ; Wal- 
pole, Anecdotes of Painting, &c. ; Lanzi, Storia Pittorica, &c. ; Cean 
Bermudez, Diccionario Historico, &c.) Se 

ZU'CCHI, ANTONIO, an Italian painter, born at Venice in 1726. 
His father, Francesco Zucchi, was an engraver, and was his son’s first 
instructor in drawing; he afterwards learned painting under F, Fonte- 
basso and J. Amigoni. Robert Adam, the architect, when in Italy, 
engaged Zucchi to make drawings for him; and Zucchi travelled with 


him in Italy and accompanied him to this country, and was much. 


employed by him as an interior decorator and fresco painter. He 
painted mythological subjects, ruins, and ornaments: his colouring 
was pleasing, but his style was superficial and merely ornamental, 
He executed some works in the old Buckingham House, St; James’s 
Park, and he painted much at Osterley Park, the seat of the Countess 
of Jersey, originally built by Sir Thomas Gresham. Zucchi lived 
several years in England, and was an Associate of the Royal Academy. 
He left this country in company with Angelica Kauffmann, and went 
to Rome, where he died in_1795. ; 

(Longhi, Vite de Pittort Veneziani, &e.; Edwards, Anecdotes of 
Painting, &c.) 

ZUMALACARREGUI, TOMAS, was born, December 29, 1788, in 
the village of Ormasitegui, near Villareal, in the Spanish province of 
Guipuzcoa. His parents belonged to the class of nobles, but were not 
rich. When the French invaded the Spanish peninsula in 1808 he was 
studying law in the University of Pamplona. He then relinquished 
his legal studies, and entered the army as a cadet, He served under 
Mina, and in 1813 had risen to the rank of captain. In 1822 he 
was still a captain, and soon afterwards commanded two battalions of 
Quesada’s division in the royalist army in opposition to that of the 
constitutionalists, In 1825 he became lieutenant-colonel, and had the 
command of the first regiment of King’s Volunteers, and subsequently 
the Prince’s Regiment, the third of the line. Soon afterwards he 
became colonel, and commanded the third regiment of light infantry, 
and afterwards the regiment of Estremadura, the 14th of the line, 
These successive removals were made on account of his known talents 
in the discipline and organisation of large bodies of men; but his 
attachment to the party of Don Carlos was also known, and when the 
death of Ferdinand VII. was expected to take place, Zumalacarregui 
was not only displaced by the inspector of the infantry, but was 
arrested as an enemy of the existing government. Having been set at 
’ liberty, he sent in his resignation, and retired to Pamplona, where his 
wife and family were residing, On the death of Ferdinand in Septem- 
ber, 1833, he was offered the rank of brigadier-general on condition 
that- he would attach himself to the queen’s army, but this offer he 
declined. He was strictly watched, but escaped by night, and on the 
80th of October joined the insurgents in the Basque Provinces. He 
collected a considerable force, though his means were limited to about 
2001, of his own money, and in a series of mountain conflicts he over- 
came the best of the queen’s generals. Don Carlos left England 
secretly, and joined the army in July, 1834. Zumalacarregui defeated 
General Rodil in the valley of Amescoas on the Ist of August, routed 
the Christina force at Viana on the 7th of September, gained a victory 
- in the plains of Vitoria on the 27th of October, and in the spring of 
1835, after a conflict of four days with the queen’s forces under Valdes, 
gained another important victory in the valley of Amescoas. On the 
15th of June, while preparing to storm Bilbao, and while he was 
reconnoitring the place with a telescope, he was struck on the inner 
part of the calf of the leg by a musket-ball, which fractured the 
smaller bone, and lodged in the flesh. The ball was not extracted so 
soon as it ought to have been, inflammation supervened, and Zumala- 
carregui died, June 25, 1835. He had the sobriquet of “El Tio 
Tomas” (Uncle Thomas), by which he was more commonly designated 
than by his own name. In 1836 was published ‘The most Striking 
Events of a Twelvemonth’s Campaign with Zumalacarregui in Navarre 
and the Basque Provinces, by C. F. Henningsen, Captain of Lancers in 
the Service of Don Carlos,’ 2 vols. 12mo. 

ZUMMO, GAETA’NO GIULIO, a celebrated modeller in coloured 
“ wax, was born of a noble family at Syracuse in 1656: his name is 
commonly, but incorrectly, written Zumbo. He devoted himself early 
to the study of sculpture, and combining with it a careful investigation 
of the anatomy of the human body, he produced some very clever 
works and anatomical preparations in coloured wax, prepared after a 
method of his own. He acquired a reputation in several cities of 
Italy—in Bologna, Genoa, but especially at Florence, where the Grand- 
Duke Cosmo III, took him into his service. Among other works 
which Zummo executed for this prince is one which is called ‘La Car- 
ruzione’ (Corruption) : it consists of a group of five figures in high 
relief, showing various stages of decomposition of the human body after 
death. At one corner of this work he has put his own portrait, and 
inscribed under it his name as follows :—*Caet* Jul”: Zummo 
S«*,” which is, “Caetanus Julius Zummo Syracusanus.” He made 
another group showing the effects of the plague; and both works are 


as extremely repulsive to look at as they are remarkable for their 
ingenuity of execution. He made likewise at Florence several anato- __ 
mical preparations. At Genoa he executed two very beautiful works, __ 
representing the Nativity and the Descent from the Cross; the latter 
has been well engraved by E. 8. Cheron. They are both described by 
De Piles in his ‘Cours de Peinture,’—‘ Description de deux ouvrages de 
Sculpture, qui appartiennent & Mr. Le Hag, faits par Mr. Zumbo, 
Gentilhomme Sicilien.” From Genoa Zummo went to Paris, wherehe _ 
died in 1701. - 
Upwards of a century before Zummo, Jacopo Vivio, an Italian 
artist, distinguished himself for his models in coloured wax; he is 
said to have made a copy of the Last Judgment by Michel Angelo 
in wax. fhe 
* ZUMPT, CARL GOTTLOB, was born on the 20th of March 1792, 
in Berlin. After receiving a good preparatory education in two ofthe 
gymnasiums of his native city, he proceeded in 1809 to the University 
of Heidelberg, where he devoted himself mostly to p al 
studies under Greuzer. In the following year he returned to Berlin, 
where, in the newly-founded university, he was stimulated and dad 
in his favourite study of the classical languages by the lectures of 
Wolf, Heindorf, and Bockh. In 1812 he was appointed to the situation _ 
of au ordinary teacher in the Werder’schen Gymnasium, and continued 
in the performance of his duties there till 1821, when he was app ad 
a professor in the Joachimsthal Gymnasium. Meantime he had 
lished his ‘Rules of Latin Syntax’ (Berlin, 1814), out of which, 
additions, he constructed the first edition of his Latin Gram 
‘Lateinische Grammatik,’ Berlin, 1818. In consequence of a dis ry 
with the directors of the gymnasium, Zumpt resigned his professor- 
ship in 1826, and was for a time professor of history in the Military 
School, but in 1828 he was advanced to the situation of Professor of — 
Roman Literature in the University of Berlin. In 1831 he madea — 
tour in Italy, and in 1835 another in Greece. In the latter year he 
was elected a member of the Royal Academy of Sciences of Berlin, —_ 
Zampt’s great work is the ‘Latin Grammar,’ which has had a very 
large circulation in Germany, and has passed through several editions, 
each of which has been assiduously corrected and improved by the — 
author, till it is become in its details quite a different work from what 
it was in its early state. Its chief merit consists in its copious and 
well-arranged syntax, and in this department it surpasses any Latin 
Grammar which has been produced in England. The etymology of — 
the Latin language has been studied in this country more comprehen- _ 
sively than on the Continent, and in this branch its superiority is less 
decided. Two translations of Zumpt’s ‘ Lateinische Grammatik’ have __ 
been made into English. The first, by the Rey. John Kenrick, MA, 
is from the third edition: it was published in 1823, and continued to 
be reprinted without receiving the corrections aud improvements 
which had in the meantime been made in the German original. The — 
other translation is by Dr. Schmitz, rector of the High School of 
Edinburgh. It is from the ninth edition of 1844, and was published — 
in 8vo in 1845, in communication with the author, and with all the — 
latest improvements. ’ — 
After Zumpt’s Latin Grammar had been awhile in circulation, it — 
was found necessary to provide a more rudimentary grammar for — 
younger students, and this ‘Aufzug’ has been also translated by 
Dr. Schmitz, under the title of ‘ A School-Grammar of the Latin Lan- 
guage, translated and adapted to the High School of Edinburgh, 
12mo, 1846, - 
Professor Zumpt’s other works are mostly treatises and essays on 
subjects connected with the manners and usages of the Romans, such 
as, ‘On the Court of the Centumvirs’ (Uber Ursprang, Form, und 
Bedeutung des Centumviralgerichts), 4to, 1838; ‘On the Personal 
Freedom of the Roman Citizen’ (Uber die Persénliche Freiheit des 
Roémischen Biirgers), 8vo, 1846, and others. Some of these are — 
lectures which have been delivered before the Royal Academy of © 
Sciences, such as ‘ Die Religion des Romer,’ 12mo, 1845. He has also 
published editions of some of the Roman authors, with valuable notes, — 
Among these are Quinctilian’s ‘Institutiones Oratoriz,’ Cicero’s *Ora- 
tiones in Verrem,’ Quintus Curtius, and others. = 
ZU‘RBARAN, FRANCISCO, a very celebrated Spanish , 
was born at Fuente de Cantos, in Estremadura, in November 1598; 
he is called the Spanish Caravaggio. His parents, who were of the — 
labouring class, soon discovered in young Francisco an ability to excel — 
in painting, and they accordingly sent him to Seville to the school of — 
Juan de Roélas, He made very rapid Se og and from the ieee 
resemblance of even his. earliest works to those of Caravaggio, eis 
supposed to have copied some pictures of that master which he may 4 
have seen at Seville, He drew correctly, always painted from nature, ~ 
and was remarkable for his persevering studies of white draperies — 
from the lay figure, in painting which he greatly excelled. In 1625 
the Marquis de on commissioned Zurbaran to paint some pic- 
tures for the altar of St. Peter in the Cathedral of Seville; and about 
the same time he painted his celebrated picture of St. Thomas — 
Aquinas, for the great altar of the church of the college of that saint — 
at Seville; it contains many figures larger than life, and for nature, — 
chiaroscuro, and general execution, is considered Zurbaran’s master- — 
iece, and ranks him, says Cean Bermudez, with the first masters of — 
Lambardes Other celebrated works by Zurbaran at Seville are three — 
at the Carthusians of Santa Maria de las Cuevas; the two altar-pieces — 


* 
ns 
—_ 


by 
mec) a a 


. 


SV tt 


© Di 
ag tw 


ee 


qj 


ee 
4 7 “= = _—T " —y 


LO 


a a 


Sy Le A OER . gilt a 


? 


957 


ZURITA, GERONYMO,. 


ZWINGLI, 


958 


of San Lorenzo.and Sant’ Antonio Abad at the Mercenarios Descalzos; 
some pictures at the Merced Calzada; those by him in the church 
of San Buenaventura; and the crucifix in the oratory of the convent 
of St. Paul. He painted likewise several works at Madrid in the 
Palacio Nuevo, and in the Buenretiro, and some of them probably 
before 1633, for on some works painted for the Carthusians at Xerez 
in that year he signs himself painter to the king (Philip III.), a title 
which he most probably acquired after he had executed some of his 
paintings at Madrid. He alsospentsome time at Madrid after this date 
working for Philip IV., but he returned to Seville, and died there in 
1662. He formed no scholars at Madrid, but Bernabé de Ayala, the 


- brothers Polanco, and others, were his scholars and imitators at Seville. 


ye 


Zurbaran’s works are very numerous at Seville: there are also 
several at Cordova and Guadalupe, and some at Castello and Pena- 
randa, Out of Spain they are very-uncommon, but Marshal Soult 
brought away some, and others have been sold and removed more 
recently. In the Spanish Museum in the Louvre there is a room 
devoted chiefly to the works of Zurbaran ; there are in it, according 
to the catalogue, 81 pictures by him, but many of them are very 
indifferent, and are probably not by him. In this country the Duke 
of Sutherland has a good specimen of his style, and there is a ‘ Virgin 


_ in Glory’ from his pencil in the possession of Lord Eleho; Mr. Stir- 


by him. 
though not a very important work, affords a good illustration of his 


ling, the learned historian of Spanish painting, has also two pictures 
In the National Gallery is a ‘Franciscan Monk,’ which, 


style. His works have as much nature and power as those of Cara- 


_ vaggio, and less vulgarity. The pictures from the life of San Pedro 


Nolasco at the Merced Calzada at Seville, though some of Zurbaran’s 
earliest works, are among his best; they are remarkable for the skill 
with which he has managed the white draperies of the monastics, 

ZURITA, GERO’NYMO, a distinguished Spanish historian, was 
born at Saragossa, on the 4th of December, 1512, He studied at Alcala, 
under Hernan Nufiez. In 1530 he was appointed chief of the muni- 
cipalities of Balbastro and Huesca. At a later period he succeeded his 
father-in-law, Juan Garzias de Olivan, as fiscal of Madrid. In 1543 he 
was admitted into the supreme council of Castile, And sent on a mis- 
sion to Germany. On his return to his native country in 1549, he was 
appointed by the states of Aragon coronista (chronicler) of the king- 
dom, the first who filled the office, then newly instituted. 

The duties of this appointment appear to have engaged his whole 
time from 1549 to 1567. An ordinance was issued in his favour by 
Philip II. to all the municipalities and abbeys of his dominions, 
enjoining them to open their archives and communicate their most 
secret papers to Zurita. Thus authorised, the Coronista travelled 
through Aragon, Italy, and Sicily, and collected a great number of 
important documents. 

In 1567 Zurita was appointed private secretary to the king. In 
1568 the grand inquisitor intrusted to his charge all the corres- 
pondence of the holy office. Towards the close of his life he re- 
signed this appointment, and retired to the Hieronymite convent of 
Saragossa. The continuation of his Annals of Aragon was the occu- 
pation of his declining years. He died in his convent, on the 8rd of 
November, 1581. His books he bequeathed to the Chartreux of Sara- 
soars, but most of them were taken possession of for the Escurial 

rary. 

The works of Zurita are :—1, ‘Annales de la Corona de Aragon,’ 
Saragossa, 1562-79; 2, ‘Indices rerum ab/Aragoniae Regibus'gestarum 
ab initiis regni ad annum 1410, tribus libris expositi, Saragossa, 
1578; 3, § Progressos de la historia en el reyno de Aragon, que con- 
tiene en quatros libros varios suecessos desde el an 1512, hasta al an 
1580,’ Saragossa, 1580; 4, ‘Enmiendas y Advertencias en las coronicas 
de los reies de Castilla que escrivio don Lopez de Ayala,’ Saragossa, 
1683. Bouterweck speaks in high terms of the writings of Zurita. By 
a lucid exposition of the connection of events he has succeeded in 
developing the growth of the Aragonese constitution. 

It was Zurita who first discovered the ‘Chronicon Alexandrinum,’ 
published by Ducange among the Byzantine historians. Some gram- 
matical notes of Zurita on the ‘Commentaries of Cesar,’ Claudian, and 
the ‘ Antonine Itinerary’ are preserved in manuscript in the libraries 
of the Chartreux of Saragossa and of the Escurial. 

(Elogios de Geronimo Zurita primer Coronista del Regno de Aragon, 
par Diego Josef Dormer; N. Antonio, Bibliotheca Hispana Nova.) 

ZWINGLI, or ULRICH ZUINGLI, the reformer of Switzerland, 
was born at Wildhaus in the Toggenburg, in January 1484. His father 
was a substantial farmer. Zwingli studied at Basel, and then at Bern, 
from whence he went to study philosophy at Vienna; on his return 
to Basel he went through his theological studies under Thomas Wyt- 
tenbach. He was ordained priest and said his first mass in 1506. He 
was then appointed to the parish of Glarus, the head town of the 
canton of that name. He applied himself strenuously to the study 
of the Scriptures in the Hebrew and Greek text, and that of the early 
fathers of the church. He appears to have been early impressed with 
a notion that all was not right in the government and discipline of the 
church as then established, and he communicated his doubts by letters 
to several learned men, with whom he was acquainted. His life was 
pure and exemplary, and he was much beloved by his flock for his 
sermons; he inculcated the practice of Gospel morality, avoiding as 
much as possible to speak of the intercession of saints, of images and 


relics, and of fasts and pilgrimages. Twice he accompanied, as chap- 
lain,, the military contingent of Glarus to the wars in Italy, in which 
the Swiss were then taking an active part, as auxiliaries to one or the 
other of the belligerents. Zwingli was at Milan when a part of the 
Swiss, won over by the intrigues and bribes of Cardinal Schinner, 
refused to ratify the treaty of peace with France agreed upon by most 
of the cantons, and marched out to attack the French army under 
Trivulzio, more than double their strength. They fought desperately 
for two days at Marignano, on the 14th and 15th of September 1515, 
lost one-half of their number, but at the same time so crippled the 
French that they were allowed to retire unmolested with their artillery. 
and their wounded. 

On his return to Switzerland, Zwingli wrote some strong remon- 
strances to the governments of the various cantons, intreating 
them to put a stop to the practice of foreign enlistment, and not te 
allow the blood of their countrymen to be wasted for quarrels not 
their own, After having filled his post at Glarus for ten years, he was 
appointed, in 1516, preacher to the monastery of Einsiedlen.~ There, 
in the very sanctuary-of devotional practices, pilgrimages, indulgences, 
and votive offerings, Zwingli preached more freely than he had done 
at Glarus against the abuse of those things, entreating his audience to 
seek forgiveness through the merits of the Saviour alone, and not 
through the intercession of the Virgin and other saints, and to consult 
the Scriptures as the only safe rule in matters of faith. He had several 
conferences with Cardinal Schinner, whom he had known in Italy, and 
he warmly represented to him as well as to the Bishop of Constance 
the urgent necessity of a reform in the discipline of the church, in- 
treating them and their brother prelates to take the work into their 
own hands, for fear that the people whose eyes began to be opened to 
the astounding corruption around them, should lose all respect for the 
church, and the whole social and’ religious world be thrown into an- 
archy. At this time Zwingli had not even heard of Luther, whose theses 
against the sale of indulgences were affixed at the gates of the Castle 
church of Wittenberg, on the last day of October 1517, when Zwingli 
had been already preaching at Einsiedlen’ against similar practices for 
nearly two years, This shows that the movement of the Reformation 
did not originate with Luther alone, but commenced simultaneously 
in different countries, where minds similarly tempered, though unac- 
quainted with one another, felt a common impulse from general cir- 
cumstances and from what they saw of the condition of the church 
around them. 

In 1518 the traffic in indulgences spread to Switzerland, Bernardin 
Samson, a Franciscan friar of the convent of Milan, was commissioned 
by his superiors to sell indulgences in Switzerland. Samson, a vulgar 
ignorant man, in his eagerness for customers went beyond the lax 
notions of the times, according to which most people believed that 
indulgences remitted the guilt as well as the penalty of past offences, a 
notion unwarranted by the councils or by the divines of the Roman 
Church, Samson told the Swiss mountaineers that by purchasing 
indulgences to a certain amount they might obtain a sort of privilege 
or immunity for future sins which they might happen to commit. 
Samson however was opposed by Zwingli, who made a stand at the 
church gate of the abbey of Linsiedlen, and refused the friar admit- 
tance, being supported in this by the abbot, and especially by Theo- 
bald, baron of Geroldsek, who was the vogt or economical administrator 
of the abbey. Zwingli then preached to the assembled pilgrims, not 
exactly against the doctrine of indulgences, but against the glaring 
abuse of them which was being made, exposing the mercenary object 
of the friar, and laying the blame not on the heads of the church, but 
on their subordinate agents. Even Faber, vicar of the bishop of Con- 
stance, was ashamed of Samson, and forbade him, under some alle- 
gation of informality, to sell his indulgences within his diocese. 
Bullinger, the rector of Bremgarten, and a friend of Zwingli, refused 
Samson admittance to his church. The friar however reaped a good 
harvest at Luzern, Bern, and other places. 

In the mean time Zwingli had been invited by the chapter of the 
Gros Miinster, or collegiate church of Ziirich, to be their preacher, 
which offer he accepted, on condition that he-should not be expected 
to preach anything but the word of God as it is in the Scriptures. 
On Samson making his appearance at Ziirich, he found there his old 
antagonist, and was of course refused admittance. Soon after Samson 
left Switzerland to return to Milan, carrying with him, according to 
the account of Stettler, in his Chronicle, about 800,000 crowns. This 
was in 1519. 

Zwingli, from his opposition to the sale of indulgences, was led to 
investigate other questionable practices of the Roman Church, as 
Luther was doing in Germany. He corresponded on these matters 
with several men of learning in other parts of Switzerland; Henry 
Lavit, of Glarus, styled Glareanus ; Kodflin, who Latinised his name 
into Capito, according to the fashion of the times; Hauschein, of 
Basel, called (Ecolampadius ; Henry Bullinger, of Bremgarten ; Thomas 
Wyttenbach, of Bienne; and Birchthold Haller, of Bern ; all of whom 
preached against indulgences, and against the multiplicity of external 
forms in worship. They all insisted upon the propriety of reading 
prayers in the vernacular language of each country, and they recom- 
mended that religious instruction should be made clear, intelligible, 
and accessible to all. By degrees they were led on to gainsay the 
right assumed by the see of Rome to decide upon all religious and 


50 ZWINGLI. 


ZWINGLI. 960 


ecclesiastical questions. Erasmus of Rotterdam, who was living at 
Basel, and who had gone along with them in exposing and ridiculing 
various superstitious practices and other clerical abuses, stopped short 
when his friends directed their attacks against the papal authority. 
[Erasmus.] The court of Rome, whose attention was engrossed by 
Luther’s German schism, had hitherto taken little notice of the Swiss 
controversy, but now it began to threaten the innovators with excom- 
munication. The bishop of Constance forbade the preaching of the 
new doctrines, and the Mendicant orders laid charges of impiety and 
sedition against Zwingli before the magistrates of Ziirich. — Zwingli 
published his defence under the title of ‘Apologeticus Architeles,’ in 
1522, copies of which were rapidly spread all over Switzerland. 
Things bore a threatening appearance against Zwingli; Luther had 
just been condemned at Worms as a heretic, and was obliged to con- 
ceal himself. But Zwingli lived in a republican country, where he had 
less to fear from pope or emperor. 

In January 1523, the Great or Legislative Council of Ziirich ap- 
pointed a conference to be held at the town-hall, to which all the 
ecclesiastics of the canton were invited, for the purpose of hearing 
the exposition of the new doctrines, and the arguments of their advo- 
cates as well as of their opponents. Zwingli published a list of 
articles to be discussed in the colloquy. As these form the main 
subject of the separation of the Swiss reformers, or Evangelicals, as 
they began to style themselves, from the Church of Rome, we shall 
quote the principal among them :—‘“ It is an error,” said Zwingli, “‘ to 
assert that the Gospel is nothing without the approbation of the 
church, and to value other instructions and traditions equally with 
those contained in the Gospel. The Gospel teaches us that the 
observances enjoined by men do not avail to salvation, The mass is 
not a sacrifice, but a commemoration of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. 
The power assumed by the pope and the bishops has no foundation 
in-Seripture. God has not forbidden marriage to any class of Chris- 
tians: therefore it is wrong to interdict it to priests, whose forced 
celibacy has become the cause of great licentiousness of manners. 
Confession made to a priest ought to be considered as an examination 
of the conscience, and not as an act which can deserve absolution. To 
give absolution for money is simony. Holy Writ says nothing of 
Purgatory: God alone knows the judgment which he reserves for the 
dead; and as He has not been pleased to reveal it to us, we ought to 
refrain from indiscreet conjectures on the subject. The jurisdiction 
exercised by the clergy belongs to the secular magistrates, to whom 
all Christians ought to submit themselves. No person ought to be 
molested for his opinions; it is for the magistrates to stop the pro- 
gress of those which tend to disturb the public tranquillity.” 

On the day fixed for the conference, the Council of Two Hundred, 
presided over by the burgomaster, assembled in the town-hall, whither 
the ecclesiastics of the canton, Zwingli included, repaired, together 
with a great number of spectators. The Bishop of Constance had sent 
Faber, his vicar-general, accompanied by several theologians. The 
burgomaster opened the sitting by explaining the motives which had 
induced the government to convoke the assembly, for the sake of 
becoming enlightened by a public discussion on the questions which 
distracted the church and unsettled the consciences of the people. 
He then invited those who considered the doctrines of Zwingli and 
his friends as heretical, to state their arguments against them. Faber 
however declined entering upon particular points of controversy, but 
descanted on the necessity of union in the church, and of obedience to 
the decrees of the Councils, who were inspired by the Holy Spirit; on 
the evils of heresy, and on the audacity of turbulent men who excited 
contentions and schisms. “As to those who appeal tothe Scriptures 
in the three languages,” said he, “I reply that it is not sufficient to 
quote the sacred writings, but that it is also necessary to understand 
them. Now the gift of interpretation is not one which is given to all. 
I do not boast of possessing it: I am ignorant of Hebrew; I know 
little of Greek ; and, though I am sufficiently versed in Latin, yet I 
do not pretend to be an able orator. I disclaim the presumption of 
assuming the office of a judge on questions concerning salvation ; 
these can only be decided by a general council, to whose decisions I 
shall submit without a murmur; and it would become all present to 
show a like submission,” 

To this Zwingli replied, that if by the church Faber understood 
the popes and cardinals, the historical records of many of them 
showed that they could not have been enlightened by the Holy Spirit; 
that if he meant the councils, as embodying the authority of the 
church, he was forgetting how many of those assemblies had accused 
each other of bad faith and heresy. ‘Even the fathers of the church,” 
observed Zwingli, “ cannot be regarded as unerring guides, since they 
often do not agree among themselves; witness St. Jerome and St 
Augustin, who held very different opinions on important points. .... 
There certainly is a church that cannot err, and directed by the Holy 
Spirit. This church is composed of all the true believers united in 
the bonds of faith and charity; but it is visible only to the eye of its 
divine founder, who knoweth his own. It does not assemble with 
pomp ; it does not issue its decrees after the manner of the kings of 
the earth; it has no temporal reign; it seeks neither honours nor 
domination: to fulfil the will of God is the only care by which it is 
occupied.” The conference after this turned upon the invocation of 
saints and other points in debate, but it was no more than a desultory 


conversation, as the two parties did not meet on common ground; 
Zwingli refusing to admit any arguments but those drawn from Serip- 
ture, while Faber chose his from the decisions of the councils and the 
traditions of the church. At last the burgomaster dissolved the 
meeting; but the council remained assembled, and after some delibe- 
ration, it came to a resolution that “ Zwingli, having neither been con- — F 
victed of heresy nor refuted, should continue to preach the Gospelas 
before ; that the pastors of the town and territory of Ziirich should Fe 
ground their discourses on the words of Scripture alone, and that both ~ 
parties should avoid all personal reflections and recriminations.” The — 
forms of worship remained unchanged for the present ; mass continued 

to be said, the images remained, but more frequent and more scriptural _ 
sermons were preached for the instruction of the people. Some of the — 
more impatient and rash partisans of the new doctrines, having pulled — 
down a large crucifix which stood at one of the gates of Ziirich, the — 
culprits were arrested and charged with sacrilege. Zwi blamed — 
them for committing an act of violent innovation without the authority _ 
of the magistrate, but he at the same time maintained that the offence — 
could not be called sacrilege, as images ought not to be objects of — 
religious worship. This gave rise to much debate in the council, which 

at last convoked a second conference, for the purpose of deciding — 
“whether the worship of images was authorised by the Gospel, and — 
whether the mass ought to be retained.” This conference was held in — 
October 1523. About 900 persons were present, including mostof — 
the clergy of the canton of Ziirich. The council had invited the other — 
cantons and allies of the Confederation, as well as the University of 


Basel, to send their deputies, but Schaffhausen and St. Gall alone — 
answered the call. Zwingli and his friend Leo Judii explained and — 
supported their theses, namely, that the worship of images was — 
unscriptural, and that the mass was not a sacrifice. The prior of — 
the Augustines, after much desultory conversation, said that he could 
not refute Zwingli unless he were allowed to quote the canon law. — 
The conference lasted three days, but was not productive of any new _ 
argument against the Reformers, who had full time to explain their 
doctrines and to produce a deep impression on the greater part of the 
assembly, after which the council closed the meeting, and adjourned — 
its own decision to the following year. a 
During the interval the council applied to the bishops of Constance, — 
Basel, and Coire, begging of them explicitly to state their sentiments — 
concerning Zwingli’s doctrines. The bishop of Constance alonesent to 
the council an apology for the use of the mass, which however con- 
tained nothing more than the usual reasonings of the Canonists in — 
favour of whatever had been decreed by the church. Zwingli wrote 
an answer to it by order of the council, condemning the use of images, 
the invocation of the saints, the exhibition of relics in churches, and — 
the ex voto offerings. At the beginning of 1524, the Great Council — 
ordered all the pictures, statues, relics, offerings, and other ornaments — 
to be removed from the churches, allowing those which were the gift — 
of private individuals to be restored to them or their descendants. — 
Thus Ziirich was the first canton in Switzerland which openly em- 
braced the Reformation : Bern, Basel, and Shaffhausen, and a part of — 
Glarus and Appenzell, followed some years later, In January, 1525, 
the mass was finally abolished at Ziirich; and on Easter Sunday of © 
that year the Lord’s Supper was celebrated according to the simple 
form suggested by Zwingli, and which is the same as that observed - 
in the Reformed churches of Switzerland and France to this day. } 
The next thing was to provide for the instruction of the people, — 
and to find funds for that purpose. The chapter of the Great Miinster, 
or Collegiate Church of Ziirich, of which Zwingli was a member, was — 
a very wealthy body: it had its own fiefs and jurisdictions, and was 
independent of the council. Zwingli reasoned with his brother canons — 
on the propriety of allotting a part of their ample revenues for the 
purpose of education, and on the expediency of doing this of their own 
accord, without waiting for the lay power to interfere, A majority of 
the chapter having recognised either the justice or the prudence of 
concession, a convention was agreed upon between the chapter and the - 
council, by which the former resigned its regalia of feudal jurisdiction 
and immunities of the state, swearing allegiance to the council as its” 
sovereign, retaining at the same time the administration of its own 
revenues, of which a part was to be appropriated to defray the salary 
of spiritual pastors for the town. Those canons who were capable of | 
performing pastoral functions should be employed as such, and those 
who were old and infirm should retain their} benefices; but at th 
death their places were not to be filled up, and the revenues of the 
benefices were to be employed in founding professorships for 
gratuitous instruction of the people. A small minority of five cance 
protested against the convention, alleging the authority of the po 
and, not choosing to subject themselves to the lay authority, ' 
quitted Ziirich and retired into the Roman Catholic cantons. T 
abbess of the Frauemiinster and her nuns followed the example 
the chapter ; and reserving pensions for themselves during life, they 
gave up to the state all their property and privileges. The surplus 
revenue was employed to found a seminary for candidates for. 
clerical profession. The convents of the mendicant orders were e 
wards suppressed by order of the council, the aged and in 
members were ted annuities for life and a common habitatio 
one of the convents, and the others were placed in various trades 
professions, The convent of the Dominicans was transformed into an 


~ 


ee oe —— 
=. ae ee 


Wms ~~ 


Se een eae 


a 


' broke out. 


961 ZWINGLI. 


ZWINGLI. 962 


hospital for the sick; that of the Augustines into an asylum for the 
destitute. In every instance the property of the church was neither 
swallowed up by the treasury nor embezzled by grasping individuals. 
It was guaranteed by the state, and made into a distinct fund for the 
purposes of education, religious instruction, and charity. Vested 
rights were respected, and a decent regard was observed towards the 
feelings and prejudices of the old occupants. This mode of secularisa- 
tion of church property, so very different from the system of spolia- 
tion and plunder pursued in other countries, then and in our own days, 
even by states calling themselves. Roman Catholic, is one of the bright 
features of the Swiss reformation, for the other reformed cantons 
generally acted upon the same principle of honesty which Zwingli 
proclaimed and enforced at Ziirich. . 

Zwingli was commissioned by the government to organise a system 
of public instruction adapted to the awakened intelligence of the age. 
He reformed the public schools, appointed new professors for the 
classical languages, and founded an academy for theological studies. 
He appointed Conrad Pellican, a native of Alsace, to one of the chairs 
of fen and Rudolf Collinus, of Luzern, to that of Greek : this was 
in 1526. 

The Anabaptists, a fanatical sect, the wild offshot of the Reforma- 


tion, who among other vagaries wished to establish a community of 


goods and a commonwealth independent of magistrates or government, 


~ made their appearance in the canton of Ziirich. Zwingli had several 


conferences with some of their leaders: he tried to convince them of 
the impropriety and impracticability of their schemes, but all to no 
purpose: disturbances were excited, the Anabaptists, being warned by 
the Council, refused to submit; they stirred up the ignorant people 
to acts of violence, until the government was obliged to resort to 
measures of severity in order to restore tranquillity. 

Zwingli did not attend the conference held at Baden in Aargau, in 
1526, in presence of the deputies of all the cantons, in which Eckius, 
chancellor of the University of Ingolstadt, challenged the theologians 
of the Reformation. The council of Ziirich would not allow Zwingli 
to go, as there was a manifest intention of seizing his person and con- 
demning him as a heretic. C£colampadius, who was less known and 
less obnoxious to the Romanists, undertook to answer the arguments 
of Eckius, but the majority of the cantons being Roman Catholic, the 
diet supported the resolutions of Eckius and Faber, grand-vicar of 
the Bishop of Constance, to the effect that Zwingli and his adherents 
should be considered as heretics, and as such excommunicated, and it 
condemned all changes in doctrine or worship, and forbade the sale of 
heretical books. The cantons of Bern, Ziirich, Basel, Schaffhausen, 
Glarus, and Appenzell protested against this decision ; but the Roman 
Catholic cantons began to act upon it, and arrested and put to death 
several of the Reformed preachers within their territories. 

At the beginning of 1528 Zaingli repaired to a conference held at 
Bern, by order of the senate of that canton. He was attended by 
(Ecolampadius, Bullinger, Collinus, and Pellican, and by Bucer and 
Capito, preachers at Strasbourg. The conference lasted nineteen days, 
and as it was laid down as a preliminary principle that no argument 
would be admitted which was not grounded on a text of Scripture, 
the Reformed divines obtained a full advantage over their opponents. 
The consequence was that the important canton of Bern publicly 
embraced the Reformation. 

In September 1529, Zwingli repaired with Gicolampadius and others 
to Marburg to hold a conference with Luther and Melanchthon. They 
agreed upon the principal points of faith, and signed together fourteen 
articles, containing the essential doctrines of their common belief: 
they only differed upon the subject of the Eucharist. Luther main- 
tained the doctrine of the real presence, while Zwingli, in his ‘Com- 
mentary on True and False Religion,’ had asserted that “the outward 
symbois of the blood and body of Christ undergo no supernatural 
change in the Eucharist.” Zwingliand Luther, after much discussion, 
parted, still in controversy, but not in anger. Zwingli was averse 
from dogmatism, and he did not pretend to erect his own ideas into 
articles of faith. In his ‘Exposition of the Christian Faith,’ which he 
addressed shortly before his death ‘to King Francis L., whild he admits 
the necessity of justification by faith for all those to whom the Gospel 
has been made known, he discards the sentence of sweeping condemna- 
tion against those who have not been acquainted with the Scripture, 
and he expresses his belief that “all good men who have fulfilled the 
laws engraven on their consciences, whatever age or country they may 
have lived in, will partake of eternal felicity.” 

In the year 1531, after several angry and hostile remonstrations 
between the Roman Catholic and the Reformed cantons, war actually 
The Reformed cantons, and Ziirich in particular, com- 
plained of the persecutions to which their fellow-believers were subject, 
not only when found within the territory of the Roman Catholic can- 
tons, but also on the neutral ground of Thurgau, Baden, and the 
other common subject bailiwicks, where the bailli or governor for the 
time happened to belong to a Roman Catholic state. The Roman 
Catholics complained of the interference of Ziirich with the territories 
of the Abbot of St. Gall, where the commissioners from Ziirich had 
proclaimed liberty of conscience. The grounds of the dispute were of 


.a mixed nature, resulting from religious and political jealousy. The 


Roman Catholic cantons broadly refused liberty of conscience to their 
citizens or subjects, on the plea that it was contrary to the doctrine 
B10G, DIV. VOL. VI. 


of their church. Bern and Ziirich came to the determination of 
stopping the supplies of provisions which Luzern and the forest can- 
tons were in the habit of procuring from or through the territories of 
the other two, forbidding the citizens of the Waldstitten to frequent 
the markets of Bern and Ziirich, and enforcing a kind of blockade 
which was severely felt by the mountain cantons, which, being chiefly 
pastoral, depended for their supply of corn, salt, and other necessaries 
on the markets of their more favoured neighbours. The five cantons 
of Luzern, Zug, Schwyz, Uri, and Unterwalden declared war against 
Ziivich and Bern, and their troops advanced to Cappel, a village on the 
road from Zug to Ziirich, and within the territory of the latter canton. 
The council of Ziirich, which was far from unanimous, was taken by 
surprise, for it did not expect so sudden an attack. A few hundred 
militia were posted at Cappel, and a body of about 2000 more were 
ordered to reinforce them in haste, and Zwingli received orders from 
the council to accompany and encourage them, On taking leave of 
his friends, he told them that their cause was good, but was ill-de- 
fended ; that his life, as well as the lives of many excellent men who 
wished to restore religion to its primitive simplicity, would be sacri- 
ficed: but no matter, said he, ‘‘ God will not abandon his servants; he 
will come to their assistance when you think all is lost.” 

On arriving at the field of battle the disproportion of the two hosts 
became visible. The men of the five cantons, nearly 8000 strong, 
attacked the Ziirichers, by whom they were repulsed at first; but a 
body of the former passing through a wood, which had been left 
unguarded, turned the position of the Ziirichers, and fell upon their 
rear. Confusion became general among the Ziirichers, most of whom 
were killed and the rest dispersed. Zwingli received a mortal wound 
and fell, but not senseless. Some Catholic soldiers passing by, with- 
out knowing who he was, offered to fetch a confessor, which he refused. 
They then exhorted him to recommend his soul to the Virgin Mary, 
to which Zwingli replied by a negative motion of the head, One of 
the soldiers then ran him through with his sword, saying that he 
ought to die, being an obstinate heretic. The next day, the body, 
being recognised, was burnt, and his ashes scattered to the wind, 
amidst the acclamations of the men of the five cantons. Zwingli was 
forty-seven years of age when he died. The battle of Cappel was 
fought on the 11th of October 1531. 

Zwingli was a very remarkable man. Inferior perhaps to Luther in 
fiery eloquence, and to Calvin in logical acuteness, he was possessed of 
deeper learning and more consistency and sobriety of thought than 
the German reformer, and had more candour and charity than he of 
Geneva. For piety of life, sincerity of purpose, and knowledge of 
the Scriptures, he is inferior to none of the reformers of the 16th 
century. 

His works, written some in Latin and some in German, consist of 
controversial treatises, expositions of his doctrines, epistles, notes, and 
commentaries on the book of Genesis, on Isaiah, and Jeremiah, on the 
Gospels, and on the Epistles of Paul, James, and John; treatises on 
original sin, on Providence, on true and false religion, on the certainty 
and clearness of the word of God, and others. They were collected - 
and published at Ziirich in 3 vols, 4to, in 1581, with an ‘Elenchus 
articulorum,’ consisting of sixty-seven articles or conclusions gathered 
from the works of Zwingli, with explanations. Myconius, J. G. Hess, 
Usteri, and Vogelin have written biographies of Zwingli; and Hottin- 
ger, in his history of the Swiss Reformation, has spoken of him at 
length. The Life of Zwingli, by Hess, has been translated into 
English by Lucy Aikin; and the Life and Times of Zwingli by J. J. 
Hottinger, by Professor T. C. Porter. 

The disciples of Zwingli received the name of ZwINGLIANs, and 
consequently that name was given to the reformed churches of German 
Switzerland in general. Owing to their controversy with the Lutherans 
concerning the real presence in the Eucharist, they were also called 
‘Sacramentarians. But the name which they themselves assumed 
was that of Evangelicals, which after a time displaced the other two. 
They are also called by the name of the Reformed Churches of Swit- 
zerland, as distinct from that of Protestants, which applies more par- 
ticularly to the German Reformed Churches, in consequence of the 
‘ protest’ delivered to the Diet of Spires, in April 1529. It ought to 
be observed however that the Lutherans were not alone in signing the 
protest, as many towns of Germany and the Landgrave of Hesse, 
whose tenets were~like those of the Zwinglians or Sacramentarians, 
also joined in it; so that the appellation of Protestant is not confined 
to the Lutheran Church, but applies in an historical sense to the 
German reformed churches in general. The Swiss had no participation 
in the protest, which was a political act of the German states. 

The Swiss cantons and towns which embraced the reformed doc- 
trines as preached by Zwingli, did not constitute one compact and 
uniform church; having no bishops or hierarchy, and being politically 
divided into independent republics, or municipalities, each canton had 
its synod or assembly of pastors, which regulated all ecclesiastical 
affairs, in concert with the lay authority. Zwingli had from the 
beginning inculcated the principle of subjection to the magistrates in 
matters concerning temporal discipline and jurisdiction. Spiritual 
matters alone were left entirely to the pastors. We read of the church 
of Ziirich, the church of Basel, the church of Bern, and others; they 
all called each other sisters—they all lived in communion with one 
another—they all agreed in the fundamental points of ars but each. 

Q 


953 ZWINGLI. 


ZWINGLI. 


drew up its formulary or profession of faith. At last the want of a 
common bond among them, like the confession of Augsburg for the 
Lutherans, was felt. The impulse however came from Germany. In 
1566 the ‘Emperor Maximilian II, convoked a diet at Augsburg to 
settle the political disputes among the various states of Germany 
which arose from the difference of religion. The Lutherans endea- 
voured to keep out the Sacramentarians, as they styled them, from the 
general pacification of Germany ; and above all, they strove to exclude 
Frederic ILI., elector-palatine, who was at the head of that party. 
Frederic asked the advice of Bullinger, the friend of Zwingli, whom 
he had succeeded as head pastor at Ziirich, and requested him to 
forward him a confession of faith, which he might lay before the diet. 
Shortly before this Bullinger had privately written an abstract of his 
belief, as a legacy to his friends, during a pestilence which desolated 
Switzerland, and by which he had been attacked himself, but 
recovered, after losing his wife and children. He now sent it to the 
elector, who wrote an answer to testify his joy at the perusal of 
Bullinger’s confession. All the reformed cantons and towns of Swit- 
zerland then said, “ Why not adopt it as our own?” And it was so 
adopted. 

“ Every confession of faith,” observes a modern Swiss historian, 
“ partakes of the character of the age in which it is written, but that 
of Bullinger may be said to have been better than its age. It was 


neither the offspring of polemical disputation, nor the cold, calculating |. 


work of an assembly of theologians; it was the effusion of a pious 
mind, animated by a wish for peace. It was the work of a man who, 
when he wrote it, thought himself on the brink of the grave, and it 
partook of the solemnity of that last period of existence. There was 
no mention of anathemain it. On the subject of the Eucharist, it 
expressed Zwingli’s doctrine clearly, but in a less harsh and abrupt 
manner than that of the preceding formularies. Beza, who had suc- 
ceeded Calvin as the head of the church of Geneva, hastened to 
sign Bullinger’s Confession. Ziirich, Bern, Schaffhausen, Mublbausen, 
Bienne, and St. Gall gave in their assent. The Evangelical portion of 
Appenzell and. Glarus were already agreed in their tenets with the 


church of Ziirich. Neuchatel added its signature to that of its al 
Basel had an old formulary of its own, which did not materially d 
from Bullinger's confession, and it was only in the following ¢ 
thet it formally acknowledged the Helvetic confession of faith, ¢ 
was now styled, Knox and about forty ministers of the kirk 
Scotland sent in their signatures, The churches of the Palatiz 
those of Poland and Hungary, signed also the Helvetic Conf 
The reformed churches of France, through political and other 
drew out a confession of their own, acknowledging however 
concord with the Swiss churches.” (Vulliemin, ‘ Histoire de la Cor 
fédération Suisse, Continuation de Miiller, Gloutz, et Hottinger.’) An 
abstract of the Helvetic confession of faith is given in the appendix 


the ‘ History of Switzerland’ published by the Society for the D i 
sion of Useful Knowledge. On the abstruse topic of predestins t 
it affirms that “ God, out of his wisdom, has predestined or che 
from all eternity, freely, of his own mere grace, and without regar¢ 
for persons, the righteous whom he intends to save through Je 
Christ,” but at the same time it condemns any rash judgment 
cerning the salvation of any one individual or class; and it says 
we must hope favourably of every one. “If wehold communion ° 
Christ, and that by means of a true faith, he be ours and we hi 
then have a tolerably certain proof that our names are written in 
book of life.” ; Ka 

The appellation of Calvinists has occasioned some confusion 
regard to the Reformed churches. Calvin, who began his career 
Reformer several years after Zwingli’s death, and when the 
tion in Switzerland had been already effected, was, properly 
the head and the great teacher of the church of Geneva. Hi: 
trines, which may hardly be said to differ in any point from those of 
Helvetic Church, except perhaps in a stronger expression of the | 
of predestination, exercised an influence over the Reformed ch 
of France. But Calvin has had no influence over Switzerland, 
the Reformation was established long before his time; and it 
by a sort of anachronism that the Reformed churches of Swit 
have been called Calvinistical. 


r 
reio 


sonnel 


7. 


4 


. 
4 
. 
: 


SUPPLEMENTARY NAMES. 


In the Alphabetical arrangement of the ‘‘ English Cyclopedia,” some names that it was intended therein to have had a place 
have been omitted. The Supplementary Names now given will not meet the wishes of several correspondents, who have pressed 


upon us the extension of our list, especially of living persons. 


inquiry, why they should be inserted whilst others are omitted ? 


Some of the names which now appear may even suggest the 
The omission in their proper places of those which now appear 


_has chiefly arisen from the want of the necessary materials in time for periodical publication, and from other circumstances. The 


omission of some others, both in the alphabetical order and in this Supplementary List, has in some cases arisen from individual 


. reluctance to furnish the necessary materials for a Biography. But with reference to the general question of omissions, we have 
only to call attention to the fact that the extent of our work was confined within the limit of these six volumes. 


Many names of 


persons worthy to have a place in a complete catalogue of those who have obtained celebrity in Science, Literature, or Art, and of 
Public Men eminent in Civil or Military stations, both of the past time and the present, are no doubt wanting in this Cyclopedia ; 
but had we attempted an almost impossible completeness, we should have required many more volumes than six, and have engaged 
in an undertaking far beyond that with which we proposed to meet the public demand. As the Cyclopedia of Biography now stands, 
it will be found to embrace a wider range than any existing English work of the same character; and it may be not disadvan- 
tageously compared, for practical usefulness, with the most voluminous of the German or French Biographical Dictionaries. 


A BECKET, GILBERT ABBOTT. 


ANSTED, DAVID THOMAS. 


A BECKET, GILBERT ABBOTT, was born in Golden-square, 
London, in the year 1810, the son of a respectable solicitor, and was 
educated at Westminster School. He very early displayed great talent 
as a humourist. As early as 1825 eight of his dramatic productions, in 
prose and verse, but all of a burlesque character, were published in 
Duncombe’s ‘ British Theatre;’ in 1828-29 nine more appeared in 
Cumberland’s ‘ British Theatre;’ and in 1837 four others were printed 
in Webster's ‘ Acting Drama ;’ most of which had attained some success 
on the stage. In 1843 he produced ‘The Mirror, or Hall of Statues,’ 
a musical burlesque. In connection with the drama, also, he published 
in 1844 ‘Scenes from the Rejected Comedies by some of the Compe- 
titors for the Prize offered by Mr. Webster :’ these ‘Scenes’ were a 
series of parodies upon living dramatists (including one of himself), 
which had appeared in ‘Punch’ previous to their publication in a 
separate form. In 1846 he published ‘ The Quizziology of the British 
Drama.’ In conjunction with his schoolfellow, Mr. Henry Mayhew, he 
started several comic periodical works, of which ‘ Figaro in London,’ 
begun about 1830, was undoubtedly the precursor of ‘Punch.’ When 
that work had swallowed up its rivals, Mr. A Becket became a constant 
contributor to it, and the adventures, the epistles, and anecdotes of 
Mr. Dunup were among the most laughable morceaux of that publi- 
cation. He took a pride in the work, and it was his boast that, till 
the period of his death, no number appeared without something, how- 
ever small, from his pen. His humour was without malice, and dis- 
played a varied reading, with considerable knowledge of the law; 
in the midst of his ebullitions of fancy, he had not neglected the more 
serious studies of his profession. He was trained as a lawyer ;-and in 
March 1846 his reputation induced Mr. Charles Buller to entrust to 
him the investigation of the iniquities practised in the Andover Union. 
This he conducted in a most satisfactory manner, and in his report he 
displayed a clear and solid judgment in sober and well-chosen lan- 
guage. Some leaders in ‘The Times’ on the same subject have been 
also attributed to him: he had previously been an occasional contribu- 
tor to that journal. His conduct of the Andover inquiry led to his 
appointment in 1849 as magistrate of the police-court of Greenwich 
and Woolwich, whence he was removed in 1850 to that of Southwark 
—positions which he held in an irreproachable manner. Besides an 
edition of ‘The Small Debts Act, with Annotations and Explanations,’ 
published in 1845, he produced the ‘Comic Blackstone,’ which was 
published in 1844-46; a ‘Comic History of England,’ published in 
monthly parts, forming a volume completed in 1848; and a ‘ Comic 
History of Rome,’ also in monthly parts, completed in 1852. He 
likewise, in 1845, edited George Cruikshank’s ‘Table Book.’ After a 
very sbort illness he died at Boulogne, on the 28th of April 1856. 

AMHERST, WILLIAM PITT, 2np LORD anp Ist EARL, nephew 
and successor of the first Lord Amherst [AmueErRst, JErrery, Baron], 
was born in 1773. He was sent as ambassador to China early in the 
present century, but was wrecked on his return in the Eastern seas, 
and with difficulty reached Java in an open boat. He succeeded 
the Marquis of Hastings as governor-general of India in 1823. He 
signalised his administration by the first Birmese war, which was 
brought to a successful issue by the arms of Lord Combermere, and 


resulted in the annexation of Assam, Aracan, Tenasserim, and other 
provinces of the Birman empire to the British dominions. He was 
created an earl in 1826, and resigned his post in India in 1827, when 
he was succeeded by Lord William Bentinck. He spent the latter 
years of his life in retirement, and died in March 1857, in his eighty- 
fifth year. 

* ANSTED, DAVID THOMAS, a distinguished living geologist, was 
born in London about the year 1812. He was educated at Cambridge, 
where he was one of the most zealous and distinguished scholars of the 
celebrated professor of geology in that university, Adam Sedgwick. On 
the retirement of Mr, John Phillips from the chair of geology in King’s 
College, London, Mr. Ansted was appointed his successor. He subse- 
quently became assistant secretary to the Geological Society, and 
editor of the ‘ Journal’ and ‘ Proceedings’ of that society. In 1844 
he published his first work on geology, in 2 vols. 8vo, with the title 
‘Geology, Introductory, Descriptive, and Practical, with numerous 
illustrations, comprising Diagrams, Fossils, and Geological Localities.’ 
This work, which was written in a clear and elegant style, at once 
obtained for its author a high position as a geologist. The subject of 
geology was treated in it in a more systematic manner than in 
any previous treatise; the practical departments of the science were 
also more fully developed. In 1845 he published a smaller work, 
which was an epitome of the first work, and was called ‘The Geolo- 
gist’s Text-Book.’ At this time Mr. Ansted delivered courses of 
lectures in many of the literary and scientific institutions of the 
metropolis and the larger towns of England. In this way he was 
largely instrumental in diffusing a knowledge of those sound princi- 
ples of geology which are recognised so extensively in this country, 
and have made it the most popular of the various branches of natural 
knowledge. In 1847 he published a popular manual on geology, 
entitled ‘The Ancient World, or Picturesque Sketches of Great 
Britain.’ At the time of the discovery of gold in Australia, Mr, 
Ansted produced a little volume, intended as a geological guide to 
those who were engaged in seeking for the precious metal, with the 
title of ‘The Gold-Seeker’s Manual.’ He also produced a smaller 
work on the subject of geology, including mineralogy and physical 
geography, intended as a text-book for those attending geological 
lectures, with the title ‘An Elementary Course of Geology, Mine- 
ralogy, and Physical Geography.’ One of his most recent contribu- 
tions to geological literature is the volume on ‘Geology’ in ‘ Orr’s 
Circle of the Sciences.’ All these works are written in a popular 
style, and have supplied a large proportion of the general reading on 
the subject of geology at the present day. Independent of these dis- 
tinct works, Mr. Ansted..has written several papers on geology, 
which have been published in the Journals and Transactions of 
societies devoted to geological science. Of these the following may be 
mentioned :—‘ On the Carboniferous and Transition Rocks of Bohe- 
mia’ (Proc. Geol. Soc., vol. iii); ‘On the Zoological Condition of 
Chalk Flints, and the probable causes of the Deposit of Flinty Strata 
alternating with the upper beds of the Cretaceous Formation’ (Annals 
and Mag. of Nat. Hist., vol. xiii.); ‘On a Portion of the Tertiary 
Formations of Switzerland’ (Trans. Cambridge Phil. Soc, vol. vi.). 


ARGELANDER, FRIEDRICH WILHELM. 


967 


BAINES, EDWARD. 968 


During the last few years Professor Ansted has devoted himself to 
the practical applications of geological science in the investigation of 
the strata of the earth containing mineral riches. In the course of 
these researches he has travelled extensively both in the New and Old 
Worlds, and has produced many elaborate and valuable reports. 

* ARGELANDER, FRIEDRICH WILHELM AUGUST, Professor 
of Astronomy in the University of Bonn, and one of the most emi- 
nent astronomers of our time, was born at Memel, in East Prussia, on 
the 22nd of March 1799. He was educated in the University of 
Kénigsberg, where he at first studied financial economy (Kameralswis- 
senschaften); but the discourses of Bessel led him to exchange that 
study for astronomy. Under Bessel’s instruction he was soon occupied 
with practical calculations and observations, and in 1820 was appointed 
his assistant in the Konigsberg Observatory. In 1822 he employed 
himself as a private tutor in the university, whence, in 1823, he 
removed to the handsome newly-erected observatory at Abo in Fin- 
land, where he succeeded the astronomer Waldeck. Here he dili- 
gently occupied himself in examining principally those stars which 
have a peculiar motion. A fire, which destroyed Abo in 1827, inter- 
rupted his labours. The university was removed to Helsingfors in 1832, 
whither he had to follow; and he had to superintend the building of 
a new observatory, which was completed in 1834. The result of his 
observations was a catalogue of 560 stars having a peculiar motion, 


which was published by the Academy of St. Petersburg, and received . 


the Demidoff prize. In 1837 he was nominated to the post at Bonn 
which he at present holds. Here he was again called upon to superin- 
tend the construction of an observatory, which was not completed till 
1845. In the interim, as the produce of his observations, he published 
at Berlin, in 1843, ‘ Uranometria nova,’ an astronomical chart, with 
specifications of the different relative magnitudes of the stars visible 
by the naked eye. In 1846 he published at Bonn, ‘ Astronomische 
Beobachtungen auf der Sternwarte zu Bonn,’ which is a continuation 
of Bessel’s observations on the zone, and contains a review of the 
Northern Hemisphere from 45° to 80° of declination, fixing the 
position of about 22,000 stars. His labours for the last ten or twelve 
years have been directed to the subject of the change of luminosity in 
some of the variable stars, on which subject he is said to be preparing 
an important work. 

AUCKLAND, GEORGE EDEN, 2np LORD anp ist EARL OF, 
eldest surviving son of the Ist lord, was born in 1784. After receiving 
his education at Eton and Oxford, he entered the House of Commons 
as M.P. for Woodstock, but was soon removed to the House of Lords 
by his father’s death. He formed a part of the Whig administration 
as President of the Board of Trade, and was appointed First Lord 
of the Admiralty by Lord Melbourne in 1834. In the following year 
he went out to India as governor-general. His administration is 
marked by the ill-advised Afghan war (1838-39), almost the only 
bright spot in which was the capture of Ghuznee by Sir John Keane 
in 1839 (Keanz, Lorp). The Earl of Auckland was recalled to 
England in 1842, having been previously advanced to an earldom: 
the final settlement of the Afghan affairs was left for his successor, 
the Earl of Ellenborough. Lord Auckland died suddenly, January 
Ist, 1849. 

*AYTOUN, WILLIAM EDMONDSTOUNE, Professor of Rhetoric 
in the University of Edinburgh, was born in Fifeshire in 1813, and 
educated in Edinburgh University, where in 1831 he gained the prize 
for his poem of ‘Judith,’ For some time Mr. Aytoun practised as a 
writer to the signet at Edinburgh, but in 1840 was called to the bar. 
. By his writings and his social qualities having obtained a high local 
reputation, Mr. Aytoun was in 1845 appointed to the chair of rhetoric 
in the University of Edinburgh, and his lectures have amply sustained 
his previous celebrity. His local standing has also been supported 
by his position as editor of ‘ Blackwood’s Magazine,’ in which office he 
succeeded his father-in-law, John Wilson, and he has contributed to the 
magazine many sparkling essays and sharp criticisms, as well as much 
poetry. His services to the Conservative cause were acknowledged 
by his appointment by the Derby-Disraeli ministry, in 1852, as sheriff 
and vice-admiral of the Orkneys. His claim to public notice as a poet is 
founded mainly on bis ‘ Lays of the Scottish Cavaliers, 870, Edin,, 1849 
(10th edit., 1857), which are marked by a good deal of the old Scottish 
ballad spirit and energy, with an ample share of modern nationality; but 
he has also published ‘ Poland, and other Poems,’ and ‘Bothwell, a poem, 
in six parts,’ 8vo, Edinb., 1856 ; and the caustic parody on certain poets 
of the so-called spasmodic school, ‘ Fermilian, or the Student of Bada- 
joz; a Spasmodic Tragedy, by T. Percy Jones’ (Edinb, 1854), is under- 
stood to be a production of his fluent pen. In prose his only separate 
work is ‘The Life and Times of Richard the First, King of England,’ 
8vo, Lond., 1840. In 1853 Professor Aytoun delivered a series of lec- 
tures on ‘ Poetry and Dramatic Literature’ to a distinguished audience 
at Willis’s Rooms, London. ‘The Ballads of Scotland, edited by Pro- 
age F Mae od are announced as nearly ready for publication (Decem- 

er 1857). 


*BAILEY, PHILIP JAMES, author of ‘ Festus,’ was born in Not- 
tingham, April 22, 1816, and was educated at Nottingham and at 
Glasgow University. Having selected the legal profession, he in 1833 
entered the office of a solicitor in the Temple, where he remained for 


\ 


two years. Turning his thoughts to the bar, he then entered a con- 
veyancer’s office; was admitted a member of Lincoln’s Inn in 1835; 
and in 1840 was called to the bar. In the previous year however he 
had published his poem ‘Festus’ (commenced in 1836), and the 
general attention which that remarkable work excited had probably 
deepened his long growing dislike to the law; at any rate, he after 
a short time abandoned the bar, returned to Nottingham, and devoted _ 
himself to literary, and especially to poetic studies, ‘Festus’ created 
a new phase of English poetic literature. A work written with a 
moral and metaphysical purpose (a kind of devouter Faust) treating 
often of the highest and most abstruse subjects— 
(‘* It aims to mark 

The various beliefs as well as doubts 

Which hold or search by turns the mind of youth, 

Unresting anywhere”’)— 


lofty and swelling in diction, yet occasionally stooping to the home- 
liest colloquialisms ; earnest, and even passionate in tone and manner, — 
abounding in strange, often extravagant metaphors, and turns of 
expression, and in vivid descriptions, yet everywhere running into 
mysticism and obscurity,—however it might be open to captious or to 
sober criticism, was a work well calculated to captivate young and 
ardent minds ; and it found many and passionate admirers and imitators, 
as well in America as in the author's native country. Its influence on 
younger poets, especially those of a metaphysical turn, has been very 
great. But though ‘Festus’ passed through several editions (a fifth 
was published in 1852), it was not till 1850 that Mr. Bailey put forth — 
a new poem, when there appeared ‘The Angel World, and other 
Poems,’ in which the reader was carried into the realms of Christian 
doctrine, Again he was silent till 1855, when he published his — 
‘Mystic,’ another psychological poem, even more venturesome inits 
soaring, and more mystical in treatment than was ‘ Festus,’ but, like __ 
it, abounding in passages of power, beauty, and suggestiveness. i 
BAINES, EDWARD, an eminent example of the success of indus- 
try, good conduct, integrity, and of unceasing endeavours to make his 
talents beneficial to his fellow-men as well as useful to himself, was 
born on February 5,.1774, at Walton-le-Dale, a village about a mile 
from Preston, in Lancashire, of a respectable but not wealthy family 
long settled. at Marton-le-Moor, near Ripon, in Yorkshire. He was 
first sent to the free grammar-school at Hawkshead, the master of 
which was Edward Christian, afterwards Downing Professor of Law in 
the University of Cambridge, whence he was removed when eight 
years old to the free grammar-school of Preston. His father had 
commenced business as-a cotton-weaver, and wished to bring his son 
up to that business, but he preferred a more intellectual employment, — 
and at the age of sixteen was apprenticed toa printer in Preston. 
After serving about four years and a half, during which time he had 
seen something of the management of a country paper, his master's 
business falling off, he transferred his services to Leeds, where he 
finished his time in the office of the ‘Leeds Mercury.’ During his 
apprenticeship he sedulously cultivated his mind. He invited several 
of his companions to join him in forming reading and debating 
societies, in the latter of which he is said to have distinguished himself _ 
by his liberal opinions, his toleration, and his plain good sense. In 
September 1797, the day after the expiration of his apprenticeship, he 
began business for himself in connection with a partner, from whom — 
he separated in the course of the following year. ‘From the political — 
circumstances of the time the dissenters from the Churcn cf England 
were the most liberal in their political opinions. Mr. Baines, from 
their consonance with his own, was thus brought into association with — 
many of the most influential among them; and at length joined the 
body as an Independent. In July 1798 he married the daughter of 
Mr. Matthew Talbot, an excellent and pious woman, and continued by 
his industry and attention to business to win the confidence of the 
dissenting body and to increase his means. In 1801, assisted by some ~ 
of the wealthier members of that body, he purchased the copyrightand _ 
the printing materials of the ‘ Leeds Mercury,’ of which he immediately _ 
became editor as well as printer. By judicious but not sudden im- 
provements he gradually increased its circulation, and extended its 
influence, while his good taste and temper led him to abjure all gross- 
ness and bitterness of altercation; and he promoted as far as lay in his — 
power all local schemes for the amelioration of the position of his poor — 
fellow-townsmen, by advocating the establishment of hospitals, friendly 
societies (savings-banks had not yet been established), and the extension 
of education. A large part of the influence he acquired arose from his 
being among the first who introduced leaders or original editorial — 
dissertations on political subjects into a provincial paper ; these leaders 
being distinguished by the moderation of their tone, their inde- — 
pendence, their fearless advocacy of the opinions he entertained, the 
force of their style, and their general good sense. In the severely con- 
tested election for Yorkshire in 1807, he took an energetic part in — 
support of Lord Milton in opposition to Mr. Lascelles, although he — 
differed in opinion from Lord Milton respecting the desirableness of 
peace on proper terms, and a reform in parliament, both of which he © 
advocated, while there were few more earnest in supporting the 
dignity of England when threatened by France, and his appeals to the 
inhabitants of Leeds to join the volunteers when an invasion was 
feared, had a most remarkable effect. But we are not about to narrate — 
all the incidents connected with Mr. Baines’s conduct of his paper, which — 


* 


a 


969 BAINES, MATTHEW TALBOT. 


BEAUFORT, REAR-ADMIRAL. 970 


was carried on with a strict adherence to the same principles until the 
close of his life; we shall only say that he was the principal means, in 
his paper, of developing, in 1817, the conspiracy of Oliver and Castles, 
the paid emissaries of the government to foment insurrections in the 
northern counties, and that after his exposure there were no more plots. 
Tn 1815 he made his first prominent appearance as a public speaker 
at amecting at Leeds to oppose the enactment of the Corn Laws, 
and in 1817, at another in favour of parliamentary reform. In 1814 
he commenced the publication of ‘The History of the Wars of the 
French Revolution,’ which met with such success that he continued it 
- under the title of a ‘History of the Reign of George III.,’ the whole 
being a compilation of considerable impartiality and talent. In 1822 
and 1823 he wrote and published ‘The History, Directory, and 
Gazetteer of the County of York,’ in two thick volumes ; and in 1824-5 
a similar work for the county of Lancaster, subsequently expanded 
into a ‘History of the County Palatine and Duchy of Lancaster, 
which was not completed till 1836. In 1834, on a vacancy being 
made in the representation of Leeds by the appointment of Mr. T. B. 
Macaulay (now Lord Macaulay) to be one of the commissioners in 
India, Mr. Baines was chosen member in opposition to Sir John 
_ Beckett, after a severe contest. In the House of Commons he main- 

tained the character he had acquired asa journalist, and though 
not a brilliant speaker, his integrity, independence, industry, and con- 
» ciliatory manners, with his close connection with the dissenting inte- 
rest, made him an influential member. In January 1835 he was 
re-elected, and again in 1837. Though generally supporting the 
Whig party, he was opposed to them in their schemes for public 
education, which he always contended would be best effected by 
voluntary subscriptions, and he deprecated the assistance of the 
State as tending to give an undue domination to the Established 
Church. In 1841, his health having suffered from the sedulous per- 
formance of his parliamentary duties, he retired from the representa- 
tion, and proposed Mr. Hume as his successor, who however was 
defeated. In September of that year his former constituency pre- 
sented him with an elegant silver service as a testimony of their recog- 
nition of his services. From that time he retired to some extent 
from public life, but continued to take an active part in local affairs, 
both as a magistrate and’a poor-law guardian, in both capacities pro- 
moting social improvements as far as lay in his power; and he was 
always ready to interpose as mediator between the men and their 
employers in the many strikes that took place ia the north, represent- 
ing to the men the folly of their having recourse to violence in 
endeavouring to effect their object, and to employers the desirablenezs 
of placing the men in as comfortable a position as the circumstances 
would allow. In 1845 the ‘Leeds Mercury’ warned the speculators 
of the danger attending the railway mania, though fully acknowledging 
the advantages of the railway system. He saw that though the facility 
of communication was a great good, yet that if it became a mere traffic 
for premiums, it was likely to produce much distress. In 1846, though 
he had declined to accept the office, his fellow-townsmen chose him 
for alderman as a mark of their respect, but he immediately resigned 
the office. In 1847 he again opposed Lord John Russell’s scheme for 
state education of the poor, and the opposition of the dissenters was 
so strong that the plan was withdrawn. On August 3, 1848, after a 
long life of usefulness, and after a short illness, he died, and was 
honoured by a public funeral. 

*Barnes, MarrHew Taxzor, the eldest son of the preceding, was 
born at Leeds in 1799. He was educated at various provincial 
schools, and then proceeded to Cambridge, where he graduated with 
honours in 1820. He adopted the profession of the law, entered him- 
self at the Inner Temple, and was called to the bar in 1825. He went 
the Northern Circuit as a barrister, and attended the West Riding 
Sessions with considerable success. In 1837, on, the death of the 
recorder of Leeds, he was recommended by the town-council to 
succeed him ; but Lord John Russell, then secretary of state, thought 
his intimate connection with the town an objection, and he therefore 
removed the recorder of Hull to Leeds, and gave the recordership of 
Hull to Mr. M. T. Baines. In 1847 he was elected member of parliament 
for Hull, and towards the end of 1848 he was appointed to succeed 
Mr. Charles Buller as President of the Poor-Law Board. In February 
1852 he resigned office with the rest of the Russell ministry, and on 
the election of a new parliament he was elected member for Leeds, for 
which place he still sits. On the defeat of the Derby ministry in the 
House of Commons on December 16, 1852, and the accession of the 
Earl of Aberdeen, he was re-appointed to his previous office, which he 
held till the ministry was re-organised under Viscount Palmerston 
in 1855. He remained out of office till 1856, when he was made 
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, with a seat in the cabinet. 

* Batnus, EDWARD, the second son of Edward Baines, was born 
in Leeds, in 1800. He early became the assistant of his father in the 
management of the newspaper, was taken into partnership in 1827, 
and has conducted it since his death on the same principles that 
governed it during his father’s life. It has always been an active 
organ in opposing all schemes for state interference with the education 
of the poor. Mr. Baines is the author of a valuable work, ‘The 
History of the Cotton Manufacture, published as a volume in 1835, 
but which was originally written as a part of his father’s History 
of Lancashire; and also a Life of his father, published in 1851, to 


which we have been indebted for many of the facts in the preceding 
notices. 

*BALFE, MICHAEL WILLIAM, a popular dramatic composer, 
was born at Dublin in 1808. He showed precocious musical talent, 
and at nine years old composed a ballad, called * The Lover’s Mistake,’ 
which was sung with great applause by Madame Vestris in ‘ Paul 
Pry.’ He became known to the London public as a juvenile violin- 
player, and obtained an engagement in the orchestra at Drury-Lane 
Theatre, then conducted by Mr. Thomas Cooke. Having a fine bari- 
tone voice, he appeared on the boards of that theatre with success, 
He then went to Italy, where he resided a good many years, during 
which he sang at the principal theatres of that country. In 1835 he 
returned to England, and produced at Drury-Lane his first opera, 
‘The Siege of Rochelle,’ which became highly popular, and established 
his reputation as a composer. His next opera was ‘The Maid of 
Artois,’ in which Madam Malibran achieved one of her greatest 
triumphs in'this country. Since that time he has resided chiefly in 
London, with lengthened visits to Paris, Germany, and Italy; and has 
produced a long succession of Operas, of which the most remarkable 
are, ‘The Bohemian Girl’ (which has gained an European celebrity), 
‘Catherine Grey,’ ‘ Falstaff’ (an Italian opera produced at the King’s 
Theatre), ‘Keolanthe, ‘The Daughter of St. Mark, ‘The Enchan- 
tress, ‘The Bondman,’ and ‘The Rose of Castille.’ This last (written 
in three weeks for the English Opera Company at the Lyceum under 
the management of Miss Pyne and Mr. Harrison), was produced in 
October of the present year, and is now (December 1857) “ running” 
with brilliant success, Mr. Balfe has also composed several operas for 
the Parisian stage; particularly ‘Le Puits d’Amour,’ ‘Les Quatre 
Fils d’Aymon,’ and ‘ L’Etoile de Seville, which have had great success 
at the Opera Comique. Balfe’s style as a composer is light, melo- 
dious, and animated. He strongly resembles Auber, with whose 
works several of Balfe’s may without disadvantage be compared. 

*BALFOUR, JOHN HUTTON, Professor of Botany in the Univer- 
sity of Edinburgh, was born in Edinburgh, and educated for the 
medical profession in the university of that city. Although intending 
to practise his profession, he took a great interest in the study of 
botany, and was one of the most distinguished pupils of the late 
Professor Graham. After taking his degree of Doctor of Medicine 
he commenced the practice of his profession in his native city. He 
still however pursued the science of botany and in conjunction with 
the late Professor Edward Forbes and other ardent young naturalists, 
founded the present Botanical Society of Edinburgh. This society 
has done much towards promoting the accurate study of British 
plants by distributing amongst its members specimens as well as 
publishing properly classified lists of British plants. On the appoint. 
ment of Sir William Jackson Hooker to be superintendent of the 
Botanical Gardens at Kew, the chair of botany in Glasgow became 
vacant. Dr. Balfour offered himself as a candidate, and was eventu- 
ally appointed to the professorship. On thedeath of Professor Graham 
he became a candidate for the chair of Botany in Edinburgh, and 
after a sharp contest in which he was opposed by Dr. Joseph Hooker, 
he was elected to this position. Since his appointment Dr. Balfour 
has shown great energy in the direction of the Botanic Gardens of 
Edinburgh, which are placed under his superintendence, and also in 
the instruction of the medical class in the science of botany. 

Dr. Balfour has written several works on boiany. He contributed 
the articles on botany to the last edition of the Encyclopedia Britan- 
nica. In 1849 he published a ‘Manual of Botany,’ intended to be 
employed as a text-book to his course of lectures on botany in the 
university. Several editions of this book have since been published, 
but not edited by the author, as from some misunderstanding with his 
publisher, Dr. Balfour withdrew his interest from the work. He sub- 
sequently, in 1852, published a ‘Class-Book of Botany,’ having the 
same object in view as the first work. An epitome of this work, 
under the title of ‘Outlines of Botany,’ has also been published. In 
addition to these works Dr. Balfour has published many papers in 
connection with the Botanical Society of Edinburgh and the British 
Association for the Advancement of Science. He is a Fellow of the 
Royal Societies of London and Edinburgh, also of the Linnzan Society 
of London. 

*BEAUFORT, REAR-ADMIRAL SIR FRANCIS, K.C.B., F.R.S. 
&e., late Hydrographer to the Admiralty, is the son of the Rev. 
Daniel Augustus Beaufort, rector of Navan, county of Meath, Ireland, 
and author of a Map of Ireland, published with a Memoir, in 1792, 
as well as of some theological publications, Francis Beaufort entered 
the navy, in June 1787, as a volunteer on board the Colossus 
74, stationed in the Channel. He was made midshipman in June 
1790, and while holding that rank saw much active service, assisting 
among other duties in the capture of several vessels, In May 
1796 he was created lieutenant, and whilst acting as first lieutenant 
of the Phaeton, 38 guns, he, having under his orders a barge and 
two cutters, boarded and took the San Josef, a Spanish polacre 
rigged ship of 14 guns and 56 men, which lay moored under the 
protection of five guns of the fortress of Fuenzirola, near Malaga, 
supported ‘by a French privateer. Lieutenant Beaufort in this 
brilliant affair received a wound in his head, and several slugs in 
his body and left arm; but was recompensed by obtaining, as a recog- 
nition of ‘his skill and courage, a commander's commission, During a 


971 BEHNES, WILLIAM. 


BERNOULLL 972 


cessation from service afloat, he was engaged from November 1803 to 
June 1804 in superintending the construction of a line of telegraphs 
between Dublin and Galway. In June 1805 he proceeded as com- 
mander of the Woolwich 44 guns, to the East Indies, and thence to 
the Rio de la Plata, of which river he made during the campaign of 
1807 a very valuable survey. He was afterwards stationed at the 
Cape of Good Hope, and in the Mediterranean, In May 1809 he was 
appointed to the command of the Blossom, and the following year 
with the rank of Post Captain to the command of the Fredericksstein 
frigate. During 1811-12, he was engaged in making a minute survey 
of the coast of Karamania in Asia Minor, but was compelled in the 
latter year to return home in consequence of wounds inflicted on 
him by a fanatic Mussulman. ; 

In the course of these services Captain Beaufort had obtained a 
very high rank, as a scientific as well as a brave seaman, and equally 
so as a hydrographer and geographer, He was now consequently 
ealled upon by the Board of Admiralty, to devote himself to working 
out and embodying in a series of charts, the results of his various 
surveys. Among other charts constructed by him were one of the 
Archipelago, three of the Black Sea, including the coast of Asia, and 
seven of Karamania, these last being accompanied with a ‘ Memoir of a 
Survey of the Coast of Karamania in 1811 and 1812.” In 1817 he pub- 
lished in 8vo, afuller and more elaborate work on the same district: 
‘Karamania; or a brief Description of the South Coast of Asia Minor, 
and of the Remains of Antiquity, &c., with plans, views, &c.’ His labours 
and scientific merits found their appropriate reward in his elevation, 
in July 1832, to the post of Hydrographer to the Admiralty, to which 
important office he imparted new honour by the manner in which he 
fulfilled its duties; and which he continued to hold till he retired full 
of years and honours on the 30th of January 1855, having very nearly 
completed his 68th year of service. He was succeeded by Captain 
Washington [Wasuineton, Caprain Jon]. In April 1835, Captain 
Beaufort was appointed Commissioner for inquiry into the Laws, &c. 
affecting Pilots; and in January 1845 a Commissioner for inquiry into 
the Harbours, Shores, and Rivers of the United Kingdom. He was 
created rear-admiral, October the 1st, 1846. 

Admiral Beaufort, besides his memoirs on the coast of Karamania, 
&c., has contributed papers to the Geographical and other learned 
Societies; and the important collection of Maps of the Society for 
the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge was executed under his supervision. 
He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in June 1814; he is 
also a Member of the Council of the Geographical Society, a Fellow 
of the Royal Astronomical Society, a Corresponding Member of the 
Institute of France, &e. 

* BEHNES, WILLIAM, the eminent English portrait sculptor, was 
born about the beginning of the present century. He was a student 
in the Royal Academy, where in 1819 he gained the silver medal for 
the best model of an academy figure from the life. He early distin- 
guished himself by his busts, and though he has occasionally executed 
poetical and classical statues, it is to his portrait busts that his cele- 
brity is mainly owing. His sitters have included a large number of the 
most eminent men of the day. Among statesmen and lawyers he has 
produced busts (some of them of colossal size,) of Wellington and 
Peel; Lords Eldon, Stowell, and Lyndhurst; Joseph Hume and Ben- 
jamin Disraeli; Sir William Follett, Sir Frederick Pollock, Sir John 
Jervis, Sir Fitzroy Kelly ; Sir William Molesworth, Thomas Clarkson, 
Chevalier Bunsen; among prelates, of the Archbishops of Canterbury 
and Armagh, the Bishops of London, Norwich, Llandaff, Carlisle, and 
Calcutta; among artists and literary men, of Benjamin West, North- 
cote, Sir Charles Barry, George Cruikshank, Samuel Rogers, Dr. Croly, 
George Grote, Macready, Colonel Leake, Sir John Barrow; among 
surgeons, Earl, Carpue, Travers, Dr. Babington, &c.; among members 
of the fashionable world, the Countess of Chesterfield, the Countess of 
Malmesbury, Count D'Orsay, &c.; civic dignitaries, as Aldermen 
Venables, Lucas, Pirie, Moon, &c. Mr. Behnes has likewise executed 
several important memorial and monumental statues, among others, of 
Gresham, at the Royal Exchange, of Sir William Follett, of Lord 
William Bentinck, and the colossal bronze statues of Sir Robert Peel, in 
Cheapside, London, and at Leeds. Of his imaginative statues it will be 
enough to mention his ‘ Lady Godiva,’ 1844; ‘Europa,’ 1848; and 
‘The Startled Nymph,’ 1849. Mr. Behnes may be safely placed at the 
bead of living portrait-sculptors—at least as far as regards busts. His 
style is bold and masculine, his execution is generally admirable. 
Whilst giving the characteristic likeness, he is happy in preserving 
the more intellectual expression of the sitters, and to his chisel pos- 
terity will owe the permanent record of the happiest likeness of 
several of the most distinguished men of the last and present, gene- 
rations. ; 

* BENEDICT, JULES, one of the most distinguished foreign 
musical composers who have devoted their genius chiefly to the 
English stage, was born at Stuttgart in 1805. After having begun his 
studies under Hummel, he received instructions from Weber, and 
became a favourite pupil of the author of the ‘ Freischiitz? 
teen, he was, on Weber's recommendation, engaged as conductor of the 
German opera at Vienna; and afterwards employed in a similar 
capacity at the two principal theatres (the San Carlo and the Fondo) 
of Naples. He came to London in 1835; and his first occupation was 
to conduct the performances of an Opera Buffa carried on for two 


At nine: | 


seasons at the Lyceum by Mr. Mitchell of Bond-street. His first — 
English opera, ‘ The Gipsey’s Warning,’ was produced at Drury Lanein 
1838, and immediately gained great popularity, not only in this 
country, but in Germany. His subsequent operas, ‘The Brides of 
Venice,’ and ‘The Crusaders,’ also brought out at Drury Lane, while 
that theatre was managed by Mr. Bunn, had great and deserved success. _ 
Benedict is an accomplished master of the pianoforte, for which 
instrument he is a prolific and favourite composer. He has resided - 
constantly in London ever since his first arrival more than twenty 
years ago, and holds a very high position among us, being intrusted a 
with the direction of many of the principal concerts and musical 
rformances, both in London and the provinces. i oe 
* BENNETT, WILLIAM STERNDALE, a composer and pianist of 
the highest eminence, was born at Sheffield in 1816. His or, 
Robert Bennett, was organist of the principal church of that town. 
Left an orphan in infancy by the death of both his parents, young 
Bennett, at eight years old, was placed by his grandfather, a lay-cler 
in the University of Cambridge, as a chorister in the choir of King’s 
College. He afterwards became a student in the Royal Academy of fe 
Music, where he received instructions in composition from the cele: 
brated Dr. Crotch, and on the pianoforte from Mr. Holmes and Mr, — 
Cipriani Potter. He had already distinguished himself, both as 
composer and pianist, when he formed that intimate friendship with 
Mendelssohn which had so great an influence on his subsequer 
progress in his art. In 1836, by Mendelssohn’s invitation, he went 
Leipsic, where the famous Gewandhaus concerts were then directed by _ 
the illustrious composer. At those concerts several of Bennett's 
orchestral and pianoforte works were performed; and their succe; 
laid the foundation of that reputation which he now enjoys in Ger- — 
many. During the last twenty years he has gained the highest 
honours and most solid fruits of -his profession, as a composer, a — 
performer, and an instructor. His published works are numerous; — 
consisting of orchestral overtures, concertos, sonatas, and studies for — 
the pianoforte, and songs, duets, and other vocal pieces. In 1856, on 
the death of the late Dr. Walmisley, he was elected Professor of Music 
in the University of Cambridge, and likewise received the degree of — 
Doctor of Music. Having a due sense of the importance and respon- 
sibility of his office, he has already given a fresh impulse to the 
cultivation of music in that university, and his future labours promise — 
material effects on that art as a subject of academic tuition. Dr. 
Bennett is also one of the Professors of the Royal Academy of ‘Masia. 
and conductor of the orchestra of the Philharmonic Society, in which 
last capacity he has conduced greatly to the prosperity of that cele- 
brated body, whose concerts, for half a century, have been renowned — 
throughout Europe. ae 
BERNOULLI, the name of a family which is known in the history 
of mathematics by the services of eight of its members. These are 
not all of equal, or nearly equal celebrity ; but it is necessary to noti 
each, not only to enable the reader to avoid the confusion which | 
large a number of similar names has introduced into historical writin 
but also because a moderate degree of reputation becomes rem ‘ 
able, when it forms part of so conspicuous a mass. The Cassinis (of . 
whom four are well known in astronomy) present a similar phenome- _ 
non in the history of knowledge. 4 
The family of the Bernoullis is said to have originally belonged to 
Antwerp, and to have emigrated to Frankfort to avoid the religions — 
persecution under the Duke of Alva; it finally settled at Basel. 
Nicolas Bernoulli, the immediate ancestor of the subjects of this 
notice, held a high station in that republic, and was succeeded in it 
by a son, now unknown. He had eleven children, of whom two are’ 
the most distinguished of the eight Bernoullis, and another, whose | 
name we cannot find, was the father of a third. But the whole con- 
nexion will be better understood by the following genealogical dia 


f 
a 
4 


gram, which includes the common ancestor and the eight descendants — 
in question. The years of birth and death are added :— ; 
NICOLAS. a 
| 
James I, Joun I, Son (name unknown) 
1654-1705. 1667-1748, 
| | Nicoxas I. 
Nicoxas IT, DaNnIEL. Joun I1.- 1687-1759, 
1695-1726, 1700-1782. 1710-1790. 
| 
Joun III. JAmes II, 
1744-1807, 1759-17589. 


However distinguished these men may be, the events of their liy 
are of comparatively little interest, except as connected with the 
tory of the sciences which they cultivated; and of their wor 
would be impossible to treat to an extent corresponding to 
reputation or utility, without writing the history of mathematics 
a century. We shall therefore here confine ourselves—1. To 
principal events of their lives. 2. To the mention of such of 
researches as are most connected with their personal characters. 
To a very short account of the position which their labours oceup 
the chain of investigation, 


973 BERNOULLI. 


BERNOULLI. 974 


JAMES BERNOULLI L., was born at Basel, December 27th 1654. His 
father intended that he should be a divine, and had him taught the 
classics and scholastic philo-ophy, but no mathematics. Accident 
threw geometrical books in his way, and he studied them with ardour 
in spite of the opposition of his father. He took for his device 
Phaéton driving the chariot of the Sun, with the motto ‘Invito patre 
sidera verso.’ At the age of twenty-two he travelled to Geneva, and 
from thence to France, It is recorded of him that at the former 
place he taught a blind girl to write, and that at Bordeaux he pre- 
pared gnomonical tables. At his return, in 1680, he began to study 

the philosophy of Descartes.. ; 
~The comet of 1680 drew from him his ‘Conamen Novi Systematis,’ 
&ec., an attempt to explain the phenomena of those bodies. He 
imagined that they were satellites of a planet too distant to be visible, 
and thence conjectured that their returns might be calculated. With 
regard to the question of their predictive faculties, he supposes that 
the head of the comet, being durable, denotes nothing, but that the 
tail, being accidental, may be a symbol of the anger of heaven. M. 
Fontenelle, as became the writer of an éloge, calls this a “ ménage- 
ment pour l’opinion populaire ;” but we cannot follow him in viewing 
it assuch, In 1682 he published his treatise ‘De Gravitate Aitheris,’ 
now of little note. His lasting fame dates from the year 1684, in 
which Leibnitz published his first essays on the Differential Calculus 
in the Leipzig Acts. From this time he and his brother John applied 
themselves to the new science with a success and to an extent which 
made Leibnitz declare that it was as much theirs as his. In 1687 he 
was elected professor of mathematics at the University of Basel. His 
celebrity attracted many foreigners to that place, and his researches 
on the theory of series were investigations undertaken as official 
exercises. 

The integral calculus was first inquired into by James Bernoulli, in 
two essays published in 1691. His future labours were, in a great 
measure, developments of the inexhaustible method of investigation 
just named, Of that part which concerns his brother as well as him- 
self we shall presently speak. He died at Basel of a slow fever, 
August 16, 1705, in his fifty-first year. After the example of Archi- 
medes, he ordered that one of his discoveries should be engraved on 
his tomb. It was a drawing of the curve called by mathematicians 
the logarithmic spiral, with the inscription ‘Eadem mutata resurgo :’ 
a double allusion, first, to his hope of a resurrection, next, to the 
remarkable properties of the curve, well known to mathematicians, 
which consist in this, that many operations which, in most instances, 

convert one curve into another, in the logarithmic spiral only repro- 
duce the original. 

M. Fontenelle, his contemporary, says, “‘M. Bernoulli was of a 
bilious and melancholy temperament, a character which, more than 
any other, gives the zeal and perseverance necessary for great things. 

In all his researches his march was slow and sure; neither 
his genius nor his habit of success inspired him with confidence ; he 
published nothing without handling it over and over again; and he 
never ceased to fear the public which held him in so much veneration.” 
It is worth while to observe that the above was written in the year of 
his death, and before the opportunity of reviewing his brother's 
career could furnish temptation to exaggerate points of contrast; and 
before we quit this subject, we may observe that the career of James 
Bernoulli is, on one point, a contradiction to a favourite theory, a 
consequence of the generalising spirit in which biographies are fre- 
quently written. The qualities of the man in question, be he who he 
may, are made the necessary accompaniments of all who distinguish 
themselves in a similar way. Thus, because several great mathema- 
ticians have originated their best discoveries when very young, it is laid 
down as asort of law of nature that they should always do so: but 
James Bernoulli did nothing which would have made him famous, 
even among contemporaries, till after he was thirty years old, and 
then not from a principle of his own, but from a hint thrown out by 
Leibnitz, and which [Barrow] we might almost imagine his own 
genius would have seized. Yet he is one of the most original mathe- 
maticians that ever lived. 

He was married, and left a son and daughter. His ‘Ars Conjec- 
tandi,’ one of the earliest works on the theory of probabilities, and his 
treatise on series, were published posthumously in 1713, under the 
care of Nicolas Bernoulli the elder. Part of it was republished by 
Baron Maseres in 1795, in a volume of tracts. His complete works 
were published at Geneva, in two vols. 4to, 1744. There is a letter 
of his in the ‘Journal de Physique,’ September, 1792, which will be 
presently alluded to. He edited the geometry of Descartes, in 1695. 

(See éloge by Fontenelle, in the collection; the memoir by Lacroix 
. in the Biographie Universelle; Montucla, Hist. des Math, throughout ; 
_ and the Preface to Lacroix, Calc. Diff. et Int.) 

JouN Brernovutxi I., brother of the preceding, was born July 27th, 
1667 (old style). He was the ninth child of his father, who intended 
him for commercial pursuits, and sent him to the University at Basel 
in 1682, where, like his brother, he found his own vocation, He was 
- made master of arts in 1685, on which occasion he read a thesis in 
_ Greek verse, in refutation, we suppose, of the divine right, &c., the 
subject being, that ‘the prince is made for his subjects,’ 

He then studied medicine, and in 1690 published a dissertation on 
effervescence and fermentation; but he soon began to apply himself 


to mathematics. In 1690 he travelled to Geneva and into France, 
where he formed many acquaintances, with such men as Malebranche, 
the Cassinis, De l'Hépital, &c. He returned to Basel in 1692, and 
from that time dates his correspondence with Leibnitz. It is well 
known how strenuously he defended the cause of the latter in the 
dispute about the invention of fluxions, and the vigorous war of 
problems which he maintained with the English school. In 1693 (our 
authority the ‘éloge’ of the Berlin Academy, in Formey’s collection 
of 1757, says 1691, but this must be a misprint) he was elected pro- 
fessor of mathematics at Wolfenbiittel; but on his marriage with a 
lady of Basel, named Dorothea Falckner, March 6th 1694, he returned 
to his-own country, was received doctor of medicine, and kept a public 
act on the Motion of the Muscles. 

In 1695 he accepted a professorship at Groningen, at which place he 
remained till he succeeded his brother James at Basel in 1705, where 
he died January 1st 1748. We shall have to speak of five of his 
descendants. He published no separate works, but his memoirs are 
to be found in all the scientific transactions of his day. They were 
collected in four quarto volumes by Cramer, and published at Lau- 
sanne and Geneva in 1742. His correspondence with Leibnitz was 
published in two vols. 4to, at the same places, in 1745. - 

The author of the ‘éloge’ already cited says, that the qualities of 
his heart were not less estimable than those of his head, and that he 
was “juste, droit, sincére, et pieux.” To the last quality he has an 
undoubted right; but his whole history is an unfortunate example of 
impetuosity of temper and narrowness of mind, which betrayed him 
into a want of fairness, almost amounting to baseness, The assertion 
of the eulogist is, as the reader will see, a tolerable specimen of the 
extent to which such productions may be trusted as to points of per- 
sonal disposition and manners. The celebrated dispute with James 
Bernoulli is of a character unique in history, and forms an episode so 
characteristic of the state of science at the period, as well as of the 
dispositions of the two celebrated brothers, that it is worth while to 
dwell a little upon it. 

Before the mathematical sciences were possessed of general methods 
of investigation, problems of which hundreds are now soluble by one 
process, were so many separate questions with separate difficulties. It 
had been the practice of centuries for mathematicians who had found 
a particular solution of any case, to propose the question as a challenge 
to others. In the years preceding 1696 John Bernoulli had showered 
new problems upon the world, which, though addressed to all, were 
generally considered as particularly aimed at his elder brother, of 
whose established reputation he seems to have been jealous. In 1696 
John Bernoulli proposed the well-known problem of the brachistochron, 
or “to find the curve on which a material point will fall from one 
given point to another in the least possible time.” This was answered 
by Leibnitz, Newton, James Bernoulli, and De I’Hépital; but the 
third hit upon a method of solving more general questions of the 
same kind; and feeling perhaps that it was time to assert the supe- 
riority which his age and reputation might be supposed to give him, 
returned a counter-challenge with his solution. It was a problem ofa 
much more general and abstruse character, one limited case of which 
is the following :—“ Of all the curve lines which can be described on 
a given rectilinear base, and of a given length, to find that which con- 
tains the greatest area.” He added another, which amounted to asking 
for the curve of quickest descent, not from a point to a point, but 
from a point to a given straight line; and ended by stating that a 
persen of his acquaintance (probably himself) would give his brother 
due praise, and fifty florins besides, if he would solve these problems 
within three months, and publish his solutions within a year. John 
Bernoulli, in an answer published immediately afterwards (for private 
correspondence between the brothers had ceased), praises the solutions 
which Newton, Leibnitz, and De )’Hépital had given of his problem, 
and admits the correctness of that of his brother, but reproaches him 
with the time he had employed upon it. He goes on, to say, that as 
to his brother’s new problems, they were in reality contained in his 
own; that difficult as they might appear, he had immediately over- 
come them; and instead of three months, it only took him three 
minutes to penetrate the whole mystery. He sent the results of his 
solutions accordingly, and required fulfilment of the promise; adding, 
that as it had cost him too little trouble to gain the money, he should 
give it to the poor. He had in fact solved the second problem, which, 
as he truly stated, is not of difficult deduction from his own; but he 
deceived himself as to the first. James Bernoulli quietly answered, 
in the ‘Journal des Savans’ for February 1698, that his brother’s 
solution was wrong; that if no one published any further solution 
he would engage, 1, to find out what his brother’s method kad been ; 
2, whatever it was, to show that it was wrong; 3, to give a true 
solution of the problem. And he added, that whatever sum any one 
would undertake to give him for succeeding in each of the three 
undertakings, he would forfeit as much if he failed in the first, twice 
as much if he failed in the second, and three times as much if he 
failed in the third. The positive tone of this announcement alarmed 
John Bernoulli, who well knew that his brother was not a man to be 
mueh mistaken when he spoke so strongly; and he accordingly looked 
again at his solution, corrected it as he thought, admitted that he had 
been too precipitate, and again demanded the reward. He proposed 
also another problem, for the solution of which he offered 200 florins, 


975 BERNOULLI. 


BERNOULLI. 976 


if done within the year. James Bernoulli replied, “I recommend my 
brother to look again at his last solution, and to say whether he still 
thinks it right; and I declare that when I shall have published mine, 
pretexts of precipitation will not be listened to.” John Bernoulli 
answered, that he would not revise his solution, and that his time was 
better employed in making new discoveries. James Bernoulli replied, 
that if in three minutes he had solved the whole mystery, surely sit 
minutes more would not much diminish the number of his new dis- 
coveries, After some further communications, in the course of which 
John Bernoulli sent the demonstration of his solution to Leibnitz (who 
declined giving any positive opinion), and declared that he would say 
no more on the subject, James Bernoulli published his own solutions, 
with those of other problems, without demonstrations, in the Leipzig 
Acts for June 1700. r 
in which he invites him to publish his method, and sends his own 
solution, without demonstration. John Bernoulli, though now in 
possession of the true result, could not see where he was wrong; 
perhaps would not, for a material part of this letter was suppressed at 
his desire in the posthumous edition of his brother’s works. (It was 
reprinted whole in 1792, as already mentioned.) John Bernoulli 
replied by sending his own demonstration under cover to the Academy 
of Sciences at Paris, to be opened so soon as his brother should send 
his. On this, James Bernoulli (March 1701) published his own solution 
at Basel, and also in the Leipzig Acts with the demonstration. De 
1 Hépital and Leibnitz immediately admitted its correctness, and made 
John Bernoulli acquainted with their opinion. But no more was heard 
from the latter: he continued obstinately silent as long as his brother 
was alive; nor was it till 1706, after the death of James Bernoulli, 
that he published an incorrect solution in the memoirs of the academy. 
The inference is obvious, that he suspected the incorrectness of his 
own method, and was afraid to expose it to the searching eye of his 
brother ; but that when the latter was dead, he did not fear that any 
other person in Europe would be able to expose him. As late ds 
1718 he published a correct solution, and admitted that he had been 
mistaken; but he had not the fairness to add, that his new solution 
was only that of his brother in another shape. 

After the preceding account, which is now undisputed, the reader 
will not be surprised to be told that after the deaths of Leibnitz and 
De I'H6pital, their bosom friend John Bernoulli endeavoured to rob 
them both. He claimed to be a contemporaneous inventor of a 
method of the former (that which was called the differentiatio de 
cwrva in curvam), of which he had said in admiration, when it was 
first produced, that “the god of geometry had admitted Leibnitz 
farther into his sanctuary than himself.” And here too, if either of 
the brothers can be said to have invented that method as well as 
Leibnitz, it was James Bernoulli. He also advanced an absurd pre- 
tension to be the author of all that was new in the ‘ Analyse,’ &c., of 
De  H6pital, a claim which merits no refutation. He was jealous of 
his own son, Daniel Bernoulli,.who divided with him the prize of the 
Academy of Sciences in 1734, and was displeased that he turned New- 
tonian. The following anecdote is related by Condorcet, we know not 
on what authority, but we believe it :—-“ One day he proposed to his 
son Daniel, then a youth, a little problem to try his strength; the boy 
took it with him, solved it, and came back expecting some praise from 
his father. You ought to have done it on the spot, was all the observa- 
tion made, and with a tone and gesture which his son remembered to 
the latest day of his life.” The only instance which has ever fallen 
within our reading, in which John Bernoulli showed himself free from 
_ petty feeling, was in his treatment of Euler, when the latter was his 
pupil at Basel, Observing his talent for mathematics, he encouraged 
it, and gave him private lessons, in addition to those of the public 
course, 

In thus displaying a character which appears to have no one amiable 
point about it, we depart from the common practice, which is never to 
admit, if by any softening it can be helped, that great intellect is not 
accompanied by greatness of mind in other respects. But it is not 
good to substitute falsehood (and coloured truth is falsehood) for 
truth, and it is not good for the living to know that literary or scien- 
tific reputation covers moral obliquity as soon as the grave has covered 
the body. D’Alembert, who, in the form of an éloge, has written an 
excellent account of the mathematical character of John Bernoulli, has 
dexterously evaded the difficulty :—“ Bernoulli was only known to me 
by his works; I owe to them almost entirely the little progress I 
have made in geometry. Not having had any kind of acquaintance 
with him, I am ignorant of the wninteresting details of his private life.” 
Speaking of the celebrated dispute above related, he says, “This alter- 
cation produced several pieces in which bitterness seems to have taken 
the place of emulation ; but as one of the two must have been in the 
wrong, one of the two must have been in a passion.” He only forgets 
to state, what he himself knew as well as any body, that the “one of the 
two” was the subject of the éloge, and his protégé for the time being. 

In concluding what we mean to say on the two brothers, who stood 
at the head of their family, we may observe that it is clear that both 
one and the other had pushed their researches in the infinitesimal 
analysis far beyond the view of any other men of their time. Newton 
had abandoned the sciences, and Leibnitz, the other inventor, though 
he could decide between the right and the wrong, would not commit 
himself by an opinion on the solution of John Bernoulli only, but 


He also printed at Basel a letter to his brother, 


instruction in mathematics from his father; we have already seen 


contented himself with stating that it seemed to him to be correct, 
but that he could not give it sufficient attention to speak positively, 
Of the two brothers, the elder was certainly the deeper and themore 
correct; the younger the quicker and the more elegant. The works 
of John Bernoulli, who lived much longer than his brother, containan _ 
immense mass of discovery ; but there is no particular on which we 
could dwell for the benefit of the general reader: the mathematician 
should consult the éloge of D’Alembert already alluded to. _ 
Nicotas Bernoviit II. (to distinguish him from his cousin of the - 

same name), the eldest son of John Bernoulli, was born on the 27th ~ 
of January 1695, at Groningen. He came to Basel with his fatherin 
1705, and studied at the university, where he formed an intimate 
In 1725 he was — 
invited to St. Petersburg by the Empress Catherine, with his brother 
Daniel. But he had hardly time to do more than show that he had 
the talents of his family, when he died, on the 26th of July 1726, at 
St. Petersburg. For his éloge see ‘Comm. Acad. Petrop,,’ v. ii, and 
for some memoirs of his, see vol, i. There are some of his memoirsin 
his father’s works. (See the ‘ Biographie Universelle.’) yee 
Danret BERNOULLI, the second son of John, was born at Gronin 
February 9,1700. His father at first intended that he should a 
himself to trade, but his objections to that course of life won i 
He had received some | 


friendship with the afterwards celebrated Euler. 


and he was allowed to study medicine. 


how. After passing some years in Italy, professedly employed upon 
medicine, but really upon mathematics, he returned to Basel. He 
could not at this time have been actually known as a mathematician 
by any decided effort of his own; but it was sufficient that he was a 
Bernoulli, for we are told that before he was twenty-four years oldhe 
had refused the presidency of the Academy of Sciences at Genoa, The 
following year he and his brother Nicolas were invited to St. Peters- — 
burg, as already mentioned. He appears not to have been well satis- — 
fied with the half savage court of Russia, and had made up his mind ~ 
to quit it; but the empress, who wished him to remain, increased his 
salary, and gave him fullliberty to retire on the half of it whenever he - 
pleased. Thus obliged in honour to remain, he continued at St. Peters- — 
burg till 1733, when the state of his health compelled him to return to’ 

his country. Here he obtained, first a chair of medicine, and after- — 
wards of natural philosophy, to which was subsequently added one of — 
metaphysics. ie 

He had published, in 1724, his first work, entitled ‘ Exercitatione 
Mathematice,’ in the title-page of which he styled himself ‘son o} 
John Bernoulli,’ which title he always afterwards continued. Hi a 
succeeding essays on mechanics were the first in which motion is 
decomposed into that of translation and rotation. He afterwards — 
entered into the theory of compound oscillations, and is the first who 
applied mathematics to a species of considerations which have since 
become of the greatest utility and singularly extensive application. 
His ‘ Hydrodynamique,’ published in 1738, is the first work in which 
the motions of fluids are reduced to a question of mathematics. It is 
in one point like the subsequent work of Lagrange (the ‘ Mécani ue 
Analytique’): in that work the whole question is reduced "to aha 
results of one principle, which, in the work of Daniel Bernoulli, is — 
called the ‘ conservation of vis viva.’ oq 

In the theory of probabilities he introduced what is known by 
the name of the ‘ moral probability,’ which estimates aloss or gain, not — 
absolutely, but by its proportion to the fortune of the person who 
stands the risk. His paper on inoculation, published in 1760, was one 
of the first in which a science whose practical utility is great, thou; 
difficult for the world at large to see, is applied to a questio 
statistics. On this subject he added to the methods which had b 
to appear for the evasion of the difficulties arising from the neces 
introduction of very large numbers into questions of combinations, _ 

Daniel Bernoulli gained or divided the prize of the Academy 
Sciences ten times; once (in 1734) in company with his father, on 
question of the physical cause of the smallness of the planetary inc 
tions, by which, as before remarked, he excited jealousy in a qua 
from whence admiration should have been most certain. His me: ‘ 
hasbeen considered the better of the two; and Condorcet obseryes, 
that he knew this, and showed that he knew it, which was not quite 
decorous. In 1740 he shared with Euler and Maclaurin the prize for 
a dissertation on the tides; and their three memoirs, which are all 
celebrated, contain all that was done on the theory of that subject 
between the writings of Newton and Laplace. 

In 1748 he succeeded his father as member of the Academy 
Sciences, in which he was succeeded by his brother John; so that 
more than ninety years the foreign list of that body always contai 
a Bernoulli. aA 

Daniel Bernoulli was found dead in his bed by his servant, March 17, 
1782, having in his latter years been subject to asthma. He was 
never married, the only engagement of that sort which he ever con- 
templated having been broken off by him on the discovery that 
intended wife was avaricious. In religion he was said by the cl 
of his town to be a freethinker, a rumour which he never took 
steps either to prove or disprove. But his conduct and talents 
gained him so much respect among his fellow-citizens, that to take o: 
the hat to Daniel Bernoulli was one of the first lessons inculcat 
upon the children of Basel. \. 


i 


“7 


BINGHAM, JOSEPH. 


BONSTETTEN, KARL VICTOR VON. 978 


The following anecdotes were related by himself, and he asserted 
that his self-love was more flattered by the incidents they contain 
than by all his prizes. When he was a young man on his travels, he 
talked with a stranger whose curiosity was excited by his conversation, 
and who asked his name. ‘I am Daniel Bernoulli,’ answered he. 
The stranger, thinking from his youthful looks that he could not be so 
celebrated a man, and wishing to answer the supposed hoax by one 
still better, replied, “And I am Isaac Newton.” The other is as 
follows :—Koenig, then well known as a mathematician, was dining 
with him, and talking with some pride of a very difficult question, 
-which it had taken him a long time to solve; Bernoulli went on 
attending to his guests, and before they rose from table furnished 


~ Koenig with a solution of his question. (See the ‘ Hloge’ of Daniel 


Bernoulli by Condorcet.) 

Joun Brrnovuttt IL., third gon of John Bernoulli I,, born at Basel, 
May 18, 1710, died there July 17, 1790. He studied law and mathe- 
matics, and was successively professor of eloquence and of mathe- 
matics. Three of his memoirs gained the prize of the Academy of 
Sciences. 

Joun Brernovtti IIL, his son, born at Basel, November 4, 1744, 
died at Berlin, July 13, 1807. At nineteen years of age he became a 
member of the academy of Berlin. He devoted himself particularly 
to astronomy, and his numerous observations are in the Berlin ‘ Me- 
moirs’ and ‘iphemerides.’ He gave an edition of the algebra of 
Euler: his ‘Lettres sur differents sujects,’ &c., 1777—1779, contain 
‘much information on the state of observatories, There isa list of his 


' works in the ‘ Biographie Universelle.’ 


James BERNOULLI II., second son of John Bernoulli II., born at 
Basel, October 17, 1759, was the deputy of his uncle Daniel in his 
professorship, when the latter became infirm, but did not succeed him, 
owing to candidates being then chosen by lot, He was afterwards pro- 
fessor of mathematics at St. Petersburg, and married a grand-daughter 
of Euler. His memoirs in the Petersburg transactions had begun to 
show that he had the talent of his predecessors, but he died of 
apoplexy while bathing in the Neva, July 3,1789. His ‘ éloge’ is in 
the ‘ Nov. Act. Petropol.’ vol. vii. ( Biog. Univ.’) 

Niconas Brrnovuii I., nephew of the two first Bernoullis, was 
born at Basel, October 10, 1687, died there November 29,1759. He 
was professor of mathematics and logic at Padua, afterwards of law 
at Basel. There are some of his writings among those of John 
Bernoulli. 

In concluding this article we shall remark that the two elder Ber- 
noullis lived during the time while the mathematics were in a state of 
growth towards the power which was required for physical analysis. 
No two men contributed more to this work; and it is the integral 
calculus, as received from their hands, which became the instrument 
of their successors. They are of the age of Newton and Leibnitz: 
Daniel Bernoulli, on the other hand, is the contemporary of Clairaut, 
Euler, and D’Alembert; and in the hands of these four, the new 
calculus was applied to investigation of material phenomena. The 
circumstances of the times required such men, and there is no question 
that they must have appeared; but that they should all three have 
come from one family was not to be looked for, and furnishes an 
instance of consanguinity of talent of one kind, which must excite the 
curiosity even of those who care little for the subjects on which it was 
employed. 

' BINGHAM, JOSEPH, a very learned clergyman, was born in 
September 1668, at Wakefield, Yorkshire, and educated first at the 
grammar-school of his native town, whence he removed, in 1683, to 
University College, Oxford. He graduated B.A. in 1687, was soon 
after elected Fellow of his college, and in 1690 proceeded M.A. In 
1696 he was presented to the rectory of Headbourne-Worthy, near 
Winchester, Hampshire; and in 1712 to that of Havant, near Ports- 
mouth, He obtained no further preferment; and died, August 17, 
1723. The work on which the fame of Bingham is based is his 
‘Origines Ecclesiastice ; or the Antiquities of the Christian Church,’ a 
work displaying a profound acquaintance with the Fathers and early 
ecclesiastical historians, and marked by sound judgment as much as 
by extensive reading. It embraces within its scope nearly the whole 
range of questions connected with the doctrines and discipline of the 
early Church, and is unquestionably one of the most learned works on 
Christian antiquity produced by a member of the English Church. It 
was originally published in 10 vols. 8vo, 1710-22; and was translated 
into Latin—the citations being for the first time given at length—by 
Grischovious, with a preface by J. F. Buddeus, in 10 vols, 4to, Hale, 
1724-29, and again in 1751-81. An edition, in which the additions and 
corrections left by Bingham were for the first time incorporated, was 
published by his great-grandson, the Rev. Richard Bingham (who pre- 
fixed a Life of the author), in 8 vols. 8vo, 1821-29. Another edition, 
by the Rev. J. R. Pitman, appeared in 9 vols. 8vo, London, 1838-40, in 
which the passages referred to are given at length, and some Sermons; 
*The French Church’s Apology for the Church of England, which 
first appeared in 1706; ‘A Scholastic History of Lay Baptism,’ in two 
parts, first published in 1712; and other minor works by Bingham are 
included. The latest edition is one by R. Bingham, jun., in 10 vols, 
8vo, Oxford, 1855, in which the editor has verified and quoted the 
whole of the 15,000 citations contained in the work of his learned 
ancestor. An abridgment of the Antiquities, by A. Blackamore, 
BIOG, DIV. VOL, VI. 


appeared in 2 vols. 8vo, in 1722, under the title of ‘ Ecclesize Primitive 
Notitia, or a Summary of Christian Antiquities.’ 

BONSTETTEN, KARL VICTOR VON, a Swiss author, a native of 
the German portion of Switzerland, who wrote in both French and 
German, and produced works of reputation in each language, and 
who was also remarkable for the number and intimacy of his friend- 
ships with noted men, one of whom was the English poet Gray. He 
was born at Bern, on the 3rd of September 1745, of one of the six 
privileged patrician families of that republic, of which his father was 
treasurer. He was the first Bernese child who was subjected to inocu- 
lation, by the advice of the celebrated Haller. At Yverdun, where 
he was sent for his education, he formed an acquaintance with Jean 
Jacques Rousseau; at Geneva, to which he removed, he became the 
friend of Firmin Abauzit, the Arian philosopher ; and was a frequent 
guest at the table of Voltaire, Charles Bonnet, author of the ‘ Con- 
templations of Nature,’ inspired him with a taste for metaphysical 
analysis, which he afterwards said decided the course of his intellectual 
life. He took a disgust to Leyden, to the university of which he was 
sent for his education, and obtained his father’s permission in 1769 to 
make a trip to England. Here the Rev. Norton Nicholls, of Blunde- 
ston in Suffolk, the friend of Gray, chanced to meet with him at the 
rooms at Bath, and introduced him, in a letter dated November the 
27th, 1769, to the poet, who then resided in much retirement at Cam- 
bridge. The consequence was what Mitford calls “a sudden intimacy 
and romantic attachment” on the part of Gray, the history of which 
may be traced in the letters between Gray, Bonstetten, and Nicholls, 
first published by Mitford in 1843, in the fifth or supplementary 
volume of his edition of Gray; and in the letters from Gray to 
Bonstetten, first given to the English public in 1799 in Miss Plumptre’s 
translation of Matthisson’s ‘Letters from the Continent,’ the name 
which she gives to the German poet’s ‘Erinnerungen.’ These 
letters it is interesting to compare with Bonstetten’s own account of 
this part of his life, as givenin his ‘Souvenirs,’ written in 1831, 
more than sixty years afterwards. ‘TI passed some months,” he says, 
“at Cambridge with Gray. I used to see him every day, from five 
o'clock till midnight. We read together Shakspere, whom he adored, 
Dryden, Pope, Milton, &c. I told him all about myself and my 
country, but all his life was shut from me: he never spoke to me of 
himself.” “The remembrance of his poems,” Bonstetten also says, 
“was hateful to him ; he never permitted me to speak of them.” When 
the young foreigner left for the Continent, Gray accompanied him to 
London and Dover; and it was on this occasion that an incident toolc 
place not without its interest. “Bonstetten told me,” says Sir Egerton 
Brydges in his autobiography, published in 1834, “that when he was 
walking one day with Gray in a crowded street of the city, about 
1769, a large uncouth figure was rolling before them, upon seeing 
which, Gray exclaimed, with some bitterness, ‘ Look, look, Bonstetten ! 
the great bear—there goes Ursa major!’ This was Johnson.” In 
the letters which Gray wrote to his friend after his return, his lan- 
guage was that of the warmest friendship. “ My life now,” he says in 
one of them, “is but a conversation with your shadow; the sound of 
your voice still rings in my ears.” In his letters to Norton Nicholls, 
while he expresses his warm attachment to the young Swiss, whom he 
calls “the boy,” though he was twenty-four years of age, he gives 
utterance more than once to an opinion that he is “ diseased in his 
intellects,” and “certainly mad.” In the year after their parting, 
1771, Gray intended to pay him a visit in Switzerland, in compliance 
with a warm invitation, but was prevented by the ill health which 
resulted the same year in his death. Sir Egerton Brydges, who knew 
Bonstetten about half a century later, and who describes him as 
“talkative and conceited, but amusing, and, in the common sense, 
amiable,” adds, “he was more like a Frenchman than a German Swiss; 
I cannot guess how he could be suited to Gray.” 

Soon after his return home, in 1773, Bonstetten became acquainted 
with Johann von Miiller, then an unknown young Swiss, afterwards 
the celebrated historian; and one of the most interesting volumes of 
Miiller’s works, the ‘ Briefe eines jungen Gelehrten’ (Letters of a 
Student), consists of his correspondence with Bonstetten, who had a 
great influence in directing the mind of his friend in the career which 
led him to fame. The same service which he rendered to Miiller was 
rendered to himself by Matthisson, a poet who aspired to emulate 
Gray in German, and with whom Bonstetten remarks that he lived on 
the same terms of intimacy as with Gray, though his English friend 
was thirty years older than himself and his German friend sixteen 
years younger. By Matthisson’s persuasion, Bonstetten commenced 
author; and his first production, ‘Letters on a Swiss Pastoral Country,’ 
published in a German magazine (‘ Wielands Deutsches Merkur’) in 
1780, was of such excellence that he never surpassed and seldom 
equalled it in his subsequent writings. Bonstetten had by this time 
entered on political life in his native republic; but his ideas were 
considered too liberal by his colleagues, and his way of supporting 
them too little conciliatory, and he was also found not to be a good 
‘man of business, He was named however in 1787 Landvogt, or 
political chief, of Nyon, and afterwards supreme judge at Lugano, in 
Italian Switzerland. In his castle of Nyar, commanding one of the 
finest views in Europe, he had the satisfaction of providing a lodging 
for some years for his friend Matthisson, who wrote there some of his 
finest poems. When the spirit of revolution extended a France to 

R 


BOWERBANK, JOHN SCOTT. 


979 


BRAYLEY, EDWARD WEDLAKE, FS.A. 920 a 


Switzerland, and in March 1798 the republic of Bern was overthrown, 
he found it advisable to quit Switzerland, and for three years was the 
guest at Copenhagen of the husband of Friderika Brun, a Danish lady 
well known in German literature, to whom he had been introduced by 
Mattbisson. It was not till 1802 that he returned to his native 
country, when he fixed his residence at Geneva, and continued to 
reside there for thirty years, entirely remote from political and 
devoted to literary life. From that time he most generally adopted 
the French language in his published writings in the place of German. 
His time was passed in making tours of pleasure, including repeated 
visits to Italy ; in publishing different works, which sustained if they 
did not increase his reputation ; and in a constant round of society, In 
which his company was much sought for. Lord Byron, who saw him 
at Madame de Stael’s at Coppet in 1816, says in a letter to Rogers, 
which is published by Moore, “ Bonstetten is a fine and very lively old 
man, and much esteemed. by his compatriots ; he is also a littérateur of 
good repute, and all his friends have a mania of addressing to him 
volumes of letters—Matthisson, Miiller the historian, &c.” ‘There 
is no creature I can compare to Byron,” wrote Bonstetten at the same 
time to Matthisson; “his voice sounds like music, and his features are 
those of an angel, only that a little demon of fine sarcasm pierces 
tbrough—but even that is half good-natured.” A volume of letters from 
Bonstetten to Matthisson was published in 1827, and two volumes to 
Frederika Brun in 1829-30—all animated, if not profound, and con- 
taining a constant stream of literary information and anecdote. In. 
1832 there appeared in French a volume of ‘Souvenirs,’ written by 
Bonstetten in 1831, in his eighty-sixth year, and in which he intended 
to give a sketch of some of the distinguished persons he had known, of 
whom, he said, he counted more than eighty before 1773, including, 
among others who have been already mentioned, the Pope Ganganelli, 
Charles Edward (the last of the Stuarts), the Countess Albany, 
Corilla the celebrated improvisatrice, &c.: the ‘Souvenirs’ were not 
completed. LBonstetten was carried off by death on the 3rd of 
February 1832. 

The more important works of Bonstetten, which have not been 
already mentioned, are—‘ Ueber Nationalbildung’ (the nearest trans- 
lation of which is perhaps‘ On National Character’), 2 vols., 1802; 
‘Voyage sur la scéne du dernier livre de !Enéide’ (Travels on the 
Scene of the last Book of the Aineid, followed by some observations 
on modern Latium), 1813 ; ‘ Recherches, &c.’ (Researches on the Nature 
and Laws of the Imagination), 2 vols., 1807; ‘Etudes de homme’ 
(Studies on Man), 2 vols., 1821; and ‘L’Homme du midi et l'homme 
du nord’ (The Man of the South and the Man of the North), 1824. 
Even his metaphysical works have a sort of autobiographical character 
stamped upon them by the degree to which they are based on observa- 
tions which could only be collected by a man of his peculiar circum- 
stances of life. A collection of his smaller writings in German was 
published at Copenhagen between 1799 and 1801, in 4 vols. The whole 
deserve to be better known in England, 

*BOWERBANK, JOHN SCOTT, a distinguished English naturalist, 
was born on the 14th of July 1797, at Lime-street, Bishopsgate, 
London, where his father carried on the business of a distiller. At 
the age of fourteen he acquired a taste for the study of botany, which, 
. taking him into the country round about London, led him to feel a 
general interest in the objects of natural science by which he was sur- 
rounded, At this time there existed in Spitalfields an association 
* which, under the name of the Mathematical Society, brought together 
the men of superior intelligence at the east-end of London. Of this 
society young Bowerbank became a member at the age of eighteen. 
His energy and intelligence soon made him a leading member, and he 
delivered before the society courses of lectures on Systematic Botany 
and the Anatomy and Physiology of Plants. He continued a member 
of this society till it effected a junction with the Royal Astronomical 
Society, and he is one of many who still look back to the scientific and 
social meetings of the Spitalfields Mathematical Society as the source 
of their subsequent intellectual life and activity. 

Although Mr. Bowerbank has, till within the last few years of his 
life, been engaged in business, he has found time to make very im- 
portant original observations, to publish many valuable scientific 
works and papers, to collect together one of the most valuable 
geological museunis in the country, and to devote a large amount of 
time to the work of our more important scientific societies. He is an 
example of one of those men of whom England has so much reason to 
be proud, who, whilst actively engaged in commercial pursuits have 
obtained the highest honours in the fields of scientific research. Mr. 
Bowerbank’s original researches have most of them been made by means 
of the microscope. He has always been amongst the first in this country 
to expend his ample means on the newest and most recent improve- 
ments of the microscope, and was one of the founders of the society 
established in London for promoting the use of that instrument. One 
of his earliest literary contributions to science was a paper ‘On the 
Circulation of the Blood in Insects,’ in which he was the first to point 
out the true nature of this function amongst that class of animals. 
This was published in the first volume of the ‘Entomological Maga- 
zine,’ In the fourth volume of the same journal, a further paper on 
the ‘ Circulation of the Blood and the distribution of the Trachez in 
Chrysopa Perla, was published. Insects furnished also the material 
for another microscopic paper ‘On the Scales of the Wings of the 


Lepidoptera, published in the fifth volume of the ‘Entomological 
Magazine.’ ; Mae 
The interpretation of the history of the earth’s surface by means of 
its extinct animal and vegetable life, has been from an early perio 
favourite study with Mr. Bowerbank. His earliest investigations 
made in the London clay, and were repaid by the discovery of a la 
number of new forms of plants and parts of plants. These were p 
lished in his ‘ History of the fossil fruits and seeds of the Lo 
Clay. This work was published with figures in 1840. . 
In natural history Mr. Bowerbank’s attention has been 
devoted to the family of sponges. These bodies standing h 
limits of the animal and vegetable kingdom, had been neglected by — 
both botanists and zoologists. Through his researches large numbers — 
of new forms have been brought to light, and the nature of the vital 
functions they perform, and the structure of their tissues, thorough 
investigated. His papers on this subject are very numerous. In 
first volume of the ‘Transactions of the Microscopical Society” a: 
two papers, one ‘On three new species of Sponges,’ and a second * Oi 
the Keratose or Horny Sponges of commerce. The study of t 
history of sponges in time, and the past representatives of me 
forms, led him to the conclusion that the flints found so abun 
in the chalk formation are most of them fossilised sponges. 
views on this subject, although they have been strongly controve 
were published in the sixth volume of the ‘ Transactions of the | 
gical Society,’ with the title ‘On the Siliceous bodies of the Cl 
Greensand, and Oolites.’ In this paper he maintains that flints ai 
other siliceous bodies have been formed by the direct deposit of | 
upon organic bodies at the bottom of the sea. He applied this 
also to the formation of agates in a paper published in the t 
volume of the ‘Proceedings of the Geological Society,” ‘On 
Agates, and other siliceous bodies.” Whatever may be the dif 
of opinion on this subject, no more feasible views than those ¢ 
Bowerbank have yet been brought forward. He is now enga; 
great work on the British Sponges, which is to contain illustrations : 
descriptions of every species. er 4 
His purely geological papers have been numerous, and are publi 
in the ‘Transactions of the Geological Society, the *Magazir 
Natural History,’ and other places. In his geological reséarche 
has constantly had in view the formation of a museum that sh 
illustrate the typical and rarer forms of extinct animals. This muset 
is freely opened to the gevlogical student, and is at present deposi 
in a building attached to his house in Highbury-grove, Isling 
Anxious to extend a knowledge of the fossils of the British islands, 
founded the Paleontograpbical Society, the object of which was 
give descriptions and accurate representations of all known Brit 
fossils. This society was started in 1848, and has produced a series 
works unrivalled for the beauty of their illustrations and the exhav 
nature of the letter-press descriptions accompanying them. 1 
Bowerbank was also one of the early founders, and is treasurer, of 
Royal Society, and is a Fellow of the Royal Geographical, Linnz 
Zoological, Microscopical, Entomological, and Royal Astrono: 
Societies, oer 
*BRANDE, W. T., a distinguished chemist, was born about 1 
Early in life he devoted himself to chemical studies, and in 1813, haying 
previously been for some time the assistant, was appointed successor to 
Sir Humphry Davy as professor of chemistry to the Royal Institu- 
tion of Great Britain, He retired from this position in 1852, and 1 
now the post of honorary professor of chemistry. He was 
many years professor of chemistry and materia medica to the So 
of Apothecaries, His earlier publications were devoted to chemi 
subjects. In 1817 he published an‘ Outline of Geology” <A sé 
edition of this work appeared in 1829. In 1819 he publishec 
‘Manual of Chemistry.’ This work met with a speedy sale, and 
editions have been twice published. In 1831 he also published a’ 
entitled ‘Elements of Chemistry.’ In 1839 he produced a * Dicti 
of Materia Medica.’ He also edited the ‘ Dictionary of Sciences, 
rature, and the Arts,’ usually known as Brande’s Dictionary. © 
1816 to 1850 he delivered every year a course of lectures on chi 
to medical students at the Royal Institution. The lectures we 
lished in the ‘Lancet’ about the year 1830. A course of lecture 
which was delivered at the Royal Institution on the application o 
chemistry to the arts was reported and published by Dr. Scoffern in 
1854. In addition to these larger works, Mr. Brande has been con 
star‘ly producing papers, tables, and smaller works on the su 
of cuemistry, so that his name is indissolubly connected with 
progress of chemistry in this country during the first half of th 
nineteenth century. ; a. 
BRAYLEY, EDWARD WEDLAKE, F\8.A., a laborious 2 
accurate topographer, was born in London (in the parish of Lambet 
Surrey), in the year 1773. He was apprenticed to one of the most 
eminent practitioners of the art of enamelling, but having from | 
early age been strongly addicted to literary pursuits, he grad 
abandoned that business as a meaus of life, and devoted himself, 
years after attaining his majority, to the more congenial oceupatio 
professional literature. His acquaintance with Mr. Britton [Brarir 
JOHN] had commenced before the expiration of his apprentic« 
and he also being desirous of exchanging a servile occupation 
pursuits of literature and the fine arts, the two young aspirants 
ss 


CNnvIce 


981 BRAYLEY, EDWARD WEDLAKE, F.S.A. 


BRAYLEY, EDWARD WILLIAM, F.R.S. 932 


associated in several literary undertakings of a minor description, 
until they united in projecting and in producing the well-known 
work on which their reputation was originally founded— The Beauties 
yf England and Wales,’ the earlier volumes of which were written 
a them. This work greatly contributed to extend and gratify the 
zest for topographical history by which the early part of the 19th 
century was so remarkably characterised, The illustrations, chiefly 
copper-plate engravings, directed also by the authors, were the means 
by which many of the most eminent of our architectural and land- 
Seape draughtsmen and engravers. became qualified for the execution 
of works of a higher grade in art. Mr. Brayley himself contributed also 
to the progress of the fine arts in another direction. Having become 


squainted with the late Henry Bone, R.A., when that artist was endea- | 
, vouring to elevate painting in enamel to the position it subsequently 


acquired in his hands, as an integral and a legitimate branch of accepted 
ictorial art, he had early begun to prepare enamelled plates for Mr. 
jone’s use. This he continued to do for some years after he had become 
eminent as a topographer, and the plates for the largest paintings in 
enam, sl which Mr. Bone executed—the largest ever produced until they 


were exceeded, in several instances, by those of the late Mr, Charles 


uss—were not only made by Mr. Brayley, but the pictures also con- 


ducted by him throughout the subsequent processes of ‘firing,’ or inci- 


Bisa fusion on the plate, in the muffle of an air-furnace, requisite for 
heir completion. He derived from the practice of enamelling and the 
preparation of enamel-colours a certain interest in science and its pur- 


- guits, especially those of chemistry, mineralogy, and the allied depart- 


» literature for about fifty-six years. 


ments of natural knowledge, which, though it scarcely rose above the 
character of an intelligent curiosity, was retained by him through life, 

d contributed to the care with which he introduced into county 
listory—in ‘The Beauties,’ and in his subsequent works—the more 
characteristic or interesting features of the natural history of the 
localities described. He acquired also, from the same early occupa- 
tions, a skill in manipulation, which in after-life he applied to good 
purpose in his archzological researches, in taking casts of sculptured 
ornaments, impressions of inscriptions, rubbings of engraved monu- 
mental brasses, &c. It may here be remarked, with reference to his 
topographical works generally, that though there were better geo- 
graphers and historians, better architectural and record antiquaries, 
better heralds, critics in art, and bibliographers, there were probably 
few of his contemporaries—certainly none of his earlier ones—who 
could unite and apply a competent knowledge of the subjects of all 
these branches of literature and archeology to what is termed Topo- 
graphy, ina manner at once so useful and so acceptable to general 
readers and the public, 

In the year 1825 Mr. Brayley was appointed librarian and secretary 


of the Russell Institution, Great Coram-street, the third in date and 


in rank of the literary and scientific institutions established in Lon- 
don, which had been founded about seventeen years before to mect the 
intellectual requirements of the populous superior middle-class suburb 
which was then growing up on the estate of the Duke of Bedford and 
the Foundling Hospital, on the north side of the metropolis, He was 
the third librarian in succession of the Russell Institution, the first 
having been the late Nathaniel Highmore, LL.D. and M.D. of Jesus 
College, Cambridge (author of ‘Jus Ecclesiasticum Anglicanum,’ &c.). 
In this capacity Mr. Brayley greatly improved the library and con- 
ducted with ability the general business of the institution, continuing 
however to follow the pursuits of a topographer and antiquary. He pro- 
duced several catalogues of the library (the last in 1849), which are not 
however remarkable in a bibliographical point of view, except perhaps 
for the extent to which the principle of the analysis of collections is 
carried. Having a singular strength of constitution, neither the wear 
and tear of these united official and professional vocations, nor the 
progress of age, sensibly impaired his faculties, either physical or 
mental, for many years. His most extensive, and, with the exception 
of ‘The History of Westminster Abbey,’ perhaps his best work, was 
also his last, ‘The Topographical History of the County of Surrey,’ 
which he composed and produced between the ages.of sixty-eight and 
seventy-six, during which period the history of the places and objects 
described was diligently and critically investigated in the localities 
themselves in very many journeys into the county. Fora year or two 
prior to his decease, gradually increasing though slight weakness and 
liability to disease was observed in him by the members of his family, 
but his intellectual powers remained unimpaired until the period of his 
death, which was occasioned by the consecutive fever of cholera, on 
the 23rd of September 1854, in the eighty-second year of his age; he 
having filled his official position for nearly twenty-nine years, and 
been actively engaged in the pursuits of historical and descriptive 
Mr. Brayley became a Fellow of 
the Society of Antiquaries on the 19th of June 1823. His wife had 
predeceased him a few years: their surviving children are the eldest 
gon and daughter. Of the former some account is given below. 

The following is a list of Mr, Brayley’s principal works and con- 
tributions to literature :— 

‘A Picturesque Tour through the Principal Parts of Yorkshire and 


Derbyshire, by the late Mr. Edward Dayes; with Illustrative Notes by 


E, W. Brayley,’ 1805: second edition, with additional notes, 1825. 
‘Views illustrative of the Works of Robert Bloomfield, accompanied 
with Descriptions; to which is added a Memoir of the Poet's Lite,’ 


1806. ‘Cowper : illustrated by a Series of Views; accompanied with 
Copious Descriptions, anda Brief Sketch of the Poet's Life,’ 1810. 
‘Descriptions of Places represented in Middiman’s Views and Anti- 
quities of Great Britain,’ 4to, 1813. ‘ Popular Pastimes: a selection 
of Picturesque Representations, accompanied with Historical Deserip- 
tions,’ 1816. .‘ Deliueations, Historical and Topographical, of the Isle 
of Thanet and the Cinque Ports,’ 1817. ‘ History and Antiquities of 
the Abbey Church of St. Peter, Westminster; including Notices and 
Biographical Memoirs of the Abbots and Deans of that Foundation,’ 
1818-23. ‘The Ambulator, or Pocket Companion for the Tour of 
London and its Environs: twelfth edition, with an Appendix contain- 
ing Lists of Pictures in all the Royal Palaces and principal Mansions 
round. London,’ 1819. ‘A Series of Views in Islington and Penton- 
ville, by A. Pugin; with a Deseription of each subject, by EK. W.- 
Brayley,’ 1819. ‘Topographical Sketches of Brighthelmstone and its 
Neighbourhood,’ 1825. ‘An Enquiry into the Genuineness of Prynné’s 
Defence of Stage Plays, &c., tozether with a reprint of the said Tract, 
and also of Prynne’s Vindication,’ 8vo, 1825. ‘The History and Anti- 
quities of the Cathedral Church of Exeter,’ 1826-27 (in Britton’s 
‘Cathedral Antiquities’). ‘Historical and Descriptive Accounts of 
the Theatres of London,’ 1827. ‘ Londiniana; or Reminiscences 
of the British Metropolis, 1829, 4 vols. ‘Devonshire Illustrated, 
in a Series of Views of Towns, Docks, Churches, Antiquities, 
Abbeys, Picturesque Scenery, Castles, Seats of the Nobility, &., &.,’ 
1829. ‘The Antiquities of the Priory of Christ’s Church, Hants ; 
accompanied by Historical and Descriptive Accounts of the Priory 
Church; together with some General Particulars of the Castle and 
Borough,’ 1834.‘ The Graphic and Historical Illustrator: an Original 
Miscellany of Literary, Antiquarian, and Topographical Information,’ 
1834. ‘A Journal of the Plague Year; by Daniel De Foe: a new 
edition, attentively revised and illustrated with Historical Notes,’ 
1835, ‘Illustrations of Her Majesty's Palace at Brighton, formerly 
the Pavilion; executed under’ the Superintendence of John Nash, 
Architect : to which is prefixed a History of the Palace by E. W. 
Brayley,’ 1828, ‘The Topographical History of Surrey,’ 5 vols., 
1841-48 : the names of Mr. Britton and Mr. Brayley, jun., are inserted 
in the title-pages, but neither took any part in the work. The article 
‘Enamelling’ in ‘ Rees’s Cyclopedia,’ vol. xiii.; published before 1811. 

‘The Antiquarian and Topographical Cabinet,’ a very popular and 
successful work, published by the well-known engravers Messrs. Storer 
and Greig, was designed by Mr. Brayley, and the first number or two 
written by him, and produced under his direction. 

In conjunction with J. Britton :—‘ The Beauties of England and 
Wales; or Original Delineations, Topographical, Historical, and 
descriptive, of each County,’ 1810-14. ‘The British Atlas ; com- 
prising a series of Maps of all the English and Welsh Counties; also 
Plans of Cities and Principal Towns,’ 1810. ‘Memoirs of the Tower 
of London,’ 1830. ‘The History of the Ancient Palace and late 
Houses of Parliament at Westminster,’ 1836. 

In conjunction with William Herbert :—‘ A Concise Account, Histo- 
rical and Descriptive, of Lambeth Palace,’ 1806. 

* BrRayLEy, Epwarp Wittiam, F.R.S. (known for some years 
as E. W. Brayley, jun.), is joint librarian of the London Insti- 
tution, Finsbury Circus, On the abolition, some years since, of the 
office of principal librarian, which had been held in succession by 
Professor Porson [Porson, RicHarD] and the late eminent scholar 
William Maltby, Mr. Brayley, jun., and Mr. Richard Thomson (the 
author of ‘An Historical Essay on Magna Charta,’ ‘Chronicles of 
London Bridge,’ ‘ Tales of an Antiquary,’ &c.), were appointed 
librarians of equa] rank and duties, though taking special charge 
respectively, from the different nature of their pursuits, of different 
portions of the collection—Mr. Brayley directing his particular 
attention to the scientific classes of books. He was a pupil both of 
the London and of the loyal Institution (in chemistry, of Professor 
Brande), but had given some attention to topographical literature, 
which however at an early age he relinquished for the pursuits of 
scientific literature and of science itself, including both the public and 
private teaching of several branches of natural knowledge. From 
1822 to 1845 he was, either in succession or at the same time, one of 
the editors of the ‘Annals of Philosophy,’ the ‘Zoological Journal,’ 
and the ‘ Philosophical Magazine.’ To-all these, in addition to reviews 
and other editorial articles and notes, he contributed original papers 
and notices, chiefly on subjects of mineralogical chemistry, geology, 
and zoology, together with special communications on Igneous Meteors 
and Meteorites, and a few articles of scientific biography. In 1829 
and 1830 he was engaged by Mr, Rowland Hill (now Secretary to 
the Post-Office) [H1in, Rownanp], and the father and brother of that 
gentleman, to take charge, as lecturer and tutor, of a department 
of instruction in physical science which they were desirous of making 
a permanent part of the system of education carried on in their 
schools of Hazelwood, near Birmingham, and Bruce Castle, Totten- 
ham, near London. But the scheme was not adequately encouraged 
by the public, who have even yet searcely recognised the importance 
of such instruction being made a part of elementary education. The 
original views on this subject of the Messrs. Hill and of Mr. Brayley 
were explained and advocated by him in a work, published in 1831, 
entitled ‘The Utility of the Knowledge of Nature considered, with 
reference to the General Edueation of Youth.’ 


983 BROOKS, CHARLES SHIRLEY. 


BUSK, GEORGE. 984 


At the London Institution Mr. Brayley has taken a part in the sys- 
tem of lectures, both illustrative and educational, and in the expo- 
sitions of the progress of science occasionally given at the soirées. 
His cycle of educational lectures consists of physical geography and 
the allied branches of terrestrial physies—geology and palzontology— 
mineralogy and crystallograpby—and meteorology, with the branches of 
terrestrial physics more particularly allied to that science. He has occa- 
sionally delivered discourses on special subjects at the Friday-evening 
meetings of the Royal Institution: in one, May 11, 1838 (*Phil. Mag.,’S. 3, 
vol. xii, p. 533), * On the Theory of Volcanos,’ he showed that the ther- 
motic theory of plutonic and volcanic action, indicated by Mr. George 
Poulett Scrope, M.P., F.R.S., and explicitly proposed and developed 
by Mr. Babbage and Sir John F. W. Herschel, must necessarily in- 
clude, as an integrant part, contrary to an opinion of the latter, the 
chemical theory on the same subject of Sir H. Davy, founded on his 
discovery of the metallic bases of the alkalies and alkaline earths. 
This subject was resumed in a course of lectures on Igneous Geology, 
also delivered at the Royal Institution, in 1842, as modified by the 
subsequent researches of Mr. William Hopkins, F.R.S., of St. Peter’s 
College, Cambridge, on the state of the interior of the earth and the 
effective thickness of its crust. 

He was the editor of the last genuine edition of Parkes’s ‘ Chemical 
Catechism’ (1834), which, though now comparatively antiquated, is 
still referred to with advantage, even by proficients in chemistry. In 
another uescription of editing, Mr. Brayley has given assistance to 
several wen of science, in conducting their works through the press, 
and assisting them to give perfect expression to their own views, 
confided to him. Among these works may be particularised the 
‘Origines Biblice ’ of Dr. Charles Beke, F.S.A.; the ‘ Correlation of 
Physical Forces’ of Mr. Grove, F.R.S. (the first and second editions) 
{Grove, Witt1am Ropert]; and the ‘ Barometrographia’ and ‘ Ap- 
pendix’ of Mr. Luke Howard, F-.R.S., the author of the ‘ Nomen- 
elature of the Clouds’ universally employed, and of ‘The Climate of 
London.’ 

Mr. Brayley was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society on the Ist 
of June 1854; he is also a member of other scientific bodies in 
England, metropolitan and provincial; a corresponding member of 
the Society Nature Scrutatorum of Basel; and a member of the 
American Philosophical Society. 

*BROOKS, CHARLES SHIRLEY, born in 1815, is the son of an 
architect of eminence who built the London Institution and other 
public edifices. He was educated at Islington by the Rev. J. T. 
Bennett; was articled to a solicitor at Oswestry; and subsequently 
acquired a more extended legal experience with a London solicitor. 
Although passed with credit, and qualified to practise on his own 
account, the profession was not to his taste; and he was gradually led 
forward by the encouragement of a favourable reception of contri- 
butions to periodical works, to determine upon literature as the 
business of life. He wrote some dramatic pieces which were success- 
fully performed at the Haymarket, the Lyceum, and the Olympic 
theatres; and in time he came to occupy a responsible position as a 
journalist. For five sessions he wrote for the ‘Morning Chronicle’ 
that portion of its columns which required the most careful attention 
and the most judicious treatment—the summary of the debates. His 
close habits of observation, and his lively treatment of subjects which 
in unskilful hands would have become unattractive, recommended 
him to an engagement upon the same paper, to investigate the con- 
dition of the cultivators in the south of Russia, Asia Minor, and Egypt. 
The results of a six months’ tour were published in letters in the 
‘Chronicle, and the Russian portion has been reprinted in Longman’s 
* Traveller's Library.’ During the last six years Mr. Brooks has been one 
of the regular writers of ‘ Punch,’ The constant labour of periodical 
literature has not however diverted him from more ambitious efforts. 
He is the author of a novel deservedly popular, ‘Aspen Court.’ This 
production is evidently the work of a man of original thought and 
large experience. 
vividly, and, we should imagine, very truly. The close, sagacious, but 
not unamiable head of the firm; the idle and thoughtless articled 
clerk who retains his position through his valuable family connection, 
are striking features of a class. In the conduct of the story, the inte- 
rest, though occasionally of an ultra-romantic kind, is well sustained, 
and the characters boldly drawn. There is much playful satire of 
prevailing follies, and a general tone of manly contempt for meanness 
and profligacy. Amongst the crowd of writers of fiction Mr. Brooks 
occupies a position which will necessarily incite him to higher aims. 

BRYDGES, SIR SAMUEL EGERTON, Barr., was born November 
80, 1762, at Wootton Court, Kent. His father was Edward Brydges, 
Esq. of that place; his mother was the daughter and co-heiress of 
the Rev. W. Egerton, LL.D., Prebendary of Canterbury, &c. Young 
Brydges was educated first at Maidstone Grammar School, and after- 
wards at the King’s School, Canterbury, whence he proceeded to Cam- 
bridge, entering at Queen’s College in October 1780. He left the uni- 
versity without taking a degree ; entered himself of the Middle Temple 
in 1782, and in 1787 was called to the bar. He never practised how- 
ever, but, having married in 1786, devoted himself to literature, and 
especially to genealogical and bibliographical studies. His earliest ap- 
pearance in print was as a poct, a volume of ‘ Sonnets and other Poems’ 
being published by him in 1785. Soon after the death of the last 


The life of a London solicitor’s office is presented |- 


Duke of Chandos, in 1790, his uncontrolled imagination, excited per- _ 
haps by his somewhat superficial genealogical inquiries, a large share 
of vanity, and a passion for titles, led him to stimulate his elder brother 
the Rev. E. T. Brydges to prefer a claim to the barony of Chandos, 
alleging his descent from the first Brydges or Bridges, who bore that 
title. Litigation was protracted till June 1803 when the House of 
Lords decided that the petitioner had not made out his right tothe 
title. Henceforth every thing which Sir Egerton Brydges wrote, was 
more or less a wail for the lost dignity, and after the death of his — 
brother, he always wrote himself ‘per legem Terre Baron Chandos.’ 
The worthlessness of his claim is amply shown in a ‘Review of 
the Chandos Peerage Case, adjudicated 1803, and of the pretension ¥ ¥ 
Sir 8. E. Brydges, Bart., to designate himself Per legem Terra, on 
Chandos of Sudeley. By George F, Beltz, Esq., Lancaster Herald’ 
8vo, 1834. By improvident expenditure in the purchase and im- — 
provement of the estate of Denton, Kent, Mr. Brydges had early 4 
become involved in his pecuniary circumstances, and in 1810 he ~ 
removed to Lea Priory, the seat of his son, where he amused self 
by setting up a private press, and superintending the Pee 
various pieces in prose and verse of his own writing, and reprints of _ 
scarce old books. After several unsuccessful efforts to get into par- 
liament he was elected in 1811 for Maidstone, which place he repre- 7 
sented till 1818. In 1814 he obtained a patent of baronetey, On losing 
bis seat in parliament he retired to the Continent, where he re ed 
till his death, which occurred at Compagne Gros Jean, near Geneva, — 
September 8, 1837, ne ae 
Besides the works above enumerated, and several pamphlets on 
population, wealth, &c., Sir Egerton Brydges wrote ‘The Topographer, 
4 vols. 1789-90 (in which he was assisted by the Rev. Stebbing Shaw); — 
the novels of ‘Mary de Clifford, (1792); ‘Fitz Albini,’ a kind of 
fictious autobiography (1798) ; ‘Le Forester’ (1802) ; ‘Coningsby’ (1819); 
and ‘The Hall of Hellingsey’ (1821); ‘The Censuria Literaria,’ a 
bibliographical work of some value, 10 vols. 8vo, 1805-1809; ‘ 
British Bibliographer,’ written in conjunction with Joseph OC 
4 vols. 1810-12; ‘ Restitua, or Titles, Extracts, and Characters in Old 
Books revived,’ 4 vols. 1814-16; a new edition of ‘ Collins’s Peerage,’ : 
9 vols. 1812; ‘The Ruminator,’ and ‘The Wanderer,’ two series of $ 
essays, 1813, 1814; ‘Occasional Poems, 1814 ; ‘ Bertrand, a Poem, 
1815 ; ‘Excerpta Tudoriana, or extracts from Elizabethan Literature,’ 
2 vols. 1819; ‘Res Literariz,’ 3 vols. 1820-21; ‘Letters from the 
Continent,’ 1821; ‘Letters on Lord Byron,” 1822; ‘Gnomica, or 
Detached Thoughts ;’ ‘Odo, Count of Lingen, a Poem;’ ‘Theatrum 
Poetarum,’ 1824; ‘Recollections of Foreign Travel,’ 1825; ‘ The 
Lake of Geneva,’ 2 vols. 1832; ‘Imaginary Biography, 2 vols.; and ~ 
‘The Autobiography, Times, Opinions, and Contemporaries of Sir 
Egerton Brydges, K.T.’ (per legem Terre) Baron Chandos of Sudeley. 
&c., 2 vols. 8vo, 1834. 4 
* BUSK, GEORGE, a distinguished living surgeon and natura’ 
was born in Russia, with which country his family has extensive 
commercial relations. At an early age he came to England, and was — 
educated for the medical profession. On passing the College of 
Surgeons he was appointed house-surgeon on board the Dreadna ; 
Hospital ship in the Thames. He lived on board this ship for many 
years, and in superintending the large number of cases brought before © 
him in this hospital he acquired the great surgical knowledge and 
experience for which he is distinguished. On leaving the ship as house- 
surgeon Mr. Busk was appointed surgeon, a position he still hol 
In his profession Mr. Busk has the reputation of a sound obsery 
and a skilful operator. He has published many papers on surgi 
subjects in the Transactions of the Medico-Chirurgical Society, 2 
other places. He has most successfully employed the microscopt 
the investigation of pathological subjects. As illustrations of this 
his papers on the Guinea Worm and Hydatids in the Transactions 
the Microscopical Society may be referred to. He was one of the ea 
members of the Microscopical Society and was chosen president 


’ 


departments of Zoology. One of the most complete and valuable of — 
his works is the Catalogue of the Marine Polyzoa contained in 
collections of the British Museum. This catalogue, which has a 
extended to two volumes, contains figured illustrations of a J 
number of new genera and species of this highly interesting family of 
Molluscous animals. © The drawings have been executed on stone by 
Mr, Busk himself. He has also published several papers on the stru 1c 
ture of the Jelly fishes and other forms of the lower animals in the 
Transactions of the Microscopical Scciety, and in the Quarte 
Journal of Microscopical Science, of which he is one of the edite 
In conjunction with Mr. Huxley he translated Professor Kolliker 
work on Histology from the German for the Sydenham Society, He 
also translated for the same society Wedl’s Pathological Histology. © 

On the appointment of Professor Owen as superintendent of the 
natural history collections of the British Museum, Mr. Busk _ was 
appointed Hunterian professor of Comparative Anatomy at the Re 
College of Surgeons of England. He is a Fellow and a mem 
the Council of the Royal Society, assistant Secretary of the Lin 
Society, and one of the Court of Examiners of candidates for 
medical service ofi}* ast India Company. ‘ 


985 CANNING, VISCOUNT. 


CAREY, WILLIAM, D.D. 986 


*CANNING, CHARLES JOHN, rirst VISCOUNT, second son of 
the Rt. Hon, George Canning, was born at Brompton in 1812, and was 
educated at Christchurch College, Oxford, where he graduated first 
class in classics, and second class in mathematics in 1833. In 1835 he 
married the eldest daughter of the first Lord Stuart de Rothsay. In 
1836 he entered the House of Commons as member for Warwickshire, 
On the death of his mother in 1837 he succeeded to the title, and took 
his seat in the House of Peers. In 1841 he became Under Secretary 
of State for Foreign Affairs under the Earl of Aberdeen in Sir Robert 
Peel’s ministry, in which office he continued till 1846; he was after- 
wards a Commissioner of Woods and Forests; in the Earl of Aber- 
_deen’s ministry he was Post-master-General; and in 1855 he was 
“nominated by Lord Palmerston’s government to the governor-general- 

ship of India. This office he assumed at Calcutta on February 29, 
1856. Early in 1857 the disastrous mutiny in the Bengal army broke 
out. The great outburst of disaffection was on the 10th of May at 
Meerut, from which place the mutineers marched upon Delhi, where 
they arrived on the 11th, and being joined by several native regiments, 
they took possession of the place, committing unheard-of atrocities. 
Mutiny, disaster, massacre, and a perfect reign of terror followed. 
Calcutta itself was threatened. Soldiers were demanded from Eng- 
land; from 30,000 to 40,000 men were forwarded; and Sir Colin 
‘Campbell, at a day’s notice, undertook the responsible office of com- 
mander-in-chief. The British forces already in India took up a position 
‘near Delhi on the 20th of May under General Anson, who died of 
cholera on the 27th. He was succeeded on the 8th of June by Sir H. 
Barnard, who likewise died of cholera on the 5th of July, and was suc- 
ceeded by General Reid. This general had to resign on account of 
ill-health, and was succeeded by General Wilson, who, having received 
reinforcements pnder General Nicholson, commenced the assault on 
Delhi on September 14th, and after frightful slaughter gained pos- 
session of the place on Sept. 20th, Lucknow, in which a small body 
of soldiers and civilians had been cooped up for months, was partially 
relieved by General Havelock, after a succession of victories over the 
mutineers, on the 25th of September. Colonel Greathed, pursuing 
the mutineers after the capture of Delhi, obtained several successes 
over them. As governor-general, Viscount Canning’s measures have 
produced considerable discussion, especially the order for the restric- 
tion of the newspaper press, both English and native, and that for the 
giving up or registry of arms. 

CAREY, WILLIAM, D.D., principal founder of the Serampore 
Mission, was the son of the master of a small free-school at the 
village of Paulerspury, in Northamptonshire, where he was born on 
the 17th of August 1761, He was apprenticed to a shoemaker at Hackle- 
ton, but becoming early the subject of deep religious impressions, he 
began to preach about the age of twenty, and, without entirely giving 
up his business, settled at Moulton, in his native county, as pastor 
of a small Baptist church, whence, in 1789, he removed to Leices- 
ter. It was during his residence in obscurity at Moulton that 
Carey wrote ‘An Enquiry into the obligation of Christians to use 
means for the Conversion of the Heathen,’ a work which led, in an 
important degree, to the formation of the Baptist Missionary Society ; 
but it was not published till some years after it was written, it being 
found difficult to excite even ministers to any feeling of interest in 
the subject of foreign missions. The society having been organised, 
Carey and a Mr, Thomas, who for nearly ten years had been exert- 

“ing himself in India to promote Christianity, were chosen as the 
first Missionaries. It deserves to be mentioned as an indication of 
the difficulties to be overcome by the society’s first agents, espe- 
cially in consequence of the opposition of the English Kast India 
Company to auy efforts for the evangelisation of Hindustan, that 
Carey and his companion Mr. Thomas, were, before the ship in which 
they set sail finally left the coast of England, set ashore in consequence 
of threats held out in an anonymous letter which followed the captain; 
and were thus compelled to take passage in a Danish ship, which was 
not under the Company’s control. For some months after their 
arrival at Calcutta the missionaries endured great trials, and they 
were at length compelled to accept engagements to superintend 
indigo factories in the vicinity of Malda, sparing what time and 
money they could for the promotion of their primary object. In 
1795 Carey began the work of Bible translation; and in 1799, in 
which year he removed to Kidderpore, he bought a press and print- 

ing apparatus. A third missionary had been sent out in 1796 to join 
Carey and his fellow-labourer; and in 1799 four others, with their 
wives, including Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Marshman, and Mr. Ward, who 
had been brought up to the printing business, and to whom Carey 
had, before leaving England, expressed a hope that he might join the 
mission, in anticipation of the necessity which might ariss for his 
practical knowledge of the art, were sent out. As the East India 
Company would not allow them to settle as missionaries in their 
dominions, the mission establishment was, about the time of their 
arrival, removed from Kidderpore to the Danish settlement of Seram- 
pore, where for many years the work of translating and printing the 
Scriptures and other books in the various languages of Hindustan 
was carried on with surprising energy. lt appears from the appendix 
to a ‘Tenth Memoir respecting the Translation of the Sacred Scrip- 
tures into the Oriental Languages, by the Serampore Brethren,’ which 
was published in London in 1834, that the translation and printing 


of the New Testament into Bengali was completed in 1801; and that 
between that date and the month of July 1882, the whole of the Bible 
was rendered into this language, and either the whole or part into at 
least thirty-nine other Oriental languages or dialects, 212,565 copies 
of the New Testament and other portions of the Bible having been 
issued during that time from the Mission press, in addition to many 
printed for the British and Foreign and some other Bible societies. 
During the same period a great number of religious tracts and -mis- 
cellaneous works were also produced in several different languages, 
including a Bengali map of India, a grammar, two dictionaries, a 
semi-weekly newspaper, and a ‘ Youth’s Magazine,’ in Bengali and 
English ; and, in Bengali alone, several large volumes of Government 
Regulations, a History of India, a translation of Goldsmith’s History 
of England, a Treatise on Anatomy, intended as the first volume of 
an Encyclopedia of the Sciences, a Treatise on Geography, and a 
translation of the Pilgrim’s Progress. The list of works in Sanscrit, 
Chinese, and other languages comprises also many important books, 

In these great undertakings Dr, Carey was the chief director, while 
a very large proportion of the actual literary labour also rested upon 
him, in addition to which he performed the duties of professor of 
Oriental languages in the college of Fort William, at Calcutta, from 
its establishment in 1800 until its virtual abolition by the discon- 
tinuance of English professors about the year 1830, when he received 
a pension from government. He died at Serampore on the 9th of 
June 1834, in his seventy-third year, leaving some autobiographical 
memoranda which have been used by his nephew, the Rev. Eustace 
Carey, in his ‘ Memoir’ of him published in London in 1836, to which 
a portrait is prefixed. In a biographical sketch by his son Jonathan, 
incorporated in the memoir referred to, it is observed that in all 
objects connected with the general good of his adopted country, Dr. 
Carey took an active part, and that “he prepared, under the direc- 
tion of a noble lady then resident in India, the prospectus of an agri- 
cultural society in the East, to which was united an horticultural 
society, of which he was a member, and in the affairs of which he 
took a lively-interest, till his last illness; and he had the gratification 
to see that the society became at length the most flourishing and inte- 
resting society in the Hast, in which gentlemen of the first respec- 
tability, from all parts of the country, united, and which still continues 
an eminently useful and flourishing institution.” Botany was, indeed, 
a very favourite study with Dr. Carey, whose share in the publication 
of Roxburgh’s ‘Flora Indica’ is noticed under Roxpuran, WILLIAM, 
M.D., vol. v., col. 1382. ‘In the Asiatic Society,” continues his son, 
“he also took an active part; and for many years, up to his death, 
was one of the members of the committee of papers, and afforded con- 
siderable information, and in various ways promoted the general 
interests of the institution.” ‘At his death,” he adds, “the Bishop 
of Calcutta, in a speech, passed the highest encomiums on the cha- 
racter and talents of Dr. Carey; and a minute was recorded expressive 
of the loss sustained by the society, and their regret at the removal 
of one of its most excellent members.” 

From ‘ Remarks on the Character and Labours of Dr. Carey, as an 
Oriental Scholar and Translator,’ by H. H. Wilson, Esq., Boden Pro- 
fessor of Sanscrit in the University of Oxford, which is also appended 
to the ‘Memoir’ by Eustace Carey, we select the following sketch of 
his more important and legitimate labours. ‘ At the time,” observes 
Mr, Wilson, “ when Dr. Carey commenced his career of Oriental study, 
the facilities that have since accumulated were wholly wanting, and 
the student was destitute of all elementary aid. With the exception 
of those languages which are regarded by the natives of India as 
sacred and classical, such asthe Arabic and Sanscrit, few of the Indian 
dialects have ever been reduced to their elements by original writers, 
The principles of their construction are preserved by practice alone, 
and a grammar or vocabulary forms no part of such scanty literature 
as they may happen to possess; accustomed from infancy to the 
familiar use of their vernacular inflexions and idioms, the natives of 
India never thought it necessary to lay down rules for their applica- 
tion; and even in the present day they cannot, without difficulty, be 
prevailed upon to study systematically the dialects which they daily 
and hourly speak. Europeans however are differently circumstanced. 
With them the precept must precede the practice, if they wish to 
attain a critical knowledge of a foreign tongue. But when the Oriental 
languages first became the subjects of investigation, those precepts 
were yet to be developed, and the early students had therefore as 
they gathered words and phrases, to investigate the principles upon 
which they were constructed, and to frame, as they proceeded, a 
grammar for themselves.” ‘The talents of Dr. Carey were,” he adds, 
* eminently adapted to such an undertaking.” Mr. Wilson goes on to 
state that Dr. Carey’s Sanscrit Grammar was the first complete one 
published, his Telinga grammar the first printed in English, his Kar- 
nate and Mahratta grammars the first published works developing the 
structure of those languages, his Mahratta dictionary one of the first 
attempted, and his Punjabi grammar the only authority for the lan- 
guage of the Sikh vation; “and although,” he remarks, “ he must 
concede to Halhed the credit of first reducing to rule the construc- 
tion of the Bengali tongue, yet by his own grammar and dictionary, 
and other useful rudimental publications, Dr. Carey may claim the 
merit of having raised it from the condition of a rude and unsettled 
dialect to the character of a regular and permanent form of sveech. 


CATHCART, LIEUT.-GEN, SIR GEORGE. 


987 


CRAWFORD, THOMAS, 


possessing something of a literature, and capable, through its intimate 
relation to the Sanscrit, of becoming a refined and comprehensive 
vehicle for the diffusion of sound knowledge and religious truth.” 
Some of the works here referred to were of great extent; the Sanscrit 
grammar, for example, comprising upwards of 1000 quarto pages, and 
the Benyali and English Dictionary, published in 1815 and 1825, in 
three volumes, upwards of 2000 quarto pages, and about 80,000 words, 
An abridgment of the latter work, prepared by Dr, Marshman under 
the supervision of Dr. Carey himself, was published in 1827 in one 
thick octavo volume. One of the extensive literary productions of 
the Serampore press was ‘ The Rémdyana of Valmeeki, in the original 
Sauscrit, with a Prose Translation, and Explanatory Notes,’ edited 
by Drs. Carey and Marshman, of which four quarto volumes were pub- 
lished, in 1806 and subsequent years, under the sanction of the 
Asiatic Society and the Council of Fort William College, but which, 
unfortunately, was never completed. 

It may, at first sight, excite some surprise that the Serampore mis- 
sionaries should, in some instances, have issued translatious in lan- 
guages or dialects with which none of them were fully acquainted. 
“In this department,” observes Mr. Wilson in explanation, “ Dr. 
Carey took a leading part, and it was in connexion especially with his 
duty of revising the different translations that he added to his great 
proficiency in Sanscrit and Bengali, a knowledge of those dialects 
whose elements he first investigated.” “Possessed in this way,” he 
states, “of at least six different dialects, and of Sanscrit, the parent of 
the whole family, and endowed with a genius for philological investi- 
gation, Dr. Carey was peculiarly qualified to superintend the transla- 
tion of the Scriptures into a number of cognate languages ; and it may 
be granted that, in combination with his colleagues, he carried the 
project to as successful an issue as could be expected from the bounded 
faculties of man.” 

CATHCART, LIEUTENANT-GENERAL THe HON. SIR GEORGE, 
K.C.B., was born in London on the 12th of May 1784, the third son 
of William Shaw, the first Earl Cathcart. He was educated at Eton, 
and at the University of Edinburgh ; and in 1810 he begun his mili- 
tary life by joining the 2nd Life Guards. In 1812, by which time he 
had been promoted to a lieutenancy, he accompanied as aide-de-camp 
his father, who was sent as plenipotentiary to Russia. When they 
arrived the French were in possession of Moscow, and when the 
Emperor Alexander took the field in person in 1813, Lieutenant Cath- 
cart joined the imperial army. He was with the grand army through- 
out the campaigns of 1813 and 1814, witnessed the battles of Lutzen 
and Bautzen, thoss of Dresden and Leipzig, of Brienne, Bar-sur-Aube, 
Arcis-sur-Aube, and the taking of Paris. Of these campaigns, and 
more particularly of the strategy of Napoleon I. as displayed in the 
battles, he published a volume of Commentaries in 1850, from the 
facts noted at the time, accompanied with diagrams showing the 
position of the armies, with their movements. It is a valuable work ; 
additional interest being given to it by an introduction explaining 
the different military systems of the Allied Powers, as well as of the 
French, and displaying the effects of national character under the 
different circumstances of attack and defence. In 1814 he again 
accompanied his father, who was one of the three plenipotentiaries 
sent to Vienna. On the return of Napoleon from Elba he was 
appointed aide-de-camp to the Duke of Wellington, and was present at 
Quatre Bras and-Waterloo. He was continued in the appointment 
when the Duke became master-yeneral of the Ordnance, and accom- 
panied him on his mission to Aix-la-Chapelle, Verona, and Berlin, In 

_ 1828 he had arrived at the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel, and served for 
about eight years in Nova Scotia, Bermuda, and Jamaica. , In 1834 he 
retired on half-pay; but in 1837 was recalled into active service on 
account of the outbreak in Canada, where he proved himself an active 
and efficient officer. After serving there for more than six years he 
returned home, and again retired on half-pay in 1844. In 1846 he 
was mnade Deputy-Lieutenant of the Tower, an office which he held 
till 1852, when he accepted the governorship of the Cape of Good 
Hope, with the command of the forces, and brought the Kafiir insur- 
rection to a successful termination. On his return to England he was 
immediately sent as General of Division to the Crimea, where much 
was expected from aman so thoroughly acquainted with the prac- 
tice and science of his profession, He however had short time to 
display his capabilities. In the battle of Inkermann, on the 5th of 
November 1854, where he displayed the most heroic bravery, but in 
which the attack he made on the left was met by a force so superior 
that it failed in the desired effect, he fell, together with the other 
leading chiefs. He was buried on the spot—Cathcart’s Hill—with 
eleven other officers who had fallen. 

CERVANTES. (Saavrepra, vol. v., col. 223.] 

*CHASLES, VICLOR-EUPHEMION-PHILARETKE, has an espe- 
cial claim to a place in an English Cyclopedia of Biography, as the 
French writer who has done most to familiarise his countrymen with 
the spirit and purpose of our current English literature. He was 
born at Mainvilliers, near Chartres, on the 8th of October 1797, 
received the usual school education, and at the age of fifteen was 
placed in a printing-office in Paris. Becoming implicated with his 
master in some of the many political disturbances of 1815, he was 
arrested, but, after animprisonment of about two months, was set at 
liberty by the intervention of Chateaubriand. He now came to Lon- 


has been the chief contributor of ‘redactions’ of leading English 


don to complete his apprenticeship, and entered the office of Mr. 
Valpy, who employed him on his editions of the classics. During the 
seven years he remained in London he made himself colloquially 
familiar with the English language, and obtained a considerable 
acquaintance with English literature. On leaving England he pro- 
ceeded to Germany and the north of Europe, Returning to France, 
he became secretary to M, Jouy, and has since devoted himself with 
unflagging industry to literature. For the most part, his writings have _ 
in the first instance appeared in periodical works; but many of his a 
essays have been revised or recast, and published in a separate form. — 
His contributions have chiefly, though far from exclusively, related to 
English and German literature, on which he has come to be 
as a leading authority by his countrymen; and his eminence in this 
department led to his appointment as professor of foreign literature in 
the Collége de France, and an assistant librarian in the I 4 
Library. M. Philardte Chasles is a clear, vigorous, and lively writer, 
a shrewd observer of our manners, and a fair as well as a cleyer — 
critic of our literature. His minutely accurate acquaintance with our 
language is very remarkable for a French littérateur. Not only is he, — 
well versed in its mutations, but he writes it with ease and correct- 
ness, and catches readily our current vernacular, down to its latestand 
most fugitive additions. His principal essays have appeared in the 
‘Revue des Deux Mondes,’ and in the ‘Journal des Debats’ bathe 


. 


review articles to the ‘ Revue Britannique,’ and he has furnished many _ 
introductions to translations of English and German authors, as well 
as translating some himself. It ought also to be noticed that he has 
occasionally contributed admirably written papers in the English lan- — 
guage to English journals; and he has carried on an extensive literary _ 
correspondence with literary men in England, America, Germany, and 
the northern countries. His chief separate work (as already noticed, 
a recasting of essays contributed to periodical publications) is his 
‘fitudes de littérature comparées,’ in 12 vols., comprising—‘Etudes sur 
YAntiquité,’ 1 vol.; ‘sur le moyen age,’ 1 vol.; ‘sur le XVle siécle 
en France,’ 1 yol.; ‘sur l’Espagne,’ 1 vol.; ‘sur la révolution d’An- — 
gleterre au XVIIe siécle. Cromwell, sa vie privée,’ &c., 1 vol.: ‘sur 
le XVIIIe siécle en Angleterre,’ 2 vols.; ‘sur la littérature, et les 
moeurs de l’Angleterre au XIXe siécle,’ 1 vol.; ‘sur la littérature eb 
les mceurs des Anglo-Americains au XIXe siécle,’ 1 vol.; ‘sur les — 
hommes et les meurs au XIXe sidcle, 1 vol.; ‘sur Shakspeare, a 
Marie Stuart, et l’Arétin,’ 1 vol.; ‘sur l’Angleterre au XIXe siécle” 
lyol. He has also written ‘ Caractéres, et Paysages ;’ ‘ Charles L, 
cour, son peuple, et son parlement;’ and ‘ Tableau de la littérature 
XVle siécle.” (Now. Biog. Générale ; Etudes, &c.) 
COOKE, W. F. [Wxeatstone, Pror., Suppl.] iin 
*COSTA, MICHAEL, an eminent Italian musician, was born at — 
Naples about the year 1810, and educated at the great Conservatorio 
of that city, receiving instruction from its celebrated director, Zinga- 
relli, He came to England about 1830, and first became known to the 
public in the capacity of director of the music at the Italian Opera, — 
then the King’s Theatre, under the management of M, Laporte. He — 
held that office till the foundation of the Royal Italian Opera at Covent 
Garden Theatre in 1847, when he was appointed to a similar situation in 
that establishment, which he still holds. In 1845 he was chosen con. 
ductor of the orchestra of the Philharmonic Society ; and about the 
same time the Sacred Harmonic Society placed him at the head of their 
immense choral and instrumental band in Exeter Hall. His skilland — 
energy have greatly contributed to the prosperity of the Sacred Har- 
monic Society; and the oratorios performed at Exeter Hall under his — 
direction are admitted, for magnitude and grandeur, to be unrivalled — 
in the world. Since 1849 he has conducted the performance of the — 
Birmingham Festival, the greatest provincial music-meeting in the 
kingdom, Costa’s arduous professional labours have interfered with — 
his pursuits as a composer. He has however composed various works — 
of genius, and his latest and greatest production, the oratorio of ‘ Eli, — 
first performed at the Birmingham Festival of 1855, has, among the 
oratorios of the present age, achieved a success inferior only to that 
of the chefs-d’ @uvre of Spohr and Mendelssohn. a 
CRAWFORD, THOMAS, an eminent American sculptor, was born — 
at New York on the 22nd of March 1813. At school he obtained some 
acquaintance with Greek and Latin literature, but, as is frequently the — 
case with youths in his country, he seems to have been allowed in — 
early life to follow very much his own course, Like Chantrey his — 
earliest instructor in the use of the chisel was a carver in wood, — 
Whilst with him however his strong desire for higher training be 
to develope itself. He formed a collection of casts of ancient 
modern works of a high class, and he learnt to model in clay. 4 
length he was placed as a pupil under Messrs. Frazee and Launitz, and 
entered as a student the Academy of Design in New York, Mr. Lau- 
nitz urged him to proceed to Rome, and gave him a letter of intro- 
duction to Thorwaldsen. Accordingly he proceeded to Italy in 1834, 
and was received into the studio of Thorwaldsen, to whose friendsh 
he was greatly indebted. Thrown by the death of his father on his 
resources, he for some time supported himself by making busts. 
first poetic work of his which attracted particular attention, was 
statue of Orpheus, designed in 1839, but which he was compelled to leaye 
unfinished by an attack of brain-feyer, the precursor of his prematui 
fate, On his recovery he completed the Orpheus in marble, a commission © 


au 


ae 


; 


989 CROSSE, ANDREW. 


CRUDEN, ALEXANDER. 990 


having during his illness arrived for it from the Boston Atheneum. It 
excited general admiration and anticipation. He worked on diligently, 
gaining in executive skill and confidence, and rising steadily in reputa- 
tion. Among the chief of his earlier works are his ‘ Herodias with the 
head of John the Baptist ;’ ‘The Babes in the Wood;’ ‘ Flora;’ and 
* The Dancers ’—two life-size statues of children, which have had con- 
siderable popularity. Among the best of his later works are his 
bronze statue of Beethoven, now in the Athenzum at Boston, Ame- 
rica; the equestrian statue of Washington, which stands in the 
equate at Richmond, Virginia; and the more ambitious alto-rilievo 
of the ‘ Progress of Civilisation in America,’ which he was commis- 
sioned by the federal government to execute for the pediment of 
the Capitol at Washington. Others of his works are his statues of 
*The Genius of Mirth;’‘A Shepherdess;’ ‘David;’ and ‘ Prayer;’ 
his groups of ‘Adam and Eve,’ of heroic size; ‘A Family suffering 
under the plague of Fiery Serpents; ‘A Mother attempting to save 


_herself and Child from the Deluge: and his ideal busts of Sappho, 


. sides of the tumbler from the opposite poles of the battery. 


Vesta, &c. He also made numerous designs for bassi-relievi illustra- 
tive of the Old and New Testaments; the poets of Greece, Italy and 
England ; events of American history, &c., as well as several models of 
leading American statesmen. 


From first entering Rome, Crawford made that city his home. He 


had just completed a new and spacious studio in order to work. with 


more convenience at the numerous commissions which awaited com- 


‘pletion when he was stricken with a disease—tumour on the brain— 


which rendered him unable again to take up his chisel. He came to 
ndon for the benefit of medical advice, but failed to obtain relief, 
and died in London on the 8th of October 1857. Crawford was a 
sculptor of a very high order of merit, not reaching to the first rank, 
but coming close to it. His works display originality and vigour 
rather than refinement; mental power rather than technical skill. 
Casts of some of his statues are in the Crystal Palace at Sydenham. 
CROSSE, ANDREW, a celebrated experimenter on electricity, was 
born at Fyne Court, in the parish of Bromfield, on the Quantock Hills 
in Somersetshire, on June 17,1784. His father was the proprietor of 
the estate, to which he succeeded in 1800. He was educated at the 
school of the Rev. M. Sayers, at Bristol, where he had for school- 
fellows, W. J. Broderip, the Rev. John Eagles, and other equally 
celebrated men. In 1802 he matriculated at Brasenose College, 
Oxford, where he was very uncomfortable, the habits, especially 
that of drinking, being particularly unsuited to him. He returned 
home in June 1805, on account of the illness of his mother, who 
shortly afterwards died, Even when at school he had become greatly 
attached to the study of electricity, and on settling on his paternal 
estate he devoted still more of his attention to the subject. He 
provided himself with electrical apparatus, and pursued his experi- 
ments wholly independent of theories, and searching only for facts. 
In a cavern near his residence, called Holwell Cavern, he observed the 
sijes and roof covered with arragonite crystallisations, and his obser- 
vations led him to conclude that the crystallisations were the effects, 
at least to some extent, of electricity. This induced him to make the 
attempt to form artificial crystals by the same means, which he began 
in 1807. He took some of the water from the cave, filled a tumbler, 
and exposed it to the action of a voltaic battery excited by water 
alone, letting the platinum wires of the battery fall on opposite 
After 
ten days of constant action he procured crystals of carbonate of lime, 
and subsequently by altering the arrangements he produced them in 
six days. He found however that darkness was essential to the 
certainty and rapidity of their production. He carried an insulated 
wire above the tops of the trees around his house toa length of a mile 
and a quarter, afterwards shortened to a distance of 1,800 feet. By 
this wire, which was brought into connection with his apparatus in a 
chamber, he was enabled to see continually the changes in the state of 
the atmosphere, and could use the fluid so collected for a variety of 
purposes. In 1816, at a meeting of country gentlemen, he prophesied 
“that, by means of electrical agency, we shall be able to communicate 
our thoughts instantaneously with the uttermost ends of the earth.” 
But though he foresaw the powers of the medium, it does not appear 
that he took any means towards fulfilling his prophecy, or even made 
any experiments in that direction ; he continued to confine himself to 
the endeavour to produce crystals of various kinds, in which he 
eminently succeeded, having ultimately obtained forty-one mineral 
crystals, or minerals uncrystallised, in the form in which they are 
produced by nature, including one, sub-sulphate of copper, an entirely 
new roineral neither found in nature nor formed by art previously. His 
belief was, that even diamonds might be formed in this way. Still he 
worked alone; he published none of his experiments to the world, 
and he propounded no theories. At length, in 1836, the British 
Association for the Advancement of Science held its meeting in Bristol, 
and Mr. Crosse attended it, intending to be an auditor only; but 
having mentioned his discoveries to some of the scientific gentlemen 
there, he was induced to explain them publicly, and though unpro- 
vided with apparatus, they were so struck with the importance of them, 
that he was publicly complimented by the president, the Marquis of 
Northampton, and by Dr. Buckland, Dr. Dalton, Professor Sedgwick, 


- and others. A few months after this meeting, while pursuing his 


experiments for forming crystals from a highly caustic solution out of 


contact with atmospheric air, he was greatly surprised by the appear- 
ance of an insect. Black flint, burnt to redness and reduced to 
powder, was mixed with carbonate of potash and exposed to strong 
heat for fifteen minutes, The mixture was poured into a blacklead 
crucible in an air furnace. It was reduced to powder while warm, 
mixed with boiling-water, kept boiling for some minutes, and then 
hydrochloric acid was added to supersaturation. After being ex- 
posed to voltaic action for twenty-six days a perfect insect, of the 
Acari tribe, made its appearance, and in the course of a few weeks 
about a hundred more. The experiment was repeated in other 
chemical fluids with the like results, and Mr. Weeks, of Sandwich, 
afterwards produced them in ferrocyanuret of potassium. This dis- 
covery occasioned great excitement at the time. The possibility was 
denied, though Mr. Faraday stated in the same year that he had seen 
similar appearances in his own electrical experiments; and he was 
accused of impiety, as aiming at creation. He was much hurt by 
these attacks, for he was a truly pious man. He says he was inclined 
to believe that the insects were formed from ova in the water, but failed 
to detect any; and adds, “I have formed no visionary theory that I 
would travel out of my way to support.” He attempted to give no ex- 
planation of what he admitted he could not comprehend, and in answer 
to a person who had written to him, calling him “a reviler of our 
holy religion,” he replied that he was sorry if the faith of his neigh- 
bours depended on the claw of a mite. These insects, if removed 
from their birthplace, live and propagate, but uniformly die on the 
first recurrence of frost, and are entirely destroyed if they fall back 
into the fluid whence they arose. This was the most remarkable of 
his discoveries ; but his labours were in some instances more useful. 
He invented a method, which was patented by others, for purifying 
sea-water by electricity, which water possessed peculiar antiseptic 
properties ; this process was also capable of being used for the improve- 
ment of wines by removing the predominance of bitartrate of potash ; 
to the improvement of spirits by removing acidity ; and to the stopping 
of the fermentation of cider. He also made experiments of the 
effects of electricity on vegetation. He found that positive electricity 
advanced the growth, as was shown by the cultivation of two vines by 
Mr. Boys of Margate; and that negative electricity favoured the growth 
of fungi, and produced something like the rot in the potato. But 
Andrew Crosse did not confine his labours to scientific matters. 
Though living chiefly on his estate in the country, he took an earnest 
part in all local affairs. He was an active magistrate, just, but bene- 
volent ; he advocated the instruction of the poor, and he gave lectures 
on various subjects to the neighbouring institutes; he left a quantity 
of poetry, considerably above mediocrity, which he could not be 
induced to publish in his lifetime, but which has been given to the 
world by his widow, in a memoir of him written with much good 
taste; and he died, after a short illness, on July 6, 1855, leaving 
behind him the character of a pious good man, and an indefatigable 
searcher for truth. 

CRUDEN, ALEXANDER, the author of the well-known Con- 
cordance, was born at Aberdeen in 1701. He studied at Marischal 
College, but whilst there, his conduct was marked by eccentricities 
similar to those which characterised his later years, and, as it was 
found necessary to abandon his intention of becoming a minister of the 
Church, he came to London in April 1724, and subsisted by giving 
lessons in Greek and Latin. Afterwards he obtained a situation as 
tutor, and in that capacity resided for some time in the Isle of Man, 
In 1732 he opened a bookseller’s shop under the Royal Exchange, and ° 
occupied his leisure hours in the preparation of his ‘ Concordance of 
the Old and New Testament,’ which appeared in 1737. It was dedi- 
cated to Queen Caroline, and Cruden had calculated sanguinely on her 
majesty’s favour. The queen died however just after the publication 
of his book, and the disappointment brought out his latent insanity. 
He was removed to a private lunatic asylum at Bethnal-green, where 
he was confined from March 23 to May 21, 1738, when he escaped. 
He persisted in asserting that he was of sound mind, and brought an 
action against the keeper of the asylum and others; but as might be 
supposed, the jury was directed by the judge to find a verdict for the 
defendants. 

Cruden published an appeal to the public, under the title of ‘ Mr, 
Cruden greatly Injured on account of a Trial between.Mr. Alexander 
Cruden, bookseller to the late Queen, plaintiff, and Dr. Mouro, Matthew 
Wright, John Oswald, and John Davis, defendants, in the Court of 
Common Pleas, in Westminster Hall, July 17, 1739, on an action of 
Trespass, Assault, and Imprisonment .. . . with en account of several 
other Persons, who have been most unjustly confined in Private Mad- 
houses. The whole tending to show the great necessity there is for 
the Legislature to regulate Private Madhouses in a more effectual 
manner than at present,’ 8vo, 1739. Cruden, who appears to have 
been treated while in the asylum with great brutality, now found 
employment as a reader of printers’ proof-shects, and in the occasional 
preparation of indexes. Among others he is said to have compiled 
the elaborate index to Newton’s ‘ Milton.’ ; 

He now published the first part of a strange kind of autobiography, 
under the title of the ‘Adventures of Alexander the Corrector. A 
second time it was deemed necessary to place him under temporary 
restraint at Chelsea; and again he brought an action in the Court of 
King’s Bench against the parties who had restrained him, with as little 


91 CURRAN, JOHN PHILPOT. 


DOVE, HEINRICH WILHELM. 


992 


success as before. On obtaining his liberty he quietly returned to his 
ordinary occupations. Subsequently he published the second part of 
his Adventures, in which he gave the history of his second confine- 
ment, or Chelsea Campaign,’ as he calls it in his title-page ; and also 
an account of the trial, and endeavoured in vain to obtain an audience 
of the king in order to present a copy of the two parts. He also, as 
he says, “ pleaded very hard that the honour of knighthood might be 
conferred upon him,” the object being “ to fulfill the prophecy about 
being made a member of parliament for the city of London.” He 
seems to have actually got himself nominated-(April 30, 1754,) as a 
candidate for the city ; but he acknowledges that few hands were held 
up for him. In 1755 he published the third part of his Adventures, 
in which he relates the ill-success of a motion he made in person for a 
new trial; of his applications for knighthood, and for admission into 
the House of Commons; but the chief part is taken up with a ‘ History 
of his Love Adventures, with his Letters, &¢., sent to the amiable 
Mrs. Whitaker, a lady of shining character and of great eminence,’ in 
which he was as unlucky as in other matters. Impressed with a 
belief that he had a mission to reform the public manners, he went to 
preach to the prisoners in Newgate, and then made a journey to 
Oxford in order to preach to the students at the university. Dis- 
gusted at the reception he met with, he abandoned preaching, but 
arming himself with a large sponge, he went about the streets re- 
moving any expressions on the walls which appeared to him offensive 
to decency ; and when the affair of Wilkes and No. 45 of the ‘ North 
Briton’ was exciting so much public ire, his loyalty led him to the 
active use of his sponge in effacing the offensivenumber. His insanity 
seems to have expended itself in this harmless manner. He continued 
to pursue his ordinary employments, and found time to enlarge and 
revise bis Concordance. He also published ‘Alexander the Corrector’s 
Humble Address ;’ and other pamphlets relating to the reformation of 
manners, the American war, &c., all marked by strong indications of 
insanity. He died at Islington in November 1770. Cruden’s ‘ English 
Concordance’ was far more complete and valuable than any preceding 
one, and it still retains its value. Three editions of it were published 
during Cruden’s lifetime, the last and the best in 1769; it has since 
gone through innumerable editions of all degrees of correctness: one 
of the most esteemed is that of 1810. 

CURRAN, JOHN PHILPOT, was born on July 24, 1750, at New- 
market, in the county of Cork, Ireland. His parents were respectable, 
but not wealthy; his father having been an officer to a manorial 
court, and possessing the advantages of a classical education. His 
mother, perceiving early indications of talent, was in hopes of his 
becoming a clergyman, and efforts were accordingly made to procure 
him a suitable education. Being Protestants, they first procured him 
some instruction from the Rev. Nathaniel Boyse, the resident clergy- 
man, with whom he maintained a continued friendship. He was 
next sent to the Free Grammar-School at Middleton, and afterwards 
entered as a sizar in Trinity College, Dublin. After acquiring a con- 
siderable proficiency in classical learning at that university, he aban- 
doned his first intention of entering the church, and determined to 
adopt the profession of the law. Accordingly, having passed through 
the university with great credit, he went to London, and entered him- 
self at the Middle Temple in 1773. Here his straitened means occa- 
sioned him some inconveniences, but he studied law with considerable 
assiduity, and practised oratory at some debating societies, where he 
is said to have displayed his talent for energetic and sarcastic speak- 
ing. In one of the vacations, between the terms, he returned to Ire- 
land, and married a daughter of Dr. Creagh in 1774. With her he 
received a small portion, which somewhat smoothed the remainder of 
his term of probation, and, in 1775, he was called to the Irish bar. 
His success was almost immediate. His style was precisely suited to 
the Irish courts ; humourous, discursive, often flowery and poetical, 
vehemently appealing to the feelings, never wearying by dry legal 
arguments, but when urging them enlivening their dryness by occa- 
sional witty or satirical illustrations, and he soon obtained a leading 
business. His social habits also operated in his favour, and though 
he had already adopted a politicai belief in opposition to the reigning 
government, he was a general favourite even with his political 
opponents, while his independent bearing to the judges won him 
the favour of the public. The fearlessness of his addresses however 
sometimes brought its inconveniences. As counsel in an action for 
assault by the Marquis of Doneraile on a poor old Roman Catholic 
clergyman, he had styled Mr. St. Leger, one of the witresses for the 
defence, “a renegado soldier, a drummed-out dragoon,” a duel fol- 
lowed, when he declined returning Mr. St. Leger’s fire, and the affair 
ended. He had been always a warm politician, and in 1782 he was 
returned to parliament as member for Kilbeggan, on the interest of a 
Mr. Longfield. Asa specimen of the state of the Irish parliament, 
we may mention that soon after entering the House of Commons he 
found himself differing in political opinions with his patron, and as 
he had no way of vacating his seat he coolly offered to buy another 
seat, to be filled by any one Mr. Longfield might choose to appoint. 
That gentleman declined the offer; but in the succeeding parliament 
Mr, Curran bought a seat for himself. In the House of Commons he 
soon took a leading part, generally acting with Mr. Grattan and the 
few liberal members who then had seats, His speeches were of a 
very similar character to those he made at the bar, and he was often 


appointed to make the reply from his readiness and happy facility in 
retorting charges or damaging the positions of his opponents. He 
supported the formation of the Irish Volunteers in 1788, and the 
unconditional appointment of the Prince of Wales to the regency on 
the occasion of the king’s illness in 1789, and his attacks on the 
government led to a duel, first with Mr. Fitzgibbon, afterwards Earl — 
of Clare, and then with Major Hobart, in which Mr. Curran was the — 
challenger, in both of which neither party was injured. It wasin 1794 
and the few subsequent years that Mr. Curran’s reputation attained its — 
climax. In the House of Commons Mr. Curran, Mr. Grattan, and 
others, had been continually pointing out to the government that their 
measures were driving the people towards rebellion. The w: » 
were unheeded, and in 1794 Mr. Hamilton Rowan was indicted for a 
seditious libel issued in the form of an address to the volunteers of — 
Ireland from the society of United Irishmen (not the same asthe 
rebellious societies which afterwards took this name) of which he was 
secretary. Mr. Curran was his counsel, and made an eloquent and 
vigorous defence, but Mr. Rowan was convicted and sentenced toim- 
prisonment; and after the breaking out of the rebellion in 1798 he 
was the counsel generally employed by the accused, among whom the ~ 
most remarkable were the two brothers Sheares, Theobald Wolfe Tone, 
and Napper Tandy. He had retired from the Irish House of Com- 
mons before the introduction of the measure for the Union, of which — 
he strongly disapproved and which he ever continued to lament. The 
insurrection of 1803 brought trouble into his family; Robert Emmet, 
one of its leaders, had formed an attachment for Miss Sarah Curran, 
which was returned ; and his correspondence with her, with his visits, 
sometimes secretly, to her father’s house, led to a suspicion of Mr, 
Curran’s loyalty, and to the searching of his house, He instantly 
waited upon the Attorney-General Standish O’Grady, and the privy — 
council, by all of whom his perfect want of complicity was instantly 
admitted. Mr. Emmet had named him one of his counsel, but he aid . 
not act. Mr. Emmet was convicted and executed; his fate and his — 
love adventure form the subject of two of Moore's ‘Irish Melodies,’ 
Upon the death of Mr. Pitt, in 1806, the Whig ministry under Lord ~ 


~ 


Grenville created Curran Master of the Rolls in Ireland. 3 
appointment did not give him satisfaction; it withdrew him from 
politics, and as his mind was not judicial, he felt himself out of place, — 
he thought he had been neglected, and his health declined. He held 
the office till the early part of 1813, when he resigned; and he died 
in London on October 14,1817. Mr. Curran in the course of his life 
wrote a considerable amount of verse of more than ordinary merit, 
but which bears no comparison with his eloquent speeches. he 


Ww 
*DOVE, HEINRICH WILHELM, the eminent meteorologist, 
professor in the University of Berlin, was born October 6, 1803, at — 
Leignitz, where his father was a merchant. He was educated in the 
first instance at the Ritter akadimie of his native town, whence he 
proceeded, in 1821, to Breslau, and thence, in 1824, to Berlin, ae 
himself in the latter places chiefly to physical and mathematical — 
studies. In 1826 he graduated, on which occasion he read an Essay, 
§ De barometri mutationibus,’ which was printed at Berlin in the same 
year. From Berlin he went, in 1826, to Kénigsberg, as private teacher — 
in the University, where he was created professor extraordi in 
1828 ; but in the following year he exchanged that for a similar post 
in the University of Berlin. Somewhat later he was appointed ordi- 
nary professor, and admitted into the Academy of Sciences. oe 
Professor Dove has, as a man of science, devoted his attention to 
comparison and elucidation of the observations and researches whi 
throughout the civilised world, have been made on the temperature 
the atmosphere at the surface of the globe—in other words, on the 
circumstances which determine the climate of the various regions— 
and in the investigation he has exhibited a power of patient con- 
tinuous inquiry, calm inductive reasoning, and broad generalisation, 
which have been attended with the most important results, and he has 
laid for the student a precise scientific basis on which he may labour 
with entire confidence. Jn place of what was, to a great extent, vague 
hypothesis, under his hands the true laws which regulate the atmos- 
pheric phenomena have been evolved with beautiful precision. In his 
Reports, and especially in his admirably-executed Isothermal Maps, he 
first showed, as far as recorded observations permitted, the isother- 
mais (or lines of equal temperature) of the whole globe in every month 
of the year; and subsequently added the average of all the tempei 
tures in each parallel of latitude in the same months, and the ‘ abr 
mal temperature,’ or the difference of the temperature of each place 
and the mean temperature of its parallel, the annual variations, 
other correlative information; thus embodying in a tangible 
accessible form the collation and analysis of innumerable observe 
and corrections, and placing in the hands of the scientific wor 
body of general results educed with profound skill, and of which 
importance to the investigator of this branch of physical science 
hardly be overrated. Among the special results of his inquiries, ma 
be mentioned his development of the thermal influence of the Gulf. 
stream ; his view of the different relations which prevail where the 
atmosphere rests on a solid, and where on a liquid base; the separa: 
tion of the pressures of tHe aqueous and gaseous portion of the atm¢ 
phere, by which, as Sabine notes, he has given “a new aspect to 


Le 


ee a 


993 _ EDWARDS, HENRI-MILNE, 


GAYANGOS, PASCUAL DE. 994 


? 


beautiful branch of physical investigation ;” and his recognition of 
what he termed “the law of rotation” in both hemispheres, and 


which, in the words of Humboldt, he showed to be “the cause of 


many important processes and extensive movements in the aérial 
Ocean.” ~ 

Professor Dove has published many of his investigations and dis- 
coveries in the Transactions (Abhandlungen) of the Berlin Academy of 
Sciences, and in Poggendorf’s ‘ Annalen.’ Among the more important 


_ of his separate works may be named his ‘ Uber Mass und Messen,’ 2nd 


ed, 1833; ‘Meteorologische Untersuchungen,’ 1837 ; Uber die nicht 
periodischen Anderungen der Temperaturvertheilung auf der ober- 
fliiche der Erde, 4 parts, 1840-7; ‘ Untersuchungen im’ Gebiete der 
Inductions elektricitiit,’ 1843; ‘Uber den Zusammenhang der Wiir- 
meveriinderungen der Atmosphiire mit der Entwickelung der Pflanzen,’ 
1846 ; ‘ Temperaturtafeln,’ 1848 : ‘ Monatsisothermen,’ 1850; ‘ Bericht 
iiber die 1848 und 1849 auf den stationen des meteorologischen Insti- 
tuts im preussischen Staate angestellten Beobachtungen, 1851; ‘ Wit- 
terungsgeschichte, 1840 bis 1850,’ 1853 ; Darstellung der Farbenlehre 
und optische Studien,’ 1853; ‘ Isothermes,’ 2nd ed., 1853; ‘ Verbreitung 


der Wiirme in der Nordlichen Hemisphiire,’ 2 Maps, 1855; ‘ Darstel- 


lung der Wiirme-Erscheinungen durch funftigige Mittel v. 1782-1855,’ 


1856. For a wider circle of readers he prepared his more popular 


works,—‘ Die Witterungsverhiiltnisse von Berlin, 1842, in which he 


-has given in a lively yet perfectly lucid manner, a systematic view of 


meteorological phenomena; his ‘Uber Wirkungen aus der Ferne,’ 
1845; and his ‘ Uber Elektricitit,’ 1848. He has also edited the 
periodical work, ‘Repertorium der Physik,’ 8 vols. 1836-49. Pro- 
fessor Dove is a foreign member of the Royal Society of London, 
which learned body has awarded him their Copley medal for his 
researches in meteorology. 


*EDWARDS, HENRI-MILNE, or MILNE-EDWARDS, a distin- 
guished naturalist and professor of zoology in the Faculty of Sciences 
at Paris, was born at Bruges in 1800. His father was an Englishman, 
who had settled in the West Indies, where his eldest brother William 
Frederic, distinguished as a physiologist, was born. He is well known 
for an ‘Essay on the Physical Agents which affect Life,’ and other 
works. Milne-Edwards was educated for the medical profession, and 
took his degree as Doctor of Medicine in Paris. One of his first pub- 
lications was entitled ‘Manuel de Matiére Médicale.’ It contained an 
abridged description of medicines, the botanical character of medical 
plants, and an account of the medicines found in the various Pharma- 
copeeias. It was published in 1825. The following year he also published 
a ‘Manual of Surgical Anatomy’ containing an anatomical description 
of the human body divided into regions, and an account of the various 
diseases to which the organs of the body are liable. His medical studies 
led him to the pursuit of natural history, and in 1832, in conjunction 
with Jean-Victor Audouin [AuDourN], he published a work on the 
natural history of the coasts of France. This work was published in 
two volumes, and illustrated with numerous plates. His next work, 


_and that on which his great reputation as a naturalist principally rests, 


was devoted to the family of Crustacea, which includes the lobster, 
crab, and shrimp. He studied the anatomy of these animals most 
profoundly, devised a new nomenclature for their parts, and added a 
large number of new species to the family. It appeared in the series 
of works entitled ‘Suites 2 Buffon,’ and was comprised in three volumes 
published from 1834 to 1841. _In 1840 he commenced the publi- 
cation of his ‘Elements of Zoology, which appeared in four volumes, 
with 600 illustrations. This work was one of the most acceptable 
that had hitherto been published with a view of popularising the 
existing knowledge of geology. It has been succeeded by several 
similar works both in the German and English languages. A smaller 
work was also published under the title of ‘Cours élémentaire de 
Zoologie,’ in 1841, which has been translated into English. In the 
same year he also published his observations on the compound 
Ascidian Mollusca. This work was beautifully illustrated, and threw 
much light on the structure and physiology of this branch of the 
animal kingdom. He has also devoted attention to the study of the 
polyps. He was the first to suggest the classification of the ascidian 
polyps with the mollusca. He has published a work on the anatomy, 
physiology, and arrangement of the recent forms of polyps. He has 
also contributed one of the most complete monographs on extinct 
polyps to the publications of the English Paleontographical Society. 
His contributions to the periodical literature of France on various 
zoological subjects have been very numerous. He is one of the 
editors of the ‘Annales des Sciences Naturelles.’ He wrote the ‘ Re- 
sumé d'entomologie’ for the ‘ Encyclopédie portative, and has written 
the articles ‘ Infusoires,’ ‘ Polypies,’ ‘ Zoophyts,’ ‘ Insects,’ ‘ Arachnids,’ 
‘ Crustacées,’ ‘Aunelids,’ ‘Cirripeds, for the ‘Histoire Naturelle des 
Animaux sang vertébres’ of Lamarck. Milne-Edwards is well known 
in England, and received a medal from the Royal Society for his 
Scientific researches in 1856, 


* FARR, WILLIAM, M.D., F.R.S., Superintendent of the Statistical 
Department in the General Register Office, was born at Kenley in 
Shropshire, on the 30th of November, 1807, From the age of two 

BIOG. DIV, VOL VI. 


years he was educated by Joseph Price, Esq., at Dorrington, near 
Shrewsbury, his early studies being directed by the Rev. J. J. Beynon. 
In May 1826 he became the pupil of T. Sutton, Esq., surgeon at the 
Salop Infirmary ; and at the same time he became the private pupil of 
Dr. J. Webster, a youvg physician of eminent talent, with whom he 
read the medical and scientific classics of the day. This course of 
study he continued for three years. In May 1829 he went to Paris, 
and entered as a student in the university of that city, where he 
remained for two years. 

Here he had the advantage of hearing Orfila, Louis, Dupuytren, and 
Lisfranca lecture on various branches of medical science; Andral, on 
hygiene; Gay Lussac and Thenard, on chemistry; Pouillet, on natural 
philosophy ; Geoffrey St. Hilaire, Dumeril, and Blainville, on compara- 
tive anatomy and physiology; Cuvier, on the history of the natural 
sciences ; and Guizot and Villemain, on bistory and literature ; and here 
it was, in all probability, that his mind received its decided bent towards 
the study of hygiene and medical statistics. After the revolution 
which placed Louis-Philippe on the throne, Mr. Farr travelled through 
Switzerland. On returning to London in 1831 he entered the Univer- 
sity of London (now University College), and during two years 
attended the lectures of Grant, Carswell, Turner, Elliotson, and other 
eminent professors of that flourishing medical school. He then filled 
for six months the office of house surgeon at the Shrewsbury Infirmary, 
when he returned to London and commenced practising and teaching. 
He devoted his chief attention to medical statistics ; and he attempted 
to establish a course of lectures on Hygiology, but failed—lectures 
on public health not being recognised by any of the public licensing 
bodies in the United Kingdom. He also edited the ‘Medical Annual,’ 
wrote for the medical journals, and edited, in conjunction with his 
friend Dr. R, Dundas Thompson, the ‘ British Annals of Medicine’ in 
1837, ~ 

In that year Dr. Farr wrote the article ‘ Vital Statistics’ in 
M‘Culloch’s ‘Statistics of the British Empire,’ and from that time, 
fully recognising—to use his own words—“ the magnitude of the 
subject, and the fact that more than a million of the inhabitants of 
the United Kingdom are disabled by disease and suffering is of less 
importance than the consideration that their condition may be ame- 
liorated to an immeasurable extent ” (‘ Vital Stat.,’ vol. ii., p. 568)—he 
devoted all his energies to the improvement of the public health. 
The registration of all the deaths, and of the causes of death, in 
England, was commenced in 1837; and in 1838 Dr. Farr received, at 
the instance of Sir James Clark, Mr. M‘Culloch, and Mr. Lister, the first 
registrar-general, an appointment in the General Register Office. He 
has since that year been made by Mr. Graham, the second registrar- 
general, superintendent of a statistical department, consisting of 
several able men, by whom have been drawn up the new ‘London 
Tables of Mortality, the ‘Quarterly Returns of Births, Deaths, and 
Marriages,’ and the ‘Annual Abstracts.’ He has framed a new ‘Statis- 
tical Nosology,’ an English Life-Table, constructed with calculations of 
the duration of life, and of the Values of Annuities on Lives; and he 
has written annual reports on the causes of death, papers on the 
‘Finance of Life Assurance’ and on the ‘Income Tax,’ Reports on the 
Public Health, and an elaborate Report on Cholera in England, showing 
under what circumstances that epidemic is fatal, and that it is regu- 
lated in its ravages by definite laws. The value of his labours in this 
most important department it would be difficult to over-estimate. To 
his admirable reports is in a great measure due the hold which the 
question of public health, as a matter for practical and scientific con- 
sideration, has taken upon the public mind. To the inquiry he has 
imparted precision of aim, and, besides himself largely contributing 
to the accumulation of materials, and the inductive reasoning upon 
them, he may be fairly said to have laid a scientific basis for future 
investigators. 

With Mr. Horace Mann, Dr. Farr was appointed one of the assistant 
commissioners to the Registrar-General in taking the census of Great 
Britain in 1851. The Registrar-General, it is understood, presided 
specially over the Administrative Department, and Mr. Horace Mann 
reported on the state of Religious Worship and Education: Dr. Farr 
wrote the valuable and curiously-interesting Reports on the Numbers, 
Ages, Occupations, Birthplaces, and Conjugal Condition of the Popu- 
lation. 

Dr. Farr has received an honorary degree from the University of 
New York, isa fellow and the treasurer of the Statistical Society of 
London, a fellow of the Royal Society, &e, 


7 


*GAYANGOS, PASCUAL DE, is a name respecting which some 
additional authentic information has been obtained since the appear- 
ance of the article in the body of the work. [Gayaneos.] This dis- 
tinguished scholar was born at Seville on the 9th of June, 1809. His 
father, then a colonel of artillery, afterwards became a general of 
division, and governor first of Zacatecas, a province of Mexico, and 
afterwards of Merida de Yucatan; his mother was a French lady of 
the family of De Retz. After receiving part of his education at the 
village of Pontlevoy, near Blois, he commenced the study of Arabic by 
attending the lectures of Silvestre de Sacy at Paris, He first came to 
England in 1828, and in 1829 married an English lady, the eldest 

daughter of Major Revell of Roundoak, near Egham. v late years 
= s 


995 GMELIN, LEOPOLD. 


GRAHAM, THOMAS. 996 


Sefior de Gayangos has almost ceased to contribute directly to English 
literature. In Spanish he has written interesting articles in the 
‘Semanario Pintoresco,’ the ‘ Revista de ambos Mundos,’ and other 
periodicals. He is a member of the Spanish Royal Academy of History, 
and besides contributing to its ‘Transactions,’ edits the ‘Memorial 
historico Espafiol,’ a collection of ancient historical documents issued 
in the name of the Academy. 

GMELIN, LEOPOLD, an eminent chemist and contributor to the 
literature of the science of which he was an equally eminent academic 
teacher, belonged to a family which for four generations had been 
actively engaged in the pursuit of chemistry, the medical sciences, and 
several branches of natural history, and one member of which, if not 
more, is still so engaged. Three of his eminent relatives have already 
been noticed in the third volume of this work. 

Johann George Gmelin, apothecary at Tiibingen, who was born in 
1674, and died in 1728, had three sons, all of whom devoted them- 
selves to chemistry and the allied sciences. The eldest Johann Conrad 
Gmelin (born 1707) was a physician and apothecary at Tiibingen; 
his grandson, * Christian Gottlob Gmelin (born 1792) is now professor 
of chemistry in the same university. The second is the subject of 
the article [Gmetin, JonnN GrorGE] in vol, iii. The third son, Philip 
Friedrich Gmelin (born 1722), succeeded the last-mentioned in his 
professorship of chemistry and botany at Tiibingen, and died there 
in 1768. His elder son was [Gmerin, Samurn Gorrires], and his 
younger som (Gmetin, Jonn FRepERiIcK], who succeeded him in 
that chair, and afterwards became professor of chemistry at Git- 
tingen, was the father of the distinguished man we have now to 
commemorate, ; 

LxropoLD GMELIN was born at Giéttingen on the 2nd of August 
1788. From 1799 to 1804 he attended the Lyceum in that city, and 
in the summer of 1804, his father’s lectures on mineralogy. In the 
autumn of the same year, he went to Tiibingen, where he practised 
chemical manipulation in the pharmaceutical laboratory of -his near 
relation, Dr. Christian Gmelin (the son of Johann Conrad Gmelin and 
father of Christian Gottlob Gmelin, both already mentioned), and 
attended Killmeyer’s lectures on chemistry. In the autumn of 1805 
he returned to Géttingen, where he devoted himself with zeal to all 
branches of medical science, but especially to chemistry, for which he 
attended Stromeyer’s lectures; he also studied mathematics. After 
passing a distinguished examination, he went, in the summer of 1809, 
to Wiirtemberg, and thence to Switzerland, which he traversed in all 
directions, hammer in hand. From the autumn of 1809 to Easter 
1811 he remained in Tiibingen, and then went to Vienna, where he 
visited the hospitals, and carried out, in Jacquin’s laboratory, the 
greater part of the experiments, which form the basis of his Doctor- 
dissertation ‘On the Black Pigment of the Eye,’ published in 1812, 
and afterwards in the tenth volume of Schweigger's Journal. He left 
Vienna in the spring of that year, and went to Italy, where he 
remained till the spriug of 1813, chiefly at Naples, but for some time 
also at Rome. 

The observations and collections made in these journeys supplied 
the principal materials of the chemico-mineralogical investigations 
which formed the subject of his ‘ Habilitation-Schrift’ or thesis at 
Heidelberg, ‘On hauyne, and minerals related to it, together with 
geognostic observations on the mountains of ancient Latium,’ pub- 
lished in 1814, On his way back to Gottingen he stayed some time 
at Heidelberg, where the professor of chemistry, George Succow, being 
then recently dead, Gmelin was encouraged to give lectures on that 
science. Availing himself of the opportunity thus presented, he 

obtained the ‘venia docendi’ in Heidelberg, spent the remainder of 
the summer at Gdttingen, making the necessary preparations of this 
new duties, and in the autumn of the same year began his career as 
an academic teacher in Heidelberg, which he subsequently pursued 
with zeal and success for nearly forty years. Twelve months after- 
wards he was appointed extraordinary professor of chemistry in the 
university. His celebrated ‘Handbook of Chemistry’ was then 
already begun. In the autumn of 1814, he went to Paris, and 
occupied himself chiefly with practical researches in Vauquelin’s 
laboratory.. Two years afterwards he married Luise Maurer, the 
daughter of a clergymen of Heidelberg, and settled there, declining 
the appointment of professor of chemistry at Berliv, whither he 
was invited in 1817, to succeed Klaproth [Kraprors, Martin 
Henry], who died in that year. He was soon afterwards made 
ordinary professor of medicine and chemistry at Heidelberg. In 
1835, he declined an invitation to fill the chair of chemistry at 
Gottingen, preferring to remain in his adopted home, although his 
emoluments there were much less than they would have been either 
at Gottingen or at Berlin. In the latter portion of his life he was so 
completely engrossed with the gigantic labour of preparing the fourth 
edition of his ‘Handbook,’ that he became quite neglectful of his 
health. In 1848, he had an attack of paralysis, which, though it only 
deprived him for a while of his power of action, destroyed the fresh- 
ness and vigour of his manner; and elasticity of spirit. But he still 
worked at his ‘ Handbook’ with untiring assiduity, as shown by the 
volumes which afterwards appeared. In 1850, he was again attacked 
by paralysis, which obliged him to resign his professorial functions. 
He still however remained active in the cause of science, and laboured 
earnestly at the second volume of the ‘Organic Chemistry,’ which he 


~ 


completed in May 1852. But from that time his powers, both mental 
and bodily, rapidly declined; an insidious disease of the brain was 
steadily gaining ground. In the spring of 1853 it became evident 
that his end was approaching, and he died on the 13th of April, in 
the sixty-fifth year of his age. q 
Leopold Gmelin’s original researches in chemistry are numerous; 
they are all of high character, and as complete as the means of investi- _ 
gation existing at the time when they were instituted would admit, — 
In 1820 he undertook, in conjunction with Tiedemann, a series of 
experiments on digestion; and in 1826 and 1827 these two philosophers _ 
published their celebrated work, entitled ‘Die Verdauung nach Ver- 
suchen.’ But the greatest service which he rendered to sci a 
service in which,” in the words of competent authority, “he su ed 
all his predecessors and all his contemporaries”—consisted in the pro- 
duction of his ‘ Handbuch der Chemie,’ the beginning and later pro- — 
gress of which have been mentioned above. The late Dr. Thomas 
Thomson, F.R.S., afterwards Regius Professor of Chemistry in the 
University of Glasgow, had published the earlicr editions of his 
‘System of Chemistry,’ in which he reduced to order, in a clear and — 
exact manner, the facts of the science, scattered at the time he wrote _ 
over a thousand different publications, and had thus himself conferred 
an inestimable benefit, especially on British chemists; other writers 
also had arranged large quantities of materials in systematic order; 
but for completeness and fidelity of collation, and consecutiveness of 
arrangement, Gmelin’s ‘Handbook’ is unrivalled. In it the known — 
facts of the science are condensed into the smallest possible shed q 


but nevertheless it presents a complete picture of them. Detack 
and long-forgotten observations of other chemists were often in ed 
to the author for first giving them their true value. In this great 
work, to use the words adopted, in 1854, by the President of the — 
Chemical Society of London, of which Gmelin was a foreign member, 
he “ sets the example of putting together, in a purely objective view, 
and on the authority of the several investigators, all that has been 
observed within the domain of chemistry,—not, indeed, withholding — 
his own opinions, but placing them side by side with those of others, — 
and never suppressing the latter.” ioe 
The ‘ Handbook of Chemistry,’ moreover, has often directed atten- 
tion to deficiencies and contradictions in existing chemical knowledge, 
and has thus given rise to new investigations; it has also been aly . 
influential in extending an accurate knowledge of chemistry, not only — 
in Germany, but wherever the science is cultivated. The first edition, — 
which appeared in the years 1817-1819, included in a ote aaa 
small space the extent of chemical science then known; the fourth, 
which was the last prepared by Gmelin himself, was published from 
1843 to 1852, and comprehends inorganic chemistry, but, unfor- 
tunately, only a small part of organic chemistry. From this the 
English edition, now in course of publication under the auspices of 
the Cavendish Society, is translated by Mr. Henry Watts, B.A:, Fellow 
of the Chemical Society of London, of whose ‘ Quarterly Journal’ he is ; 
also the editor. The additions made by him bring the ‘ Handbook’ 
down to the existing state of chemical science at the time of publica- — 
tion of each volume. The desire to make this work generally available 
to British chemists, was one of the motives which originally contri- 
buted to the establishment of the Cavendish Society. The first — 
volume was published ‘at the end of the year 1848; the eleventh, 
being the fifth of organic chemistry, has recently appeared (November — 
1857). The translation is continued from a new German edition. = 
In the ‘Annals of Philosophy’ for August and September 1814, 
(Series I., vol. iv., pp. 115, 193,) a few months only after the appearance — 
of Gmelin’s Thesis in Germany, Dr. Thomson published satisfactory 
abstracts in English of the geological and mineralogical portions 
respectively. Of his dissertation on the black pigment of the eye, — 
Dr. Thomson gave a short account in the same work for January 
1816 (vol. vii., p. 54,) in which Gmelin’s examination of the ink of the 
cuttle-fish, which he had found to possess very nearly the same pro- 
perties with the black pigment, is compared with Dr. Prout’s, then — 
recently published. vee 
GOGOL, NIKOLAY IVANOVICH, is a writer on whose merits a — 
singular diversity of opinion still prevails among the Russian public, — 
some of his admirers maintaining that he is “the Homer of Russian — 
life,” while other critics, more in accordance with the opinion of foreign — 
readers, describe him as merely ‘‘the author of some amusing novels.” — 
Gogol himself towards the close of his life sunk into a religious — 
melancholy, made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, destroyed j 
unpublished writings, and is said to have believed that some of h 
most popular works had been written under the inspiration of 
devil. Several publications have appeared relating to him, two 
which, an ‘ Essay on his Life,’ and ‘ Memoirs of his Life’ (two vols. 
more than 700 pages, 1856), are by the same person, a friend 
Gogol’s, who conceals himself under the pseudonyme of Nichola 
M..... but whose real name is said to be Kuliesh. In the earlie 
of these works Gogol is said to have been born on the 31st of March — 
(N.S.) 1810; in the later, on the same day in 1809. He died at 
Moscow on the 5th of March (N.S.) 1852. | 
*GRAHAM, THOMAS, a distinguished chemist, and Master of 
Mint, was born in Dec. 1805, at Glasgow, where his father was a m 
facturer and merchant. He was educated at the City Grammar § 
and afterwards passed to the classes of the University of Glasgow. 


~ 


t 


‘ 


997 GRANT, ROBERT, M.A., F.R.AS. 


studied chemistry under Dr. Thomas Thomson. He took his degree of 
M.A. and subsequently studied at Edinburgh. In 1828 he opened a 
laboratory in Glasgow for the practical study of chemistry, and suc- 
ceeded Dr. Clarke as lecturer on chemistry at the Mechanics’ Institute. 
In 1830 he was appointed professor of chemistry in the Andersonian 
University, an appointment which he held till his removal to Univer- 
sity College, London, to take the chair of chemistry vacated by the 
death of Dr. Edward Turner. On the appointment of Sir John 
Herschel as master of the Mint, Professor Graham was appointed non- 
resident assayer. In this office he had to submit all the bullion 
_ received at the Mint to a uniform ‘scientific control. In 1855, on the 
retirement of Sir John Herschel, Mr. Graham was appointed master of 


the Mint. 


Professor Graham’s publications on chemistry have not been nume- 
rous, but he has made some of the most important contributions that 
have been made to the science during the present century. One of 
the most valuable of these was his discovery of the law of diffusion of 
gases, which obtained for him the Keith prize of the Royal Society 
of Edinburgh in 1834, He afterwards announced the discovery of 
the polybasic character of phosphoric acid, and some new views cn the 
constitution of salts. For these researches he obtained the gold medal 

of the Royal Society of London in 1840. His researches on the 
transpirability of gases obtained for him a second gold medal from the 
Royal Society of London in 1850. In 1850 and 1854 he gave the 
Bakerian lectures before the Royal Society of London, and demon- 
strated the existence of a diffusive power in liquids similar to that 
which exists in gases. ‘T'o this force he gave the name of Osmosis, and 
showed its relation to the action which had hitherto been known under 
the names of Endosmosis and Exosmosis, The original views and 
discoveries which he has made are embraced in his work on the ‘ Ele- 
ments of Chemistry,’ the first edition of which appeared in 1842, and 

‘a second subsequently. 

Professor Graham was the first president and one of the founders of 
the Chemical Society of London, which was established in 1840. He 
was also chosen president of the Cavendish Society on its foundation 
in 1846—a position which he still holds. 

He has been often employed by the government in important 
physical and chemical investigations, In 1846 he was one of a com- 
mission to report on the ventilation of the Houses of Parliament. In 
1847 he was made one of a commission for reporting on the casting of 
guns. In 1851, in conjunction with Professors Miller and Hoffman, he 
was employed to report on the nature of the water supplied to the 
metropolis. ' 

In 1836 Professor Graham was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society, 
of which he has been twice elected vice-president. He was elected a 
corresponding member of the Institute of France in 1848. He received 
the degree of D.C.L. at the Oxford Commemoration in 1853, and he 
is a foreign member of the academies of sciences of Berlin, Munich, 
Turin, and Washington, 

*GRANT, ROBERT, M.A, F.R.A.S., author of the ‘History of 
Physical Astronomy,’ the production of which marks an epoch in the 
history of natural knowledge, was born at Grantoun, Strathspey, in the 
county of Inverness, in the year 1814, His education was interrupted 
at the age of fourteen by an illness which extended over a period of 
six years. When he recovered, he resumed his early studies in Latin, 
and, with no other help than books, supplied by the affectionate care 
of his relatives, taught himself mathematics and physical astronomy, 
together with the Greek, French, and Italian languages, Subsequently, 
for a short time, he studied natural philosophy and classical litterature 
at King’s College, Aberdeen. In 1841 he entered the counting-house 
of his brothers, in London, in which he remained nearly four years, 
devoting his leisure hours to mathematics and physical astronomy. 
In 1845 he formed the resolution to write the history of the latter 
department of science, and shortly afterwards proceeded to Paris, 
where he resided during 1846 and 1847, engaged in making researches 
for the projected work in the principal libraries of that city, and 
attending the scientific lectures delivered at the Sorbonne. Towards 
the close of the year 1847 he entgred into an engagement with Mr. 
Robert Baldwin, of Paternoster-row, who, having become the pro- 
prietor of the ‘Library of Useful Knowledge,’ which he had originally 
published for the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge,’ had 
begun the publication of a new series of that work, to write a short 
history of physical astronomy, to form part of that series, The first 
number was published in September 1848, but the scale of the work 
happily was augmented, and the whole appeared complete in the 
spring of 1852, forming a closely-printed volume of nearly 700 pages. 
It is incumbent upon us to give some account of this work. At the 
time when it was published, just after the completion of the first half 
of the present century, the only works which had any claim to be 
styled standard histories in either theoretical or observational astro- 
nomy, were the ‘History of Modern Astronomy,’ by the ill-fated 
Bailly, ending in 1781, but continued to 1810 by Vorirn, and the 
well-known ‘ History’ of Delambre, of which the first volume 
appeared in 1817 ; and both of these were becoming antiquated. In 
our own day no work had appeared approaching the character of a 
general history of the science, though only for a short period, except 
Mr. Airy’s report on Astronomy to the British Association, at its 
second meeting, in 1832, Mr. Grant’s yolume therefore, from the 


time of its first appearance, was felt to supply an urgent want; and 
having been found entitled, by the tests applied to it and the resulting 
opinion formed, to rank as an astronomical classic, the gold medal of 
the Royal Astronomical Society was awarded for it to the author, and 
presented to him at the annual general meeting, February 8, 1856; 
on which occasion a masterly address was delivered by the president, 
Manuel J. Johnson, Esq., M.A., Radcliffe observer at Oxford, which 
has been published in the ‘ Memoirs’ and ‘Monthly Notices’ for the 
session 1855-56. The award being the first which, during the society's 
thirty-six years’ existence, had been conferred on literary service, Mr. 
Johnson first vindicated its propriety in that respect, and after a brief 
view of the historical literature of astronomy (from which the preceding 
remarks on that subject have been derived), proceeds to give a sketch 
of the contents and a statement of the character of the work itself :—- 
“The first thirteen chapters of the book,” he observes, “are devoted 
to an historical exposition of the theory of gravitation. ..... This 
inquiry forms by far the most laborious part of the volume, 
lect his materials, the author had not only to wade through a multitude 
of special treatises, but also to search the published records of all the 
great academies of Europe. Then the arrangement, in anything like 
lucid order, of the vast mass which he had accumulated, in the narrow 
compass of an octavo volume, was no slight difficulty; and if we 
further consider that his facts were to be stated in language which was 
to satisfy the mathematician, and to be intelligible to the educated 
public, I think it admits of question whether the task of construction 
was not as great as that of collection and discussion...... All 
that is known of the physical construction of sun, planets, and 
comets, is given in great detail in the fourteenth and fifteenth chapters, 
together with many valuable contributions to the literature of thoze 
subjects. Nor has the author omitted to trace the history of observa- 
tional astronomy from the earliest period to the present time.” 
“Throughout the book,’ Mr. Johnson continues, “ no one can fail to 
be struck with the skill, integrity, and discernment the author has 
displayed in tracing the successive stages of progress; or with the 
scrupulous care he has taken to assign to each of the great men whom 
he reviews their proper share in the common labour.” 

Mr. Grant had been elected a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical 
Society on the 14th of June 1850; and in November 1852, after the 
publication of his book, he was appointed editor, under the superin- 
tendence of the council, of the ‘Monthly Notices’ of that society, 
containing papers, abstracts of papers, and reports of its proceedings, 
a periodical which may be regarded as a means of diffusing a know- 
ledge of the present progress of astronomy equivalent in importance 
to the former ‘ Correspondence’ of Von Zach and the ‘ Astronomische 
Nachrichten’ of Schumacher, while it is in some respects superior to 
both, besides being the record of the actual proceedings of the society 
from which it emanates. 

Mr. Grant has recently added to his scientific occupations that of a 
public teacher of astronomy, having delivered two courses of lectures 
on that science at the London Institution, one in illustration of its 
progress and philosophy, and of recent discoveries especially—the 
other elementary, adapted to a juvenile auditory, and forming part of 
the Educational series of the lectures at that establishment. 

The title and description of his great work are as follows :—‘ History 
of Physical Astronomy, from the earliest ages to the middle of the 
nineteenth century. Comprehending a detailed account of the estab- 
lishment of the theory of gravitation by Newton, and its development 
by his successors; with an exposition of the progress of research on 
all the other subjects of celestial physics, Svo, Lond., 1852, pp. 20 
and 638. 

GROTEFEND, GEORG FRIEDRICH, a distinguished philologist 
and antiquarian, was born at Miinden in Hanover on June 9, 1775. 
He was educated in his native town and at Ilfeld till 1795, when 
he proceeded to Géttingen, where he became intimate with Heyne, 
Tychsen, and Heeren. On the recommendation of Heyne he was 
appointed in 1797 assistant teacher in the Géttingen town school ; 
and after he had made himself known by his work ‘De pasigra- 
phia sive scriptura universali,’ published in 1799, he was chosen 
pro-rector of the Gymnasium of Frankfurt-on-the-Main in 1803, 
and shortly afterwards con-rector. Besides many learned contri- 
butions to the ‘Allgemeinen Cyclopiidie’ of Ersch and Gruber, 
and to other periodical works, he published in 1815, ‘Anfangs- 
griinde der deutschen Poesie’ (Elements of German Poetry), and 
founded in 1817 a society for the investigation of the German language. 
In 1821 he was called to be director of the Lyceum at Hanover, which 
thenceforth became his residence. In 1823-24 he published an entirely 
remodelled edition of Wenck’s Latin grammar in 2 vols, 4to, and a 
smaller one for the use of schools in 1826. His most noticeable works 
however are those relating to the deciphering of the eastern cuneiform 
inscriptions, on which he expended much and successfully directed 
labour; and those devoted to an investigation of the old Italian 
languages and geography, Among these works are his ‘Neuen Bei- 
trige zur Erliuterung der persepolitanische Keilschrift’ (New Con- 
tributions towards the Explanation of the Persepolitan Cuneiform 
Inscriptions), 1837: and ‘ Neue Beitriige zur Erliuterung der Babylo- 
nische Keilschrift,’ 1840. For early attempts these works possessed 
considerable merit, but their value has been lowered by the inde- 
fatigable labours of more recent investigators. On the Italian antiquities 


GROVE, WILLIAM ROBERT. 


HALDANE, ROBERT. 1000 


he published, in eight parts, between 1835 and 1838 ‘ Rudimenta lin- 
gue umbrice ex inscriptionibus antiquisenodata ;’ in 1839 * Rudi- 
menta lingum oscée ;’ ‘ Die Miinzen der griechischen, parthischen und 
indoskythischen Kénige von Bactrien und den Landern am Indus,’ 1839, 
(The Coins of the Greek, Parthian, and Indoseythian kings of Bactria 
and of the Countries on the Indus); and in 1840-42, in five parts, his 
investigation ‘Zur Geographie und Geschichte von Altitalien,’ a work 
remarkable for the copiousness of its materials and the bold felicity of 
many of its theories. The part he took in the controversy respecting 
the genuineness of Sanchuniathon’s ‘ History of tlie Phoenicians’ has been 
already mentioned. [SancnuntarHuNn] Grotefend has also published 
a history of the Lyceum at Hanover. He died December 15, 1853. 

*GROVE, WILLIAM ROBERT, Q.C., M.A,, F.R.S., is a native of 
Swansea in South Wales, where his family have been settled for above 
acentury. He graduated in the University of Oxford. Being destined 
for the legal profession, he was called to the bar, as a student of Lin- 
coln’s Inn, on the 23rd of November 1835; but his practice being very 
soon seriously interfered with by ill health, under medical advice he 
quitted it for three years, and travelled on the Continent, returning 
in 1838, and shortly afterwards re-entered on the practice of his pro- 
fession. But he had in the interval given considerable attention to 
scientific subjects, especially electricity; and he succeeded in pro- 
ducing, by regular deduction from theory, the most powerful voltaic 
~ combination yet produced, well known as ‘Grove’s battery,’ and some- 
times termed the ‘ nitric-acid battery.’ Not long afterwards, in 1840, 
he accepted the office of professor of experimental philosophy in the 
London Institution. In the laboratory of that institution he invented 
or discovered the ‘gas battery,’ in which oxygen and hydrogen gases 
play the part of zinc and copper in an ordinary battery, the action of 
the gas battery being obviously a mere play of chemical affinities 
converted into electricity. This instrument therefore is as instructive 
in a theoretical point of view as the nitric-acid battery is practically 
valuable, and a competent authority has pronounced that nothing 
more important has been produced in electro-chemistry since the 
time of Sir H. Davy. The particular relation of mutual converti- 
bility between chemical affinity and electricity in this and all other 
voltaic or galvanic batteries, Mr. Grove denominates ‘Correlation,’ 
illustrating it by the logical idea of the inseparability of ‘height and 
depth,’ ‘parent and offspring.’ In some lectures delivered in the 
course of his official duty at the London Institution, in 1842 and 1843, 
he explicitly and fully enunciated his views on the mutual relations 
of all natural forces. The substance of these lectures, with various 
additions, afterwards formed an essay by Professor Grove, printed for 
the proprietors (or members) of the London Institution, and also 
published in 1846, under the title of ‘The Correlation of Physical 
Forces,’ of which the author has since published two enlarged editions, 
the second of which appeared in 1850, and the third in 1855. This work 
has been translated into French by the Abbé Moigno. That a relation 
cf equivalence and mutual convertibility existed among the various 
forces of nature had often been suspected or affirmed, and indeed the 
existence of a connection of this kind between several pairs of them 
established ; for example, the mutual and equivalent convertibility of 
heat and mechanical force had been proved by Carnot. But it was 
reserved for Mr. Grove to announce in the most general and explicit 
manner the proposition, that all physical forces are so related to each 
other that all might be and in nature are resolved into any one, and 
any one into all. Thus, that heat might be converted into chemical 
action, and chemical action into heat, both into electricity, electricity 
into magnetism, magnetism into mechanical force or electricity, and so 
- on in a perpetual cycle: in the actual state of science however some 
pairs of these forces are not directly capable of mutual ‘conversion, 
but require the intervention of another, which the first is capable of 
becoming, and which is itself capable of becoming the second. The 
influence of Mr. Grove’s views on this subject upon the views and the 
researches of his contemporaries has been marked, though almost 
tacit. It may be traced in the subsequent researches of Professor 
Faraday, aud is obvious in those of Mr. Joule. We conceive that Mr. 
Grove is the true discoverer of the cause of the heat of friction, which 
he refers to the subdivision of the mechanical motion of the masses of 
the rubbing bodies into the vibrations of their molecules, constituting 
heat. In connection with this he urges the theoretical importance of 
the facts, that while the friction of similar bodies produces heat, that 
of dissimilar bodies produces electricity, the recognition of which also 
was first made by him, - 

Though Mr. Grove has not failed to receive the rewards due to his 
brilliant experimental productions in the position he has acquired in 
the world of science, yet we think the originality of his principle of 
the correlation of physical forces, as a whole, has not been adequately 
appreciated. Thus, in the address of the President of the British 
Association, the Rey, Dr. Lloyd, at the last meeting, at Dublin (1857), 
we find Mr. Grove regarded as “one of the able expounders” of 
modern views of the mutual convertibility of different kinds of force, 
not, as he truly is, as the original enunciator, in all its generality, of the 


doctrine of that entire, exhaustive, and cyclical convertibility which is | 


denoted by the term ‘ Correlation’ as understood by Mr. Grove. This 
may have arisen however, as we must in fairness state, from the 
almost purely dogmatic form in which the author has proposed his 
views, and also from two other causes. The first of these is the fact, 


‘they have probably retarded its full appreciation. It is no doubt 4 


that in some cases he has sought to establish his point by argumen- 
tation somewhat sophistical, by forensic rather than philosophical 
reasoning, passing by some relevant but hostile truths, and thus 
proving, or seeming to prove, rather a verbal than a real correlation, 
The second is, that, while the entire system of known physical truths 
conspires to prove the existence of distinct orders of matter, having, 
logically speaking, a discrete difference from each other—what has 
been termed gross or ordinary matter and the ether, for example— __ 
Mr. Grove, with some impatience, ignores the separate existence of the 
latter, saying that theré is no specific ether because everything is 
matter, and even referring the phenomena of light itself, notto the 
undulations of the ether, but to the vibrations of the ordinary matter — 
through which it passes, or by which it is effected alone. We leave 
those philosophers who know that the demonstration of the undu- — 
latory theory of light is also that of the existence of the ether,to reply 
to this, simply remarking that to deny the existence of more than 
one order of matter, because all must be matter, is not more reasonable — 
than it would be for a theorist in zoology to deny the separate exist- 
ence of birds or reptiles because each group is an element of the 
higher group of vertebrate animals, affirming that the category of the 
latter is the only existing one, or, in other words, that all vertebrate 
animals are alike. tgs 
But these blemishes scarcely impair the substantial value of the 
philosophical doctrine of the correlation of physical forces, though 


- 4 
a - 
? 


destined for a long period to come to influence beneficially the views 
and researches of philosophers; though it will lead, we think, tosome __ 
generalisations not contemplated by the author, and altogether sub- 
versive of his collateral views; establishing, on the- one hand, the ~ 
reality of the correlation of physical forces, but proving, on the other, 
the existence of discrete orders of matter, of which these forces are 
affections—‘ modes of motion’—some -of one, some of another order. 
Many, and perhaps all of the phenomena of nature however must — 
have, as it will also appear, a two-fold origio, being derived in part — 
from one or more of those modes of motion, and in part from the 
substantial properties of the moving medium, an explanation which — 
the phenomena of heat, for example, absolutely require, aud which is — 
already admitted with respect to those of light. if 
Mr. Grove’s professional engagements occasioned his retirement — 
from the London Institution in 1846; but he has by no means aban- 
doned research, and still less the administrative business of science ; 
taking a more or less active part in that of the Royal Society (of 4 
which he was elected a Fellow on the 26th of November 1840), the — 
Royal Institution, and the British Association. The new rules of — 
the Royal Society for the election of fellows, enacted in 1847, he was — 
the principal means of introducing, having virtually carried the 
measures of previous unsuccessful reformers, with modifications of his, 
own and of bis supporters. i 
The numerous papers in which he has made public the results of — 
his experimental researches, principally on electricity, will be found — 
chiefly in the ‘ Philosophical Magazine’ (from 1838 almost to the © 
present time), the ‘ Philosophical Transactions,’ and the recently-pub- — 
lished ‘ Proceedings’ of the Royal Institution. The powerful voltaic 
combination of four elements, which has been named after its dis- — 
coverer, consisting of plates of zinc and platinum, arranged in porous 
vessels, charged with the sulphuric and nitric acids, is described in the — 
‘Phil. Mag.,’ 8.3, vol. xv. (for October 1839), p. 257. The gas battery 
was first described in the same work, for December 1842, 5S. 3, vol. xxi, 
p. 417, and afterwards in a more extended paper communicated to the 
Royal Society in 1843. In a subsequent communication to the Royal 
Society, he described an experiment in which, by the intense heat of 
the voltaic discharge he effected the decomposition of water; a result 
however which some have thought may be due to the deoxidating 
properties of the voltaic light. However this may be, the experiment — 
is of great importance, not merely in chemistry, but in geology, because 
it shows, as Mr. Brayley has pointed out, that water, as such, cannot — 
exist at temperatures which, we have every reason to believe, occur at — 
certain depths within the earth, but must be resolved into hydrogen — 
and oxygen gases in a state of rigid-expansion, though under enormous — 
pressure, ; 
Mr. Grove received the Royal medal from the Royal Society, in 
1847, for his Bakerian Lecture, delivered before the Society, November ~ 
26, 1846, ‘On certain phenomena of Voltaic Ignition, and on the 
Decomposition of Water into its constituent gases by Heat. The © 
professional honour of being appointed Queen’s Counsel he received 
in 1853. a! 


HALDANE, ROBERT, son of Captain James Haldane of Glen- 
eagles, Perthshire, was born in London, February the 28th, 1764, He — 
was educated at the High-School of Edinburgh, and subsequen 
matriculated at Edinburgh University ; but in 1780 he abrup: 
quitted the University to enter the naval service on board the s 
Monarch, of which his uncle, Captain, afterwards Lord Duncan, 
commander, At the peace in 1783 he left the service and resumed 
studies at the university. During the summer vacations he tray: 
on the Continent. In 1785 he married Katherine Cochrane Oswald ¢ 
Scotstown, sister of R A. Oswald, afterwards M.P. for Ayrsh 


\ 


ates 


- 


1001 “HALDANE, JAMES ALEXANDER, 


In 1786 he settled at the family residence at Airthrey, near Stirling, 
and for several years paid assiduous attention to the improvement of 
his estates, his successful efforts in landscape gardening attracting par- 
ticular attention, and stimulating other landed proprietors to the 
adoption of similar plans. Robert Haldane, and his younger brother 
(Hatpang, James A.] were about the same period led to turn their 
thoughts to the paramount importance of personal religion, and the 
duty of diffusing the knowledge of it. The operations of the Seram- 
pore mission becomivg known to him, Robert determined to make an 
effort for the religious instruction of India, and sold the greater part 
of his estate for the purpose of obtaining funds. Permission could not 
be obtained however from the East India Company and the govern- 
ment, aud the scheme was necessarily abandoved. The brothers now 
turned their attention to the state of religion in Scotland, and origin- 
ated measures for the extension of religious instruction by means of 
itinerant preaching, Sabbath schools, tract distribution, &c. In these 
plans they had the co-operation of the celebrated Rowland Hill and 
the Rev. C. Simeon of Cambridge. On the Calton Hill at Edinburgh, 
Rowland Hill bad on some occasions a congregation of 20,000 
persons. These measures met with much opposition from the Estab- 
lished and Dissenting Churches in Scotland, but eventually.gissued in 


_. the formation of the Scottish Congregational Union, and likewise, in 


consequence of differences which arose, gave rise to the formation of 


_ Several Baptist churches in various parts of the country. Mr. 


Haldane likewise took an active part with Mr. Zachary Macaulay in a 
scheme which was set on foot for bringing over from Sierra Leone the 
children of African chiefs to be educated in this country.. ln 1809 
Mr. Haldane purchased the estate of Auchiogray in Lanarkshire, 
which was subsequently his principal place of residence. In 1816 he 
published a work on the ‘ Evidences and Authority of Divine Revela- 
tion,’ which passed through several editions. The winter of 1816-17 
was spent by him in Geneva, and the following two years at Montau- 
ban, the seat of the seminary for training French Protestant 
ministers. At these places, by his private meetings for exposition of the 
Scriptures, his conversation with ministers and students, by the publi- 
cation of tracts and treatises, and by judicious counsel and liberal pecu- 
niary aid, he originated that revival of religion which issued in the 
formation of the modern evangelical school of Geneva, and the exten- 
sion of Protestant Evangelism in various parts of France. The formation 
of the Continental Society, and similar religious associations on the 
Continent, the extensive employment of colporteurs, who in selling 
Bibles and other religious works have taken religious truth into almost 
every nook and corner of Continental countries, may all be traced 
more or less directly to Mr. Haldane’s operations in 1816.19. Among 
his pupils at Geneva were Gaussen, Merle D’Aubigne, Malan, Monod, 
and other names subsequently known for zealous and successful 
efforts in extending the new Reformation. After his return home 
Mr. Haldane continued to manifest a deep interest in various religious 
efforts at home and abroad. He took a decided stand in opposition to 
the circulation of the apocrypha under the sanction of the British and 
Foreign Bible Society. He died at Edinburgh on the 12th of December 
1842, and was buried within one of the aisles of the Cathedral church 


of Glasgow. He published a treatise on the Plenary Inspiration of 


the Scriptures, of which seven editions were published. His most 
important production was an ‘ Exposition of the Epistle to the Ro- 
mans,’ in 3 vols., of which also seven editions have appeared. 
HALDANE, JAMES ALEXANDER, son of Captain James Haldane 
of Gleneagles, was born at Dundee, on the 14th of July 1768, within a 
fortuight after his father’s death. In many respects his career was a 
counterpart of that of his elder brother Robert. In 1777 he accom- 
panied his brother to the High School of Edinburgh, and subsequently 
pursued his studies at the university. Declining a partnership which 
was offered him in connection with Messrs Coutts’s Bank, London, he 
entered in 1785 the Kast India Company’s naval service. In 1793 he 
obtained the command of the Melville Castle East Indiaman. In Sep- 
tember of that year he married the only daughter of Major Joass 
of Culleonard in the county of Banff. At the close of this year he 
succeeded by his courage and presence of mind in quelling a mutiny 
which broke out in a ship which lay near the Melville Castle, in 
Portsmouth Harbour, and which was beginning to assume an alarming 
appearance. His views on religious matters becoming more decided, 
he at length resolved on retiring from the sea. Early in 1794 he 
rejoined his wife in Scotland. Soon afterwards he took up his resi- 
dence in Edinburgh, and manifested a deep interest in various efforts 
for the religious instruction of the people. He took a leading part in 
the preaching tours which were undertaken through various parts of 
Scotland, in the establishment of Sunday schools, and other Christian 
efforts. In December 1797, the Society for Propagating the Gospel 
at Home was instituted. In February 1799 Mr. James Haldane be- 
came the first pastor of the Tabernacle or Circus Church. In May 
1801 the congregation removed toa new Tabernacle, built at the head 
of Leith Walk,at the entire cost of Mr. Robert Haldane, In 1808 
Mr. James Haldane having changed his views with respect to Infant 


Baptism, although he left the communion open to parties who 


might differ in their views of this question, many of the members of 
his church left Mr. Haldane continued minister here till his death, 
which took place on the 8th of February 1851. Mr. Haldane pub- 
lished numerous pamphlets on subjects which at the time excited 


HAMMER-PURGSTALL, BARON VON, 


attention in the religious world. Among his larger treatises may be 
named his works on ‘The Doctrine of the Atonement;’ ‘On Christian 
Union ;’ his ‘ Exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians; ’ and ‘ Views 
of Social Worship.’ Some of his pamphlets were directed against the 
opinions of the Irvingites. 

* HALEVY, FROMENTHAL, a French dramatic composer, was 
born about the year 1810. He was educated at the Conservatoire de 
Paris, when Cherubini was at its head, and was a special and favourite 
pupil of that illustrious musician. He is the author of a number of 
operas, particularly ‘Guido et Ginevra,’ ‘Les Mousquetaires de la 
Reine,’ ‘la Fée aux Roses,’ ‘Le Val d’Andorre, and some others, 
which do honour to the modern French school. In 1851 ‘ La Tem- 
pesta,’ an Italian opera, founded on Shakspere’s ‘Tempest,’ the poem 
by Scribe (originally written in French, and translated into Italian), 
and the music by Halévy, was produced at Her Majesty’s Theatre with 
no great success; for, although the music met with deserved admira- 
tion, yet the strange liberties taken by the Parisiau dramatist with 
ears text were by no means to the taste of the English 
public. 

HAMMER-PURGSTALL, JOSEPH, BARON VON, was born in 
1774 at Griitz in Styria, where his father held a respectable post under 
the Austrian government. He was educated at Vienna, and in 1788 
removed to the Oriental academy established by Prince Kaunitz, 
After having taken a part in the compilation of Meninski’s Arabian, 
Persian, and Turkish Lexicon, he was appointed in 1796 secretary to 
the Baron von Jenisch, the reporter to the Oriental section in the 
ministry for foreign affairs. While in this employment he translated 
a Turkish poem on the Last Judgment, and supplied several other 
poems to Wieland’s ‘Deutschen Mercur.’ In 1799 he was attached 
to the embassy of the learned Baron von Herbert at Constantinople, 
who sent him with one of the imperial consuls on an important 
errand to Egypt, where he procured for the imperial library some 
mummies of the ibis, hieroglyphic stones from the catacombs at 
Sakkara, several Arabiau manuscripts, and other rarities. As inter- 
preter and secretary he made the campaign in Egypt under Hutchin- 
son, Sir Sidney Smith, and Jussuf Pacha, against Menou, and in the 
autumn of 1801 proceeded by Malta and Gibraltar to England. After 
his return to Vienna in April 1802, he accompanied, in August, the 
Austrian ambassador, the Baron von Stiirmer, as secretary of legation 
to Constantinople. In 1806 he was appointed consular-agent in Mol- 
davia. In 1807 he returned to Vienna; in 1811 he was made a state 
counsellor, and appointed court and state interpreter; in 1817 pro- 
moted to be imperial privy counsellor; and in 1845 created a baron, 
after having succeeded to the estates of the Countess von Purgstall. 
In 1815 he had occupied himself earnestly in procuring the restoration 
of the Oriental manuscripts and other treasures which had been 
removed from the Vienna library to Paris by Denon, during the 
occupation of Vienna by the French in 1809. In 1847, continuing 
to be in the active service of the department of foreign affairs as 
counsellor extraordinary, he was chosen president of the newiy-insti- 
tuted academy, which he resigned, after holding the office for two 
years. His intervals of leisure from business were spent at his castle 
of Hainfeld in Styria, where he laboured on his very numerous lite- 
rary works, and where he died on November 21,1856. His works are 
extremely numerous, and those of a historical character highly 
valuable. His publications of Turkish, Arabian, and Persian poems 
are in many instances interesting to the general reader, but his philo- 
logical knowledge was not sufficiently exact to enable him to render 
them satisfactory to the student. Among the more noticeable of his 
historical works are ‘The Trumpet of the Holy War,’ 1806; ‘The 
Constitution and Government of the Ottoman State,’ 1816; ‘ Glances 
upon a Journey in 1804 from Constantinople to Broussa and Olympus, 
and thence back by Nicaea and Nicomedia, 1818: ‘ History of the 
Assassins, from Eastern Sources,’ 1818, a work which has been trans- 
lated into English by Mr. Wood; ‘ Constantinople and the Bosphorus, 
topographically and historically described,’ 1821; ‘Codices arab., pers., 
turk., bibliothecze caes.,’ 1822; ‘ History of the Ottoman Empire,’ in 
ten volumes, 1827-1834, an excellent work, of which several editions 
have been published ; ‘The Government under the Khalifats,’ 1835 ; 
‘Picture Gallery of the great Mussulman Commanders, with Memoirs,’ 
in six volumes, 1837-39 ; ‘History of the Golden Horde of Kiptschak, 
that is, of the Mongols in Russia,’ 1840; ‘ History of the [khane, that 
is, of the Mongols in Persia,’ 1842-44; all these contain a vast collee- 
tion of materials relating to the history and present state of the East. 
Of his other productions we may mention, ‘Schirin,’ a Persian poem, 
1800; his translation of the ‘Divan’ of Hafiz, from the Persian, 1813 ; 
his ‘History of the Literature of Persia, with specimens from 700 
poets, 1818; ‘The Eastern Trefoil,’ from Persian, Arabian, and 
Turkish sources, 1818; ‘The String of Jewels,’ from Abul-Maanis, 
1823; a translation of the Arabian lyrical poet Motenebbi, 1823; a 
translation from the Turkish of the lyrical poems of Baki, 1825; a 
‘History of Turkish Poetry, with selections from 2200 poets; Fasli’s 
allegorical Turkish Epic of the Rose and Nightingale, 1834; Samas- 
chari’s Arabian poem of the ‘Golden Necklace, 1835; Mahmud 
Schebisterei’s didactic poem on Suffism, entitled ‘The Rose-bloom of 
Secrets,’ 1838; ‘The Falconer,’ an old Turkish didactic poem on 
falconry, 1840; and a ‘ History of Arabian Literature,’ in three vols. 
1850-52. He has also written a volume ‘Memnon’s Drieklang’ 


1003 HAVELOCK, MAJOR-GENERAL SIR HENRY. 


HENFREY, ARTHUR. 1004 


(Memnon’s Triad), containing an Indian pastoral, a Persian opera, and 
a Turkish comedy. For his translation of the ‘Contemplations of 
Marcus Aurelius’ into Persian, published in 1831, he was rewarded 
by the Shah with the order of the Sun and Lion. In 1810 he estab- 
lished a periodical work, ‘ Mines of the Orient,’ to which he con- 
tributed much, and in which he was assisted by Count Wenzel 
Rzewuski, which was continued till 1819; and he was a frequent 
contributor to the ‘ Jahrbiichern fiir Literatur’ (Year-books for Litera- 
ture), and to other periodical works. 

* HAVELOCK, MAJOR-GENERAL, SIR HENRY, K.C.B., was 
born in 1795 at Bishopwearmouth, near Sunderland, at which latter 
town his father carried on an extensive business as a ship-builder and 
merchant, Hia father having retired from business, and purchased 
Ingress Park, Dartford, Kent, young Havelock was placed in the 
Charterhouse school, where he distinguished himself by his application 
and success, and where he had for contemporaries the Greek historians, 
Thirlwall and Grote, Archdeacon Hare, Sir Charles Eastlake, and 
several others who have attained eminence in various walks of life. 
The bar being the profession selected for him, he in 1813 was entered 
of the Middle Temple, and attended the lectures of Chitty. His own 
inclination was however for a military life. His elder brother William 
was in the army, and had attracted favourable official notice by his 
gallant conduct on more than one occasion in the Peninsula—honour- 
able testimony is borne to his merits in Napier’s ‘ History of the 
Peninsular War’—and through him Henry applied for a commission. 
In July 1815 he was made second lieutenant in the Rifle Brigade, and 
he served with his regiment in England till 1823, when having ex- 
changed into the 13th Light Infantry, he embarked for India, and 
from this time his career of active duty may be dated, he being 
engaged in almost every subsequent Indian campaign. The Birmese 
having made various inroads upon the British territory, and collected 
large armies with the avowed determination of driving the English out 
of Bengal, Lord Amherst in March 1824 issued a formal declaration 
of war against the king of Ava, Havelock was appointed Deputy- 
Assistant-Adjutant-General, and in that capacity took part in the 
chief operations of the war. When the court of Ava was constrained to 
sue for peace, Havelock was named one of a commission to obtain the 
royal signature to the treaty which was concluded in February 1826. 

Lord Combermere having formed a military depét at Chinsurah, 
Havelock was appointed adjutant of it in 1827. About this time he 
married the daughter of Dr. Marshman [MarsuMan, JosHua] the 
learned Baptist missionary at Serampore, with whose theological 
opinions his in a great measure coincided: and it is noteworthy, as an 
illustration of the extent to which deference to Hindoo notions has 
been carried in India, that it was long after made a matter of scrious 
complaint against Havelock that he was accustomed to hold meetings 
in his quarters for religious worship, and the charge was gravely 
investigated by the higher authorities. On the breaking up of the 
Chinsurah dep6t Havelock returned for awhile to his regiment; after- 
wards proceeded to Calcutta, passed an examination in the native 
languages, and was appointed regimental adjutant. On the breaking 
out of the first Afghan war in 1838, Captain Havelock (for he had in 
this year, after twenty-three years’ service, been promoted to a 
company), was placed on the staff of Sir Willoughby Cotton, and 
accompanied the army throughout the campaign, being present at the 
storming of Ghuznee, the capture of Cabul, &c. He published an 
account of this campaign, ‘A Narrative of the War in Afghanistan in 
1838, 1839,’ 2 vols. 8vo, Lond., 1840. 

Captain Havelock was now sent to the Punjab with a detachment, 
and placed as Persian interpreter on the staff of Major-General Elphin- 
stone. On the recurrence of difficulties in Afghanistan in 1841, he 
joined the force of General Sale, and shared in the desperate fighting 
through the Khoord Cabul pass and the difficult country beyond it to 
Jellalabad ; in the protracted and noble defence of which fortress, as 
well as in the final defeat of Akbar Khan in the open field, April 7, 
1842, the name of Havelock was one of the most distinguished, and he 
received the well merited reward of a brevet majority and the com- 
panionship of the Bath. As Persian interpreter he accompanied 
General Pollock in his march, and took part in the several encounters 
in which the army engaged. In 1843 he was appointed Persian inter- 
preter on the staff of General Sir Hugh (now Viscount) Gough, and 
fought in the battle of Maharajpoor in which the Mahrattas, 18,000 
strong, were defeated with a loss of about 3,400 men. In 1844 he was 
made lieutenant-colonel by brevet. The following year was marked by 
the commencement of the Sikh war. He was present at the battles of 
Moodkee, December 18, 1845 (where two horses were killed under 
him), Ferozeshah, December 21, 22, and Sobraon (where he lost 
another horse) February 10, 1846. When peace was restored he 
was appointed Deputy-Adjutant-General of the Queen’s troops, at 
Bombay. In 1849 he came to England on leave of absence for two 
years on account of ill-health. On his return to India, Lord Hardinge, 
who had witnessed his gallantry and skill in the Sutlej, made him first 
Quarter-Master-General, and then Adjutant-General of the Queen’s 
troops in India. 

When the Indian government declared war against Persia, Colonel 
Havelock was despatched with the expeditionary force under General 
Sir James Outram, as chief of the staff, and took part in the 
brilliant affair of Bushire, and was present at the capture of Moham- 


merah. The war ended, he embarked in the Erin for Calcutta, with 
the gallant 78th. The vessel was wrecked, April 1857, off Ceylon; 
but happily Havelock and his brave comrades were spared to do 
memorable service in the rescue of their countrymen and country- 
women subjected to far more fearful peril than that of shipwreck, and 
in inflicting retribution on their brutal assailants, rp lay > 
Immediately on reaching Calcutta he was despatched with therank _ 
of Brigadier-General to Allahabad. He left that city on the 8th of 
July at the head of a column of little over 2000 Europeans and Sikhs 
in the hope of relieving the garrison and residents shut up in Cawn- 
pore. He had to force his way against terrible odds, but he made 
good his ground, and on the 16th of July he defeated Nana Sahib at — 
the head of some 13,000 mutinous sepoys—his own foree being 
1,300 Europeans and about 700 Sikhs. On the 17th he entered Cawn- _ 
pore, too late notwithstanding all that he and his noble army had 
done to save their unhappy countrymen, yet he had in the last 
eight days marched 126 miles, and won four actions against over-— 
whelming odds. Hardly waiting to give rest to his men or to pay 
the last rites of sepulture to the mangled corpses of those who had 
been foully murdered in Cawnpore, Havelock prepared to push 
on for Lucknow. On the 19th of July he again inflicted a severe 
defeat on the mutineers, and finding that Nana Sahib had eva- 
cuated his stronghold of Bithoor, renewed his march. But he had 
to fight at every step, stout fortresses had to be captured, and at 
length after on the 16th of August achieving his ninth victory over 
six times his own numbers, he found his men so reduced by death, 
wounds, and sickness as to render it imperative on him, after almost 
coming within sight of the besieged citadel to fall back upon Cawnpore 
—-not however without being able to communicate cheering words to 
the besieged. Being strengthened by the arrival of General Niell 
with a small additional force, and joined by his old commander, 
General Sir James Outram, Havelock at the head of 2,800 men crossed 
the Ganges from Cawnpore on the 19th of September. SirJames 
Outram—one of the best and bravest of the many officers who bave 
achieved eminence in India—would of course, as the superior in rank, 
in the usual order of things supersede Havelock as commander, but 
with the genuine chivalry of a true-hearted soldier, he in an order of © 
the day announced to the army that “‘in gratitude for andadmiration 
of the brilliant deeds in arms achieved by General Havelock and his — 
gallant troops,” he would “ cheerfully waive his rank on the oceasion, — 
agd accompany the force to Lucknow in his civil capacity as ~ 
commissioner of Oude, tendering his military services to a 
Havelock as a volunteer.” On the 21st of September the fortified - 
position at Meengarsour was forced; on the 25th Lucknow was reached, 
and the garrison, which had been blockaded for nearly four months, ¥ 
relieved, just as it had been mined and was ready to be blown up by 
the besiegers. The following day the intrenchments of the 
were stormed, though with great loss, including that of the gallant — 
General Neill, aud expelled from a large part of the city, thoughinand 
about it 50,000 of the enemy are said to have been posted. Acco a, 
to the latest intelligence, Havelock, with Sir James Outram, who was — 
wounded, was shut.up in Lucknow; but Sir Colin Campbell, at the — 
head of a large body of troops, was rapidly advancing to his relief. = 
We need hardly add that the splendid march of Havelock on 
Cawnpore and the relief of Lucknow have not merely rendered him 
the popular hero of the Indian war, but added new glories to the — 
British arms. As a reward for his eminent services he was created 
(Sept. 1857) a Major-General in the army, his promotion bearing a 
July 30, 1857, made a baronet, and raised to be a knight-commander — 
of the Bath; and, in accordance with a royal message to both houses 
of parliament, voted a pension of 10000. a year for life, but which, itis” 
officially announced, will be continued to his son. (We are indebted for 
some of the facts of his early career to the ‘ London Illustrated News” 
for September 12, 1857.) 199 9 
*HENFREY, ARTHUR, a distinguished botanist. He was edu- 
cated for the medical profession, and studied at St. Bartholomew's’ 
Hospital in London. Ill health, and a taste for botanical pursuits, led — 
him to abandon his profession and devote himself to scientific stu- 
dies. One of his earliest scientific labours was a work on ‘Anatomical — 
Manipulation ; or the methods of pursuing practical investigations in 
Comparative Anatomy and Physiology,’ in preparing which he was — 
assisted by Mr. Tulk. This work appeared in 1844, About this time — 
he was appointed botanist to the Geological Survey of the United King- 
dom, but he only retained this position a short time. He afterwards 
became lecturer on botany at the Middlesex Hospital School of Medicine, 
and also at the St. George’s Hospital School of Medicine. In 1847 
published his ‘ Outlines of Structural and Physiological Botany.’ T! 
work was a condensed view of the state of botanical science at # 
time it was written, and contained a large number of plates from the 
author's own drawings. He subsequently published a smaller we 
intended as an elementary introduction to botanical science, enti 
‘The Rudiments of Botany.’ In 1852 he published a condensed 
of the botany of Europe, entitled ‘The Vegetation of Europe: 
conditions and causes,’ His last original work was published 
1857, with the title,‘ An Elementary Course of Botany—Structu 
Physiological, and Systematic ; with a brief outline of the Geogra; 
and Geological Distribution of Plants.’ This work is one of 
labour, research, and judgment, and justly places Mr, Henfrey a 


1005 HENSLOW, REV, JOHN STEVENS, M.A. 


HULLAH, JOHN. 1006 


the most distinguished botanists of the day. Mr. Henfrey’s papers on 
particular departments of botany are numerous. He has been a 
frequent contributor to the ‘Annals and Magazine of Natural ‘History.’ 
He edited for some time the ‘ Botanical Gazette,’ In the ‘ Transactions 
of the British Association’ for 1851 he published a report ‘On the 
Reproduction and Supposed Existence of Sexual Organs in the Higher 
Cryptogamous Plants.” In conjunction with Dr. Griffiths, he was the 
author of the ‘ Micrographic Dictionary,’ and wrote all the articles in 
that work devoted to vegetable physiology. This work appeared in 
parts, and was completed in 1857. 

Whilst constantly engaged in the production of original works, Mr. 
-Henfrey has been a laborious translator from the German. In 1849 
_ he translated a volume of Reports and Papers on Botany for the Ray 
Society, and in 1852 Alexander Braun’s ‘ Rejuvenescence in Nature’ for 
the same society. In 1848 he translated Schleiden’s ‘ Plant, a Bio- 
apby,’ and in 1852 Professor Schouw’s ‘Earth, Plants, and Man,’ 
e also constructed the maps and wrote the letterpress on the 
geographical distribution of Plants in Johnston’s Physical Atlas. 

On the resignation of Professor E. Forbes, Mr. Henfrey was 
appointed professor of botany at King’s College in 1854. He also 
holds the appointments of examiner in natural science to the Royal 
Military Academy, and to the Society of Arts. He is a Fellow of the 
Royal and Linnean societies, 

HENSLOW, REV. JOHN STEVENS, M.A., Professor of Botany 
in the University of Cambridge, was educated for the clerical pro- 
fession in the University of Cambridge, and was a student of St. John’s 
College : he graduated B.A. in 1818. He took holy orders, and, after 
officiating in the West of England, he was presented to the rectory 
of Hitcham in 1837, in which parish he still resides, He was appointed 
Professor of Mineralogy in the University of Cambridge in 1822, but 
resigned it in 1828: he was appointed to the chair of Botany 
in 1825. Although known as a botanist Professor Henslow has 
devoted himself very successfully to the observation of facts through- 
out the whole field of natural history science. One of his earliest 
scientific papers was on the subject of ‘The Deluge,’ and was pub- 
lished in the ‘Annals of Philosophy’ for 1824. In the first volume 
of the ‘ Transactions’ of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, he 
published a geological description of Anglesea, He also published a 
paper in 1823 in the ‘ Transactions’ of the Geological Society, entitled 
‘Supplementary Observations to Dr. Berger's account, of the Isle of 
Man. His name is also indissolubly connected with the discovery of 
the so-called coprolites of the Red Crag on the Suffolk coast. Pro- 
fessor Henslow had often observed peculiar nodules amongst the red 
crag deposits of Suffolk, and having sent them to a chemical friend in 
London, it turned out that they possessed from 60 to 90 per cent of 
phosphate of lime. ([PuHospHatitz, Nat. Hist. Diy., Ena. Cyo.] 
Although at first Professor Henslow was inclined to regard these 
bodies as true coprolites, there is good reason to believe that they 
are not coprolitic in their origin at all. His papers on the subject of 
this discovery are as follows :—‘ On Nodules apparently Coprolitic, 
from the Red Crag, London Flag, and Green Sand,’ published in 
the ‘Reports’ of the British Association for 1845; a second paper 
also appeared in the same Transactions in 1847, entitled ‘On 
Detritus derived from the London Clay and deposited in the Red 
Crag ;’ in the first volume of the ‘Journal of the Geological Society,’ 
*On Concretions of the Red Crag at Felixstow, Suffolk;’ in the 
‘Gardeners’ Chronicle’ for 1848, ‘On Fossil Phosphates,’ and in the 
game journal in 1857, ‘On the Phosphate nodules of Felixstow in 
Suffolk.’ 

Professor Henslow’s papers and publications on the subject of botany 
have not been numerous, but most of them are of great value. One of 
the most valuable manuals in the English language at the time of its 
publication was his ‘Principles of Descriptive and Physiological 
Botany,’ in ‘ Lardner’s Cabinet Cyclopedia.’ This work was published 
in the year 1835. He also published in the same year a catalogue of 
British plants. His other botanical papers are scattered amongst the 
transactions of learned societies and the natural history journals. He has 
given much attention to the application of the principles of botany to 
agriculture and gardening. He has also introduced the study of botany 
with great success into the village school of Hitcham. The manage- 
ment of this school, and the success of a village horticulturist society 
under his management, have occasionally drawn towards the village 
of Hitcham a large share of attention, and perhaps there are few 
parishes in the kingdom in which the influence of the special intellec- 
tual character of the clergyman has been so largely and beneficially felt. 

The county of Suffolk has always found in Professor Henslow a 
firm friend of the advancement and diffusion of natural knowledge. 
He was one of the earliest of the friends of the movement which 
resulted in the establishment of the Museum of Natural History at 
Ipswich, and on the death of the Rev. W. Kirby, the first president 
of that institution, he was unanimously chosen to succeed him, The 
arrangements of this museum have been made entirely under the 
direction of Professor Henslow, The excellent way in which typical 
objects are presented for instructing in the great branches of natural 
history, has been carried out at his suggestion, and gives to this 
museum a special educational character. Professor Henslow’s lectures 
for popular instruction delivered at this institution, have been quite 
models of the way in which information on natural history subjects 


‘England in 1819 with a large collection of plants and animals. 


should be conveyed. Of the manner in which such information may 
benefit the farmer, Professor Henslow has given indications in his 
papers on Smut and Brand, and on the Wheat Midge in the ‘Journal 
of the Royal Agricultural Society of England.’ 

In the University of Cambridge Professor Henslow has ever been the 
advocate of progress. To his efforts, aided by those of others, may be 
attributed the establishment of the Natural History Tripos in 1848, 
This instalment of reform serves to some extent to do away with the 
anomaly of professors with chairs, on whose lectures no attendance 
is required of the pupil, and no knowledge of the subject in his exami- 
nation. Professor Henslow is a member of the Senate of the Univer- 
sity of London, and examiner in the science of botany ; he is also a 
fellow of the Linnzan Society and of the Cambridge Philosophical 
Society. - 

*HERAPATH, WILLIAM, a distinguished living chemist, was 
born on the 26th of May 1796, at Bristol, where his father was a malt- 
ster and brewer. When very young he manifested a taste for science, 
and was known in his family as ‘ the little philosopher. He received 
his early education at a school in Bristol kept by Mr. Pocock, who is 
known from his having patented a kite-carriage, of which nothing 
was heard after the invention of railways. Young Herapath on 
leaving school was first placed with his father, but afterwards in a™ 
banking-house. His father was however killed by an accident, and he 
was called at an early age to conduct his father’s business. He now 
devoted his leisure to the study of chemistry, and obtained so great a 
reputation for his skill that he began to be consulted as a professional 
chemist. His first paper on chemical subjects was one in the Philo- 
sophical Magazine ‘On the Specitic Gravity of the Metallic Oxides. 
He was one of the first British chemists who detected cadmium in the 
ores of this country. His reputation as a chemist increasing, he aban- 
doned his malting in 1830, and devoted himself entirely to chemistry. 
He now took up the subject of toxicology, and having been successful 
in the demonstration of the existence of poison in a body that had 
been interred upwards of fourteen months, his reputation as a toxi- 
cologist became established. Since that time he has been employed 
very extensively on trials where the lives of human beings are 
dependent on the chemical evidence of guilt. 

Mr. Herapath was one of the founders of the Bristol Medical School, 
in which he was the first teacher of chemistry, a position which he 
atill occupies, and few provincial medical schools can boast of more 
efficient chemical teaching. 

Mr. Herapath is well known in Bristol for his liberal politics. He 
was President of the Bristol Political Union previous to and at the 
passing of the Reform Bill. On the passing of the Municipal Reform 
Bill he was placed on the town council, and subsequently placed on 
the bench of magistrates, and made a charity trustee. He is a capital 
instance of the energy and capabilities of the middle classes of this 
country, having by his unaided efforts obtained a foremost position as 
a man of science and a citizen. 

*HORSFIELD, THOMAS, M.D., a distinguished traveller and natu- 
ralist. He went out to Java in 1802, and after having thoroughly 
investigated the natural history of that country, he returned to 
His 
herbarium of plants, which consisted of upwards of two thousand 
specimens, he committed to the care of Mr. Robert Brown, of the 
British Museum. In the meantime he devoted himself to the descrip- 
tion of the animals, more especially mammalia and birds, which he 
had brought from Java, and whose habits and localities he had aceu- 
rately observed. The result of these labours was the publication in 
parts, commencing in 1821 and terminating in 1824, of a quarto 
volume containing coloured illustrations, entitled ‘Zoological Re- 
searches in Java and the neighbouring Islands.’ Some time after the 
publication of this work, descriptions and figures of the plants collected 
by Dr. Horsfield were published with the title ‘Plante Javanice 
rariores descripte iconibusque illustrate, quas in insula Java, annis 
1802-1817, legit et investigavit, Thom. Horsfield,’ &c. This work is 
one of the most valuable contributions to the exotic flora of the world 
that has hitherto been published in this country, In the latter part 
of the work Mr. Robert Brown was assisted by Mr. J. J. Bennett. 

Dr. Horsfield first went to Java under the auspices of the Dutch Colo- 
nial Government. He remained in that country during its temporary 
occupation by the East India Company from 1811 to 1817, and was 
greatly assisted in his labours by this body. Dr. Horsfield now holds 
the position of superintendent of the natural history collections of the 
East India Company in London. This has given him considerable oppor- 
tunities of exercising his great zoological knowledge, and he has contri- 
buted a large number of papers to the ‘ Transactions’ of the Linnean 
and Zoological Societies. He is now engaged in publishing a Catalogue 
of the collections of the East India Company. In 1828 he published 
a ‘ Catalogue of the Lepidopterous Insects contained in the Museum 
of the Hon. East India Company.’ In 1852 he published a ‘ Catalogue 
of the Birds in the Museum of the Hon. East India Company.’ 

Dr. Horsfield was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1828, and 
he is one of the Vice-Presidents of the Linnean Society. 

* HULLAH, JOHN, an eminent composer and popular musical in- 
structor, was born in 1812, at Worcester, but his life, since childhood, 
has been spent in London, His early musical education was slight and 
desultory; it was not till he was seventeen that he received regular 


1007 


JULIEN, STANISLAS-AIGNAN. 


1008 


years ; aud he then entered the Royal Academy of Music. In 1836 he 
first became known to the public as a composer, by writing, in con- 
junction with Mr. Charles Dickens, the comic opera of ‘The Village 
Coquettes,’ which was produced at the St. James’s Theatre then under 
the management of Mr. Braham, and performed more than fifty times 
during the season. In 1837 and 1838 he produced two other operas, 
‘The Barbers of Bassora’ (written by Morton), and ‘The Outpost’ 
(written by Serle); both at Covent Garden, then under the manage- 
ment of Mr. Macready. Both were favourably received; but the run 
of the last was cut short by the appearance in it of a principal per- 
former (whose name it is not necessary to mention) in a state of such 
intoxication that he was hissed off the stage. At this time Mr. Hullah’s 
attention was turned from dramatic music to the pursuit in which he 
has so highly distinguished himself. He was led to contemplate the 
formation of popular singing classes, similar to those established in 
Paris: and, after several visits to that city for the purpose of ex- 
amining and adapting to English use the celebrated system of Wilhem, 
he set on foot in 1840, and under the sanction. of the Committee of 
Council on Education, schools in London founded on the principles 
of that system. The rapid growth of those schools, their diffusion 
into every part of the United Kingdom, and their immense influence 
in spreading the love and knowledge of vocal music throughout the 
population of this country, are well known to the public. It is 
proper to mention that, though Mr. Hullah in the establishment of 
his schools, received great assistance from individuals holding high 
official positions in connexion with the Committee of the Privy Council, 
the government has never contributed any pecuniary aid to their 
support ; their expenses having been defrayed, partly from small 
payments made by the pupils themselves, partly by a subscription 
raised at the outset among a few distinguished friends of elementary 
education. The schools were at first held at Exeter Hall; but the 
heavy rent and other expenses having rendered it necessary to resort to 
a smaller and less convenient locality, Mr. Hullah conceived the design 
of erecting a building for the special accommodation of his classes. 
To this design we owe St. Martin’s Hall in Long-acre, a spacious, 
handsome, and useful edifice, erected and fitted up by Mr. Hullah 
entirely by his own exertions and from his own resources, The 
foundation-stone of the building was laid in June 1847, and the 
whole was completed in December 1853. Since that time, public 
concerts, chiefly of great choral works, have been given there without 
interruption at the rate of about twelve yearly; the instrumental 
orchestra consisting of professional performers, and the chorus ex- 
clusively of amateurs all his own pupils. These concerts are of the 
highest order, and warmly supported by the public. Since the year 
1841, Mr. Hullah has every year opened classes for instruction in 
vocal music. A few weeks ago (in November 1857) he opened his 
167th class. At an average of sixty (which is below the mark), this 
makes upwards of 10,000 persons taught in these schools alone. But 
all these form a mere fraction, compared with the numbers taught in 
schools, great and small, throughout the United Kingdom and the 
colonies, the statistics of which it would be impossible to collect. Tn 
fine, it may be safely affirmed that no individual has ever contributed 
so largely as Mr, Hullah has done, towards the diffusion of a taste for, 
and knowledge of Music, in its most wholesome form, among the 
people of this country, wis : 

* HUXLEY, THOMAS HENRY, a distinguished naturalist, was 
educated for the medical profession at one of the London hospitals, 
but his taste leading him to the study of natural history, he became 
an assistant surgeon in the Royal Navy, and sailed in the Rattle- 
snake with Captain Stanley. This expedition visited the coasts 
of Australia, and after having been out between two and three years 
returned to England. During the time of his absence from England, 
Mr. Huxley sent several communications on the natural history of the 
seas in which he was sailing, more particularly on the structure of 
the various forms of jelly fishes, to the Linnean Society. On his 
return, he more fully elaborated his researches on this remarkable 
family of animals, and communicated a paper to the Royal Society, 
entitled ‘On the Anatomy and the Affinities of the Family of the 
Meduse.’ This was published in the Philosophical Transactions in 
1849. These papers contain however only a part of the materials 
collected by this industrious observer, and he has now (1857) a large 
work with illustrations ready for the press, entitled ‘A History of the 
Oceanic Hydrozoa.’ His researches upon the Meduse have tended to 
throw much light on the structure of those least known to British 
observers, and have confirmed the views of those systematic writers 
who had previously regarded these animals as closely allied to the 
great family of polypes, amongst the Radiate class of animals. 

Mr, Huxley has also successfully investigated the great family of 
Mollusca, and in a paper, also published in the‘ Philosophical Trans- 
actions, on the ‘Common Plan, or Archetype of the Mollusca,’ he 
showed that as the avnulose and vertebrate animals had a common 
type or plan, so also had the Mollusca, His views on this subject 
were subsequently developed in a more popular form, in the article 
*Mo.tusca,’ published in the Natural History Division of this Cyclo- 
pedia. Besides these papers, he has published several on various 
departments of Zoology and Comparative Anatomy in the ‘ Annals 
and Magazine of Natural History,’ and in the ‘Quarterly Journal of 


instructions ‘from Mr. Horsley, whose pupil he remained for three 


Microscopical Science.’ On the resignation of Professor Edward 
Forbes, Mr. Huxley was appointed Professor of Paleontologyin the 
Government School of Miues. In connection with this chair Professor 
Huxley delivers every year a course of lectures on General Natural 
History : one of these series isin the course of being reported in the __ 
‘Medical Times and Gazette.’ They were commenced on the 3rd of 
May 1856, and had extended to about twelve lectures at the end 
of 1857. The lectures, as far as they have gone, have done much to 
enhance Mr. Huxley’s reputation as a comparative anatomist, He has 
delivered severs] evening lectures at the Royal Institution of Great 
Britain, and is at the present time Fullerian professor of Physiology 
in that institution. He is a Fellow of the Royal and Linngwan — 
Societies. ie 


* JULIEN, STANISLAS-AIGNAN, a Chinese scholar of the highest 
eminence, was born at Orleans on the 21st of September 1799, the son 
of Noel Julien a noted mechanician. of that city. He was singularly 
unfortunate in his earlier years, at the age of four he lost his father, — 
and the re-marriage of his mother gave him a step-father, who set his 
face so decidedly against the boy’s receiving a superior education that 
it was only by stealth that, with his mother’s connivance, he obtained — 
some lessons in Latin. On the death of the step-father he was sent to __ 
the college of Orleans, but the death of his mother threw him into 
the hands of a guardian, who determined, in spite of his inclinations, — 
to make him an ecclesiastic, and sent him to the ‘seminary;’ a pla 
of education for young priests. At this time he had a strong desire to 
become acquainted with Greek, and as that language did not enter 
into the plan of studies at the seminary, he learned it by stealth, by — 
himself ; but on its being discovered that he had done so, his extra- — 
ordinary application extorted the approval of his superiors, and he was 
even appointed to teach Greek to the other scholars. He then taught — 
himself to read English, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and German, — 
He had made up his mind to emigrate to Camden, in South Carolina, 
where an elder brother had succeeded in establishing a manufactory of — 
fire-arms, when news of the death of his brother arrived and retained | 
him in France. In 1821 he went to Paris, with the ambition of dis- — 
tinguishing bimself as a Grecian, and prepared an edition of Coluthue’s — 
poem of the ‘Rape of Helen,’ to effect the publication of which, he had 
to sell the last house that remained to him of his patrimony at — 
Orleans, A young Scotchman, named John Watson, with whom he 
became acquainted at Paris, inspired him with a passion for the 
Oriental languages, and fortunately introduced him to the patronage of — 
Sir William Drummond, the author of ‘ Origines,’ who supplied him — 
with sufficient funds to enable him to devote himself for a short time — 
to the study of Chinese. jg 

The study of that language was then in a transition state. From 
the time of Louis XIV., the French had decidedly taken the lead 
introducing a knowledge of Chinese history, science, and literature — 
into Europe, but the numerous works of value on the subject which — 
their missionaries had given to the world in the course of the 18th 
century, were rather calculated to convey a knowledge of results, to 
be received on the credit of the writers, than to enable others to test 
those results and to pursue researches. They had published many — 
volumes of memoirs and dissertations, but no dictionary, and the — 
grammar of Fourmont was an imposture. The dictionary of Father 
Basil of Glemona, which was issued at the expense of Napoleon L, in — 
the early part of the present century was eclipsed and effaced by the — 
far superior work of the English missionary, Dr. Morrison, which still — 
remains the leading Chinese dictionary for all Europe, About the same 
time a few close translations by English missionaries, which showed © 
that their French predecessors had taken extensive liberties with the — 
originals, roused a general anticipation that for the future the French — 
would have not only rivals, but superiors in the field which had — 
hitherto been their own. = 

These anticipations were not destined to be fulfilled, at least in the 
earlier half of the 19th century. The establishment of an endowed — 
Professorship of Chinese at the College of France in 1815, on the — 
recommendation of Silvestre de Sacy, proved in its results a very 
important step. The first professor, Abel Rémusat, had just issued a 
Chinese grammar of singular and sterling merit at the time that 
Julien began to attend his lectures. Julien was from the first so capti- — 
vated with Chinese, that he at once gave his whole time and attention to 
the study, and his progress was marvellous. In the second month he 
commenced a translation of the last of the ‘Four Books,’ which may be | 
called the leading sacred classics of China—a work recording the con- — 
versations of Mang Tsze, or Mencius, the philosopher highest in reputa- 
tion among his countrymen after Confucius. Six months afterwards he 
presented the work complete to the Asiatic Society of Paris, which» 
resolved on printing it at its expense, and‘at the same time, the Coun 
de Lasteyrie offered to lithograph the original, which was published 
conjunction. The book thus commenced in 1824, was comple 
1830, and is one of the most valuable aids that can be placed in t 
hands of a student of Chinese. The previous translation of Menci 
Father Noel is so vague that it affords searcély any assistance tow 
reading the original; in that of Julien every word of Chinese is rig 
rendered into Latin, a perpetual commentary is added, drawn 
Chinese sources, and copious notes are inserted for the explanation 


ount 


1009 JULIEN, STANISLAS-AIGNAN, 


LIVINGSTONE, DAVID, LL.D., D.C.L. 1010 


difficulties in construction. Though, as might be expected, the author 
has committed some errors in this first production, which he has since 
acknowledged, it is, taken on the whole, one of the most wonderful 
achievements in the annals of scholarship. It is scarcely less wonderful 
that the ardour of which it was a proof, appears scarcely to have 
slackened for the following three-and-thirty years, From the date of 
the publication of ‘Mencius’ to the present year, a third of a century, 
M. Julien may be safely said to have passed “no day without a line” 
of Chinese. Though the aid of Sir William Drummond soon ceased, 
his talents found other patronage. His future was secured by his 
_ appointment to the sub-librarianship of the Institute, and some years 
after he was named one of the conservators of the manuscripts in the 


- royal, now imperial library, by which the Chinese books, which in 


that library are, though printed, technically regarded as manu- 
seripts, were placed under his management. ‘The collection, which 
at his nomination comprised about twelve thousand volumes, has 
considerably increased under his superintendence. In 1832, on the 
death of Rémusat, he was unanimously recommended to the vacant 
Professorship of Chinese at the College of France, and ‘it is generally 
acknowledged, that ifin literary and philosophical talent, he does not 
equal his brilliant predecessor, who adorned whatever he touched, yet 
he may be considered even a profounder scholar and a safer guide 
through the intricacies of Chinese. Among his own pupils are eminent 
-names: Theodore Pavie, the traveller in America and Asia, and 
translator from Chinese and Sanscrit; Biot, the younger, son of the 
_ astronomer, whose early death was a great loss to both literature and 
science ; and Bazin, now professor of modern Chinése, who has always 
given his chief attention to that form of the language. These pupils, 
in conjunction with their teacher, have for many years past restored to 
France the supremacy in Chinese literature, which she once seemed 
likely to lose. In England, it is almost impossible to pass a grocer’s 
shop without seeing a Chinese inscription; in the streets of the metro- 
polis Chinese passengers and Chinese beggars are of daily occurrence ; 
hundreds of thousands of Chinese emigrants live under the British 
flag; our transactions, both of war and peace, with the population 
of from three to four hundred millions which uses the Chinese 
character, are of the most important kind; but the study of that 
language seems to be still regarded as an object of no interest, except 
to a few missionaries, and the cultivation of its literature is left in 
London to the care of one professor, with a salary of, we believe, 
twenty pounds a year. 

M. Julien’s publications, which are numerous, all bear on the subject 
of his favourite language, with the exception of a few translations from 
modern Greek, and one from English, of the new system of teaching 
writing introduced by Carstairs, of which he is a warm advocate. He 
has translated two Chinese plays, the ‘ Hwuy-lan-ke,’ or ‘ Circle of 
Chalk,’ of which the original was lithographed in the ‘ Chrestomathic 
Chinoise,’ published by the Asiatic Society of Paris, and the ‘ Chaou- 
che-koo-urh,’ or ‘Orphan of the House of Chaou,’ a previous translation 
of which by Father Prémare was the foundation of a tragedy by 
Voltaire, which, rendered into English by Murphy, under the title of 
‘The Orphan of China,’ presents the only dramatic story common to 
the Chinese and English stage. Prémare had, in his version, omitted 
the verses which are interspersed in the original as too obscure and 
difficult ; Julien has rendered them all. A version of a Chinese 
novel, of which the original was first published about 1807, and the 
translation in 1834, ‘ Pih-chay-tsing-ke, ‘White and Blue, or the Two 
Fairy Snakes,’ appears to have met with little success—the story, 
which is full of Buddhist superstitions, is much less suited to European 
taste than those of the earlier translated novels, ‘ The Fortunate Union,’ 
and ‘The Two Fair Cousins,’ which are strikingly modern in tone, 
though the composition of one of them is ascribed to the 15th century. 
A ‘Summary of the principal Chinese treatises on the cultivation of 
Mulberries and the management of Silk-worms, which was made 
into French at the desire of the French Minister of Agriculture and 

. Commerce, has been translated into several languages, and an English 
version has appeared in the United States. ‘Kan-ing-péen,’ or the 
‘Book of Recompences and Punishments,’ which, though in French, 
is one of the publications of the Oriental Fund of London, is a 
religious book of the sect of the Taou-Sze, said to amount to about 
100 millions in number, who follow the doctrines of Laou-Tsze, 
a contemporary of Confucius. The main book of doctrine of Laou- 
Tsze himself, ‘'Taou-tih-king,’ or the ‘Book of the Way and of 
Virtue,’ was translated and published in 1841, with an extensive com- 
mentary, and accompanied by the original. Perhaps the most im- 
portant work that M. Julien has yet issued is his last, the ‘ Voyages 
des Pélerins Bouddhistes,’ or ‘ Travels of Buddhist Pilgrims,’ of which 
the first volume appeared in 1853, and the second in 1857. The first 
volume comprises a history of the life of Heuen-T'sang, a Chinese 
Buddhist, and of his travels in India from A.D. 629 to a.D. 645; the 
second, information on the countries west of China, rendered from the 
Sanscrit into Chinese by Heuen-T'sang, and from Chinese into French 
by M. Julien. To translate these volumes, which abound in phrases 
foreign to Chinese, required not only an accurate knowledge of that 
language, but also some acquaintance with Sanscrit and Pali, and the 
preliminary studies which were necessary for the due execution of the 
task spread over a period of twenty years. The work throws an 

- unexpected light on the early history and geography of India, and 

Bi0G, DIV. VOL, VI, 


some of the expense of its preparation and publication was defrayed 
by the English East India Company. 

In addition to these various labours M. Julien is the writer of 
three controversial pamphlets of some extent, in which he criticises 
with much severity the mistakes and short-comings of M. Pauthier, 
a Chinese scholar, who published defective translations of portions of 
Laou-Tsze and Heuen-Tsang. In these pamphlets much light is inci- 
dentally thrown on various questions of Chinese grammar. He has 
also contributed a long series of articles to the Parisian ‘ Journal 
Asiatique,’ of which he has for some years been one of the editors. 
One of the most interesting of these is on the origin and progress of 
printing in China, The invention of printing by blocks, each contain- 
ing a page, has been attributed not only by Klaproth, but by several 
Chinese writers, to a certain Fung-taou about the date of a.v. 932; 
but M. Julien refers to passages in Chinese encyclopzdias, in which 
the process is mentioned as in use in A.D, 593, and is said to have been 
discovered about a.p. 581. He also quotes a remarkable passage, 
in which a certain Pe-shing, a smith, is said to have invented, 
between a.p. 1041 and 1049, a process for setting up pages with 
moveable Chinese characters, which afterwards fell into disuse, as, 
from the peculiar character of the Chinese language, the earlier»prac- 
tice of printing in whole pages, a species of stereotype, was found more 
convenient. M. Julien adds however that, when in 1773 the Emperor 
Kéen-lung issued a decree for the publication of a very large collection 
of the Chinese standard works, a member of the ministry of finance, 
Kin-kéen, suggested that in order to avoid the expense of keeping in 
store the immense quantity of blocks that would be required, the old 
moveable type system should be revived, and that, in 1776 the emperor 
approved of the proposal, which was accordingly acted upon. The 
whole of these statements are very interesting, but the reader cannot 
help suspecting some errors in the details, when he notices the extra- 
ordinary extent which is attributed by three of the most learned 
scholars of the century to the collection of Chinese standard works 
referred to as published by order of Kéen-lung. In the article on 
printing, M. Julien describes this collection as extending to 10,412 
distinct works. In a lecture on Chinese literature, Rémusat states 
distinctly that “the emperor ordered the publication of a select 
collection (collection choisie) in 180,000 volumes.” Professor Neu- 
mann of Miinich reduces the number, but only to 160,000, and 
M. Julien, in his preface to his work on the Mulberry and Silkworm, 
adopts the same number as of the entire work, and states that, “in 
1818, there had already appeared 78,627 volumes of this vast col- 
lection.” It is certainly remarkable that three such men should have 
put forth statements so extraordinary, apparently without even having 
suspected that for volwmes they should have read books in the sense of 
chapters. 


*LIVINGSTONE, DAVID, LL.D., D.C.L., and Fellow of the 
Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons, Glasgow. Under the head 
Morrat, Ropert, a notice has been given of Dr, Livingstone, which 
agrees in substance with the brief account which he has himself given 
of his early life in the Introduction to his recently-published volume 
entitled ‘ Missionary Travels and Researches in South Africa, including 
a Sketch of Sixteen Years’ Residence in the Interior of Africa, and a 
Journey from the Cape of Good Hope to Loanda on the West Coast ; 
thence across the Continent, down the river Zambesi, to the Eastern 
Ocean,’ 8vo, London, 1857, with Map and Illustrations. In addition to 
the brief notice of Dr. Livingstone already given under Morrat, a few 
facts may be here stated. 

Dr. Livingstone’s great-grandfather was a native of the Highlands 
of Scotland, and fell at the battle of Culloden, fighting for the Stuart 
line of kings. His grandfather was a small farmer in Ulva, one of 
the Western Islands of Scotland, and there his father was born. 
Finding the farm in Ulva insufficient for the support of a numerous 
family, the grandfather removed to the Blantyre Works, a large cotton 
manufactory on the Clyde, above Glasgow, where the sons received 
employment as clerks, and himself as a confidential messenger. The 
father brought up his children in connection with the Kirk of Scot- 
land, but afterwards left it, and during the last twenty years of his life 
held the office of deacon of an independent church in Hamilton. He 
died in February 1856, when his son had passed Zumbo on his journey 
to the eastern coast of Africa. 

David Livingstone, when ten years of age, was placed iu the cotton- 
factory as ‘a piecer.’- While in this situation, though the day’s labour 
was from six o'clock in the morning till eight in the evening, he learned 
Latin, and at the age of sixteen was well acquainted with Horace, 
Virgil, and other classical authors. He also read with eagerness scien- 
tific works and books of travels, not only studying at night, but by 
placing his book on a portion of the spinning-jenny, he could catch 
sentence after sentence as he passed at his work. In his nineteenth 
year he was promoted to the toil of cotton-spinning, which, being then 
of a slender form, he felt very severe, but was well paid for. He had 
become desirous of going out to China as a medical missionary, and 
the remuneration which he received for his labour enabled him to 
support himself while attending medical and Greek classes in Glasgow 
in the winter, and the divinity lectures of Dr. Wardlaw in the summer. 
In due time he was admitted a Licentiate of the Faculty of Physicians 

3T 


1011 LIVINGSTONE, DAVID, LI.D., D.C.L. 


MAURY, MATTHEW FONTAINE, LL.D. 1012 


at Glasgow. Having joined the London Missionary Society, he was 
now qualified for a medical missionary in China, but the war with 
that country was then in activity, and under the circumstances it was 
deemed better that he should go to South Africa, where Mr. Moffat 
had opened an inviting field for missionary labour. After a more 
extended theological training in England than he had enjoyed in 
Glasgow, he embarked for Africa in 1840, and in three months reached 
Cape Town. Going round to Algoa Bay, he proceeded thence to the 
interior, where he spent the following sixteen years of his life. _ 

After residing some time at the principal missionary station at 
Kuruman and other places, and studying the language and manners 
of that section of the Bechuanas called Bakwains, he selected the 
beautiful valley of Mabotsa (25° 14’ S, lat., 26° 30’ E. long.), as the 
site of a missionary station, and thither he removed in 1843, While 
residing there he went out on one occasion with a party of the natives 
for the purpose of shooting one or two of a troop of lions, which leaping 
into the cattle-pens by night, destroyed the cows, and even attacked 
the herds in open day. If only one of the lions were killed, it was 
expected that the troop would leave the locality. The natives sur- 
rounded the lions while they were sitting on a hill, but allowed them 
to break through and escape, Livingstone however, seeing one of 
them sitting behind a bush on a piece of rock, at a distance of about 
thirty yards, took a good aim, and fired both barrels of his gun into 
the bush. He was uncertain whether the lion was struck or not, and 
was in the act of reloading his gun when the lion sprung upon him, 
caught his shoulder, and they both came to the ground together, the 
lion having ene of his paws on the back of Livingstone’s head. One 
of thenatives, at a distance of ten or fifteen yards, taking aim, and 
both barrels missing fire, the lion sprung upon the native, and bit his 
thigh. Another native then attempted to spear the lion, which then 
caught this man by the shoulder, but at that moment the two bullets 
fired by Livingstone took effect, and the lion fell down dead. Besides 
crushing the bone into splinters, he left eleven teeth-wounds in the 
_ upper part of Livingstone’s arm. The consequence has been that he 
has a false joint at the shoulder, which has ever since prevented him 
from taking a steady aim, 

Dr. Livingstone resided among the Bakwains, mostly at the station 
which was called Kolobeng from a stream of that name, on the banks 
of which it was situated. On the 1st of June 1849, Dr, Livingstone, in 
company with Messrs. Oswell and Murray, two gentlemen who had 
come from the East Indies for the purpose of hunting, started from 
Kolobeng for the purpose of discovering the Lake Ngami. This pur- 
pose was accomplished on the Ist of August. In June 1851, Dr. 
Livingstone discovered the Zambesi flowing in the centre of the 
northern part of the continent of South Africa. In April 1852 he 
returned to Cape Town, with Mrs. Livingstone and his children, for 
the purpose of sending them to England, while he returned, in order 
to seek a more healthy locality for a stution, where he should also be 
free from the annoyances to which he had been some time subjected 
by the Boers of the Cashan Mountains. Having sent his family home 
to England, Dr. Livingstone, in the beginning of June 1852, com- 
menced his last journey from Cape Town. While detained at Kuru- 
man he received intelligence of Pretorius, the Dutch reyolutionary 
leader, having sent 400 Boers to attack the Bakwains at Kolobeng. 
They burnt down the village, killed about sixty men, and carried away 
many of their women and about 200 of the school-children for slaves. 
Dr. Livingstone’s house was plundered of everything, his books torn to 
pieces and scattered about, and all the property in the village taken 
away. Having returned to Kolobeng, and remained a few days with 
the wretched Bakwains, he prepared to depart northwards on the 
15th of January 1853, and on the 23rd of May arrived at Linyanti 
(18° 17’ 20" S. lat., 23° 50’ 9" E. long.), the capital of the great tribe 
called Makolélo. The chief, named Sekeletu, and the whole of the 
population of the town, numbering between 6000 and 7000, received 
him with enthusiastic kindness. 

On the 11th of November, 1853, Dr. Livingstone took his departure 
from Linyanti, for the western coast of Africa, accompanied by twenty- 
seven natives belonging to the tribe of Makoldlo, The journey was per- 
formed partly by land, and partly by water in canoes. They ascended 
the Leeambye till they reached its affluent the Leeba, coming from 
the N.N.W., which they also ascended for some distance, and then 
travelled overland till they reached the Lake Dilolo. Thence, with 
much difficulty and frequent danger from hostile natives, they pro- 
ceeded till they reached the Coango (Quango), which they crossed, and 
were then protected by the Portuguese, and treated with great kind- 
ness, till they reached Loango, the capital of Angola, on the western 
coast of Africa, At Loango Dr. Livingstone and his party were 
received by Mr. Gabriel, the British commissioner for the suppression 
of the slave-trade, and treated with the most liberal hospitality, and 
were also treated with kindness by the Portuguese authorities. They 
remained at Loango till September 20, 1854, when they started on their 
return journey to Linyanti, which they reached in September 1855. 

On the 3rd of November 1855, Dr. Livingstone started, in company 
with a number of natives, on his journey to the eastern coast of 
Africa. After passing over the Victoria Falls the Leeambye takes the 
name of the Zambesi, both names having the same meaning, namely 
‘river. Following the course of the Zambesi, sometimes on the 
northern bank and sometimes at a short distance from it, they pro- 


ceeded to some distance below Zumbo, where a native chief lent them 
some canoes, by which they were enabled to cross to the so 
side. On the 8rd of March 1856, they reached the Portuguese ste 
at Tetd, which they left on the 22nd of March, and, sailing down t 
Zambesi, on the 27th arrived at Senna. Thence Dr. Livingstone pro- 
ceeded to Kilimane, at the mouth of the river, and her Majesty’s gun- 
brig Frolic having arrived there, Dr. Livingstone was pin 
board. The Frolic left Kilimane July 12, and arrived at Mauritius 
August 12, where Dr, Livingstone remained till November, vioth of 


returned by the Red Sea and the Overland route, and on the 1 
December 1856, was in England. Dr. Livingstone hopes to establish a 
trade with the interior of Africa by means of the great river Zan bea 
and the British government have decided upon granting a sum of 
5000/. in order to defray the cost of an expedition up that river. A 
ship of the proper construction, drawing a small quantity of water, 
now (December 1857) ready, and if the voyage is to be mac 
year, she must leave this country in January, so as to be at t 
of the Zambesi in March; otherwise the expedition must be 
till the following year. 


- 


United States navy, Superintendent of the Naval Observa and 
Hydrographical Office at Washington, was born on the 14th o 
January 1806, in Spottsylvania County, Virginia, but educated in 
Tennessee, whither his parents removed while he was very young. 
Having entered the United States navy, he, in 1824, received a com- 
mission as midshipman on board the Brandywine. He continued wi 
this vessel during a voyage to Europe and a cruise in the Pacific 
Afterwards, it is stated in Duyckinck’s ‘Cyclopedia of Am 
Literature,’ he served in the Vincennes sloop, on board of a 
made a voyage round the globe, which occupied nearly four 

This statement is also made in other works, but in Commander 


; 
*MAURY, MATTHEW FONTAINE, LL.D., Simrad, ‘ 


‘ Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition, published by 


the United States government, though the name of a Lieutenant 
Maury occurs in the list of the crew of the Vincennes, it is Wi 

L. and not Matthew F. Maury, and no other person of the name of 
Maury is on the list of the crew of either of the ships. Commodore 
Wilkes seems expressly to state that his was the first explorin 
dition made by order of the United States government, so that Mr 
Maury could not have sailed in a previous voyage, while a circumstance 
stated in Duyckinck, would, if the date be correct, prove (apart eyen 
from the discrepancy of the Christian names) that he did not sail in 
this or any subsequent yoyage—namely, that in 1839 he 2 mi 
fortune to have his leg broken by a fall from a horse, and being 
rendered lame, was incapacitated for further service afloat: the voy: 
of the Vincennes under Commodore Wilkes occupied 
1842, nou 
stationed in the Pacific, from which he was removed to the frigate 
Potomac as acting lieutenant; and soon after, having by this time 
established his character as a scientific seaman, he was appointed on 
his return to New York to accompany an exploratory expedition 
under Captain Jones as director of the astronomical observations 
with the rank of lieutenant. Before the expedition sailed he resigne 
the appointment at the same time with Captain Jones. Shortly after 
he was appointed to the charge of the depdt of naval charts and 
instruments at Washington. Under his direction the depdt of nayal 
charts soon assumed an important character. It was re-organi 
plan enlarged, and named the National Observatory; but it hayin 
become more and more exclusively a branch of the naval service, i 
title was in 1855 changed to that of the Naval Observatory, Whilst 
at sea, Mr. Maury had written a valuable work for the use of i 


entitled ‘A New Theoretical and Practical Treatise on Navigati on aa q 


which he treated at length of the mathematical sciences, as far as 

bore on navigation, with theoretical and empirical methods of wor 

out the various problems of the navigator, as well as embodied the 
results of his own observation and experience. The work was not of 
service to others only: the composition of it had compelled him not 

merely to master more thoroughly the higher branches of mathe, 

but it had led him to look steadily at the still unfulfilled desiderata of 


the mariner, which his self-training had fitted him at once to compre- — 
atory at | 


hend clearly and emboldened him to endeavour to su 

His appointment as superintendent of the National Ob 
Washington, and of the government Hydrographieal Office, enabled — 
him to give a most important practical direction to his previous inves- 


tigations. His attention had been strongly directed to the subject of © 


ocean currents and the Gulf Stream, and he saw how much more pre- 


cision might be given to our knowledge respecting them, Oe “ 


extended system of well-directed simultaneous observations. - 

he submitted to the chief of the Bureau of Ordnance and aoe 
ascheme for the making of daily observations at fixed hours by the 
commanders of the naval and merchant service of the United States — 
when at sea. The scheme was adopted ; and masters of vessels 


supplied with model logs, according to which they were to enter the — 
direction of the wind at least once in every eight hours; the direc = 
velocity, depths, and limits of the various currents; the temperature of — 


the air, and at the same time that of the water at the surface, 


and as 
far as practicable at various depths of the sea; as well as such other 4 


ich he 
gine 


ene 
Mr. Maury served for awhile as master of the th, 4 


q 


4 
re 


B) 


1013 MAURY, MATTHEW FONTAINE, LL.D. 


NEWTON, REV. JOHN. 1014 


phenomeia as might appear to bear on the main objects of enquiry. An 
‘Abstract Log’ of these observations was to be deposited at the 
observatory at the end of each voyage. In the case of whalers, the 
limits within which the “right whale” (or that which is the special 
object of the whaler’s search) was seen was to be carefully indicated. 
In his report drawn up after nine years’ experience, Lieutenant Maury 
stated that abstract logs sufficient to make 200 large manuscript 
volumes, averaging each from 2000 to 3000 days’ observations, had 
been collected, examined by a staff of officers selected for the purpose, 
and the results tabulated. As soon as sufficient materials were 
_ obtained, Lieutenant Maury issued a series of Wind and Current Charts 
of the Atlantic Ocean, which were continually corrected and extended 
as fresh matter was collected. 

As early as April 1844 he stated the result at which ho had arrived 
respecting the Gulf Stream, ocean currents, and great circle sailing, 
in a paper which he read before the National Institute, and which, 
under the title of ‘A Scheme for Rebuilding Southern Commerce,’ was 
printed in the ‘Southern Literary Messenger’ for July of that year. 
But he published the full development of his views in the ‘Explana- 
tions and Sailing Directions to accompany the Wind and Current 
Charts ;’ ‘ Notice to Mariners: being Routes to Ports in the Pacific, 
‘Indian, and South Atlantic Oceans,’ 1850; and the ‘Investigation of 
the Winds and Currents of the Sea,’ printed in the Appendix to the 
-* Washington Astronomical Observations for 1846, 1851. -The vast 
importance of the ‘Wind and Current Charts, and of the ‘ Investi- 
gations, Explanations, and Sailing Directions, has long been acknow- 
ledged by all authorities. For the man of science, they have gone far 
to remove previous errors of observation, and contradictory state- 
ments respecting the great oceanic currents, and laid a secure basis 
for the study of marine meteorology. But their practical and com- 
mercial benefits have been even more striking than the scientific. To 
the navigator they have been of incalculable value, not merely in show- 
ing him the importance of scientific observations, but in enabling him 
to avoid perilous tracts, and materially to shorten the passages at sea. 
It was stated by President Pierce in his message to Congress in 1855, 
that by means of the Charts and Directions “the passage from the 
Atlantic to the Pacific ports of the United States has been shortened 
by about forty days;” the passage between the American and English 
ports has also by the same means been very considerably shortened. 
For the whale-fisher it was found that there were immense belts of 
ocean from which by physical causes the “right whale” was entirely 
excluded, and the true fishing-ground was very clearly indicated. 
Again, the sytematic prosecution of deep-sea soundings, led, among 
_ other things, to the discovery of what has been called the ‘telegraphic 
plateau,’ the existence of which has rendered practicable an electric 
telegraph between England and America. 

Following up his labours at home, Lieutenant Maury, when the 
results of the system of regular maritime observations, which he had 
organised, had placed their value beyond question, sought to render 
the investigation as universal as possible by means of a general 
scheme of international co-operation. With this view, haying se- 
_eured the cordial assistance of the Royal Society of London, he, 
with the sanction of his government, applied in the first instance 
to the British Admiralty; and happily succeeded in inducing the 
British government to direct that corresponding observations should 
be made by British ships of war, and recommending the same to the 
- Merchant service. The example and influence of the two great- 
est maritime nations was sufficient to induce the other maritime 

owers to promise their co-operation, and accordingly a congress was 
held at Brussels, in 1853, which was attended by Lieutenant Maury, 
at which a scheme. was agreed to for a uniform system of daily obser- 
vations at sea by the commanders of ships of all nations. The result 
of this conference may be given in the words of Dr. Lloyd, in his 
address as President to the British Association, August 1857 :—“ The 
Report of the Conference recommending the course to be pursued in a 
general system of marine meteorological observations was laid before 
the British Parliament soon after, and a sum of money was voted for 
the necessary expenditure. The British Association undertook to 
supply verified instruments by means of its Observatory at Kew; and 
the Royal Society, in consultation with the most eminent meteorolo- 
gists of Europe and America, addressed an able report to the Board of 
Trade, in which the objects to be attended to, so as to render the 
system of observation most available for science, were clearly set forth. 
With this co-operation on the part of the two leading scientific 
societies, the establishment was soon organised. It was placed under 
the direction of a distinguished naval officer, Admiral Fitz-Roy ; and 
in the beginning of 1855 it was in operation. Agents were established 
at the principal ports for the supply of instruments, books, and 
instructions; and there are now more than 200 British ships so fur- 
nished, whose officers have undertaken to/make and record the 
required observations, and to transmit them from time to time to the 
department. The observations are tabulated, by collecting together, 
in separate books, those of each month, corresponding to geographical 
spaces bounded by meridians and parallels 10 degrees apart. At the 
present time 700 months of logs have been received from nearly 100 
merchant-ships, and are in process of tabulation. Holland is taking 
Similar steps ; and the Meteorological Institute of that country, under 
the direction of Mr, Bays Bellot, has already published three volumes 


of nautical information, obtained from Dutch vessels in the Atlantic 
and Indian Oceans.” 

In 1855 Lieutenant Maury embodied in a popular form the results 
of his investigations on maritime- geography and meteorology, in his 
‘Physical Geography of the Sea,’ of which a second and enlarged 
edition was published in the same year. As an original scientific 
discoverer Lieutenant Maury is perhaps scarcely entitled to so high 
a place as his countrymen claim for him. His attainments are very 
extensive, but his great distinction lies in his faculty of systematising 
and rendering practically applicable other men’s observations and 
discoveries. In his enquiries on the ocean currents and the gulf- 
stream, and in the construction of his charts, his course was plainly 
marked out for him by Rennell; and much that he has propounded 
on marine meteorology was laid down by Dove and others. But he 
has extended their discoveries and added others of his own, and he 
has examined the great field of investigation more thoroughly and 
seen its immense practical importance more clearly than any of his 
predecessors or contemporaries, and, what was of still greater conse- 
quence, he at once perceived and applied the best possible means of 
solving most readily and perfectly the remaining problems and render- 
ing the results practicably available for the service of the navigation and 
the commerce of the world. A man of profounder scientific acquire- 
ments might have given a more learned aspect to his investigations, 
but only one endowed with the rare practical genius, industry, and 
energy—combined with the thorough knowledge of nautical matters— 
of Lieutenant Maury could have presented them in so clear and 
workable a form as at once to have satisfied the judgment of scientific 
men, removed the indifference of governments, atid secured the cordial 
co-operation of navigators generally. ; 

Besides the works already noticed Lieutenant Maury is the author 
of a series of ‘Letters on the Amazon and the Atlantic slopes of 
South America;’ ‘ Refraction and other Tables, prepared especially 
for the Reduction of Observations at the National Observatory, 
Washington ;’ ‘On the probable Relation between Magnetism and the 
Circulation of the Atmosphere: Appendix to Washington Astrono- 
mical Observations, 1846’ (1851); ‘ Astronomical Observations made 
at the National Observatory’ (1853); and a ‘Letter concerning Lanes 
for the Steamers crossing the Atlantic’ (1854), in which he lays down 
a plan for the avoidance of collisions with Atlantic steamers by 
confining them to certain eastward and westward tracks or ‘lanes,’ 
which he shows by observations taken from log-books extending over 
46,000 days, would afford at the same time the most direct as well as 
the safest routes. The official charts prepared by Lieutenant Maury 
at the Naval Observatory, and published by the Bureau of Ordnance 
and Hydrography at Washington, comprise: North and South Atlan- 
tic Track Charts (8 sheets each) ; North Pacific Track Charts (4 sheets), 
and South Pacific (2 sheets); North and South Atlantic and Cape 
Horn Pilot Charts (2 sheets each); North Pacific (6 sheets), and 
South Pacific Pilot Charts; Coast of Brazil Pilot Charts; Trade 
Wind Charts of the Atlantic; Whale Chart of the World (4 sheets) ; 
Thermal Charts of the North Atlantic (8 sheets); Storm and Rain 
Charts of the North Atlantic, &c. 

MILNE-EDWARDS. [Epwarps, Henri-MILNz.] 

MONK, DR. JAMES HENRY, Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, 
was born in 1784, and received his early education at Norwich Gram- 
mar school and the Charter House. He subsequently entered at 
Trinity College, Cambridge, of which he became Fellow and Tutor. In 
1808 he was chosen to succeed the celebrated Richard Porson as Regius 
professor of Greek in the university. It was mainly owing to his efforts 
that the present system of classical honours at Cambridge was estab- 
lished, and the Pitt press founded. As a scholar of Porson’s school 
he is best known for his editions of the Alcestis and Hippolytus of 
Euripides, and in the literary world for his ‘ Life of Bentley,’ and the 
‘ Adversaria’ of Porson. He was appointed Dean of Peterborough 
in 1824, and consecrated bishop of Gloucester in 1830; the see 
of Bristol was added to his charge in 1836, He died June 6, 1856. 


NEWTON, REY. JOHN, well known as a divine, and as the friend 
of the poet Cowper, was born in London July 24, 1725 (0.s.). His life 
was 4 very remarkable one. His father was the master of a ship in the 
Mediterranean trade, and at the age of eleven, young Newton (whose 
only school-education was from his eighth to his tenth year) accompa- 
nied his father to sea, and in the following years made several voyages, 
but with considerable intervals between them. From his mother he 
had derived religious instruction and example, but she died while he 
was very young, and he early fell into vicious habits, In his nine- 
teenth year he was seized by a press-gang, and taken on board the 
Harwich ship-of-war. His father however procured him recommenda- 
tions, and he was placed on the quarter-deck as a midshipman, 
Extreme carelessness at this time marked his conduct; he forfeited 
his captain’s good opinion, and on the ship touching at Plymouth he 
deserted, having heard that his father was at Torbay. He was speedily 
captured, flogged, and degraded. Treated with contempt as well as 
harshness, his lot seemed almost insupportable, and on the application 
of an African trader off Madeira for assistance, he volunteered to go 
on board, and accordingly obtained his discharge. This ship he left 
on the African coast, and hired himself as‘a labourer on an estate on 


10165 NEWTON, REV. JOHN. 


RENDEL, JAMES MEADOWS. 1016 


the island of Benanoes, S.E. of Sierra Leone. During the fifteen 
months he remained here, he suffered dreadfully from sickness and 
ill-treatment, but he was at length found by the captain of an African 
ship who had been commissioned by his father to make inquiries after 
him, and restored to his friends. His father however he did not see 
again: he had been appointed governor of York Fort in Hudson’s Bay, 
where he died in 1750. 

It was in May 1748 that young Newton returned to England. By 
this time his character had undergone a great change. His loneliness 
and sufferings in Africa had rendered him serious: a storm which 
occurred on his passage home, and during which the ship was in immi- 
nent peril, had deepened his seriousness into strong religious convic- 
tion. So high an opinion had his conduct on this voyage raised of 
his character and ability, that the owner of the vessel immediately 
offered him the command of another Guinea ship, but he declined 
the offer, preferring to serve at least another voyage as mate, He now 
devoted the whole of his leisure to self-improvement. Whilst in Africa 
he had one book—Euclid’s Elements; and, drawing the diagrams on 
the sand with a stick, he had made himself master of the first six 
books; during this voyage he succeeded in teaching himself the rudi- 
ments of Latin, and the leisure hours of subsequent voyages enabled 
him to obtain considerable proficiency in that language, and to acquire 
much general information. Ali this time his religious impressions 
were deepening, and having escaped from many remarkable perils, he 
became convinced that he was the special object of a superintending 
providence. While master of a ship he established and himself regu- 
larly conducted public worship twice every Sunday. ; 

In all, Newton was captain of a Liverpool slave-ship about four 
years; and he confesses that “ during all the time he was engaged in 
the slave-trade, he never had the least scruples as to its lawfulness ; ” 
but an increasing dislike to the occupation led him, on being prevented 
by a serious illness from sailing (Aug. 1754) with his ship, to look 
about for another employment. Through the interest of a friend he 
obtained the post of surveyor in the port of Liverpool in August 1755, 
He now laid aside his Latin and mathematical studies, and devoted all 
his spare hours to become acquainted with the Scriptures in the 
original languages, and succeeded in acquiring some facility in Greek 
and Hebrew, and a slight knowledge of Syriac: he also read largely 
theological works in Latin, English, and French. Associating much 
with those who were strongly influenced by the religious movement 
originated by Wesley and Whitefield, Newton was led by his zeal and 
energy to take a prominent part in their meetings for prayer and 
mutual exhortation. His addresses proving unusually acceptable, he 
was encouraged to offer himself (Dec. 1758) as a candidate for holy 
orders, and a curacy was obtained for him, The Bishop of Chester 
readily countersigned his testimonials, but the Archbishop of York 
(Dr. Gilbert) refused his assent, “ his grace being inflexible in support- 
ing the rules and canons of the Church.” The rebuff in nowise abated 
Newton’s zeal, To show how he would have preached had he been 
ordained, he published (1760) a volume of ‘ Six Discourses, and in 
1762 a series of ‘ Letters on Religion,’ under the signatures of Omicron 
and Vigil, which had extensive popularity at the time, and have been 
very often reprinted. He now began to turn his thoughts to the 
ministry among the Dissenters, but several ‘evangelical’ clergymen 
urged him to make another effort to obtain episcopal ordination. He 
was presented to the curacy of Olney, and in April 1764 ordained by 
the Bishop of Lincoln. Much public attention was called to the affair, 
and he was a few months later induced to allow Dr. Haweis to publish 
an ‘ Authentic Narrative of some Remarkable and Interesting Particu- 
- lars in the Life of the Rev. John Newton,’ which he had written shortly 
before. ; 

Newton remained nearly sixteen years at Olney. The stipend of 
the curacy was only 30/. a year, but he had some means of his own, 
and, as Southey observes, “his zeal and his genius, aided by the 
remarkable story of his life, had rendered him a conspicuous personage 
in what is called the religious world.” Mr. Thornton, a wealthy 
London merchant of similar opinions (whose name is well known from 
Cowper's Correspondence), wrote to him on his removal to Olney, 
“keep an open house for such as are worthy of entertainment: help 
the poor and needy,” and added, “I will statedly allow you 200/. a 
year, and readily send whatever you may have occasion to draw for 
more.” Thus supported, Mr, Newton was able to give effect alike to 
his zeal and his benevolence. He soon became the recognised leader 
of those, both lay and clerical, in that part of the country who par- 
ticipated in his views. It was in order to have the benefit of his 
ministry and friendship that Cowper, with Mrs. Unwin, removed to 
Olney. It may be doubted whether Newton’s treatment of the poet’s 
mental hallucination was the most judicious, but there can be no 
doubt of the kindness and purity of his intentions, or of the admira- 
tion and friendship with which he regarded the poet personally. The 
poet, as is well known, looked up to Newton with veneration as well 
as esteem. In all, Cowper spent more than twelve years in daily 
intercourse with Newton at Olney, and part of the time, during one 
of his terrible attacks of insanity, in Newton's house. Together they 
composed the ‘ Olney Hymns,’ in which Cowper first appeared before 
the world as a poet, and when he published his first volume of poems, 
Cowper begged Newton to introduce them to the world with a preface. 
In 1779 Mr. Newton was presented by his friend, Mr. Thornton, to 


the valuable living of St. Mary Woolnoth, London, with which was 
united that of St. Mary Woolchurch, and there he spent the remainder __ 
of his days, one of the most popular preachers and writers, and one — 
of the most influential members of the so-called Evangelical section 
of the Church in the metropolis. He continued to preach with little 
abatement of vigour till he was turned of eighty, and he died Dec. 2], 
1807, aged eighty-two. | Besides the works above mentioned, he pub- 
lished a volume of letters which rivalled his Omicron Letters in popu- 
larity, under the title of ‘ Cardiphonia, or the Utterance of the Heart 
in the course of a real Correspondence ;’ a volume entitled ‘A Review 
of Ecclesiastical History,’ 8vo, 1770; ‘ Letters to a Wife,’ 8vo, 1793, 
and numerous sermons, tracts, &c., all of which were collected and 
published after his death under the general title of ‘Works of the 
Rev. John Newton,’ of which a second edition, in 6 vols 8yo, appeared _ 
in 1816. ; 
(Newton’s Narrative; Cecil, Life of Newton; Southey, Life of 
Cowper ; Newton's Works, &c.) P i” 


*PARKES, JOSIAH, was born in Warwick in 1793, and received — 
his education under the elder Dr. Charles Burney at Greenwich. He 
adopted the profession of a civil engineer. In 1839 he was appointed 
by the Board of Trade one of two commissioners to inquire into the 
causes of steam-vessel accidents, and the means of prevention; on 
which he made a report, which was printed in the same year by order — 
of the House of Commons. In 1846 he was appointed draining 
engineer to the office of Woods and Forests, and in 1856 to a similar 
office under the Board of Works. As a draining engineer, Mr. Parkes 
has conducted some of the largest public and private works in this — 
country; and his eminent success has given a great impulse to this — 
practice, by which the value of land and its productiveness have been — 
so largely increased. In 1821 Mr. Parkes published a work ‘On the 
Means of Consuming the Smoke of Steam-Engines and other Furnaces” _ 
During the years 1839-42 he communicated to the Institution of Civil 
Engineers valuable papers, ‘On Steam-Engines,’ ‘On Steam-Boilers,’ 
and the ‘ Percussive Action of Steam,’ which were published in the — 
‘Transactions’ of the Institution, and the gold and silver medals were 
awarded to him for them. In 1848, in vols, v. and vii. of the ‘Journal 
of the Royal Agricultural Society of England,’ he published ‘Essays 
on the Philosophy and Art of Land Drainage,’ and ‘ On Climate, Soils, 
&e.,’ which also appeared as a distinct work, and which has been 
translated into most European languages. _* 

*PARKES, JOSEPH, the brother of the preceding, was born at 
Warwick, in January 1796. He was educated partly at the same — 
school with his brother, then under the Rev. Allen Wheeler, canon of 
Worcester, and in 1811-12 studied at Glasgow University. He adopted — 
the law as a profession, and practised as a solicitor at Birmingham 
with great success. During his residence at Birmingham he became ~ 
remarkable for his advocacy of those social and political changes which — 
constitute so important a feature in the history of the last quarter of 
acentury. During the great struggle for parliamentary reform, no 
man exercised a greater influence upon popular opinion, or contributed 
more to the success of that measure by a most strenuous co-operation 
with its advocates in the two Houses. In 1833 he gave up his business _ 
in Birmingham, on being appointed secretary to the Royal Commissions _ 
for Inquiry into the Municipal Corporations of England and Wales, — 
and on their Boundaries. He was afterwards solicitor to the Charity —_ 
Commission Chancery Suits ; and to the Births, Deaths, and Marri 7 
Registration Public Office. In 1847 he was appointed a Taxing Mane . 
in Chancery, an office which he still holds. He has published,‘A 
History of the Court of Chancery,’ 8vo, 1828 ; ‘The Equity and Real — 
Property Laws of the United States of North America,’ 1 vol. 8yo, 
1830 ; ‘The Governing Charters and Municipal History of Warwick;’ 
‘ The Claim of the Subscribers of the Birmingham and Liverpool Rail- _ 
Road to an Act of Parliament, in reply to the Opposition of the Canal — 
Companies,’ 8vo, 1825; ‘The Prerogative of Creating Peers,’ Svo, 
1830 and 1856; ‘The State of the Courts of Requests and Criminal — 
Jurisdictions of Birmingham and Warwickshire, with complete tables 
of local Education and Crime,’ 1828. He has also contributed 
cg articles to the Retrospective, London, and Westminster — 

eviews. q 


RENDEL, JAMES MEADOWS, a civil engineer of great eminence, 
was born in 1799, at a village on the borders of Dartmoor, in Devon- 
shire; his grandfather, Mr. Meadows, was a well-known architect, and _ 
his father, who was a county surveyor and farmer, was a man of 
ability, excellent common sense, and determination of character, qua- 
lities which descended to the son, whilst to his mother, who was a _ 
woman of considerable acquirements, he owed the rudiments of his — 
early education. After being practically instructed in the executive — 
part of his profession, he went to London and obtained an engagement 
under Mr. Telford [TrLrorp, Tomas], by whom he was employed on 
the survey and experiments for the proposed Suspension bridge over 
the Mersey at Runcorn, and subsequently on the survey and con- — 
struction of roads in the north of Devon, where the difficulties he had 
to contend with contributed much to create that self-reliance so useful 
to him in his subsequent career. In 1822, he had occasion to apply, — 
on a professional subject, to the late (John, first) Earl of Morley, who, 


1017 RENDEL, JAMES MEADOWS. 


RIGAUD, STEPHEN PETER, M.A. 


1013 


discovering the latent talents of the young engineer, then scarcely 
twenty-three years of age, shortly afterwards confided to him, with 
the approval of Mr. Telford, the construction of a cast-iron bridge 
across the. Lary, an arm of the sea within the harbour of Plymouth, 
over which his lordship was proprietor of an ancient ferry, for which 
it was desirable to substitute a bridge, the south bank of the Lary at 
Saltram being his property. This bridge, consisting of five elliptical 
arches, was, with the exception of that of Southwark, the largest cast- 
iron structure of the kind in the kingdom. Mr. Rendel was engaged in 
its construction from 1824 to 1827. For his account of this work the 
Telford medal of the Institution of Civil Engineers was awarded to 
him. About this period he designed and executed the Boucombe 
bridge, where hydraulic power was for the first time applied to the 
machinery for working swing bridges. Soon after the completion of 
the Lary bridge, Mr. Rendel settled in Plymouth, and there exercised 
his profession with great activity, being engaged in surveying and 
reporting upon nearly all the harbours in the south-west of England, 
and executing the works at a great number of places, acquiring that 
_ mastery over hydraulic engineering on which his fame will chiefly rest. 
In 1831 he introduced a new system of crossing rivers by means of 
floating bridges worked by steam-power ; they were applied at Saltash 
- and at Torpoint on the river Tamar, and subsequently at Southampton 
and Portsmouth; but the rapid progress of the railway system pre- 
vented the further development of this useful invention, for which 
* the Telford medal was awarded. Descriptions of the structure of 
these bridges, as well as of that over the Lary, were published in the 
‘Transactions of the Institution of Civil Engineers,’ Particulars of 
the construction of the latter were also communicated by Mr. Rendel, 
in 1829, to the Plymouth Institution, of which he was a member, and 
published in the following year in the only volume that has hitherto 
appeared of its ‘ Transactions,’ 
The ‘repairs of the Montrose suspension bridge, after its fall, were 
confided to him, and he there introduced the system of imparting that 
rigidity to the platform of the roadway which is now admitted to be 
80 essential to the safety of the structure. 
_ Im'1838 Mr. Rendel removed to London, where he was soon con- 

sulted upon many important works, and was engaged in the chief 
_ parliamentary contests of that remarkable period in the history of 
engineering. About this time he designed the pier at Millbay, where 
he introduced the system of construction since employed with so much 
success at the harbours of Holyhead and Portland. Engagements 
poured in fast upon him, and his career was for the next few years one 
of unceasing activity, chiefly in the construction of harbours and 
docks, and the improvement of rivers and estuaries. In the year 
1843, the projected construction of docks at Birkenhead, in Cheshire, 
of such an extent as to create a formidable rival to Liverpool, brought 
him very prominently before the world ; and the protracted contests on 
this subject will be long remembered in the history of parliamentary 
committees, for the ability with which he defended his positions; and 
_ the evidence given by him and other engineers, as now collected, forms 
a valuable record of the state of engineering practice. The almost 
incessant labour, and the mental anxiety inseparable from this under- 
taking, were more than even his powerful constitution could support, 
and it is feared that they tended to shorten his life. 

The daring project of constructing a dock at Great Grimsby, by pro- 
jecting the works far out upon the mud-banks of the Humber, was 
next successfully accomplished; and he commenced the two great 
works which alone suffice to hand down his name to posterity, beside 
those of Smeaton, Rennie, and Telford,—the harbours of refuge of 
Holyhead and Portland. Both these works were conceived with the 
largest views, and have been carried on with great rapidity. In both 
cases the system was adopted of establishing timber stages over the line 
of the jetties and depositing the large and small stones together, as 
they came from the quarries, by dropping them vertically from railway 
waggons into their positions, thus bringing up the mass simultaneously 
to above the level of the sea. These two great works are advancing 
very satisfactorily; and it is worthy of remark, in evidence of the 
engineer’s sagacity in the adoption of this system, although the severe 
_ storms which have repeatedly occurred on the exposed coasts where 
they are situated, have done some injury to portions of the stages, and 
of the temporary works, at Holyhead—where the piles were not shod 
with Mitchell’s screws, which proved so successful at Portland—not a 
stone would appear to have been carried away from the jetties; and 
the success of the system may be said to be complete, in spite of the 
sinister predictions which prevailed before it was tried. Among the 
other works upon which Mr. Rendel. was engaged, should also be 
mentioned the constructions on the River Lea, and the improvements of 
the Nene River. He was also employed by the Exchequer Loan Com- 
missioners to report upon the drainage and other public works in 
Ireland. 

He was less engaged in railways than hydraulic works; but in 
England he executed the Birkenhead, Lancashire, and Cheshire 
Junetion Line, and he had the direction of the “East Indian” and the 
* Madras” railways in India, the former projected by Mr. (now Sir 
Rowland) Macdonald Stevenson, as the first of the vast system now in 
progress, which will doubtless exert a mighty influence on the future 
destiny of our Indian Empire, The Ceylon line and that of Pernam- 
buco in Brazil were also under his charge, 


} 


There was scarcely a harbour or a river of importance in the kinz- 
dom with which Mr, Rendel was not connected in some capacity. 
His advice was also sought by foreign countries; and he was engaged 
to report upon works for the Brazilian, the Prussian, and the Sardi- 
nian governments, and was nominated by the Viceroy of Egypt a 
member of the International Commission for considering the con- 
struction of the proposed canal across the Isthmus of Suez. 

Tn consequence of the danger which threatens the port, and there- 
fore the city and republic, of Hamburg with ruin, from the rapid 
accumulation of sand in the bed of the Elbe, the Senate, in 1855, 
invited Mr. Rendel to examine the state of the navigation of that river, 
and make proposals for averting the danger. A commission of such 
importance could not have been intrusted to more able hands. He 
spent some months in studying on the spot the nature of the difficul- 
ties to be overcome. Towards the end of the year he sent in a most 
able report, with a detailed account of his plan for remedying the 
navigation, and preventing any future recurrence of the deposit of 
sand and formation of a bar in the river. This report was printed 
and laid before the Biirgerschaft, or representative body of the 
citizens, but down to a very recent period the requisite works had 
not been commenced, or even determined upon, notwithstanding the 
rapid increase of the evil. Mr. Rendel proposed to construct a lon- 
gitudinal. dam or dyke in the middle of the Elbe, beginning at the 
island of Finkenwerder, a few miles below Hamburg, and extending 
down the stream for a distance of nearly forty miles. This would 
contract the main body of the river into about half its natural limits, 
and the constant rush of the ebb and flood tides would not only sweep 
away the present sand-banks and other existing obstacles, but prevent 
them from ever forming again, deepen the channel, and constantly 
keep clean the bed of the river. The time he allotted for the execu- 
tion of this great work was seven years, and his estimate of the 
expense amounted to 680,000/. 

In the words of the ‘ Proceedings of the Royal Society,’ from which, 
with some omissions and corrections, the present article is principally, 
though not wholly, derived, the subject of it “was a man of great energy, 
clear perception and correct judgment; his practical knowledge was well 
directed, and he knew how to make good use of the scientific acquire- 
ments and skill of all whose services he engaged. His evidence before 
parliamentary committees was lucid and convincing, seldom failing in 
carrying his point; and his reports on engineering works are distin- 
guished by the clearness and correctness of his views, and the fearless 
expression of his opinion.” 

Mr. Rendel was a very early member of the Institution of Civil 
Engineers, having joined it in 1824. His professional character, admi- 
nistrative ability, and scientific knowledge, conspired to give hima 
seat in the council as Member and Vice-President for the sixteen 
years preceding his death; and he was elected president in 1852 and 
1853. He had become a Fellow of the Royal Society on the 23rd of 
February 1843; and, agreeably to the system which has of late pre- 
vailed of adding to the representatives of science in the council of 
that body, those of other scientific establishments, during the years 
for which he was president of the Institution of Civil Engineers, he 
was also chosen upon the council of the Royal Society. Mr. Rendel 
was as amiable and kind in private life as he was energetic and firm in 
public, and his decease, which occurred on the 21st of November 1856, 
cast a gloom over the whole of the profession of which he was a 
brilliant ornament, 

RIGAUD, STEPHEN PETER, M.A, F-.R.S., Savilian Professor of 
Astronomy in the University of Oxford, was born at Richmond, 
Surrey, in the year 1774, and was descended from a French family of 
consideration who fled to a foreign land on the revocation of the edict 
of Nantes.. His maternal grandfather and his father had the care of 
the observatory of king George III. at Kew (now the electrical, 
magnetical, and meteorological establishment of the British Asso- 
ciation), an appointment which probably influenced the early 
tastes and predilections of the son, on whom it was afterwards con- 
ferred. He was admitted a member of Exeter College, in 1791, at 
the early age of sixteen, and continued to reside there as fellow and 
tutor, holding also in succession many university offices, until 1810, 
when he became Savilian Professor of Geometry, and also reader in 
Experimental Philosophy, which latter appointment he retained 
through his life. He had been chosen a Fellow of the Royal Society 
on the 30th of May 1805. Professor Rigaud succeeded in 1827 to the 
care of the Radcliffe Observatory at Oxford; and the noble suite 
of instruments by Bird [Brrp, Jonn] with which it is furnished, 
was augmented, on his recommendation, by a new transit-instrument 
and cirele, so as to fit it for the most refined purposes of modern 
practical astronomy. He became at the same time, Savilian Professor 
of Astronomy, relinquishing the chair of Geometry. 

The original observations made by Dr. Bradley [BrapLzEy, James] 
at Kew and at Wanstead, with the zenith sector, and the records of 
the progress of his celebrated discoveries of the aberration of light and 
the nutation of the earth’s axis, had long been considered a deside- 
ratum in the history of astronomy. The principal part of these 
valuable documents (all which had been presented to the University 
of Oxford), had been apparently lost; having been lost sight of for 
upwards of seventy years, but were discovered by the diligent search 
of Professor Rigaud, amongst the papers of the deceased Rey. Dr, 


10:9 RUSSELL, JOHN SCOTT, F.R.S. 


RUSSELL, JOHN SCOTT, F.RS. 1020 


Hornsby; one of his predecessors in the Savilian chair of Astronomy, 
and the first Radeliffe observer, whose family readily restored them to 
the University. They were now edited by Professor Rigaud, together 
with other documents collected from various sources, and published 
in 1831, under the title of ‘The Miscellaneous Works and Corres- 
pondence of Bradley,’ forming a work which will ever be regarded as 
a most valuable record in the history of Astronomy. To it, he after- 
wards added an interesting ‘Supplement’ on the astronomical papers 
of Harriot [Harriot, T'Homas] which contain the earliest records in 
existence of observations of Jupiter’s satellites and of the solar spots, 
though their author was not the discoverer of either series of objects, 
In 1838, Professor Rigaud published some curious notices of the first 
publication of the Principia of Newton; and he had also projected a 
life of Halley, with the view of rescuing the memory of that great man 
from much of the injurious obloquy to which it has been exposed, 
having, in 1834, comtnunicated to the Royal Astronomical Society 
some biographical particulars of Halley, contained in a manuscript 
memoir preserved in the Bodleian Library; he had made extensive 
collections also for a new edition of the mathematical collections 
of Pappus [PAppus, ALEXANDRINUS]. He was the author of many 
valuable communications to the Ashmolean Society of Oxford (of 
which he was one of the originators), and to the Royal Astrono- 
tnical Society, as well as to the later Journals of the Royal Institution, 
to the ‘Edinburgh Philosophical Journal’ and ‘Journal of Science,’ 
to the ‘Philosophical Magazine’ when united with the latter, and 
other scientific periodicals, on various subjects connected with 
mathematical, physical, and astronomical science. There was probably 
no other person of his age who was equally learned on all subjects 
connected with the history and literature of astronomy ; as a mathe- 
matical antiquary and bibliographer he was unrivalled, at least in this 
country, until the gradual adoption of similar pursuits by Professor 
De Morgan. One of his later productions, on a subject not historical, 
was a valuable paper ‘On the relative quantities of land and water on 
the surface of the terraqueous globe,’ published in the sixth volume of 
the ‘ Trats. Camb. Phil. Soc.’ 

Professor Rigaud was a man of most amiable character, and of 
singularly pleasing manners and person, as the contributor of this 
article can bear witness. The warmth of his affections, his modesty, 
gentleness, and love of truth, as well as the great variety of his acquire- 
ments and accomplishments, had secured him the love and respect of 
a large circle of friends, not merely in his own University, but among 
men of science generally. The qualities just alluded to were charac- 
teristically evinced by the part he took in the discussions which arose 
in the year 1836 (occasioned by the publication .of Mr. F. Baily’s 
account of Fiamsteed), on the characters and mutual conduct of that 
astronomer, and of Halley and Newton. He died in London on the 
16th of March 1839, after a short but painful illness, 

At the time when he was thus suddenly taken from his labours, he 
was engaged in editing and printing a selection of the letters of 
scientific men of the 17th century, extending from 1706 to 1741, the 
autograph originals of which, formerly in the possession of the father 
of Sir William Jones, had been supplied by George, fourth éarl of 
Macclesfield ; the publication having been undertaken by the univer- 
sity. But the printers declaring themselves unable to work from the 
originals, Professor Rigaud transcribed the whole correspondence (now 
occupying nearly 1000 pages in octavo) in modern orthography. He 
had printed the first volume, and, after his decease, his eldest son, 
SrerHEeN JorDAN Ricavup, entered upon the work with the second, 
and published both in 1841, under the title of ‘ Correspondence of 
‘Scientific Men of the 17th Century, including letters of Barrow, 
Flamsteed, Wallis, and Newton.’ Professor Rigaud married, on the 
8th of June 1815, the eldest daughter of the late Gibbes Walker 
Jordan, Esq., F.R.S., Barrister, of Portland Place, London, colonial 
agent for the Island of Barbadoes (author of three memoirs on the 
allied subjects of the inflections of light, the colours of thin plates, 
and the Irides jor Coronz seen around the sun, &¢.). By this lady, 
who died in 1827, he left seven children. His eldest son, already 
mentioned, the Rev. Dr. Rigaud, formerly Fellow and Tutor of Exeter 
College, afterwards in succession second master of Westmitster School 
and head-master of Ipswich School, Suffolk, was Mathematical Exami- 
ner in 1845, and became in 1856 one of the select preachers of the 
University. In November 1857 he was appointed to the colonial 
bishopric of Antigua. 

“RUSSELL, JOHN SCOTT, F.R.S., the eminent civil engineer, is 
the eldest son of the Rev. David Russell, and was born in the Vale of 
Clyde in 1808, He was and educated at Edinburgh University, where 
he graduated in 1824. While a mere child he had shown great fond- 
ness for mechanical pursuits, and his father having encouraged his 
inclination, he early acquired considerable mechanical dexterity, and 
during his residence at Edinburgh sedulously studied dynamics and 
the connected branches of mathematical and physical science, So 
highly were his attainments estimated, that on the death (in November 
1832) of Sir John Leslie, professor of natural philosophy in the 
University of Edinburgh, he was called upon to deliver in his place 
the usual natural philosophy course of lectures. Mr. Russell was for 
some time at the head of a ship-building yard in Greenock, and after- 


wards of an enginéering establishment in Edinburgh. He removed | H 


to London in 1844, The construction of steam-carriages for running 


the laws which he educed from them. 


on cofmmon roads was occupying much attention, and Mr. Russell 
invented one which ran regularly for some time between Glasgow au 
Paisley : a paper in the ‘ Foreign Quarterly Review’ for October, 1832, 
on Steam-Carriages was understood to be written by him. The con- 
struction of ships and boats of iron led him to pay attention to the 
forms of vessels, and a project which was started for running swift 
passenger boats on a canal induced him to consider more p: j 
what form a boat should take so as to produce the least ‘ swell’ 
passing through the water, and he accordingly made numerous expe- 
riments on the oscillations produced in the waters of the canalbythe 
passage of vessels along it. He embodied the results of his inquiries _ 
and experiments in a paper which he read before the British Associa- _ 
tion at the meeting held at Dublin in 1835. Great interest was 
excited, and he was requested to continue his experiments, Sir John _ 
Robinson being associated with him in the conduct of them. These 
experiments and inquiries—which Mr. Russell chiefly directed, and to 
which he gave all their value by his fruitful deductions—were extended — 
over a long course of years, and made in an immense variety of forms 
—in small pieces of water, in canals, in tidal rivers, in wstua ut 

on the ocean—with small and with large models, with boats construc ; 
for the purpose, with steamers and with sailing ships. In all, some 
20,000 distinct experiments were made. From year to year Mr. Russell _ 
reported to the British Association the course of his experiments and 


Very early in the course of these experiments he discovered or 
observed what he termed ‘the Great Solitary Wave,’ or ‘the Primary 
Wave of Translation,’ and conceived the idea that it was possible so 
to adapt the form of the hull of a ship as to cause the 1 displace. 
ment of an adverse wave, and to obtain the largest assistance from the 
wave of translation which it produces in moving rapidly through the 
water; and hence he arrived at the conclusion which he stated inhis 
paper read before the British Association in 1839—“ That inayvoyage 
by a steam-vessel in the open sea, exposed to adverse as well as favo 4 
able winds, there is a certain high velocity and high portion of 5 wer, ‘4 
which may be accomplished with less expenditure of fuel and 6ffoom __ 
than at a lower speed with less power.” In order to obtain this 
advantageous result, he conceived that the vessel should be constructed 
of such a form that the lines or curves of the bow should beara 
definite conformity with the curves of a ‘wave of translation,’ whilst 
the lines of the stern, in like manner, should conform to what he 
termed the ‘ wave of replacement.’ He called this the ‘wave princi- _ 
ple,’ and a vessel constructed according to it he describedas‘the 
solid of least resistance.’ Vessels were early constructed on this prin- _ 
ciple. The first appears to have been the Fire King yacht, which was 
found to be swifter than any other of its size in the kingdom. Next 
some steamers were built with equal success. It was adopted byMr. 
Brunel when he built the Great Western, the largest steamer then ii 
existence. Professional prejudices prevented the general adoption of 
the new system, but it steadily made its way both in this couitry and 
America, and now all vessels intended for swift sailing, including the 
noted American clippers, and the great sea-steamers, whether propelled 
by screw or paddle, are built with a more or less close approximation 
to the ‘wave form.’ The consummation of the principle, according _ 
to its author, and that which will most fairly test its correctness, will — 
be found in the ‘Leviathan,’ the construction of which, under the 
direction of Mr. Russell, has excited such general attention during the _ 
last three years, but especially during the last few months, It was 
‘On the Mechanical Structure of the Great Ship’ that his latest paper __ 
read before the British Association (August 1857) was written. T i 
enormous ship is built on lines laid down by him in strict accordance — 
with his wave principle; the form therefore is that of Mr. Russell: 
the constructive principles are those of Mr. Brunel, the most remark- _ 
able feature being the application for the first time inaship of the 
‘cellular principle,’ which was employed with so much success inthe 
Britannia (tubular) Bridge across the Menai Strait at Bangor. As Mr. 
Russell stated in the paper above mentioned, “When a vessel was 
about to be built, intended to attain a certain speed, from ten mil a ‘- 
hour upwards, reference to the table of the wave principle informe 
them of the length which the bows and stern must be, and of the — 
peculiarity of construction necessary in order to procure the desired 
result. According to this principle, it was necessary, iit order to 
acquire the speed which this vessel was to attain, that the length of 
her bow should be 330, the length of her stern 250, of the midship 
120, which, with ten feet for the screw propeller, gave her an fe “i 
length of 680 feet” [the figures, it will,be seen, exceed 680]. He inferre Gi 
therefore that, “while increasing the carrying or paying power of the — 
ship to an immense extent, its mode of construction was such that the 
increase in the resistance of the water was in a tiuch lower ratio,so 
that the vessel, notwithstanding its enormous size, could be worked as 
economically as a smaller one.” 3 

Mr. Russell, having read a paper on his investigations before the 
Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1837, was awarded the Society’s oes 
gold medal, and elected a Fellow of the Society. In June 1849 he 
was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of London, He was for 
some time secretary of the Society of Arts, and, in connection with that 
society, was one of the originators of the Great Exhibition of 1851. 

e was also one of the nine gentlemen who 
with a view to its re-erection at Sydenham, | 


purchased the building 


1021 SABINE, MAJOR-GENERAL EDWARD, R.A. 


SCHLEIDEN, M. J. 1022 


*SABINE, MAJOR-GENERAL EDWARD, R.A., Vice-President 
and Treasurer of the Royal Society, one of the distinguished leaders in 
the conquest of nature, which the scientific branches of the British 
Army haye contributed to society,is of Irish extraction, and was 
born in 1790. He first became known to the public, as Lieutenant 
Sabine, from his accompanying Captain(afterwards Sir John Ross), and 
Lieutenant (afterwards Sir Edward) Parry, in the first Arctic Expedi- 
tion of the series to which it belonged. The results of the magnetic 
observations which were made by him in the course of the voyage 
must be looked to, as an eminent philosopher, Dr. Peacock, has lately 
obseryed, “as having given the ‘first great impulse to the systematic 
_ study of the phenomena of terrestrial magnetism.” It appeared from 

the statement which he communicated to the Royal Society upon his 
return (in two papers inserted in the ‘ Philosophical Transactions’ for 
1819, being his first contributions to that collection), that the directive 
force of the horizontal magnetic needle in the Arctic regions was so 
much reduced by the greatness of the vertical force occasioning the 
dip, that the best suspended compasses not only traversed with great 
difficulty, but were so much dominated by the magnetism, whether 
induced or permanent, of the masses of iron in the ships themselves, 
that their indications became utterly useless. The peculiar character 
- of the mind of Captain Sabine, as he had now become, leading him to 
experimental or observational research in those departments of terres- 
: trial physics, which, the forces to be observed or measured, varying 
with the geographical position of the place, require for their investiga- 
tion, the transport of instruments or apparatus from latitude to lati- 
tude, he commenced in 1821 a series of voyages, from the equator to 
the arctic circle, principally in order to determine the length of the 
seconds’ pendulum in various latitudes and localities. The results, 
which were of great value in relation to the figure of the earth, were 
published in a quarto volume in 1825, together with Geographical, 
Hydrographical, and Atmospherical notices. This valuable work is now 
rare, having, with a too scrupulous conscientiousness been to a great ex- 
tent suppressed by the author, in consequence of certain clerical errors 
in reading the graduated limb of a small astronomical circle, of which it 
would have sufficed widely to make known the correction. Similar re- 
searches and observations continued for some years to engage Captain 
Sabine’s attention, in the intervals of his military duty in Ireland, in the 
_ course of which he attained the rank of Major. In 1836 he made some 
valuable observations on the direction and intensity of the magnetic 
force in Scotland, which he communicated to the British Association 
at the sixth meeting, held at Bristol in that year, in the ‘ Reports’ of 
which they were published. To the meeting at Liverpool, in the 
following year, he communicated an elaborate Report ‘on the variations 
ofthe magnetic intensity observed at different points of the earth’s 
surface. In the next year he produced a memoir on the magnetic 
isoclinal and isodynamic lines in the British Islands. These, and sub- 
sequent contributions to the subject, either theoretical or practical, 
gradually paved the way for the establishment of permanent magnetical 
observatories, and especially for those established by the British govern- 
ment in various colonies, at the joint recommendation of the Royal 
Society and British Association, These have supplied the most precious 
results. In the words, again, of Dr. Peacock, it is to this “ distin- 
guished observer, that we’are chiefly indebted for the organisation of 
the vast system of magnetic observatories which have been established 
in later times, and for the complete discussion of the observations 
which they have afforded, and which have totally changed the aspect 
of the science of magnetism.” 

The colonial observatories are under the superintendence of General 
Sabine, whose discussions of the observations haye been.communicated 
to the Royal Society, and published in the ‘Philosophical Transac- 
tions,’ and also, together with the observations themselves, in a series 
of large volumes. Two of the latest most striking inductions made 
from them by him are the magnetic operation of the sun, independent 
of its heat, and the coincidence of the period of certain magnetic 
phenomena, with that of the cycle of changes of the solar spots. But 
his introduction to the Toronto observations, last published, vol. iii., 
also made public in the ‘Proceedings of the Royal Society, 1857, is 
memorable in a higher point of view. It contains the reeommenda- 
tions of the philosopher, full of years and honour, as to what is now 
desirable in the continuance of the Observatories; on which subject 
he remarks, with a feeling all will appreciate, “There is another advan- 
tage (if it be one) which might attend the early prosecution ” [of what 
he recommends] “ viz., the opportunity of consulting (if it were desired 
to consult) the experience of the person who has conducted—and, as he 
believes, successfully conducted—the first experiment from its com- 
mencement now almost to its close; but this, in the course of nature, 
ean only be available for a few years to come.” 

We have been compelled to omit noticing many other researches, 
observations, and experiments of General Sabine, especially on the 
Pendulum and in Meteorology. Most of them have appeared in his 
work already mentioned, and in the ‘Transactions’ of the Royal 
Society, and British Association. Numerous minor but not unim- 
teal papers by him will be found in the ‘ Philosophical Magazine.’ 

e was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society on the 16th of April 
1818, and has held the offices of Treasurer and of a Vice-President 
since the retirement in 1850 of Mr. George Rennie from them. Among 
the active Fellows of the Society there are very few of equal seniority. 


He became a member of the British Association in 1837, and was 
nominated on the council in the following year, and from 1839, with 
short intervals, he has been one of the general secretaries, and for some 
years past sole general secretary: at the meeting at Belfast, in 1852, he 
filled the honourable office of President. Mrs. Sabine is the translator 
of Humboldt’s ‘Cosmos’ and ‘Aspects of Nature,’ to which, but par- 
ticularly to the ‘Cosmos,’ General Sabine added many valuable notes 
in his own branch of science. 

The elder brother of the subject of this notice, Mr. JosepH Sapinz, 
F.R.S., F.L.8., who held for the greater part of his life the responsible 
office of Inspector-General of Taxes, was educated in the University of 
Dublin, and devoted himself from a very early period of life to the 
study of botany, ornithology, and other branches of natural history. 
He became secretary to the Horticultural Society of London at the 
period of its first establishment, and must always be considered as the 
chief author of its successful and complete development ; in addition 
to his official and editorial services, contributing to its ‘Transactions’ 
no fewer than sixty-four papers, the most important of which are 
those on the genera Crocus, Dahlia, and Chysanthemum. He was also 
an active and valuable early member of the Zoological Society, whose 
gardens were greatly indebted to his taste. He died in 1837. 

Mr. Henry Brownz, F.R.S., of Portland-place, London, whose wife 
was sister to these gentlemen, deserves mention here, because (in the 
words of the late Mr. Davies Gilbert, M.P., President of the Royal 
Society, in his Anniversary Address to that body for 1830) “No man was 
ever more distinguished in the important station of commanding those 
vessels which secure to England the commerce of nations unknown to 
former ages; nor did any one more largely contribute towards intro- 
ducing the modern refinements of nautical astronomy, which, skil- 
fully pursued, and under favourable circumstances, determined the 
place of a ship with greater accuracy than what in the early part of 
the last century would have been thought amply sufficient for head- 
lands, roadsteads, or harbours of the first importance. Retired 
to private life,* Mr. Browne usefully amused his declining years by a 
continuance of his favourite pursuits; and up to the latest period of 
his life he patronised, encouraged, and promoted practical astronomy.” 
His house in Portland-place (No. 2, situated in N. lat. 51° 31’ 8"*4) 
is a classical locality in the history of_English terrestrial physics. 
Captain Kater’s [Kater, Henry] original experiments, made with his 
own convertible pendulum, for determining the length of the seconds’ 
pendulum in the latitude of London, as the intended standard of 
linear measure, were made in Mr. Browne’s house, and with his assist- 
ance. (‘Phil. Trans., 1818.) Mr. Browne had become possessed of 
the standard scale of General Roy, which formed the basis of the 
Trigonometrical Survey of Great Britain. Here also, and with the 
same aid, General (then Captain) Sabine made his final observations 
for determining the oscillation of the pendulum in different latitudes, 
as observed in the first two Arctic expeditions. (‘ Phil. Trans.,’ 1821.) 

_*SCHLEIDEN, M. J., a distinguished German botanist and physio- 
logist, professor of botany in the University of Jena. He was educated 
for the medical profession and studied under his uncle, Professor 
Horkel of Berlin, who is well-known for his researches upon vegetable 
physiology. One of the earliest productions of Professor Schleiden, by 
which his name became associated in Europe with discoveries in vege- 
table physiology, was entitled ‘Contributions to Phytogenesis,’ and 
published in Miiller’s ‘ Archiv fiir Anatomie und Physiologie,’ Part II. 
for 1838. This paper was translated by Dr. Francis, and published in 
the second volume of Taylor’s ‘Scientific Memoirs. It was also 
republished by the Sydenham Society in England, in 1847, This 
indicates the importance attached to this paper. In it the author, for 
the first time, drew attention to the process of the growth of cells. 
It had already been shown that vegetable tissue consisted almost 
entirely of cells, but Schleiden now asserted that every vegetable 
tissue originated in cells, and that every cell originated in a nucleus or 
small mass of nitrogenous matter, which he called a ‘cytoblast.’ 
He supported the enunciation of this great law by a vast number 
of observations made by the microscope, and drew attention to the 
fact, that henceforth the functions of the life of plants must be studied 
from the point of view of the function of each individual cell. The 
sensation produced by this paper can hardly be overrated. At first it 
excited opposition amongst botanists, but this opposition had hardly 
time to declare itself before a paper appeared by Dr. Thomas Schwann, 
professor of anatomy in Louvain, entitled ‘Microscopical Researches 
into the Accordance in the Structure and Growth of Animals and 
Plants,’ in March 1839, In this essay Dr. Schwann demonstrated that 
the law which Schleiden had laid down for the vegetable kingdom was 
equally applicable to the animal kingdom. He showed that the tissues 
of animals were, like those of plants, made up of cells, and that each 
cell originated in a primitive cytoblast, Although the views of 
Schleiden and Schwann haye been somewhat modified by the progress 
of discovery, the great fundamental facts which they made known 
in the above papers lie at the present moment at the foundation of all 
physiological science, and the period which was thus initiated may 
be regarded as even of more importance than that which occurred on 
the discovery of the circulation of the blood by Harvey. : 

Since the period of the production of this great paper, Schleiden 
has very constantly appeared before the world as a contributor of 
facts to the science of vegetable physiology. The result of his 


*_ee ee 


1023 SIMPSON, JAMES YOUNG, M.D. 


SMYTH, REAR-ADMIRAL WILLIAM HENRY. 1024 


studies and original investigations he published in a systematic work, 
entitled ‘The Principles of Scientific Botany, or Botany as an Inductive 
Science.’ This book was translated into the English language by Dr. 
Lankester, and was published in London in 1849. It embraced a full 
account of his views on the development of plants, and also of his 
researches upon their impregnation. As the result of these he main- 
tained that the pollen-tube is converted into the young embryo, a 
view which he has since abandoned. ‘This’work contained the 
freest possible criticism upon the labours of his predecessors, and 
established a system of morphology and morphological doctrine, 
which is gradually finding its way into the literature of the science of 
Botany. 

Professor Schleiden, whilst one of the most profound original in- 
vestigators and thinkers of the day, is one of a few German pro- 
fessors, who have felt it their duty to address a wider class than that 
which they meet in the lecture-room of the university, and in a lan- 
guage free from “the dust of the schools.” With this view he pub- 
lished a series of popular lectures, entitled ‘The Plant: a Biography.’ 
These lectures were highly popular in Germany, and have been trans- 
lated in English by Professor Henfrey. The lectures may be classed 
amongst the most agreeable readings on the subject of natural history 
science. 

Professor Schleiden has also had practical aims in view, and he has 
most successfully turned his attention to the application of vegetable 
physiology to agriculture and animal physiology. He was the first to 
detect the errors fallen into by the too enthusiastic cultivators of the 
chemical school of physiology, and wrote an indignant disclaimer of 
Liebig’s physiological views, as given in his ‘ Chemistry of Agriculture.’ 
In the ‘Encyclopiidie der Gesammten theoretischen Naturwissen- 
schaften in ihrer Anwendung auf die Landwirthschaft,’ he has written 
a volume entitled ‘The Physiology of Plants and Animals, and the 
Theory of Agriculture.’ In this work he brings his great knowledge 
to bear upon the practical questions of the farmer and the grazier. 

His papers on various departments of botany are numerous, and 
they are now being collectively published under the title of ‘ Beitriige 
zur Botanik.’ Professor Schleiden is a foreign Fellow of the Linnzan 
eogteny of London, and a member of many of the scientific bodies of 

urope. 

*SIMPSON, JAMES YOUNG, M.D., a distinguished physician, 
professor of midwifery in the University of Edinburgh, and the 
discoverer of the anzsthetical properties of Chloroform, was born 
in 1811 at Bathgate, Linlithgowshire. He was educated for the 
medical profession, and took his degree of Doctor of Medicine in the 
University of Edinburgh. He became assistant to the late Professor 
Thomson, and in 1840 he succeeded in obtaining the chair of midwifery 
in the University of Edinburgh. His lectures at once became very 
popular, and he has probably contributed more than any other pro- 
fessor to the success of the Edinburgh school of medicine. Since his 
appointment he has contributed very largely to the literature of that 
department of his profession which he more particularly practises. 
His papers have recently been collected together and edited by two of 
his former pupils; they occupy two bulky octavo volumes. In the 
practice of midwifery, and the diseases of women, Dr.'Simpson has sug- 
gested many important improvements which are generally recognised 
by the profession. He owes perhaps a greater degree of reputation 
to his introduction of anesthetics into midwifery than any other 
point of practice. On the discovery in America of the anzxsthetic 
properties of ether, Dr. Simpson immediately availed himself of its 

- agency to alleviate the pains of labour. The ether however produced 
certain effects which induced him to seek some other agent, and his 
efforts were rewarded by the discovery of the much more beneficial 
action of chloroform. There are many other substances which are 
found to act as anesthetics, but none so efficiently as chloroform. 
Hence it is the only substance generally employed at the present day. 
Dr. Simpson is not only known for his professional knowledge, but for 
his general literary acquirements. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society 
of Edinburgh, and takes an active part in all the local societies of that 
place for the diffusion of a knowledge of science, literature, and art. 
In 1849 he was elected president of the Royal College of Physicians 
of Edinburgh. In 1852 he was made president of the Medico- 
Chirurgical Society of Edinburgh. In 1853 he was elected a foreign 
associate of the French Academy of Medicine, and he is a member of 
many other foreign scientific bodies. 

SMITH, ADMIRAL SIR SIDNEY, was born at Westminster in 
1765, and in his twelfth year was sent as a midshipman on board the 
Sandwich, Lord Rodney. At the age of sixteen he was made lieu- 
tenant, and at nineteen-post-captain. War having broken out between 
Russia and Sweden, he obtained permission to offer himself as a volun- 
teer to the latter power, in whose service he showed so much courage 
and skill as to lead to his investment with the order of the sword. 
On the surrender of Toulon to Lord Hood, August 1793, Captain 
Smith, being in the south of Europe unemployed, hastened thither, 
and offered his services, which were accepted; and on the evacuation 
of the city in the following December, the destruction of the French 
ships of war, which could not be removed, and that of the powder 
magazines, arsenal, and stores, was entrusted to him. On his re- 
turn to England he was appointed to the command of the Diamond, 
with a small flotilla, charged to cruise in the Channel. He succeeded 


Alexandria, in which Abercrombie was killed, Smith received a severe 


in considerably annoying the enemy, but in attempting to cut out a 
ship at Havre he was made prisoner. After a confinement of over two 
years, he, by the assistance of a French officer named Philippeaux, 
made his escape and reached England in safety. Appointed to the 
command of the Tigre, 80 guns, and a small squadron, Sir Sidney 
proceeded to Constantinople, and thence to Acre, which, as the xe ; 
of Syria, was then closely invested by Bonaparte at the head of 10,000 
men. Sir Sidney, with admirable decision and promptitude, brought’ 
two of his largest ships close in shore and landed a party of sailors’ 
and marines, at the same time sending his friend Colonel Philip a 
who was a skilful engineer, to assist in directing the fortificatons; 
Bonaparte made several desperate assaults upon the place, but was on 
each occasion repulsed with heavy loss, and ultimately was compelled _ 
to raise the siege and retreat in disorder. This successful resistance 
was attributed in no small degree to the gallantry and energy of Sir 
Sidney Smith. In the events which followed Bonaparte’s departure 
from Egypt, Sir Sidney took an active part, and when General Kleber 
on whom the command of the French army had devolved, offered to” 
evacuate Egypt, Sir Sidney, though without instructions, confirmed 
the treaty which he made with the Turkish commander to that effect 
at El-Arish, January 24, 1800. The English ministry however dis- 
avowed his procedure, and Sir Sidney continued to participatein the _ 
measures adopted for the expulsion of the French._ In the battleof 


wound. On his return to England the ‘Hero of Acre,’ as he was — 
popularly designated, was received with great enthusiasm, and among — 
other marks of public approval, had the freedom of the city of London 
voted him along with the present of a valuable sword. ra 
In 1802 he was elected M.P. for Rochester, and during the brief 
peace took part in the debates; but on the renewal of war he was 
appointed to the Antelope, 50 guns, with command ofa flying 
squadron, at the head of which he displayed his wonted activity. In 
1804 he was made colonel of marines; in 1805 rear-admiral of the 
blue ; and in 1806 he proceeded to the Mediterranean in the Pompey, — 
80 guns, with a small squadron to harass the French in Naples. He 
took Capri, succeeded in twice throwing succours into Gaeta, landed — 
his sailors, and battered the fortresses of the French, and renewed,on _ 
a smaller scale, his Acre tactics, inflicting at various parts of the coast 
severe losses upon the troops of Massena. He was not able howeverto 
save Gaeta. As long as he was there the garrison was firm, but soon 
after his departure for Palermo the governor surrendered. In the 
following year Admiral Smith was ordered, under Admiral Duck- 
worth, to the Dardanelles, and there he destroyed a Turkish squadron 
of one line-of-battle ship, four frigates, four corvettes, two brigs; and 
two gun-boats. In 1810 he was made vice-admiral: in 1812 he was — 
appointed second in command of the Mediterranean ficet, and remained —_ 
stationed in comparative inactivity off Toulon to the end of the war, 
when he was created K.C.B., and received a pension of 1000/. for his — 
distinguished services. In 1821 he rose to the rank of full admiral, 
and in 1830 succeeded King William IV. as lieutenant-general of 
marines. He died May 26, 1841, at Paris, where, in consequence of 
pecuniary difficulties arising out of unsuccessful trading speculations, 
he had been for some years a resident. “ere 
*SMYTH, REAR-ADMIRAL WILLIAM HENRY, was born January ~_ 
21, 1788, in the city of Westminster. His father was Joseph Brewer 
Palmer Smyth, Esq., of New Jersey, America, who having embraced 
the royalist cause, and fought under General Burgoyne in the Warof 
Independence, was in consequence deprived of his landed property in — 
America, and came to England. He was descended from the celebrated _ 
Captain John Smith, of whom a notice is given in the article Viramma, 
in the GroGRAPHICAL Division. A. ae 
William Henry Smyth, after having been some time in themerchant __ 
service, entered the royal navy, March 18, 1805, as a midshipman, on __ 
board the Cornwallis frigate, Captain Johnston, with whom he continued 
to serve in the Powerful, 74, till October 1809, when he was trans- 
ferred to the Milford, 74. During this period he was present in 
actions at the Isle of France (Mauritius) and the Isle of Bourbon, and 
cruised in the Pacific. He was also engaged in the expedition to the 
Schelde in 1809, and in attacks on the enemy’s coasting trade onthe — 
French coast. He afterwards proceeded in the Milford to Cadiz, 
where he was appointed, September 4, 1810, to the command ofa __ 
large Spanish gun-boat, in which and in other vessels he performed — 
important services, not only in the defence of Cadiz, but in making a 
survey of the Isle de Leon and of the adjacent Spanish coast, accom- 
panied by details of the strength of the French batteries. The Milford 
having left Cadiz, and joined the English fleet off Toulon, Mr. Smyth 
removed August 1, 1811, to the Rodney, 74, in which he attained, — 
December 14, the same year, the rating of master’s mate, and was 
actively engaged till paid off, on his return to England, in November 
1812. For his valuable services in the vicinity of Cadiz he was pre- 
sented by Lord Melville with a lieutenant’s commission, dated oh 
25, 1813, ae 
Lieutenant Smyth was soon afterwards appointed toa commandin 
the flotilla under Sir Robert Hall, employed to co-operate with the 
British troops in the defence of Sicily. While in this situation he 
made an elaborate survey of Sicily and the adjacent islands. Th 
important duty, in which he was occupied some years after the British 
troops had left the island, was performed by order of the Lords ofthe 


“ 
ae ed 


a ae or 


~ 


< 
< 


1026 SMYTH, REAR-ADMIRAL WILLIAM HENRY. 


SOWERBY, GEORGE BRETTINGHAM. 1026 


Admiralty, in consequence of representations of the extremely defective 
state of the charts of the Mediterranean Sea, and particularly of the 
coasts and neighbourhood of Sicily. While engaged in these scientific 
operations, he was appointed by the Lords of the Admiralty to the rank 
of commander, September 18, 1815, He married, October 7, 1815, at 
Messina, Annarella, only daughter of I’. Warrington, Esq., of Naples. 
Captain Smyth was unable, from the subsequent political changes, to 
execute the design he had originally projected of cutting a meridian 
through the island, and measuring a permanent base-line for the final 
determination of its true position, extent, and form. He was conse- 
quently obliged to execute the survey on a chronometric basis, connected 
with geodetical operations. The utmost precision was used in laying 
down the astronomical data, and the whole was grounded upon the posi- 
tion of the Observatory at Palermo, as determined by the astronomer 
Piazzi, and communicated by him to Captain Smyth. The result of 
these surveys was the publication by the Lords of the Admiralty of an 
‘Atlas of Sicily,’ containing the charts, plans, and views of sea-port 
towns, and all the remarkable capes and headlands. As an accom- 
paniment to the Atlas, but at the same time an independent work, 
Captain Smyth published a ‘Memoir, descriptive of the Resources, 
Inhabitants, and Hydrography of Sicily and its Islands, interspersed 
with Antiquarian and other Notices,’ 4to, 1824. In the mean time 
- Captain Smyth, in 1817, was appointed to the Aid, sloop-of-war, and in 
January 1820, to the Adventure, 6 guns. He was also engaged in 
- completing the survey of the shores of the Adriatic Sea commenced 
by Napoleon, which he completed in about two years, and the results 
of his labours were published by the Imperial Geographical Institute 
of Milan. 

In 1823 and 1824 Captain Smyth was employed by the Lords of the 
Admiralty in making a survey of the coasts of the island of Sardinia. 
He had previously made two visits to the island during the war with 
France, and now determined to make himself as well acquainted with 
its general condition and resources as time and his professional duties 
would allow. The results of his surveys of the coasts and visits to the 
interior were published in a ‘ Sketch of the Present State of the Island 
of Sardinia, 8vo, 1828, a work full of accurate observations, and of 
interesting details concerning the antiquities of Sardinia and the very 
curious manners and customs of the inhabitants. 

Captain Smyth attained the rank of post-captain, February 7, 1824, 
and paid off the Adventure in the following November. He afterwards 
settled at Bedford, and built a small observatory in his garden, which 
he furnished with a transit instrument, a circle, and an equatorial tele- 
scope. The result of his observations of the heavens was the publication 
of ‘A Cycle of Celestial Objects for the use of Naval, Military, and 
Private Astronomers, observed, reduced, and discussed by Captain W. 
H. Smyth,’ 2 vols., 8vo, 1844. Vol. I. contains the Prolegomena; vol. 
IL., the Bedford Catalogue. The Prolegomena contains a sketch of the 
history of astronomy, an elementary survey of its leading facts, a 
description of Captain Smyth’s own observatory, and advice as to the 
mode of combining economy with efficiency in the structure and fur- 
nishing of such a building ; and also plans and drawings of instruments. 
The second volume, besides 850 observations of celestial objects, con- 
tains a mass of detached remarks, on the history of the objects, on 
preceding observers, and on astronomy generally. The volumes are 
not only instructive, but amusing and almost popular. Captain Smyth 
had published previously ‘The Life and Services of Captain Philip 
Beaver,’ 8vo, 1829, and a ‘Descriptive Catalogue of a Cabinet of 
Roman Imperial Large Brass Medals,’ 4to, Bedford, 1834. 

Captain Smyth accepted the retirement pension, October 1, 1846. 
He attained the rank of rear-admiral, May 28, 1853. 

Admiral Smyth’s most valuable work, the result of: his numerous 
surveys and observations in the Mediterranean Sea, is entitled ‘The 
Mediterranean, a Memoir, Physical, Historical, and Nautical,’ 8vo, 
1854. The work is divided into five parts, the contents of which are 
as follows :—Part I., ‘A Chorographical View of the Shores of the 
Mediterranean Sea, with especial reference to their Produce and Com- 
merce, Part II., ‘Of the Currents, Tides, and Waters of the Mediter- 
ranean Sea.’ Part IIL, ‘Of the Mediterranean Winds, Weather, and 
Atmospherical Phenomena,’ Part IV., ‘Of the Surveys and Geogra- 
phical Investigations in the Mediterranean Sea,’ Part V., ‘Of the 
Orthography and Nomenclature adopted; the Geographical Points—or 
Co-ordinates of Latitude, Longitude, and Height—of the Mediterranean 
Shores ; with the Variation of the Magnetic Needle, and other Notanda.’ 
There have since appeared, ‘ Popular Astronomy, by Francis Arago, 
translated from the original, and edited by Admiral W. H. Smyth and 
Robert Grant, Esq.,’ vol. 1, 8vo, 1855; ‘Biographies of Distinguished 
Scientific Men,’ by Francis Arago, translated by Admiral W. H. Smyth, 
Rev. Baden Powell, and Robert Grant, Esq., 8vo, 1857 ; and a ‘ History 
of the New World, by Girolamo Benzoni, of Milan, showing his Travels 
in America from a.D. 1541 to 1556, with some Particulars of the 
Island of Canary, now first translated, and edited by Rear-Admiral W. 
H. Smyth,’ 8vo, 1857. (Printed for the Hakluyt Society.) 

The scientific world has heaped honours in abundance on Admiral 
Smyth. In 1821 he was admitted a Fellow of the Antiquarian 
Society, and of the Astronomical Society ; in 1826 he was unanimously 
elected F.R.S. In 1830 he was chosen one of the council of the Geo- 
graphical Society of London. He was afterwards one of the committee 
for improving and extending the ‘ Nautical Almanac. He has been 

BIOG, DIV, VOL, VI, 


created a D.C.L., is one of the Board of Visitors of the Royal Observa- 
tory, and has been vice-president of the Royal Society and the Society 
of Antiquaries, andj president of the Astronomical Society, and of the 
Royal Geographical Society. He is also a corresponding and honorary 
member of several foreign scientific societies, and has had medals and 
other rewards presented to him by foreign sovereigns and by scientific 
societies. 

Admiral Smyth has a family of several children. His eldest son, 
WaRINGTON WILKINSON Smy?H, is mining geologist to the Ordnance 
survey. His second son, CHARLES Piazzi Smytu, is astronomer royal 
for Scotland. In the summer of 1856 Professor Piazzi Smyth under- 
took the task of transporting a large collection of instrumentse— 
meteorological and magnetical, as well as astronomical—to a high 
point on the Peak of Teneriffe. He selected two stations, at altitudes 
above the sea of 8840 and 10,700 feet ‘respectively ; and obtained 
important astronomical and magnetical results. The heat radiated 
from the moon, which has been so often sought for in vain in a lower 
region, was distinctly perceptible even at the lower of the two stations. 

SOWERBY, an English family well known from their publications 
as naturalists and natural history artists. The principal members of 
this family are as follows :— 

SOWERBY, JAMES, was born March 21st, 1757, and died October 
25th, 1822. His father John Sowerby was a lapidary and lived at 
Bolt-in-Tun Passage, Fleet-street. His son James was born at Mead 
Place, Lambeth. _ Having early evinced a taste for drawing he became 
a student of the Royal Academy and was articled to Richard Wright, 
a painter of sea-views. He commenced his profession as a painter of 
portraits and miniatures, of which many exist in London collections. 
He also engaged in landscape painting, and for the purpose of paihting 
accurately the plants in the foreground of his pictures he commenced 
the study of botany. This he did under the direction of Mr. W. 
Curtis, and afterwards assisted him in the production of the illustra- 
tions to his botanical works. Sowerby having thus become acquainted 
with plants, projected one of the most extensive botanical works that 
has ever been completed in this country. This was the ‘ English Bo- 
tany.’ In this great work, which contained coloured illustrations of 
every species of British plant, he was assisted by Sir James Edward 
Smith, who wrote the descriptions of the plants contained in that 
work. He also published a folio volume ‘On the English Fungi or 
Mushrooms,’ This work contained coloured illustrations of all this 
family that were then known, and embraced figures of several species, 
published for the first time. It appeared in parts from 1796 to 1799. 
In 1802 he commenced a series of illustrations of ‘ British Mineralogy,’ 
comprising an account of the minerals of Great Britain with figures, 
In 1806 he published a series of illustrations of animals with the title 
‘ British Miscellany, or coloured figures of new, rare, or little known 
Animal subjects, many not before ascertained to be natives of the 
British Isles.’ This work was succeeded by another on foreign {mine- 
rals,‘entitled ‘ Exotic Mineralogy,’ which was published in parts from 
1811 to 1817. His last great work was ‘The Mineral Conchology of 
Great Britain,’ in which he gave figures of the various forms of fossil 
shells as well as of other animal remains. Besides these works, which 
were undoubtedly the most important natural history publications of 
the day, Mr. Sowerby contributed many papers to the Transactions of 
scientific societies, more especially to the Linnzan and Geological. 
He also made a very large collection of specimens in British natural 
history, including fossils. The Fungi, which he had drawn, he also 
modelled with his own hand: this collection of models is now in the 
British Museum. 

Sowerby’s labours as an artist, besides those devoted to natural 
history, were considerable. He published ‘A Drawing Book,’ and a 
work on Colours, entitled ‘A New Elucidation of Colour” He wasa 
fellow of the Linnean, Geological, and Zoological Societies. He left 
three sons and two daughters, 

* SOWERBY, JAMES DE CaRLE, eldest son of the above, was born at 
Stoke-Newington on the 5th of June 1787, and is the secretary of the 
Royal Botanic Society, Regent’s Park. He was brought up by his 
father to his own profession of an artist, but-in assisting his father he 
acquired a considerable knowledge of minerals, plants, and animals. 
He was more particularly entrusted with the publication of the 
British Mineralogy and Mineral Conchology. He supplied the chemical 
arrangement for the former work, and made the original sketches for 
the latter half of the English Botany. He also engraved the plates 
for Smith’s edition of ‘ Sibthorp’s Flora Greeca,’ which were executed 
from the unrivalled drawings of Ferdinand Bauer. He contributed a 
large number of the descriptions of the specimens of fossils, figured 
in the Mineral Conchology. He has also published numerous deserip- 
tions of fossil shells in the Transactions of the Geological Society, and 
in many local geological works. On his father’s death he became the 
possessor of the collection of fossil shells, figured in the ‘ Mineral Con- 
chology,’ which he still holds, In 1838 he. took an interest in the 
establishment of the Botanic Gardens in Regent’s Park and was ap- 
pointed secretary, and to his energy and perseverance the great suc- 
cess of the Society and Gardens has been in a great measure owing. 
He is a Fellow of the Linnzan and Zoological Societies. 

SowrrsBy, Grorcre BrerrincHam, second son of the above James 
Sowerby, was born at Lambeth on the 12th of August 1788, and 
died on the 26th of July 1854. He studied natural grate with 

U 


, 


1027 TAYLOR, ALFRED SWAYNE. 


es _ 


VICO, FRANCIS DE. 1028 


more success than his elder brother, perhaps on account of his not 

being so good an artist. In early life he was attached to the study of 

Entomology, and assisted his father in those departments of his 
labours where a knowledge of insects was required. On marrying 

however he gave up his Entomology and commenced business as a 
dealer in natural history objects, and visited the Continent of 
Europe for the purpose of obtaining specimens. He bought the cele- 
brated Tankerville collection of shells, for which he gave six thousand 
pounds. He also bought several other large collections. His know- 
ledge of the forms of shells was very extensive, and he projected 
and published a great work entitled ‘ The Genera of recent and Fossil 
Shells,’ This was published from 1820 to 1824. His father and 
brother executed the drawings and engravings, and he drew up the 
descriptions. His papers on various species of Mollusca are very 
numerous, and were published in the ‘Zoological Journal,’ the ‘ Pro- 
ceedings of the Zoological Society,’ the ‘Magazine of Natural History,’ 
and the ‘ Reports of the British Association.’ A list of these papers, 
upwards of forty in number, is given in Agassiz’s and Strickland’s 
‘ Bibliography of Zoology,’ published by the Ray Society. Besides 
these papers and the work on the genera of shells he published 
several other independent works; amongst these should be men- 
tioned the Catalogue of the collection of the late Earl of Tankerville, 
‘Species Conchyliorum, or concise original Descriptions and Obser- 
vations of all the Species of recent Shells with their Varieties, London, 
1830, *Conchological Illustrations, or coloured figures of all the 
hitherto unfigured recent Shells, with their varieties,’ London, 1832- 
45. ‘Thesaurus Conchyliorum, or Figures and Descriptions of Shells,’ 
London, 1842. He was a Fellow of the Linnean Society. 

SowrErBy, CHARLES EDWARD, third son of James, was born on the 
ist of February 1795, and died in June 1842. He assisted first his 
father and afterwards his brother James de Carle in their natural 
history publications till 1831, when the copyright of ‘ English Botany’ 
falling to his share, he commenced the publication of a second edition 
on small paper, with large additions. This work is at present being 
reprinted by his son, John Edward Sowerby. 

*SowrrBy, GrorcE BRETTINGHAM, son of the above George Bretting- 
ham Sowerby, was born March 25, 1812, and is now well known as a 
naturalist and natural history engraver. He has continued the ‘ The- 
saurus Conchyliorum’ of his father, and has also contributed largely 
to the natural history literature of the day. His descriptions of new 
shells in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society are very numerous. 
He has also published several independent works: 1. ‘A Concholo- 
gical Manual,’ in 1839, of which a fourth edition appeared in 1852. 
2. § Conchological Illustrations,’ a continuation of his father’s work 
from 1830 to 1842. 3. ‘Popular British Conchology,’ London, 1854. 
4. ‘A popular Guide to the Aquarium,’ London, 1857. He is a 
Fellow of the Linnzan Society. 

*SowsgrBy, HENRY, a younger son of George Brettingham Sowerby, 
who is now in Australia, commenced his career as a natural history 
artist and mineralogist. He wrote ‘ Popular Mineralogy’ in Reeves’ 
series of ‘ Popular Natural History Manuals.’ 

Other members of this family have also cultivated the same tastes 
and are known as artists and naturalists. 


*TAYLOR, ALFRED SWAINE, a distinguished chemist and 
medical jurist. He was educated for the medical profession at Guy’s 
Hospital in London, and became a Licentiate of the Apothecaries’ 
Society in 1828, and a member of the Royal College of Surgeons in 
1830. He was subsequently appointed lecturer on chemistry to the 
Guy's Hospital Medical School, and also lecturer on forensic medicine 
or medical jurisprudence. He has written two works in connection 
with forensic medicine, which are the principal text-books in our 
medical schools, and have given to Dr. Taylor a deservedly high 
position as a chemist and medical jurist. The first of these was 
entitled ‘A Manual of Medical Jurisprudence,’ and embraced all those 
subjects of inquiry which are brought before the medical man in 
ceases of criminal inquiry. The importance of the subject of poisoning 
and the rapid advances of chemical knowledge in relation to poisons, 
induced Dr. Taylor to extend this part of his work, and to publish a 
volume devoted entirely to the subject of poisons. In 1848 he pub- 
lished bis second volume, ‘On Poisons in relation to Medical Juris- 
prudence and Medicine.’ These works have brought Dr. Taylor into 
great repute in the investigation of cases of suspected criminal poison- 
ing. Recently he has been employed by the crown in cases de- 
manding chemical research. He was thus employed on the trial of 
William Palmer for the murder of John Parsons Cook, and although 
unable to detect strychnia in the contents of the murdered man’s 
body, Dr, Taylor gave his evidence against Palmer on the ground that 
the symptoms exhibited by Cook could be produced by no other 
means than strychnia, and that this agent might destroy life without 
being in sufficient quantity in the body after death to yield proofs of 
its presence to chemical re-agents. It is well known that a large 
amount of chemical evidence was brought to combat the latter part 
of Dr, Taylor's evidenée, and subsequent to the trial he published a 
work ‘On poisoning by Strychnia, with comments on the Medical 
Evidence given at the trial of William Palmer for the murder of 
John Parsons Cook,’ London, 1856. In this work he defends himself 


from the charges brought against him either directly or pepe 
by the evidence got up by the unhappy prisoner. Dr. Taylor « 

for some years the ‘Medical Gazette,’ and has been a frequent con- 
tributor to the weekly medical periodical literature. 

In 1852 the honorary degree of doctor of medicine was conferred 
on him by the University of St. Andrews. In 1848 he became a 
Licentiate of the Royal College of Physicians, London, and in 1853 
a Fellow of the same body. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal 
Society in 1845, 

*TSCHUDI, JOHANN JAKOB VON, an eminent naturalist and 
ethnologist, was born at Glarus, of a knightly family in Switzerland, 
on the 25th of July 1818. He was educated first at the ; 
and then at the University of Ziirich, where he devoted much of his 
attention to natural history and medical science, and displayed a 
marked interest in scientific travels. In order to extend his shades in 
the natural-history sciences he proceeded from Ziirich to Neufchatel, 
and afterwards to Leyden, where he prepared his ‘System der Batra- 
chier,’ Leyden, 1838. Subsequently he went to Paris, where an 
tunity seemed to present itself of carrying out his strong of 
making a voyage round the world, and he accordingly embarked on 
board a French ship. On reaching Peru however the vessel was sold 
to the Peruvian government, and Von Tschudi was constrained to 
limit his labours to an investigation of the natural history and ethno- 
logy of Peru. The limitation of his field of inquiry had however the 
advantage of enabling him to survey it more thoroughly. He spent 
five years in the investigation, returning to Europe in 1843; and 
obstacles having intervened which prevented him from ing out 
his wish to accompany Franklin in his Arctic expedition, ‘ie aaa 
mined to devote himself to the arrangement, for the purpose of publi- 
cation, of the rich mass of materials he had collected in Peru. For 
this purpose he retired to his estate of Jakobshof, near Weiner Neu- 
stadt, in Lower Austria, from whence he has since given to the world 
a general account of his travels, under the title of ‘ Peru Reiseerin- 
nerungen aus den Jahrem 1838-42,’ 2 vols., St. Gall, 1846, which has 
been translated into English, in 1847, by T. Ross; and the more 
special works—‘ Untersuchungen iiber die Fauna Peruana’ (Investi- 
gations of the Fauna of Peru), St. Gall, 1844-47, with 72 plates,a 
work of great value; the splendid ‘ Antiguedades Peruanas,’ Vienna, 
1851, with atlas, published in conjunction with Don Mariano Eduardo 
de Rivera; and his elaborate work ‘Die Kechua-sprache,’ 2 yols., 
Vienna, 1853, containing a grammar, dictionary, and vocabulary of the 
language of the natives of Peru. These works display a clear con- 
ception of the true purpose of such an investigation, and have do 
their author among the most eminent of those laborious and learned 
men who have devoted themselves to that particular department of 
scientific inquiry. 


es 


VICO, FRANCIS DE, one of the most distinguished astronomers of — 
modern Italy, the son of Count Ascanio de Vico-Ubaldini and the — 
Countess Amalia Archinto, was born at Macerata on the 19th of May 
1805. He was educated partly at the Collegio dei Nobili in Urbino, 
partly in the school of the well-known congregation of the a at 
Siena, and entered the Jesuit Society as a novice in 1823. 
passing with much distinction through the usual stages, both as a 
scholar and as a master, in the Roman College of that Society, he was — 
appointed (in 1835) assistant of Father Stephen Dumouchel, who was — 
at that time in charge of the observatory; and it was a sort of pre- — 
sage of the history of his after career, that one of the first duties — 
assigned to him was to calculate the time of the appearance of the — 
then expected Halley’s comet, both according to the elements of — 
Damoiseau and to those of Pontécoulant. The young astronomer had 
the satisfaction of being the first to observe the comet, on the 5th of © 
August 1835, Soon afterwards, de Vico, in consequence of the great 
age of F', Dumouchel, becoming the principal astronomer of the Roman 
Observatory, undertook a long series of observations for the purpose — 
of ascertaining the suspected error in the latitude of Rome, as deter- — 
mined by his illustrious predecessors, Boscovich, Calandrelli, Conti, — 
and Reichenbach. These observations, which amounted to nearly — 
8000 in number, were eminently successful, and the result was a 
correction of an error of two seconds in the received latitude. He 
engaged at the same time on a similar series of observations for the — 
longitude, in concert with the astronomers of Paris and Naples. Soon 
afterwards, Father de Vico, at the instance of Schumacher of Altona, 
undertook a course of observations of the planet Venus, for which the — 
clearness of the Roman atmosphere was peculiarly adapted, witha 
view to the determination of the time of its rotation upon its own 
axis, The success of this undertaking contributed more than all his 
previous labours to establish his reputation among the astronomers — 
of Europe; and his subsequent observations of the satellites of Saturn, 
and of the inner ring of that planet, as well as his detailed reports on — 
the nebulw, which about that time had become a prominent subject of — 
interest, fully sustained that reputation. _ 

Father de Vico however is most popalenty known as an observer by 
his numerous and successful discoveries in the cometary system, which — 
he was one of the earliest in more recent times to take up as a sys- 
tematic study. During the years 1845, 1846, and 1847 he Siscoreealel 
no less than eight of these mysterious bodies, in seven of which his — 


ee es oar, 


_ claim to priority of discovery is undisputed. 


1029 WALLICH, NATHANIEL, M.D. 


WHEATSTONE, CHARLES, F.R.S. 


1030 


The eighth had been 
observed by another astronomer two days before it was discovered 
(independently however) by Father de Vico. 

Another. more humble but hardly less useful work undertaken by 
Father de Vico, was an improved and enlarged system of astronomical 
maps and charts, in which he is said to have made considerable pro- 
gress; but in this and other works which he had commenced, he was 
interrupted by the Revolution of 1848, by which, in common with the 
other members of his order, he was driven from Rome. He was treated 


with much distinction during his exile by his fellow-astronomers in 


France and England, and received more than one invitation to fix his 


_ residence in either of these countries; but the circumstances of his 


order at that time determined him upon establishing himself in the 
United States of America, and he had almost completed his arrange- 
ments for the purpose, when he was seized with acute inflammation 
of the chest, and was carried off after a short illness. He died in 
London on the 15th of November, 1848, at the early age of forty-three. 
Father de Vico is chiefly known in literature by his contributions to 
the ‘ Raccolta Scientifica,’ a scientific journal which owed its origin 
principally to himself, and which is still continued under a new form., 

(Ragguaglio intorno alla Vita e at Lavori del P. Francesco de Vico, 


Roma, 1851.) 


WALLICH, NATHANIEL, M.D. and Ph. D., F.R.S., London and 
Edinburgh, a celebrated botanist, was born at Copenhagen on Jan. 
28th, 1786. He commenced his botanical studies under the direction 
of Professor Vahl, and went to India in 1807 at the age of one-and- 
twenty in the capacity of surgeon to the Danish settlement at Seram- 
pore. In 1815 he was nominated to the temporary charge of the Calcutta 
Botanic Garden, which appointment was subsequently permanently 
confirmed on the recommendations of Dr, Fleming, Mr. Colebraoke, and 
Sir Joseph Banks.. Dr. Wallich’s exertions during the thirteen years that 
elapsed before his first return to Europe added greatly to the extent 
and value of the previously extensive collections of this garden. He 
also transmitted to Europe and America a vast quantity of hitherto 
unknown and beautiful plants. In 1820 Dr. Wallich made a botanical 
excursion to Nepaul, in the course of which he collected a great variety 
of plants, many of which he forwarded to London. A severe fever, 
caught’ on his descent to the plains, confined him to his bed for two 
months and compelled him to seek benefit from a voyage to Penang, 
Singapore, and some other places in the Straits of Malacca, from which, 
after an absence of five months, he returned on the last day of the 
year 1822, rich in botanical collections and with renewed health. In 
1824 he commenced the publication of a selection from his Nepaul 
collections under the title of ‘Tentamen Flors Nepalensis Illustrate,’ 
of which two numbers, containing 25 plates, were issued. These plates 
were the botanical first fruits of the new art of lithography in India, 
and both drawings and lithographs were executed by native artists 
under Dr. Wallich’s direction. 

In the following year he was deputed by the government to inspect 
the timber forests of the Western Provinces, and availed himself of 
this opportunity to examine and collect plants in the kingdom of 
Oude, the valley of Degra, &c. Excursions to other parts of India 
were undertaken at various times by Dr. Wallich, which enabled him 
still further to increase the immense stores of botanical treasure he 
had accumulated. His health had now however suffered so severely 
from repeated attacks of illness that, in 1828, he visited England, 
bringing with him the great bulk of his collections. He then with 
the consent of the East India Company proceeded to distribute his 
duplicate specimens amongst the public and private herbaria through- 
out the world. The type collection, containing a complete series of all 
the species, was presented by Dr. Wallich to the Linnzan Society of 
London. At this time he completed his work, entitled ‘ Plante 
Asiatice Rariores,’ consisting of 300 beautifully executed coloured 
plates. In 1833 Dr. Wallich returned to India and resumed the 
charge of the Botanical Garden, which however his health obliged him 
finally to resign in 1847, when he again arrived in England. He was 
the author of numerous papers and reports on horticultural and bota- 
nical subjects, published in the ‘ Transactions of the Asiatic Society of 
Calcutta,’ Sir W. J. Hooker’s ‘ Journal of Botany,’ and the ‘ Linnean 
Transactions.’ He became a Fellow of the Linnzan Society in 1818, 
and in 1849 one of its vice-presidents. He was a man of warm affec- 
tions, ready wit, and pleasing manners, and devoted in his attachment to 
his favourite science. It must not be forgotten that he did more than 
any one else, to introduce into the gardens and greenhouses of Eng- 
land the beautiful and luxuriant plants of India, and it is from his 
collections and descriptions, and presentations to our public and 
private gardens that we are indebted more than to any other source 
for our acquaintance with the Flora of that district. 

He died at his house in Upper Gower-street, London, on the 28th 
of April 1854, in the 69th year of his age. 

*WHEATSTONE, CHARLES, F.R.S., Professor of Experimental 
Philosophy in King’s College, London, was born at Gloucester in the 
year 1802. Connected from his birth with business related to the 
musical profession, his career presents an instructive and gratifying 
instance, in addition to many we have already recorded, of the happy 
effects of the devotion of leisure to scientific study, and of the manner 


in which the ranks of science are recruited from those of trade. But 
this instance is of a peculiar kind. Mr. Wheatstone, as a seller and 
maker of musical instruments, in London, was led to investigate the 
science of sound, both theoretically and practically. His first contri- 
bution to science, we believe, was founded on some ‘ New Experiments 
on Sound,’ made at an early age, and published in the ‘ Annals of Phi- 
losophy,’ N.S., for August 1823, Uniting great mechanical ingenuity 
with clear geometrical conceptions of pure dynamics, he produced from 
time to time, a variety of instruments and pieces of apparatus, for the 
illustration of mechanical and acoustic principles, and the production 
of experiments both of research and demonstration ; among which 
were many (some founded on Dr. T. Young’s harmonic sliders,) for 
the explanation of the nature of waves and undulations and the mode 
of their progression, interference, and combination. The study and 
illustration of the philosophy of sound led to that of the philosophy 
of light, and in this has consisted the peculiarity of Mr. Wheatstone’s 
career, which, we conceive, affords something very like a practical 
demonstration of the undulatory theory of light. Had not that theory 
been essentially true—were not light, equally with sound, pro- 
duced by the undulation of an elastic medium—had light consisted 
in the projection of corpuscles—did not acoustics and optics present 
an harmonious system of perfect mutual analogies—we believe Mr. 
Wheatstone would not have been led from music to light, and from 
optics to electricity, and could not have made himself the philo- 
sopher he has become, His apparatus and instruments for the 
production upon true theoretical principles,—or the imitation of such 
production—and the explanation of optical phenomena, are almost as 
numerous and valuable as those illustrating sound, with which, indeed, 
some of them are necessarily identical. The tardy justice with which 
the truth of Dr. Young’s [Youne, Tuomas] great discoveries in con- 
nexion with the undulatory theory has at last been recognised, by the 
educated ‘portion of the public, and the intellectual appreciation in this 
country of Fresnel’s consentaneous researches, are both greatly indebted 
to Mr. Wheatstone for the production of experimental devices, enabling 
the student to obtain a rational conception of the theory—to peresive 
in relation to that subject, “that central thread of common sense, on 
which,” in the words of Sir John Herschel, “the pearls of analytical 
research are invariably strung.” 

After numerous acoustic and optical investigations, made public in 
the later Journals of the Royal Institution (some of which were 
announced and illustrated at the weekly evening meetings), or in the 
‘Philosophical Magazine,’ including experimental inquiries into the 
principles of various musical instruments, he communicated to the 
Royal Society, in 1833, through Professor Faraday as a Fellow, a 
paper on the Acoustic figures which had been summarily investigated 
by Chladni. In the following year he communicated to the society, 
through the same medium, his celebrated ‘Account of some experi- 
ments to measure the velocity of electricity and the duration of 
electric light.’ In the same year (1834) he was appointed Professor of 
Experimental Philosophy in King’s College, London. On the 2ist of 
January 1836, he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society. On the 
21st of June 1838, he communicated a paper to the society (which 
was read on the same day,) entitled, ‘ Contributions to the Physiology 
of Vision. Part I. On some remarkable and hitherto unobserved 
phenomena of binocular vision. In this he first described the beau- 
tiful instrument he named the Stereoscope, now, in various forms, 
and with various modifications and additions, so well-known. 

But though the stereoscope has deservedly become an object of 
refined popular admiration, Professor Wheatstone is far better known 
to the general public, from the application of his scientific genius and 
attainments to the Hlectric Telegraph, to the history of which, in 
connection with himself and with his original co-patentee, Mr. WinLt1am 
ForHERGILL Cookn, we must now proceed. 

For between sixty and seventy years past, various philosophers have 
from time to time exhibited experiments on frictional, and on voltaic 
electricity, in electro-magnetism, and in magneto-electricity—as each 
branch of the subject became developed—all considered as possible 
means of communicating intelligence. These gradually improved 
in definiteness of object, ana in the approaches they made to prac- 
ticability. Dr. Hamel of St. Petersburg, has recently asserted (in a 
discourse delivered at the meeting at Bonn, in the autumn of 1857, of the 
German naturalists and physicists,) that the first electro-magnetic tele- 
graph was produced, between 1820 and 1832, by the Baron Schilling, 
of Lanstadt, who had been attached to the Russian embassy at 
Munich, and become familiar with the previous endeavours of the 
Bavarian electricians. At the sittiug of the Physical section of the 
meeting at Bonn, in 1835, on September 23rd, of which Professor 
Muncke of Heidelberg was president for the day, the Baron explained 
and exhibited his telegraph. The subject received much continued 
attention from Professor Muncke, who, on the 6th of the following 
March, 1836—in the words of Dr. Hamel, “explained the whole thing ” 
to Mr. Cooke, at. that time occupied in the Anatomical Museum at 
Heidelberg, in preparing wax models for his father, who had then 
recently been appointed Professor of Anatomy in the University of 
Durham. He had not previously studied physics or electricity ; but 
being struck with the vast’ importance to the railways then extend- 
ing themselves over Great Britain, as well as to government and gene- 
ral purposes, of a (virtually) instantaneous mode of communication, 


1031 WHEATSTONE, CHARLES, F.R.S. 


WHEATSTONE, CHARLES, F.R.S, 


1032 


and impressed with a strong conviction that so great an object might 
be practically attained by means of electricity, Mr. Cooke imme- 
diately directed his attention to its adaptation to a practical system of 
telegraphing ; and, giving up the profession in which he was engaged, 
he from that hour devoted himself exclusively to the realisation of 
that object. He came to England in April 1836 (reaching London 
on the 22nd,) in order to perfect his plans and instruments, On the 
27th of February of the following year, 1837, while engaged in com- 
pleting a set of instruments for an intended experimental application 
of his telegraph on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, he became 
acquainted, through the introduction of Dr. Roget, [Rocrr, Prrzr 
Marx] with Professor Wheatstone, who had for several years given 
much attention to the subject of transmitting intelligence by electri- 
city, and had made several discoveries of the highest importance con- 
nected with this subject. Among these were his determination 
(which will be again referred to in this article) of the velocity of 
electricity, when passing, under certain circumstances, through a 
copper wire; his experiments, in which the deflection of magnetic 
needles, the decomposition of water, and other voltaic and magneto- 
electric effects, were produced through greater lengths of wire than 
had ever before been experimented upon; and’ his original method of 
converting a few wires into a considerable number of circuits, so that 
they might transmit the greatest number of signals which can be 
transmitted by a given number of wires, by the deflection of magnetic 
needles, 

Mr. Charles Coles Adley, in a paper read before the Institution of 
Civil Engineers in London, on the 2nd of March 1852, records, that 
“no less than four names stand enrolled ‘on the annals of the year 
1837 as claimants for the honour of having invented the Electric 
Telegraph as a practicable reality. These are Wheatstone, Alexander, 
Steinheil, and Morse.” There “can be no question however,” he con- 
tinues, “‘of Wheatstone’s priority in date over Alexander and Morse. 
Steinheil had repeated Gauss and Weber's experiments before that 
date, but he did not produce any invention of his own until long sub- 
sequently.” In June 1836, Professor Wheatstone, in a course of 
lectures delivered at King’s College, had exhibited his experiments on 
the velocity of electricity, with a lengthened circuit of nearly four 
miles of copper-wire, and had given a sketch of the means by which 
he proposed to convert the apparatus into an electrical telegraph. A 
statement to this effect was published in the ‘Magazine of Popular 
Science’ on the Ist of March 1837. In the following May, Messrs. 
Wheatstone and Cooke took out their first patent, which was sealed 
on the 12th of June, “for improvements in giving signals and sound- 
ing alarums, in distant places, by means of electric currents trans- 
mitted through metallic circuits.” The telegraph thus patented 
originally consisted of five needles, which were soon afterwards 
reduced to two. The first line of electric telegraph laid down for 
useful purposes was constructed, under this patent, in the following 
year, upon the Blackwall Railway. Five other patents were subse- 
quently taken out by the same patentees, either individually, or in 
co-operation, for various improvements on the original plan. The 
electro-magnetic alarum was first patented by them in 1837. 

The terms of partnership of the patentees were more exactly 
defined and confirmed in November of that year, by a partnership 
deed, which vested in Mr. Cooke, as the originator of the undertaking, 
the exclusive management of the invention, in Great Britain, Ireland, 
and the Colonies, with the exclusive engineering department, as be- 
tween themselves, and all the benefit arising from the laying down of 
the lines, and the manufacture of the instruments. As partners 
standing on a perfect equality, Messrs. Cooke and Wheatstone were to 
divide equally all proceeds arising from the granting of licences, or 
from the sale of the patent rights; a per-centage being first payable to 
Mr. Cooke as manager. Professor Wheatstone retained an equal voice 
with Mr. Cooke in selecting and modifying the forms of the telegraphic 
instruments, and both parties pledged themselves to impart to each 
other, for their equal and mutual benefit, all improvements of what- 
ever kind, which they might become possessed of, connected with the 
giving of signals or the sounding of alarums by means of electricity. 

For some years after the formation of the partnership the under- 
taking rapidly progressed, under the constant and equally successful 
exertions of the parties in their distinct departments, until it attained the 
character of 4 simple and practical system, worked out scientifically on 
the sure basis of actual experience, In the words of the late Sir M. I. 
Brunel (Brunet, Siz Mark IsamBarp] and Professor Daniell [DanrIELL, 
Joun FREDERICK], whose apportionment and history of the relative 
claims and merits of Professor Wheatstone and Mr. Cooke, in respect 
of the electric telegraph, we have here with some additions adopted, 
“ Whilst Mr. Cooke is entitled to stand alone as the gentleman to whom 
this country is indebted for having practically introduced and carried 
out the electric telegraph as an useful undertaking, promising to be 
a work of national importance, and Professor Wheatstone is acknow- 
ledged as the scientific man whose profound and successful researches 
had already prepared the public to receive it as a project capable of 
practical application, it is to the united labours of two gentlemen so 
well qualified for mutual assistance that we must attribute the rapid 
progress which this important invention has made during the few 
years since they have been associated.” ‘These statements were made in 
1841, With the commercial and the political extension which electric 


telegraphy, in various forms, has made during the seventeen years that ~ 
have succeeded, in Great Britain, on the continent of Europe, in 
America, and in India, beneath the ocean, and between Africa and 
Europe, most of our readers have been made familiar by the daily 
sources of contemporary history, or by actual experience. It is” 
understood that the principal subject 6f this article has reaped a sub- 
stantial pecuniary reward for his share in the benefit which-he has 
been thus instrumental in conferring upon mankind. 

Mr. Adley’s paper already referred to, and which has been one of 
our authorities for this article, is entitled ‘The Electric Telegraph; — 
its history, theory, and practical applications.’ ‘ Minutes of Proceedings 
of the Institution of Civil Engineers,’ vol. xi. pp. 299-829; to which 
succeeds ‘ On the Electric Telegraph, and the principal improvements 
in its Construction. By Frederick Richard Window, Assoc, Inst. C.E,’ 
Ib. pp. 329-361. These papers were both read on the 2nd of March 
1852, and the discussion of them was continued through the two 
following meetings of the Institution, the minutes of it occuping 27 
pages of the printed Proceedings. 

The principle of magneto-electric induction treated of by Faraday, 
was applied to telegraphic purposes by Professor Wheatstone, in his 
patent of 1840. There are several important secondary applications of 
the electric telegraph. One of them, first described by Professor 
Wheatstone, in a paper communicated to the Royal Society on the 
26th of November 1840, is to the regulation of clocks, a series of 
which are worked together by an electric current. Another is an 
apparatus invented by him communicated to the British Association in 
June 1842, for registering the indications of the thermometer, baro- 
meter, &c.; on the actual use of which he reported in the following 
year, A third most important application, also first proposed by 
Professor Wheatstone, and announced in the ‘Bulletins of the Royal 
Academy of Sciences of Brussels,’ October 1840, is the registration 
and transmission of transit observations in astronomy. Another is the 
electro-magnetic chronoscope, announced in the same work, for the 
measurement of extremely short intervals of time. : 

Other papers by Professor Wheatstone, communicated to the Royal 
Society, and together with those already noticed, inserted in the 
‘Philosophical Transactions,’ or in the ‘ Proceedings,’ are the following : 
—An account of several new instruments and processes for determining 
the constants of a voltaic circuit, founded on Ohm’s theory;—Note 
relating to M. Foucault’s new mechanical proof of the rotation of the 
earth ;—the Bakerian Lecture for 1852, being Part II. of Contributio: 
to the Physiology of Vision, and on Binocular Vision, in contdouakante 


—on Fessel’s gyroscope ;—on the formation of powers from arithmetical 
progressions ;—account of some experiments made with the submarine 
cable, &c. ;—on the position of aluminum in the voltaic series. The 
royal medal of the Society, for 1840, was awarded to him, primarily 
for his researches in double vision, but also, in the words of the 
President (the late Marquis of Northampton) in presenting the medal 
“for the science and ingenuity by which he had measured electrical 
velocity, and by which he had also turned his acquaintance with 
galvanism to the most important practical purposes.” ‘The royal medal 
was again awarded to him in 1843, for his paper on processes for 
determining the constants of a voltaic circuit, mentioned above. 

As Professor Wheatstone’s experiments on the velocity of electricity 
have been mentioned several times in this article, it is requisite to 
observe that Professor Faraday, with his peculiar mastery of electric 
science, had inferred (as is known to the present writer) shortly after — 
their publication, that the velocity of electrical discharge through the 
same wire might be greatly varied by the amount and disposition of 
the necessary previous induction. In 1838 he published this in his — 
well-known ‘ Experimental Researches.’ Having afterwards fully veri- 
fied this influence by the electric telegraph, and experiments by 
various inquirers having proved that the difference of velocity in 
copper-wire might even be as a hundred to one, at the first evening — 
meeting of the Royal Institution in 1854, he returned to the subject, — 
and fully explained the causes of variation. An explicit view of the — 
actual state of science on this interesting subject, has been given by — 
Professor De la Rive, in his Treatise on Electricity lately published, — 
translated by Mr. Charles Vincent Walker, F.R.S., superintendent tele- 
grapher of the South-Eastern Railway. A final expression for the — 
velocity of electricity, it would appear, has not yet been obtained; nor — 
has it been shown in what the primd@ facie difference between the 
mode of propagation of electricity, and that of the radiant forces, such 
as light, heat, &c., really consists. } 4 

Professor Wheatstone was one of the jurors of the Paris Universal — 
Exhibition of 1855, in the class for “ heat, light, and leas 5 
on which occasion he was appointed by the Emperor Napoleon III, a 
knight of the Legion of Honour, “for his application of the electric © 
telegraph.” He is also a gps gizcee se of the French Institute of — 
Sciences, and a foreign or an honorary member of the principal — 
academies of science in Europe. 

At King’s College, we believe, like other titular professors, he has 
not taken any part in the routine of academic instruction; but he has — 
occasionally lectured, as we have seen, on special subjects related to 
his own researches; giving also to his colleagues the advantageous aid 
of his peculiar knowledge and talent, and to the college the benefit — 
of his philosophical reputation. In two previous articles a 
WititaM ALLEN, and SMITH, WiLi1AM,] the researches which con. 


es. 


"1033 WHEWELL, REV. WILLIAM, D.D. 


WINSLOW, FORBES, M.D. 


1034 


firmed the selection of magnesian limestone for building the New 
Palace of Westminster, have been noticed. The physical and chemical 
examination of the specimens of stone collected, having been con- 
signed to the late Professor Daniell and his colleague Professor 
Wheatstone, the requisite experiments on their mechanical and hygro- 
metric properties were conducted by the latter. 
- *WHEWELL, REY. WILLIAM, D.D., F.R.S., Master of Trinity 
College, Cambridge, was born in 1795, at Lancaster, where his father 
was a joiner, and intended to place his son with himself at ‘the bench.’ 
But fortunately he had received an excellent education of its degree at 
the Free Grammar Shool of his native town, the head master of 
which, perceiving the mathematical talent evinced by his pupil, with 
his father’s assent, took measures for giving him an university educa- 
tion, and enabled him to enter Trinity College, Cambridge, where he 
graduated as B.A, in 1816, afterwards became a Fellow of his college, 
and was for many years an eminent and successful tutor. In 1828 he was 
appointed Professor of Mineralogy, which office heretained until 1832. 
In 1838 he became Professor of Moral Theology or Casuistry, retaining 
the chair until he took the office of Vice-Chancellor of the University, 
in 1855. He succeeded to the Mastership of Trinity College, which he 
still holds, in 1841. It has been stated that not long after the great 
improvement in the mathematical education of Cambridge, based on 
the introduction of the methods of the French masters of analysis, 
had been fully accomplished and its effects realised, it induced a 
tendency in the students to disregard the definite study of physics 
and the knowledge of nature, in the implicit belief that they were 
virtually. superseded by mathematics, and that the latter included 
everything necessary to be known of the former. It is also said that 
one of the first of the distinguished graduates who perceived, and in 
his own case rectified this error, by the diligent study of physics and 
natural science, was Mr. Whewell; and further, that the study of 
mineralogical science and crystallography, by which he was prepared 
for holding the chair of mineralogy at Cambridge, was at once a part 
and one of the first fruits of this corrective system. Though not pre- 
sent at the first meeting of the British Association, he was nominated 
on the sub-committee (or section) of Mineralogy, and also one of the 
two vice-presidents of the Association for the second meeting held at 
Oxford, and requested to present to it a report on the state and pro- 
gress of Mineralogy. This he produced accordingly, and it forms a 
part of the first volume of the Reports of the Association, being 
second to none contained in the remarkable collection of reports on 
the progress of various branches of mathematical, physical, and practi- 
cal knowledge obtained and published by the Association, It was 
afterwards incorporated by the author into his ‘ History of the Inductive 
Sciences,’ to which we shall return. 
We have seen, in effect, what an important part in his own university 
Dr. Whewell’s unusual combination of extensive and multifarious know- 
ledge, with a power of intellect more generally found concentrated on 
a few objects only, enabled him to take. A similar course in the 
Cambridge Philosophical Society was almost inseparable from this. 
But he has taken an equally prominent part in the Royal Society (of 
which he became a Fellow on the 13th of April 1820,) and in the 
British Association for the Advancement of Science, of which latter he 
was President in the year.1841, at the Plymouth meeting. Atthe third 
meeting, held at Cambridge in 1833, he had delivered an address on 
the desiderata and {prospects of the Association and of science. The 
fifth volume of the Reports contains his ‘Report on the recent pro- 
gress and present condition of the mathematical theories of electricity, 
magnetism, and heat.’ The subject of the Tides, equally important in 
its philosophical and practical relations, has received the most valuable 
accessions from Dr. Whewell, whose discussions of tide-observations 
(many of which were made by direction of the British Association at 
his instigation) will be found in a series of papers in the ‘ Philosophical 
Transactions.’ For two years Dr. Whewell filled the chair of the 
Geological Society, directing the Fellows, in their papers and discus- 
sions, to the definite and comprehensive principles suggested, in appli- 
cation to Geology, by the peculiar culture of his own mind, and 
taking, in his annual addresses, equally valuable, broad, and philoso- 
phical views of geological theory and causation. 

Several of Dr. Whewell’s separate works and their contents have 
been alluded to in a former article, when noticing the contributions to 
science of one of his accomplished colleagues at Cambridge [WILLIs, 
Rey. R.]. He is the author of many works in the tutorial series of 


the university on various departments of mathematics and physics. 
But the more considerable productions of his pen are the following :— 
‘Astronomy and General Physics considered with reference to Natural 
Theology; being the Third Bridgewater Treatise, London, 1833, In 
this may be recognised the rudiments of much that the author has 
since produced, as well as an earlier condition of the style matured in 
the works next to be mentioned. ‘ History of the Inductive Sciences, 
from the earliest to the present times,’ 3 vols., London, 1837; ‘ The 
Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, founded upon their History, 2 
vols., London, 1840, ‘The Elements of Morality, including Polity,’ 2 
vols,, London, 1855. 

On the first two works of this list, considered as a whole, Professor 
James Forbes, F.R.S., the successor of Playfair, in the chair of natural 
philosophy in the University of Edinburgh, (in his Dissertation on 
the progress of mathematical and physical science from 1755 to 1850, 
in the eighth edition of the ‘ Encyclopedia Britannica,’) remarks, ‘ One 
attempt—a bold and successful one—has been made, in our own day, 
to unite the history of science and the logic of inductive discovery,—I 
mean the History and Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences. An 
English philosopher of wonderful versatility, industry, and power has 
erected a permanent monument to his reputation in a voluminous work 
bearing the preceding title.’ They are also the subject of a celebrated 
article in the ‘ Quarterly Review,’ by Sir John Herschel, lately repub- 
lished in his volumesjof Essays. A well-known work, which has excited 
much controversy, on the Plurality of Worlds, has been very generally 
attributed to Dr. Whewell, but, as far as we know, its authorship has 
been neither admitted nor denied by him. 

*WINSLOW, FORBES, M.D., a distinguished physician and writer 
on psychology, was educated for the medical profession in London, 
and became a member of the Royal College of Surgeons of England 
in 1835. He is also a graduate in medicine of King’s College, Aber- 
deen, and a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh; 
and he has received the honorary degree of Doctor of Civil Law from 
the University of Oxford. One of his earliest published works indi- 
eates the direction of his mind. It is entitled ‘An Essay on the 
Application of the Principles of Phrenology to the Elucidation and 
the Cure of Insanity.’ This was published in 1831. About this 
time he also published two manuals for the use of students, ‘A 
Manual of Osteology,’ and ‘A Manual of Practical Midwifery.’ His 
next work was one which resulted from the literary bent of his genius. 
It was called ‘Physic and Physicians.’ It consisted of biographical 
and literary sketches of the history of medicine, and produced a con- 
siderable sensation at the time it was published. It indicated clearly 
the workings of a mind that was studying with eagerness the road to 
success. He afterwards published a work more particularly directed 
to the speciality which he afterwards so successfully practised. This 
work was entitled ‘The Anatomy of Suicide; being an attempt to 
establish the connection between the Desire to commit Suicide and 
certain physical conditions of the Brain and Abdominal Organs.’ From 
this time Dr. Winslow devoted himself entirely to the treatment of 
insanity, and opened an asylum at Sussex House, Hammersmith, of 
which he was resident superintendent for many years. His consultation 
practice however increasing largely, he has recently taken a house in 
London, still carrying on the establishment at Hammersmith. Besides 
the above works, he is also author of the following, devoted to the 
subject of insanity:’ ‘On the Preservation of the Health of the 
Body and Mind ;’ ‘On the Plea of Insanity in Criminal Cases;’ ‘On 
the Act for the Better Regulation and Care of the Insane, with Notes ;’ 
‘Synopsis of the Lunacy Act.’ In 1837 he was appointed Lettsonian 
Lecturer to the Medical Society of London, and on this occasion 
delivered a course of lectures on insanity, which have since been pub- 
lished. In 1848 he projected and became proprietor and editor of the 
‘Quarterly Journal of Psychological Medicine and Mental Pathology.’ 
He has contributed extensively to the pages of this journal, and through 
it has been the means of diffusing a large amount of sound opinion on 
the subject of insanity and its treatment. As a great principle on 
which Dr, Winslow has laid the greatest stress, is the fact that there 
can be no derangement of the mind without some antecedent derange- 
ment of the body. To this subject he has devoted many papers 
which will be found more especially in the weekly medical periodicals. 

In 1853 Dr. Winslow was elected president of the London Medical 
Society. He isnow (1857) president of the Association of the Medical 
Officers of Hospitals and Asylums for the Insane. 


THE END. 


Tux following is a list of the names of persons who have died since the publication of the ‘ Penny Cyclopedia,’ and of ‘those _ 
living names” which, in accordance with the announcement in the Prospectus, are included in the sixth volume of the Biographical 
Division of the ‘ English Cyclopedia.’ The asterisk is prefixed to names of living persons :— 


*Tholuck, Friedrich-August-Gottreu 
Thom, James 
Thom, William 

*Thompson, M 
Thompson, W: 

*Thoms, William J. 
Thomson, ‘Anthony Todd, M.D. 

*Thomson, Mrs. A. T. 
Thomson, Thomas, M.D. 

*Thorburn, Robert, A. R.A, 
Thorkelin, Grim Jonsson 


ag T. Perronet 


Tieck, jan Friedrich 
Tieck, Lud 
*Tiedemann, edrich 


rt William, M.P., F.R.S. 
jueville, Henri-Alexis, Count de 
“Toad, Robert Bentley, M. D., F.RB.8. 
*Todleben, Francis Edwa: 
} Tollens, Hendrik Corneliszoon 
*Tommaseo, Niccolo 
*Tooke, Thomas 
*Tooke, William, F.R.8. 
Toreno, Don Ji o8é, Count of 
Torrijos, José Maria 
*Toussaint, sae J Luize Geertruide 
Tredgold. "Thom: 
“Trench, Rev. R. F Ohienovix, Dean of 
Westminster 
*Trentowski, Bronislaw Ferdynand 
*Tricoupi, or  Trikupis, Spiridion 
Trithen, Frederick Henry 
*Trollope, Frances 
Trueba nF Soni, 5 Telesforo de 
rd 


*Tu Martin Farquhar, D.C.L 
Yr, n Far r, D.C.L., 
ee sae 


Turgenev, Alexander Ivanovich 
*Turgenev, Nikolai Ivanovich 
*Turgenev, Ivan 
*Turner, Dawson 
_ Turner, J. M. W. 


A Becket, Gilbert Abbott 
Amherst, Earl 
ee Ee phn A 
er, Cc iuheim A, 
Auckland, arl of 
*Aytoun, William Edmondstoune 
*Bailey, Philip James 
Baines, Edward 
*Baines, Matthew Talbot 
*Baines, Edward 


*Balfe, Michael William 

*Balfour, John Hutton 

*Beaufort, Rear-Admiral Sir Francis 

*Behnes, William 

*Benedict, Jules 

*Bennett, William Sterndale 
Bing Joseph 
Bonstetten, Karl Victor von 

*Bowerbank, John Scott 

*Brande, W. T. 


Turner, Sharon 
rner, Rev. Sydney 
Turner, Thomas Hudson 
*Turton, William, M.D. 
Tytler, Patrick Fraser > 
*Uhland, Johann Ludwig 
*Ulimann eS 


*Ulrici, Herm: 
*Umbret Friedrich Wilhelm Karl 
Ure, An M.D. 
*Uwins, Thomas, R.A. 
*Uvarov, Sergy Semenovich 
*Uvarov, Alexei Sergievich 
Uz, Johann Peter 
Valpy, Rev. Richard, D.D. 
*Varnhagen Von Ense, Karl August 
Varnhagen, Rahel Anois 
*Vaughan, Rey. Robert, D.D. 
*Veit, Philipp 
*Verdi, Giuseppe 
*Vernet, Horace 
Vernon, Robert 
*Victor-Emmanuel II. 
*Victoria Alexandrina, Queen of 
Great Britain and Ireland 
Vidocq, Frangois-Jules 
*Vigny, Alfred, Comte Ae 
Villanueva, Joaquin Lorenzo de 
*Villemain, Abel-Frangois 
Vinet, Alexandre-Rodolphe 
Virey, Julien-Joseph 
Visconti, Louis Joachim 
Vogel, Dr. Edward 
Voérdsmarty, Mihaly or Michael 
*Wi m, Gustay Friedrich 
Wag’ ig eae Thomas, R.N. 
*Wagner, Richard 
*Wakefield, waward Gibbon 
Wallin, J ohann Olof 


Warburton, Hliot 


*Ward, James, R.A. 
*Ward, Matthew Edward, It. A. 
Ward, Robert Plumer 


*Watt, James shail" 
*Watts, Alaric yee 
Weaver, Thom 

*Weber, Wilhelm Eduard 


*Welcker, Friedrich Gottlicb 
*Welcker, Karl Theodor 

Wellington, e of 

Wergeland, Henrik Arnold 

Westall, William, A.R.A 

Westmacott, Sir Richard, RA. 
*Westmacott, Richard, R.A 
*Westmorland, J. Fane, 11th Earl of 
*Weyer, Silvain de 

*Whately, Archbishop 

Wheaton, Henry 
*Wikanee te 

eselgren, Peter 
Wiffen, Jeremiah Holme 
* Wilberforce, Rt. Rev. Samuel, Bishop 


of Oxford 
*Wilkinson, Sir John Gardner 
Willems, Jan Frans 
William II. , King of the Netherlands 
*William lil, » King of the Netherlands 
Williams, Samue 
*Williams, Sir W. F., of Kars 
*Willis, Nathaniel Parker 
*Willis, Rev. Robert, M.A., F.R.S. 
*Willmore, James Tibbets 
*Wills, William Henry 


SUPPLEMENTARY NAMES. 


Brayley, Edward Wedlake, F.S.A. 
*Brayley, Edward William, F,.R.S8. 
*Brooks, Charles Shirle 

<Brydges, Sir Samuel rton 


rles John, Viscount 
Catheart, Lieut.-Gen. Sir George 
Victor-Euphemion-Phi. 
*Costa, Michael 
Crawford, Thomas 
Crosse, Andrew 
Ms they Heinrich Wilhelm 
*Edw: Henri-Milne 
*Parr, a vifliens M.D. F.RS. 
*Gayangos, Pascual de 


ete 


’ 


y Ivanovich 


mas 
*Grant, Robert, M.A., F.R.A.S. 
Grotefend, Georg Friedrich 


*Grove, William Robert, Q.C., M.A. 
Haldane, Robert 


? 
Haldane, James Alexander 
*Halévy, Fromenthal 
Hammer- ll, J., Baron von 
Br hb aap or-Gen. Sir Henry 


y, A avis 
Henle, Rev. John Stevens, M.A. 
ols William 
*Horsfield, Thomas, M.D. 
*Hullah, John 


tanislas-Aignan 

*Livingstone, David, LL.D., D.C.L. 
*Maury, Matthew Fontaine, LL.D. 

Monk, Dr. James ~— 
*Parkes, Josiah 
*Parkes, Joseph 

Rendel, James Meadows 

Rigaud, Stephen Peter, M. A., F. B.S. 


BRADBURY AND EVANS, PRINTERS, WHITEFRIARS, 


*Wilson, Horace Hayman 
*Wilson, James 


*Winterhalter, Franz Xavier 
*Winther, Christian 
{Wiseman, bg Pick, mA: 
eringto m. Frederi 

*Wolff, Emil ma 

Wordsworth, Rev. Christopher, D.D- 
*Wordsworth, Rev. Christopher, DD. ; 
Wordsworth, William 
*Wornum, Ral, he ae Nicholson 
Woronzow, Semenovich, 


Prince 
*Worsaae, Jens Jacob Asmussen 
*Wrangel, Ferdinand Petrovich von 
Wraxail, Sir Nathaniel Wm., Bart. 


sWoate Matinen Digby 
yatt, Matthew Dig 
Richard 


Yarrell, William 
Yorck von ee Hans David 


Zach, Francis Xavier, Baron von 
Zagoskin, Mikhail Nikolaevich 
Zahrtmann, bh age pse Bo Christian 
Zhukoysky, Vasily Andreevich 
Zingarelli, Nicolo 

*Zorrilla y Moral, Don J: 
Zschokke, Johann ‘einen Daniel 


Zam malaeeregrh. te 
*Zumpt, Car’ ttlob 


Sd 


*Russell, John Scott, F.R.S. 

*Sabine, or-General Edw., R.A. 

*Schleiden, 

*Simpson, James Young, M.D. 

*Smyth, Rear-Admiral Wm. Henry 
So , James 


r ’ 
ore cae waine 
Boy J ga sone Jakob von 


Walton Nathaniel, M.D. 
*Whea' 6, Charles, F.R.S. 
*Whewell, Rey. William, D.D. 

*Winslow, Forbes, M.D. 


oie 
we 


ots Se, 
n > 


Aad ae rene eveatgsrtets ines é do . : anit SRE AMERY - eahatien trate 
: i ; beget ball : ; y Mit et 

HSM AOR RAR RNA Wachee ies er cereuaea rt ances btey 
‘ veney, ry sy .) 

rat Ny 4 


ry metas t RS 
om i 2 a oy A ak a 4 
ay AN Ra 
tabs Hs 45 
| Se 

it SN aR a 
te 
Y 


at pnee ese 
BT pote 
Way tas ere 


Paton 
a RS Ae 


Tow 


a) 


tye a 
pm fen - ‘Ve nal 4 
pea ee Nee RE thet eee ee ~ “as 
SS a rch gi ob pp itn E gio Sib alse ese bceencs idee 
a - , aus reek as! ) rz - i 


ui Hay 


a ‘ 
Se 
a ; 


Sioreragae 
sets poe : 
~ 
tee; eae 
She ares Pabst tw: 


serene? 


ar ee GM 
ees 
fae Vs 
ees 
pte Se 


“ahs patie 
ae 
. 


cS I u, 
, ahh iF ae 
est oo : Rah 
. eS) vk Bihan 


3 


ae se 


pe Fol i Pk Fee. 


>